From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Unity
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Aug14.231337.17236@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 10:22:46 GMT


In article <1992Aug14.231337.17236@samba.oit.unc.edu> eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu 
(Edward M. Averett) writes:

>  There's been some criticism of the use of the newsgroup in using Mr. 
>  Aleister Crow-ley's book Magic In Theory and Practice as a basis for 
>  terminology and discussion here. 

well, I have (needless to say) noted the criticism. I am a bit surprised
to hear that someone of eddie's general perspicacity thinks that MinT&P
is a 'basis for terminology and discussion'. I certainly don't intend it
so. The reason I post the theory file is simply that it is a coherent and
complete theory of magick, and even (intelligent) disagreement with it is
usually a good basis for fruitful discussion.

>				    Well. it IS alt.magick.  Not alt.shamanism
> or alt.pagan or alt.taoist sorcery.  In addition, Mr Crow-ley is certainly
> the largest single influence on western cultural magical styles in the last
> hundred years.  He is the revealer of previously so-called secret information
> about the whole European magickal community of the turn of the century. He 
> has provided an incredible amount of background, and he was the catalyst for
> much more.  His writing, as full of pedantic bullshit, outright lies, humor,
> shock treatments, etc, ad lib, ad nauseum, as it is, is still worthy of 
> serious study, especially a couple of his books like M in T&P. .. 

you're leaving out his single most important accomplishment, in my opinion:
he applied scientific methodology to occult study. If he had done nothing
else, that would make him worthy of study.

>  While I doubt that he was the Prophet of the Aeon, as I suspect he wished, 

AC really did not like the whole prophet thing, for quite a few years after
receiving liber Al. he really didn't like large chunks of liber Al. he resist-
ed for a long time being 'the prophet of the aeon'. read 'konx om pax'
(published in 1905, a year after liber Al) and see how many references you
can find to it....

>   									      I
> am willing to give him credit for being the Herald of a new age.  Indeed 
> though he once said that history would prove whether he or Yeats was the 
> better poet (disparaging Yeats), and it has, but not as Uncle Al imagined -),

hmmmf. some of his verse is quite good (I particularly like 'clouds without
water'). admittedly yeats was more consistent. but even yeats admitted that
crowley had written some good verse.

>  Since I've read more than I probably wanted to of his works, if anyone who 
>  hasn't would like a list of what I think is worth bothering with, and what
>  can be safely let to the adventurous, I'll be happy to discuss it for a bit.

sure, let's see your list eddie.

>  I Don't think that we need to stop our discussions with Aleister though, 
>  it's merely a good point of beginning.  But whether you "like" him or not, 
>  (kind of a silly question in my perspective), trying to discuss *magick* 
>  and ignoring Crowley is kind of like discussing *psychotherapy* and ignoring
>  Freud and Jung.  You're gonna miss out on a lot. 

the comparison I usually use is discussing physics while ignoring einstein,
though (on thought) newton might be more exact.

josh

Newsgroups: alt.magick