I'm responding to threads so old I bet the authors nearly forgot what they wrote. I've been lurking once a month for years but in the paranormal
section, waiting for a thread that seemed worth posting on. By the time I found one I'd forgotten my login and had to re-register.
Originally posted by Echtelion
have you ever considered, in a totally different perspective, seeing Crowley and his works as being terribly schizophrenic??? I mean have you ever
looked at it from the "outside" and notice how this guy would just have been a perfect shot for any psychiatric insitute of today?
Quite a number of mystical experiences, described to any psychiatrist, would find a person well medicated in minutes.
One of the things that most intrigues me--more about QBL studies across the board, not so much Crowley or OTO specifically--is that a person can have
experiences, visions and insights, and then years later discover them in occult literature. I've wondered if that meant the experiences were some
group dream not limited by time. Then again it seems maybe that sums up reality itself. I don't know that it's fair to judge just Crowley by the
recounted experiences et al., since we would have to go back in history and round up nearly every seriously interesting person who ever wrote things
down and toss 'em in the same boat.
Reading Crowley's works, he strikes me as an extremely intelligent, well educated, very thoughtful, and spiritually proactive guy. His book
'Confessions' is really a great read. It's also sort of demoralizing to think that he was so aware of a lot of things last century, and he thought
for sure that much was being learned and science would have things all figured out in another half century. Doesn't seem to me that culture is any
farther along than it was during his time, in the areas of his studies.
I mean this guy was convinced that he was the Best of the Apocalypse,
His mother, a mega fundie, used to call him that when he was little. You know the saying, what doesn't kill you, defines you. I think there are many
things about him that he recognized in himself and rather than accepting how it repressed him, he instead flipped it around and used it as a doorway.
Some say it's healthy to seek out what you fear and to boldly explore what you fear about yourself. Maybe he did some of that. Then again, in some
respects, I think he was just a lot louder -- quite the drama queen, LOL -- in his writing than he was in other ways.
he was practicing some extremely twisted sexual acts with other members of his order
There isn't much he was doing a century ago that I probably couldn't find in a two block radius of my midwest mostly baptist neighborhood. To me, he
just really 'pursued loudly' such things (I equate this to the psychology of people who lead groups such as Queer Nation or the Dykes on Bikes --
basically, people who don't want to deal with the shame society wants to put on them, so they just throw it in the face of the world and dare the
world to squeak about it).
he wrote the Al Liber under the strict guidance of a dark supernatural being
I don't think that's the words he used, heh.
who spoke to him by telepathy
We he would have had to have manifested as a human or a parrot to do otherwise, right? Telepathy is really not as uncommon as everybody thinks.
in a codified language,
TP isn't as flatly-linear as our spoken language, either, and our spoken language has several 'layers of meaning' (the sound, for example, has its
own geometry, wholly apart from the meaning of the words or the shape of the written language).
and even saw the being appear out of nowhere
...as opposed to from... somewhere? :-)
(the entity actually looked strangely familiar to a Gray, accroding to Crowley's own drawing). A being from the so-called "invisible
Crowley's self-portrait makes it clear that his perception was of an entity he identified with as, in one way of putting it, his higher self.
I believe that humans are essentially conglomerate identities, with many part of us and being part of others. It may be that what we consider alien is
simply our encounter with identities or dimensions (for lack of a less new-age-ic word) we don't really grok and have assigned that label to.
If this guy was not crazy, it seems to me that it`s a fallen angel that he did business with,
And the logic for this is... that there are only two kinds of species of any kind of identity in existence? Humans and angels? What if there's more?
What if there's a spectrum of identity and those are just two points on it?
a remant of the ones who rebelled against the authority of the God and still roam this world today, hiding from the light, and conspirating to
ruin the lifes of many humans.
...because, like other evils (Halliburton, Paris Hilton, the IRS) they have nothing better to do? They wake up each morning thinking, "Today, I am
gonna go ruin someone's day!" ? You think? I mean, maybe so.
I do not dispute that -- to be very fuzzy on details here -- such a group / intent / momentum exists and operates within our reality. I just think
that jumping to conclusions and calling everything wolf, makes people take the actual wolves a lot less seriously when they come up in conversation.
all of his hermetic knowledge is hardly coherent,
Odd, as it is actually his rather logical, documented, organized approach to "causing change in accordance with one's Will" that I respect.
and his behaviour, more importantly, if far more the one of an eccentric and disconnected man than of a philosopher who was seeking the
The definition of philosopher, or truth seeker, being... ? If you are expecting those who seek truth to be calm, well mannered, society's-norm
people, I think you might have some major illusions about humanity. There is a saying that all progress is made by the unreasonable man, and I think
Crowley embodied that pretty well at times.
At least he made no ritualistic murders (as far as I know), and this might be where we can draw a line between him and Charles
You might want to study a tad more about both before declaring them brothers... this is like responding to a person who says they're a christian and
accusing them of representing The Inquisition and burning people LOL. People can only be held accountable for what they do. I don't think it's just
to hold Crowley accountable for all the insanity in the world that might, in any way past, present or future, find a way to affiliate itself to the
legend of his name.
I believe he may be guilty of murdering a frog, at the least. ;-) But he was more a lover than a fighter with people it appears.
Now I have some respect for the mentally ill... and many of paranoid/schizophrenic people achieved great things in their lifes that the
ordinary bozo would not have the wit and imagination to. Think of Philip K. Dick, Tchaikovsky and Rimbaud, for instance. The world would be a boring
place without those crazy geniuses.
If sanity is measured by a cultural norm, perhaps their diagnosis is more a matter of timing than reason.
But I think there`s a clear line between admiring a madman for his creations and the originality of what he was, and following a megalomaniac
who`s imposing himself as the elected One that knows the secret knowledge of the Universe.
Now that's the best thing you said in the whole post. I completely agree. Fortunately, I think it's possible to respect the writings and insight of
a person without worshipping them or even necessarily following in their footsteps in too literal a sense. I respect the writings and insight of
several people (I am fond of Mark Twain, Ataturk and Jane Roberts for example) but I'm unlikely to adopt their hairstyles or 'try to be like them'.
(I really feel an internal bond to Crowley that requires no additional external effort on my part; more like soul-family, and it rather precludes my
feeling any need to care about the details.)
As I write this, Alester Crowley`s skeleton is resting well in his grave, testifying that he was nothing but a simple, mortal human, who
probably got a little bit too far in his delirium. As for his soul, I'm not the one to judge or even determine where it is now, you guess...
I'm not sure any human is simple unless they choose to be, and mortality is an issue of body not soul -- and I can't speak to where anybody's soul
"goes," as that requires some belief that the soul actually "goes" somewhere to begin with (which requires a solid belief that both time and space
are literal and linear, which I don't really have).
I haven't even thought about this subject in eons. Just since rejoining this forum it's come up again in reading some threads. Weird how nothing
ever really changes on the internet. Probably these same conversations as were had on USENET in 1993 as I recall, will still be going on with some
other technology eons from now. :-)