[kj] Crowley/Coleman/Gurdjieff
god botherer
acroastic at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 14 16:37:27 EDT 2004
Hi Aleph
My respect for you has increased greatly after reading that. You obviously
have a sharp intellect and you care enough to want to engage in discussion
with me seriously.
I do understand 'Do what thou wilt', not as 'do whatever you want' but as
'develop real will and act accordingly'. No problem with that. 'Do what thou
wilt shall be the whole of the Law' was Crowley's full aphorism. That, I
think, is his spin on 'Do what thou wilt and it harm none'.
The 'and it harm none' clause seems to imply a universal morality. I know
that much 'morality' is conditional upon time, place and culture, but don't
you think that beyond all that there is a basic universal morality?
Do you think there is such a thing as karma?
I get the Kabbalistic idea of duality and on one level duality is the basis
of all (or perhaps one should say that where there are two there are three).
But I believe that thinking of good/evil as a duality to be ranked along
with day and night, yang and yin, male and female, etc. is a mistake.
Perhaps beyond duality there is no good or evil, but here in the flesh, in
the world of action, one can do evil deeds. The potential for any one of us
to hurt another is there, and it is not possible, with any kind of
sophistry, to defend acting out malice (or even thinking it).
There is a basic knowledge in the human heart about the wrongness of hurting
another. The signs (although I admit I can not know - I have no evidence,
only what others have said or written) are that Crowley - if he did not
actually hurt anybody - at least did not prevent the suffering of some who
came into his circle. Did he use people? I don't know. What do you think? If
yes, was that OK?
Would not some of the conduct ascribed to him, supposing it were true, have
some bearing on how one reads his 'way'?
Compare this with the conduct ascribed to the Buddha, and what that says
about his 'way'.
I know that one would not think less of, say, Liszt's music for knowing the
life he led, but with a teacher, guru, whatever (no doubt Crowley would be
exempt from any of these labels), their life is central to what they are
imparting, since the core of any esoteric teaching does not come off a page
but from the very being of the teacher.
Is it true that Crowley boasted of hanging his wife by her thumbs so that
she would bear him a beast? OK, there are so many little stories like this
(and I take the point about the yellow press), but doubtless he did say some
outrageous things. Was it all just to shock? Was it part of his method
intended to sort the sheep from the goats? To'eliminate the unfit'? It
doesn't sit well with me.
Nor does the prospect of summoning entities of which one can not really have
full understanding. What are they, really? Michael? Gabriel? Raphael? Uriel?
Your Guardian Angel? Are you sure?
There are records of more than one meeting between Gurdjieff and Crowley
(they are supposed to have been lodging at a guest house in Frintion on
England's east coast at some point during the war). They may have had more
to do with each other than we know. They probably had a lot in common. But
the meeting reported in J.G. Bennett's book 'Witness' (which is a bloody
good read actually - I think you'd enjoy it; about far more than Gurdjieff)
ended with Gurdjieff repudiating Crowley and simply commenting,
"Him dirty inside."
Gurdjieff was said by Ouspensky to have reached a stage in his life where he
could to become either a saint or a monster (my words). Did Crowley come to
the same point and take a wrong turning? It seems as though he did to me. So
why? And why didn't Gurdjieff?
The end of Crowley's life is well documented as being very sad and squalid.
Doesn't that concern you? You're going to follow his 'way' even though it
didn't do him any good?
Still, I could have completely misunderstood, and I am reaching decisions
based on very limited information.
As you say the path of Magick IS dangerous. So one should be careful to
fully inform oneself before setting off merrily into what can initially be
very seductive, exciting and rewarding territory. But if people need to go
ahead and read The Book Of The Law they'd probably better go ahead and do
it.
OK, I baled out. You, my friend are probably stronger, maybe wiser than me.
I reached the point where I had to concede that I was putting myself at the
mercy of ... what, I didn't know. Fear? Maybe. I prefer to think of it as
gut instinct.
One thing is for sure though. I don't let others do my thinking for me. I
have thought about these things a great deal. The funny thing is, the longer
this process goes on the less I really feel I know.
So I judge nobody.
I simply wish you good fortune, if you believe in such a thing, and I thank
you for this dialogue. I don't get to talk to too many people on this level,
and I really need it.
Sincere best wishes
Si
>From: Djehuti111 <djehuti111 at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)"
><gathering at misera.net>
>To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)"
><gathering at misera.net>
>Subject: Re: [kj] Crowley/Coleman/Gurdjieff
>Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Greetings Si,
>
>--- god botherer <acroastic at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I became very interested in Crowley many years ago.
> > I read Liber 777, The
> > Book Of The Law, Aha, etc. and learned a lot. I also
> > read about Crowley's
> > participation in the Golden Dawn and beyond. I
> > recognised that he must have
> > been an extraordinary man - highly intelligent,
> > gifted, extremely
> > knowledgeable, but I also learned of the many
> > wounded people - even dead
> > people - he left in his wake,
>
> Let me interrupt here for just a minute.
> Are implying here that Crowley was responsible for
>causing someones death?
>
> Crowley (the Man) was on occasion a complete bastard,
>and systematically drove away most of his closest
>friends.
>
> However the implication that he was directly
>responsible for someone's death sound very "yellow
>press" to me.
>
> There is SO much misinformation spread about this man
>that it's simply ridiculous, and I'm always astounded
>at what people genuinely believe this man was capable
>of.
>
> > and I found that I
> > could not accept some of
> > his practices.
>
> Nor can I.
> Nor can a lot of Thelemites.
>
> One of the things that he insisted on was that people
>find their own path, whether they agreed with his
>findings or not.
>
> > I also questioned where following the
> > labyrinthine path down
> > which studying the correspondences and Gematria was
> > actually leading me.
>
> It's always possible that it might lead you to the
>same place that many Initiated systems of Magick (or
>Religious beliefs, or Philosophical Schools of
>thought, or years of Psychotherapy) might lead you....
> It's quite possible that it might just lead you to
>discover who you really are.
>
> > So many people have warned against reading The Book
> > Of The Law - including
> > Crowley himself - that it can not be paranoid
> > superstition to refer to such
> > admonitions.
>
> Magick (Or Philosophy, or Psychotherapy) is a very
>dangerous path.
>
> It will be useless to you if fear of the unknown is
>your bedrock, or if you choose to go against your
>nature and stagnate, or if you want nothing but to
>have others do your thinking for you.
>
> Fear is failure, and the forerunner of failure.
>If you convince yourself that you have no voice, then
>you don't.
>
> Fear is how governments keep people docile and under
>control.
>
> Fear is our biggest enemy, because it leads to
>inaction.
>
> Crowley (along with many other leaders of thought)
>recognized this, and wrote not only to "Fortify the
>fit" but also to "Eliminate the unfit".
>
> If the comment at the back of the Book of the Law is
>all that it takes to dissuade you from Thelema, then
>Thelema is certainly not your path.
>
> Thelema is for the individual, not the herd.
>
> > As for Gurdjieff recognising something
> > unclean in Crowley, I am
> > merely paraphrasing Bennett's autobiography.
>
> So, I'm to understand that because Bennet has
>mentioned it in his autobiography (Which in this case,
>if I'm reading you correctly, seems to be a
>autobiography of Gurdjieff as seen through Bennets
>lens) that this is your opinion too?
>
> > Let's be cool.
>
> I have NO issue with you as a person, I have no idea
>who you are other than someone who is also a Killing
>Joke fan.
>
> I have issue with people that speak out of ignorance
>(you having studied at least some Crowley are
>different than the other people who have involved
>themselves in this discussion) and assert themselves
>as authorities on the subject.
>
>Especially when they admit to knowing next to nothing
>on the matter.
>
> Thelema is a subject that I know at least a little
>bit about, and is something that has been maligned
>more often than not.
>
> Crowley and Thelema are topics that (at least iup to
>"Extremities Era" KJ) are part of the roots of Killing
>Joke, and since no one here has much positive to say
>about the topic, I'm piping in.
>
> Killing Joke were my introduction to Crowley, so it's
>a vested interest to me to dispel ignorance on either
>topic.
>
> The same thing happens if someone's only knowledge of
>Killing Joke come from the "Liver and Maggots" story.
>;)
>
>
> > I do not regard myself as qualified to judge Crowley
> > - or indeed Gurdjieff.
> > Both men were vastly superior to me in all sorts of
> > ways. But if someone of
> > Gurdjieff's standing took the angle he did on
> > Crowley then I have to take
> > note.
>
> Heh, then by the same token, one should take
>Crowley's opinion of Gurdjieff the same way, right?
>
> I'd rather form my own opinions on both of them. ;)
>
> > And what is one to make of Jaz's branding of Crowley
> > as 'a very dubious
> > character'? This from someone who went into Crowley
> > fairly deeply, I
> > believe.
>
> What I hear I Jaz's voice when he makes that remark
>is nothing but "tongue in cheek" and comes from those
>self same years of study.
> But that's just what I hear.
>
> > The case remains open for me on Crowley, but I fear
> > I shall never really
> > understand what he was all about.
>
> But even the fact that you are "open" to discussion
>and asking to be "educated" on the matter puts you
>head and shoulders (in my opinion) above those that
>believe they know it all without bothering to delve
>into the topic in the least. ;)
>
> > And is it all that
> > important anyway?
>
> Absolutely not!
>
> What I hear is that "Every man and every woman is a
>Star" and should be left necessarily to their own
>devices and opinions.
> This is simply mine, and I hope that no one out there
>takes it as anything other than that.
>
> > As for the Buddha, I sense that following his
> > teachings is more likely to
> > bring me to happiness and make the world a better
> > place than following
> > Crowley's 'way' (whatever that is) will.
>
> The tricky thing with Crowley (as with all modern
>Psychology) is that he acknowledged both a "Light" and
>"Dark" side of humanity.
>
> This is apparent in Nature (ie: Spring and Winter,
>Day and Night, Harvest Time and Time to Plant crops
>etc. ad infinitum) and since we humans are merely a
>part of that Nature, we are subject to the same
>cycles and Light and Dark parts of our
>"personalities".
>
> He recognized this fact and sought to work equally
>with BOTH sides.
> How else does one achieve Balance?
>
> Most religions are loathe to approach this topic in
>any way other than the eternal (Exoteric) battle
>between "Good" and "Evil".
>
> "Heat is "Good" for coffee, but it's "Evil" for Ice
>Cream."
>
> Both qualities are inherent in all humans, including
>Crowley, Coleman, Gurdjieff, and even the Buddha.
>
> Very few will cop to this fact.
>
> So Crowley, by recognizing this fact, and working to
>abolish the Victorian Era ideas of Good and Evil which
>he was surrounded by at the time gets branded the
>"Wickedest Man in the World".
>
> > I am ready to listen to anybody who can shed light
> > for me on why Crowley
> > deserves uncritical admiration.
>
> I'm afraid that I can't be that person.
>
> Crowley (or anybody, fictional or other) doesn't
>deserve those qualities.
> My guess is that he wouldn't have wanted it any other
>way.
>
> Uncritical admiration means that one listens and
>agrees passively.
>
> He very specifically went out of his way to make sure
>that he'd never be Deified, and that there would never
>be a cult of mindless, non thinking "Crowleyanity".
>
> Make you own decisions on the topic.
>
> > I would genuinely
> > welcome an attempt to
> > defend Crowley on a moral basis.
>
> Most of what passes for "Morals" in even this day and
>age is what Christianity has told us that we need to
>adhere to.
>
> While Christian Morals work for Christians, they
>don't work for me since I don't ascribe to their
>system of thought.
>
> I'm a firm believer in "Do What thou Wilt".
>
> And, if you think that means Do what you WANT, you've
>got another think coming. ;)
>
> > There is more that unites us than divides us so
> > let's not fall out.
>
> "There is nothing that unites the divided but Love,
>all else is a curse...".
>
> Much Respect,
>
> Aleph
>
> >
> > Si
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Djehuti111 <djehuti111 at yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: "A list about all things Killing Joke
> > (the band!)"
> > ><gathering at misera.net>
> > >To: "A list about all things Killing Joke (the
> > band!)"
> > ><gathering at misera.net>
> > >Subject: RE: [kj] Crowley/Coleman
> > >Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Greetings Lexi,
> > >
> > >--- Alexi Hamilton <alexih at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Awwww...Nicholas, you just might bring the ever
> > >elusive Aleph out of hiding with this one...
> > >
> > > Nah, I'm not going to waste my time with
> > opinionated
> > >rubbish, ("Clearly, he recognised that which was
> > >unclean in Crowley and didn't want him near his
> > >students any more.") or paranoid superstition (
> > "And
> > >by the way, reading The Book of the Law might not
> > be a
> > >great idea.").
> > >
> > > And I'm certainly not going to let one of the
> > most
> > >imbalanced "buddhists" to ever snipe from behind a
> > PC
> > >get my Goat.
> > >
> > >("crowley was a twat who completely wasted the
> > >insights he had.")
> > >
> > > Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! ;)
> > >
> > > I'll just scrape it off my shoes and ignore the
> > >stench.
> > >
> > > XoXoX
> > > Aleph
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >~Alexi
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=====
> > >"The scene was wild and somewhat sinister. The
> > >darkness, the palms, the mountainous background,
> > the
> > >silent lake below, the impenetrable canopy of
> > space,
> > >studded with secretive and significant stars,
> > formed a
> > >stupendous setting for the savage noise and blaze
> > of
> > >the ceremony."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Gathering mailing list
> > >Gathering at misera.net
> > >http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself with cool new emoticons
> > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gathering mailing list
> > Gathering at misera.net
> > http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
> >
>
>
>=====
>"The scene was wild and somewhat sinister. The
>darkness, the palms, the mountainous background, the
>silent lake below, the impenetrable canopy of space,
>studded with secretive and significant stars, formed a
>stupendous setting for the savage noise and blaze of
>the ceremony."
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>_______________________________________________
>Gathering mailing list
>Gathering at misera.net
>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
More information about the Gathering
mailing list