Original post: Specktackular
Reading Crowley means running into a few bumps in the road that can always be overcome by additional study of Crowley's material, even if it takes the rest of your life. At the time, that meant more money for Crowley.
Of course, if he was guilty of this, he was not the first or the last, nor does it mean everything he had to offer was wholly without merit. I believe he sometimes complicated issues with relationships that didn't exist in an effort to clarify them even more, when in fact he was making the waters murkier. Maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was just his warped sense of humor.
What do you think?
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Frater Manjet
My opinion is that he wrote what he knew in the terms he understood it and didn't give a proverbial rodents posterior for those that didn't get it.
I prefer his earlier work but I have gained quite a bit from his later writings.
So do I think he delibrately tried to obfuscate his knowledge?... Yes, in a way. He placed many blinds, but I relly don't think he gave one whit for those who couldn't see or work past them. I think it was more a matter of his personal style as well as his own sense of humor than anything else.
-VVV
My opinion is that he wrote what he knew in the terms he understood it and didn't give a proverbial rodents posterior for those that didn't get it.
I prefer his earlier work but I have gained quite a bit from his later writings.
So do I think he delibrately tried to obfuscate his knowledge?... Yes, in a way. He placed many blinds, but I relly don't think he gave one whit for those who couldn't see or work past them. I think it was more a matter of his personal style as well as his own sense of humor than anything else.
-VVV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Fr.NovumOrganum
Another thing to remember is that crowley kept returning to previously published material and tweaking it, commenting upon it etc. based on his higher initiations and his 'recieved' material.
And look at the reading list he suggested before getting into the occult; I think he really expected everyone to be intellectually motivated and dedicated.
Another thing to remember is that crowley kept returning to previously published material and tweaking it, commenting upon it etc. based on his higher initiations and his 'recieved' material.
And look at the reading list he suggested before getting into the occult; I think he really expected everyone to be intellectually motivated and dedicated.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Caradoc
I think part of the problem a lot of people have with his writings is that Crowley had so much knowledge in his head that it would be impossible to convey a 'simple' idea as there was no such thing for him. When he writes, he does so with an understanding of all the implications of his words and so chooses them very carefully to convey all the several layers of meaning he feels are wrapped up in any concept. He actually writes very clearly if you stop to think about what he is saying and I disagree about the 'blinds' people say are in his works.
The main problem is that Crowley lived in a world where people wanted to think about things and not have them handed out on silver platters. Today's books are more of the "this is how it is" nature and only convey a small amount of meaning, but clear and easily understood by the masses. Crowley's books were written to be studied, to allow the reader to have personal experiences and to claim the knowledge as their own through actually working to get it.
I'm constantly amazed at how well he communicated the most complex ideas. I can read a paragraph and understand it, read it again a year later and understand it in a completely different way, again, later still, I'll find yet another layer of meaning in the same words. Each new understanding I reach enhances the previous understanding and takes me deeper and deeper each time, opening vast Universes I never could have guessed at the existence of had I not explored the various layers of meaning in that same paragraph time and again. This all comes from a few words!
I guess it's more difficult for the 'MTV and Popcorn' generation to approach a book in this way with all the instant, throw-away, plastic culture they are bombarded by every minute of their waking lives. But when Crowley was writing there were very few books on Magick available and those that could be got were treasured and studied in the minutest detail. His books are written for that audience and you have to adopt that attitude when you read them. If you open any of his works expecting to be given everything you want without having to think, you deserve the confusion they engender
I've been reading Magick in Theory and Practice for more than fifteen years and I'm still learning through it. It's not really a 'book' in the vulgar sense; it's a life companion and guide.
I think part of the problem a lot of people have with his writings is that Crowley had so much knowledge in his head that it would be impossible to convey a 'simple' idea as there was no such thing for him. When he writes, he does so with an understanding of all the implications of his words and so chooses them very carefully to convey all the several layers of meaning he feels are wrapped up in any concept. He actually writes very clearly if you stop to think about what he is saying and I disagree about the 'blinds' people say are in his works.
The main problem is that Crowley lived in a world where people wanted to think about things and not have them handed out on silver platters. Today's books are more of the "this is how it is" nature and only convey a small amount of meaning, but clear and easily understood by the masses. Crowley's books were written to be studied, to allow the reader to have personal experiences and to claim the knowledge as their own through actually working to get it.
I'm constantly amazed at how well he communicated the most complex ideas. I can read a paragraph and understand it, read it again a year later and understand it in a completely different way, again, later still, I'll find yet another layer of meaning in the same words. Each new understanding I reach enhances the previous understanding and takes me deeper and deeper each time, opening vast Universes I never could have guessed at the existence of had I not explored the various layers of meaning in that same paragraph time and again. This all comes from a few words!
I guess it's more difficult for the 'MTV and Popcorn' generation to approach a book in this way with all the instant, throw-away, plastic culture they are bombarded by every minute of their waking lives. But when Crowley was writing there were very few books on Magick available and those that could be got were treasured and studied in the minutest detail. His books are written for that audience and you have to adopt that attitude when you read them. If you open any of his works expecting to be given everything you want without having to think, you deserve the confusion they engender
I've been reading Magick in Theory and Practice for more than fifteen years and I'm still learning through it. It's not really a 'book' in the vulgar sense; it's a life companion and guide.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Frater Manjet
I was mainly referring to such comments such as his daily sacrafice of a male child. This was a humorus way to both convey the meaning of the slaying of self through initiation and to delibrately rile up his detractors. Many of his statements seem to be both very relevant and at the same time intended to confuse the profane, with a sly chuckle at their expense in the process. Three birds with one stone.
-VVV
Yes I do have to agree here... While I do not feel that you are addressing me in particular I feel I should explain my intention on this matter. I am still waking and don't think my statement expressed my feelings well.caradoc wrote:I disagree about the 'blinds' people say are in his works.
I was mainly referring to such comments such as his daily sacrafice of a male child. This was a humorus way to both convey the meaning of the slaying of self through initiation and to delibrately rile up his detractors. Many of his statements seem to be both very relevant and at the same time intended to confuse the profane, with a sly chuckle at their expense in the process. Three birds with one stone.
-VVV
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Specktackular
My feeling is that he believed he was smarter than his audience, had a wicked sense of humor and was incredibly self-obsessed. I believe not only did he not give a rat's ass if someone figured out his lies or not, but I think these lies were probably a genuine help to him in figuring out how gullible people were, an easy way to measure someone's intelligence. If someone got pissed and stormed off, that's fine because he no longer had to deal with him. If someone publicly challenged him, he could cop out to mysticism. He suggested a lot of difficult reading material and would wander into confusing logistics to arrive at essentially mystical answers, which cannot be proven, but nevertheless providing invalid "proofs" as if to solidify his arguments, when often he did no such thing. Like an eagle encircling his prey to hypnotize it, he ran circles around an argument. Basically, my feeling is that he used his high education to bamboozle people. He totally bent rational arguments and then dropped them cold, without solution, but sometimes with a decided "conclusion" on grounds that he is the authority and it is up to the student to figure out how he came to such a conclusion. "The method of Science, the aim of religion," becomes a bit of a sham, then.
I'm not suggesting he had no knowledge of magick, however. And I'm not suggesting everything he wrote is a load of crap, either.
My feeling is that he believed he was smarter than his audience, had a wicked sense of humor and was incredibly self-obsessed. I believe not only did he not give a rat's ass if someone figured out his lies or not, but I think these lies were probably a genuine help to him in figuring out how gullible people were, an easy way to measure someone's intelligence. If someone got pissed and stormed off, that's fine because he no longer had to deal with him. If someone publicly challenged him, he could cop out to mysticism. He suggested a lot of difficult reading material and would wander into confusing logistics to arrive at essentially mystical answers, which cannot be proven, but nevertheless providing invalid "proofs" as if to solidify his arguments, when often he did no such thing. Like an eagle encircling his prey to hypnotize it, he ran circles around an argument. Basically, my feeling is that he used his high education to bamboozle people. He totally bent rational arguments and then dropped them cold, without solution, but sometimes with a decided "conclusion" on grounds that he is the authority and it is up to the student to figure out how he came to such a conclusion. "The method of Science, the aim of religion," becomes a bit of a sham, then.
I'm not suggesting he had no knowledge of magick, however. And I'm not suggesting everything he wrote is a load of crap, either.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Horus
It is my opinion that Crowley used complex symbolism and language in his writing to perhaps improve the intelligence of his students (both in his present and for the future), to teach students the proper method of research (which truly requires one to read between the lines), and most importantly to study the structure and symbolism of other systems of attainment. IMHO one cannot understand Crowley by merely studying Crowley. I think also as annoying and confusing as it is it is a blessing in disguise. One who studies Crowley will not only be knowledgable about Crowley's work, he will be knowledgable about damn near everything, particuarly all things religious and occult, and have most likely developed an impressive vocabulary and use of grammar in the process. Then again I may just be misunderstanding it all...
It is my opinion that Crowley used complex symbolism and language in his writing to perhaps improve the intelligence of his students (both in his present and for the future), to teach students the proper method of research (which truly requires one to read between the lines), and most importantly to study the structure and symbolism of other systems of attainment. IMHO one cannot understand Crowley by merely studying Crowley. I think also as annoying and confusing as it is it is a blessing in disguise. One who studies Crowley will not only be knowledgable about Crowley's work, he will be knowledgable about damn near everything, particuarly all things religious and occult, and have most likely developed an impressive vocabulary and use of grammar in the process. Then again I may just be misunderstanding it all...
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Cooper Satellite
The book of his I'm rereading now, which continues to be my favorite of his work, is Magick Without Tears. He seems to be willing to take a step back from the sometimes-impenetrable obscurities he so often enjoyed disseminating, and he treats himself with the same sense of humorous resignation -- to borrow Maugham's phrase -- that he has always treated the rest of humanity that surrounded him. Yet, at the core of this writing, there is still a love and humility. It's usually the first book I turn to when I have questions about nearly anything.
The book of his I'm rereading now, which continues to be my favorite of his work, is Magick Without Tears. He seems to be willing to take a step back from the sometimes-impenetrable obscurities he so often enjoyed disseminating, and he treats himself with the same sense of humorous resignation -- to borrow Maugham's phrase -- that he has always treated the rest of humanity that surrounded him. Yet, at the core of this writing, there is still a love and humility. It's usually the first book I turn to when I have questions about nearly anything.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: KCh
Crowley did not make hardly any money off of his writings while he was alive. If he were bamboozling anyone, it was those who did not have a Will towards him or his work.
Everyone has their natural course and so those that gravitate towards his work, just like any other work of any other kind, has a Will to it. Those that shun it do not, and often even try to discredit it with a faulty thing like logic.
We should not be asking if Crowley's work is 'Truth', but rather is Crowley's work 'Truth' "To You"?
Crowley did not make hardly any money off of his writings while he was alive. If he were bamboozling anyone, it was those who did not have a Will towards him or his work.
Everyone has their natural course and so those that gravitate towards his work, just like any other work of any other kind, has a Will to it. Those that shun it do not, and often even try to discredit it with a faulty thing like logic.
We should not be asking if Crowley's work is 'Truth', but rather is Crowley's work 'Truth' "To You"?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Awakening_93
I tend to think he overestimated them.Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: callum
my opinion as to crowley's process changes from time to time.
sometimes i think that he substantially used his writing as a process to explore ideas for himself... to create his cosmos through words and symbols (kenneth grant takes this method to the extreme). the inconsistencies in his work reflect different stages of his own initiation or the exploration of different facets of his own personality.
sometimes i think he is working very hard to play the guru... smashing our faces into a mirror or two so that we wake up... trying to wear down the ego of his audience by confusing, humiliating and then laughing along with them.
sometimes i think he was a frustrated, angry man who felt that Nuit owed him a meal ticket in support his genius but because he was so clueless in practical and social matters he kept falling in the shit. hence the high degree of misanthrope..... not that his sense of humour is at all dangerous.
my opinion as to crowley's process changes from time to time.
sometimes i think that he substantially used his writing as a process to explore ideas for himself... to create his cosmos through words and symbols (kenneth grant takes this method to the extreme). the inconsistencies in his work reflect different stages of his own initiation or the exploration of different facets of his own personality.
sometimes i think he is working very hard to play the guru... smashing our faces into a mirror or two so that we wake up... trying to wear down the ego of his audience by confusing, humiliating and then laughing along with them.
sometimes i think he was a frustrated, angry man who felt that Nuit owed him a meal ticket in support his genius but because he was so clueless in practical and social matters he kept falling in the shit. hence the high degree of misanthrope..... not that his sense of humour is at all dangerous.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Frater C.U.G.
From Magick Without Tears - Chapter LXXII: Education
Ditto.Awakening_93 wrote:I tend to think he overestimated them.
From Magick Without Tears - Chapter LXXII: Education
All this made me exceeding sorrowful. I began to understand why my Liber OZ, written entirely in words of one syllable only, with this very idea in mind, turned out to be completely beyond the average man's (or woman's) understanding.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: fiat_lux_777
93
I enjoy Crowley's sense of humour in his writings - special favourites are his acidic depictions of various Golden Dawn persona in "Moonchild" and, of course, his hymn to the virgin Mary (published by Catholic Weekly, from memory) which contained the lines "The Virgin Mary I desire but arseholes et my prick on fire" when the first letters of the first word and the first letters of the last words of each line were read. Now that's talent!
93 93/93
Todd
93
I enjoy Crowley's sense of humour in his writings - special favourites are his acidic depictions of various Golden Dawn persona in "Moonchild" and, of course, his hymn to the virgin Mary (published by Catholic Weekly, from memory) which contained the lines "The Virgin Mary I desire but arseholes et my prick on fire" when the first letters of the first word and the first letters of the last words of each line were read. Now that's talent!
93 93/93
Todd
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: insert_name_here
Fr.NovumOrganum, I too have trouble with words like 'received', "i" before "e" unless there's a "c". I find this interesting and am glad there's a poll setup now, I like Danny Carey's site because it showcases his Crowleyana and has interesting comments that go along with them i.e. Which chapter of Liber 333 reveals that OTO secret..? Ooooooh.
It's been awhile since I've read MWT, and since the new light Kenneth Grant shed on it, I am excited about how it will be this time around.
Fr.NovumOrganum, I too have trouble with words like 'received', "i" before "e" unless there's a "c". I find this interesting and am glad there's a poll setup now, I like Danny Carey's site because it showcases his Crowleyana and has interesting comments that go along with them i.e. Which chapter of Liber 333 reveals that OTO secret..? Ooooooh.
It's been awhile since I've read MWT, and since the new light Kenneth Grant shed on it, I am excited about how it will be this time around.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Awakening_93]I tend to think he overestimated them.[/QUOTE]
Woopsy-daisy! I meant to write "overestimated". I wonder how many people thought I really mean "underestimated" and how many, like me, did not notice the type-o.
[QUOTE=Awakening_93]I tend to think he overestimated them.[/QUOTE]
Woopsy-daisy! I meant to write "overestimated". I wonder how many people thought I really mean "underestimated" and how many, like me, did not notice the type-o.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Awakening_93
LOL, I thought it was a little bit strange, but I still entertained the thought as I read, in my mind.Woopsy-daisy! I meant to write "overestimated". I wonder how many people thought I really mean "underestimated" and how many, like me, did not notice the type-o.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: John S. Brackett
Mr. Crowley wrote most of the time thinking his audience was just as intelligent as he; however, some times, I believe, he loved to "pull the wool over some people eyes." I read his autobiography and this definitely comes out from the pages; I can not give you any definitive examples, but the tone of the book seems to demonstrate this. Mr. Crowley was definitely a pioneer in the field of Magick, although he was misunderstood by many of his contemporaries. To a degree this was his fault because he loved to shock people with words like Babalon and his title "The Beast." It must be noted that many of his fellow magicians were Christian magicians, like A.E. Waite and Mr. Westcott, and they were probably distressed that he made words of this nature part of his philosophy, which are found in "The Book of Revelations." But Crowley has been a positive influence for me, even though I don't subscribe to Thelema or the OTO. I love his books "Magick in Theory and Practice" and "Book 4." I also love the work he did in Enochian magick and in "The Book of Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin." I don't agree with him, however, about classifying the Goetic demons as parts of the human psyche, and the attainment of the Holy Guardian Angel as being the only viable pursuit of magick, other pursuits being black magic until the HGA had been attained. But hey Crowley has influenced a lot of magicians, present and past, almost as much as the Golden Dawn, and some magicians may say even more than the Golden Dawn.
Peace, Light, and Love
Mr. Crowley wrote most of the time thinking his audience was just as intelligent as he; however, some times, I believe, he loved to "pull the wool over some people eyes." I read his autobiography and this definitely comes out from the pages; I can not give you any definitive examples, but the tone of the book seems to demonstrate this. Mr. Crowley was definitely a pioneer in the field of Magick, although he was misunderstood by many of his contemporaries. To a degree this was his fault because he loved to shock people with words like Babalon and his title "The Beast." It must be noted that many of his fellow magicians were Christian magicians, like A.E. Waite and Mr. Westcott, and they were probably distressed that he made words of this nature part of his philosophy, which are found in "The Book of Revelations." But Crowley has been a positive influence for me, even though I don't subscribe to Thelema or the OTO. I love his books "Magick in Theory and Practice" and "Book 4." I also love the work he did in Enochian magick and in "The Book of Sacred Magic of Abra-Melin." I don't agree with him, however, about classifying the Goetic demons as parts of the human psyche, and the attainment of the Holy Guardian Angel as being the only viable pursuit of magick, other pursuits being black magic until the HGA had been attained. But hey Crowley has influenced a lot of magicians, present and past, almost as much as the Golden Dawn, and some magicians may say even more than the Golden Dawn.
Peace, Light, and Love
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Forum Member
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Did Crowley REALLY underestimate his audience, or was he trying to bamboozle them?
Original post: Fr. Qim
I think there are two levels of blinds that run throughout Crowley's work. First it is important to understand that things are alternitivly true and untrue as one progress through the gates of initiation. The truth of the Neophyte is but the falsehood of the Zealator, whose truth is but the plaything of the Adept. The "clarity" of Crowley's writing is more a factor of the reader than the writer. I have found the same bit of writing both absolutly confounding, and later absolutly lucid, as I have evolved.
The other "layer" is related to the first and concerns the gap between profane and initiate. Crowley did use referenced that would not be grasped (or would be misunderstood) by the profane as an attempt to write directly for the initiate. This is not necessarily an attempt to trick or mislead, but rather an attempt to guarantee that those who were ready would understand, and that those who were not could not abuse the writing.
I don't mean an OTO initiate per se, or an AA initiate in the conventional sense, but simply "an initiate".
I think there are two levels of blinds that run throughout Crowley's work. First it is important to understand that things are alternitivly true and untrue as one progress through the gates of initiation. The truth of the Neophyte is but the falsehood of the Zealator, whose truth is but the plaything of the Adept. The "clarity" of Crowley's writing is more a factor of the reader than the writer. I have found the same bit of writing both absolutly confounding, and later absolutly lucid, as I have evolved.
The other "layer" is related to the first and concerns the gap between profane and initiate. Crowley did use referenced that would not be grasped (or would be misunderstood) by the profane as an attempt to write directly for the initiate. This is not necessarily an attempt to trick or mislead, but rather an attempt to guarantee that those who were ready would understand, and that those who were not could not abuse the writing.
I don't mean an OTO initiate per se, or an AA initiate in the conventional sense, but simply "an initiate".