Zephyros
I have actually found that provided one does a little digging, the PKT is actually far less obtuse than generally thought, and Waite presents some fascinating views, although they are somewhat encoded.
The Thoth Deck
Richard
I regard the initiatory oaths which I have taken in certain Orders to be as binding as Waite regarded his, but this apparently is not fashionable nowadays. The assignment of Aleph to The Fool is pretty heavy stuff for an introductory text anyhow, but it is possible to piece together a proof of this from several PKT passages. In the wake of Crowley's willful disregard of oaths, it is understandable to accuse Waite of obfuscation, but this would be incorrect. P.F. Case regarded the Rider-Waite deck as a fairly accurate reflection of the Tarot of the Western Hermetic Tradition as formulated by HOGD. The fact that it may have managed to recoup at least some of the cost of publication by catering to the fortune tellers notwithstanding.
Aeon418
Which one? The Magick of Aleister Crowley?
Aeon418
Crowley felt he had the necessary authority to disregard those oaths. It wasn't a case of willful disobedience on Crowley's part. Crowley was following the wishes of the 'Third Order.' It was 'they' who released him from his previous obligations.
This is also the reason why Crowley could print the Golden Dawn rituals in, The Equinox, and then years later criticize Regardie for doing exactly the same thing! In Crowley's opinion Regardie did not have authority.
Zephyros
Yes, as you may know, I tried to do something of the sort previously, yet no book really satisfied me, as they were apt to tell the reader to do things without explaining why. I feel like a dunce for saying this, but I tried Eshelman, the Ciceros, Regardie, Kraig and perhaps another, and they just lose me pretty quickly. Eshelman's is perhaps the best, if taken quite slowly. I just have a problem being told to do an LBRP without what the actions mean, or something. I would feel pretty silly just mouthing off things that mean nothing to me, even if I do understand Hebrew.
His books also have excellent annotations and bibliographies which are useful for the material he doesn't delve into.
Every DuQuette book I've read has been invaluable to me, giving me just enough to be able to explore more on my own. Practically life-changing. Without his Thoth book I wouldn't be able to progress. Without Chicken Qabalah I would have no clue. I haven't really progressed too far yet, and the first two chapters don't deal in anything I don't already know, at least theoretically, but really, nobody gives introductions like him. He's the only occult author I know that seems to actually remember what it is to be clueless, asking and answering the same questions I ask.
Always Wondering
Apart from anything else, though, one important thing to remember is that one does not absolutely need to study the occult to understand Thelema (whether or not you choose, of course, to follow it).
I agree. One of the best books to help me get a grasp on Thelema is Let Your Life Speak. A beautifully simple little gem that I would highly recommend to anyone, especially if you need a break from more difficult tomes. http://www.amazon.com/Let-Your-Life-Speak-Listening/dp/0787947350/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
I try to read it about once a year.
Eshelman gives it high praise. http://www.amazon.com/review/R2V0PARPNG2O6
AW
Richard
Whether or not Crowley had 'Third Order' permission to violate the obligations, I'm personally glad that he did so and do not regard it as morally wrong (whatever that means), although it obviously is ethically questionable.
Fianic
I didn't know about this story. From what I heard it was a practical choice. He felt he couldn't risk having knowledge be lost to prosterity. He saw the Nazis wipe out all the occult orders in France and Germany, who were arguably more advanced than the Golden Dawn was in the UK.
I never knew there was a difference between morality and ethics.
Richard
Morality is one's sense of what is right and wrong. Ethics is society's interpretation of what is right and wrong, which is closely associated with law and order, not a bad thing in itself, but it may be inadequate and misleading when it comes to personal decisions.
Ross G Caldwell
ηθικος (ethic) and mos (moral) are just normal Greek and Latin equivalent terms. Both mean "custom", as in "customary behaviour".
For example Aristotle's treatise on ethics, the "Nicomachean Ethics", was translated into Latin as "De moribus ad nicomachum" ("Nicomachean morals" if you want to be literal).
There is no intrinsic distinction between "ethics" and "morals" in historical usage. They are just the semantically equivalent Greek and Latin derived terms.
