the occult scene after Crowley...

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by l'appeso

Is the present interest in the occult just a revival? Are there any hopes for a new Crowley ?

Personally I agree with the late Israel Regardie when he said "the days of the giants are over." Today we are surrounded by lesser lights who try to commentate and explain. Then there are those who distort and dillute.

The history of religions and spiritual philosophies is very clear on what happens after any new system is founded. Is it progress or merely a downward spiral?

[closrapexa]

Honestly I think it`s too early. The Golden Dawn and Crowley, like I said, provide enough reading and thought for a lifetime. There will be another GD, and another Crowley when the world needs them. Besides, it is not a question of fashion, the Tree of Life does not update itself as often as an iPhone, we don't need a new spiritual philosophy every few years. I think that new=better is a sign of our times, but means little in the occult. If it were true, even you, Aeon, would dump the Thoth in favor of the Devient Moon

Anyway, I'm too old for new giants, I've only begun on Crowley and the GD a few years ago, I'm not ready for a new revolution yet

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

Besides, it is not a question of fashion, the Tree of Life does not update itself as often as an iPhone, we don't need a new spiritual philosophy every few years. I think that new=better is a sign of our times, but means little in the occult. If it were true, even you, Aeon, would dump the Thoth in favor of the Devient Moon

Closrapexa, I wasn't advocating any kind of "update" or even new giants. If anything I think the "giants" have already carried out the updates, or should I say the rearticulation of the Perennial Philosophy?

I wish I had more time to explain my position clearly, but I'm afraid it will have to wait until later.

[closrapexa]

Originally Posted by Aeon418

Closrapexa, I wasn't advocating any kind of "update" or even new giants. If anything I think the "giants" have already carried out the updates, or should I say the rearticulation of the Perennial Philosophy?

I wish I had more time to explain my position clearly, but I'm afraid it will have to wait until later.

I wasn't attacking you, sorry if it sounded like that! I understand you perfectly, let's raise a toast to the new Aeon of Horus v.1.4! Contact your HGA by "liking" us now!

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by closrapexa

I wasn't attacking you, sorry if it sounded like that!

I didn't see an attack in your post. Just a possible miscommunication which is probably may fault anyway.

[Abrac]

LaVey never rejected the occult, but rejected the pretenses of the past, i.e., those who "played the devil's game," as he put it, but denied his name. He uses as an example Crowley's use of Beast 666 while at the same time steadfastly refuting he was a Satanist.

After Crowley, the lines became a lot clearer. The right-hand path (New Age) on one side and the left-hand path on the other (Satanism).

[l'appeso]

Originally Posted by Abrac

LaVey never rejected the occult, but rejected the pretenses of the past, i.e., those who "played the devil's game," as he put it, but denied his name. He uses as an example Crowley's use of Beast 666 while at the same time steadfastly refuting he was a Satanist.

After Crowley, the lines became a lot clearer. The right-hand path (New Age) on one side and the left-hand path on the other (Satanism).

while googling for reference I found this book:

Flowers, Stephen- Lords of the Left Hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent.

Has anyone read it?

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by Abrac

After Crowley, the lines became a lot clearer. The right-hand path (New Age) on one side and the left-hand path on the other (Satanism).

It might be clearer to you but you've completely lost me.

[l'appeso]

this could be interesting:

http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-w...rs/mwt_12.html

[Aeon418]

Originally Posted by l'appeso

this could be interesting:

http://hermetic.com/crowley/magick-w...rs/mwt_12.html

That letter shows how Crowley employed the terms Left and Right hand path. According to Crowley's definition the entire subject is irrelevant below the grade of Adeptus Exemptus 7=4. Only at that level is there any choice to be made. But I seriously doubt that this is what Abrac meant in his last post.