How to appreciate Crowley?

Lillie said:

Just as a comparison, if anyone cared to look into the private lives of the British royal family during the early 20th century, you would have found excesses very similar too, but far worse than Crowleys.

And no one particularly vilifies them.

Click to expand...

The important difference was that the royal family kept their excesses secret, or at least tried and acted ashamed when they were publicized. Crowley on the other hand was proud of his. To his own world view Crowley was not a sinner.

Actually, that's rubbish.

The excesses of the royal family were well known to the media, who chose not to report it from a misplaced sense of deference.
Also, they never acted ashamed, not even when they were leaving their incestuous pornography collections to the British museum for posterity.

The yellow press chose to report Crowleys because they had a thing about him and it made good copy.
If they had not reported him, as they did not report the royals, Crowley would not hve been known by hardly anyone.
Yes, Crowley reveled in some of his notoriety but still, he did not choose it, it was foisted on him by the press.

Lillie said:

Actually, that's rubbish.

The excesses of the royal family were well known to the media, who chose not to report it from a misplaced sense of deference.
Also, they never acted ashamed, not even when they were leaving their incestuous pornography collections to the British museum for posterity.

The yellow press chose to report Crowleys because they had a thing about him and it made good copy.
If they had not reported him, as they did not report the royals, Crowley would not hve been known by hardly anyone.
Yes, Crowley reveled in some of his notoriety but still, he did not choose it, it was foisted on him by the press.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, given the choice I think he would have chosen it.

Maybe he would.

Great man, you just gotta love him. (and his goat)

indelicate collections?

Lillie said:

Actually, that's rubbish.

The excesses of the royal family were well known to the media, who chose not to report it from a misplaced sense of deference.
Also, they never acted ashamed, not even when they were leaving their incestuous pornography collections to the British museum for posterity.

Click to expand...

Off color collections from the royals? My my. I need to know more.

I sort of feel Crowley would have generated his own lousey press, so IMHO it's more than just accepting it. He wallowed in it. As did Wilde. Being a bad boy is always a sure way to gain noteriety. Witness that idiot who killed Lennon.

I think the Thoth's Devil is the perfect expression of this sort of nonsense.

Off colour?
A bit more than that.
I expect you can find out all about it if you hunt about on the net.

Incest, porn, drugs, homosexuality....

Not that I think homosexuality is wong, but at the time it was a crime punishable by prison. A fate suffered by the enigma guy. Alan Turring? Shocking really, we'd all be saluting Hitler if it wern't for him.

Not that I am anti drugs either, in my mind a persons personal choices should be nobodys business but their own, but unfortunatley that is still a crime.

Nowt wrong with porn either, particularly.

But I digress.
It is a fact that the royal family are, were and will be a bunch of debauched libertines. I am amazed the press kept it quiet from the public.
But they did.

Try and dig it out, you'll find it somewhere.
Laugh? I almost wept!

Ross G Caldwell said:

Please "be without mercy" - whatever you think that means. Do what thou wilt. But if you act that way with normal people, I expect the stronger ones will quickly prove more merciless than you, and you will have to rethink your interpretation of that verse.

Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly disagree with this sentiment on two levels - first that one's will is so fickle as to be changeable by interpretation, and secondly that pain should be any kind of obstacle in the serving of one's will.

Anyway I never understood the book of the law to be a code of conduct at all (referring back to the "be without mercy"). I see it as merely describing the world in which we live, and the entirely selfish transactions which take place between its citizens. I think that it's an honest account of 'the way it is'.

Oh, and back on-topic - Crowley was just fantastic!

(ps hello from me... first post etc etc - sry it's in reply to a three week-old post)

spiral said:

I whole-heartedly disagree with this sentiment on two levels - first that one's will is so fickle as to be changeable by interpretation, and secondly that pain should be any kind of obstacle in the serving of one's will.

Click to expand...

It's not the Will that is "changeable by interpretation", but the interpretation of the verse that can be changed. I really don't know how someone could consistently try to act without mercy towards weaker beings in their lives, and if you try it with stronger ones, you'll simply be crushed. Yes it's fear - fear of pain, retribution - and fear is an important initiator. Fear *teaches* you respect.

Of course, there is a middle ground for fighting - fighting with beings with more or less the same strength - and this fighting leads to growth. But try being "cruel" with a tiger, and you'll understand how a simplistic application of the formula is misguided (I mean cruel with your hands, not with a cage and huge amounts of machinery).

As for pain being an obstacle, it depends on the degree of pain. You have to push it for any real growth ("no pain no gain"), but if you've made it to adulthood, you've proven that you know how to avoid the extremes that might prove fatal. I have many times wished to jump off a cliff or balcony, and been held back by the belief that I would crash to the ground rather than fly, as I really wish to do. Do you think that is a weakness of my Will, or that it is good knowledge that I'm not built for flying, and a mature respect of the person nature gave me?

Anyway I never understood the book of the law to be a code of conduct at all (referring back to the "be without mercy"). I see it as merely describing the world in which we live, and the entirely selfish transactions which take place between its citizens. I think that it's an honest account of 'the way it is'.

Click to expand...

I also don't think the BOTL is necessarily a code of conduct. I see it as an initiatory document, for private contemplation only. Ethics comes from someplace else, perhaps informed by your spiritual path and the BOTL, but never dictated by some literal interpretation of a phrase by Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.

Oh, and back on-topic - Crowley was just fantastic!

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree! I have memorized long passages of his poetry and other works over the years, not to mention having been a Thelemite since 1979.

Ah - I think I've misunderstood some of the exchanges that have gone on here... It wasn't my intention to defend or attack the idea of sytemised cruelty. Babylon_Jasmine raised this as one interpretation of the BOTL, but like I say that doesn't match my own interpretation.

Ross G Caldwell said:

As for pain being an obstacle, it depends on the degree of pain. You have to push it for any real growth ("no pain no gain"), but if you've made it to adulthood, you've proven that you know how to avoid the extremes that might prove fatal.

Click to expand...

Or you've been looked-after by smarter types... or maybe you've just been lucky...

Ross G Caldwell said:

I have many times wished to jump off a cliff or balcony, and been held back by the belief that I would crash to the ground rather than fly, as I really wish to do. Do you think that is a weakness of my Will, or that it is good knowledge that I'm not built for flying, and a mature respect of the person nature gave me?

Click to expand...

But then surely we enter immediately into debate on what is meant by 'will'. To me, this urge to fly is whimsical and nothing to do with will at all. Your will would see you survive rather than perish needlessly so you ARE following your will by not throwing yourself off a cliff.

Ross G Caldwell said:

Of course, there is a middle ground for fighting - fighting with beings with more or less the same strength - and this fighting leads to growth. But try being "cruel" with a tiger, and you'll understand how a simplistic application of the formula is misguided (I mean cruel with your hands, not with a cage and huge amounts of machinery).

Click to expand...

Being without mercy doesn't neccessarially mean be cruel. Just means don't let mercy interfere with your will, and if it is part of your will to be cruel to a tiger there is no reason not to use cages and machinery. Intelligence is as important a part of strength as physical strength. Picking fights and being a bully isn't acting without mercy, that seems more like one of those interpretations that simply sanctifies self indulgence as following the true will.