How to appreciate Crowley?

Rosanne

Richard Cavendish wrote in his book 'The Tarot' first published in 1975 the following which may have bearing on this reconciling of Crowley to the Thoth Deck.

Explanations of cards have drawn on an immense quantity of material- gnostic, cabalistic, alchemical,astrological, mythological, Christian, Theosophical, Jungian and ingredients from different systems are blended together in search for the truth thought to be hidden behind all traditions.
Crowley, although unique in many ways, it seems to me has done the same thing- drawn on ingredients to search for the truth according to his path.

Oswald Wirth said...
A symbol can always be studied from an infinite number of points of view, and each thinker has the right to discover in the symbols new meaning corresponding to the logic of his own conceptions. Symbols are intended to awaken ideas sleeping in our consciousness. They arouse a thought by means of suggestion and thus cause the Truth which lies hidden in the depths of our spirit to reveal itself.
This is what seems to have happened to Freida Harris as she painted the deck. She had the visions which she translated with paint. It was Harris not Crowley who suggested the redesigning of traditional images and that Crowley write a book about it. Crowley wanted to use any best available deck- but Harris insisted upon painting new Tarot images. She even paid him to teach her magick- which leaves me to wonder- who was the driving force here? Harris insisted Crowley not be at the paintings exhibitions and his name does not appear on any programmes apparently. (Duquette)

Back to Cavendish...
Apparently there are two ways to investigate what Tarot means.
1. Look at the cards and see what they suggest, allow your mind to wander around while ideas and associations come to the surface, which leads to a construction of a system.
2. Start with a system and fit the cards into it. This is a more rigid approach or uncompromising because you have a preconceived pattern.

Now according to Cavendish the second way means sometimes forcing the symbolism to make them fit the system and when they have done so the claim is that the true and meant meaning has now been found- which everyone else before and not using the 'system' was too blind to see.
Now it seems to me although Freida Harris had a system and painted to it (Crowley's Book) it was not what Crowley originally thought would be needed- so inherent in this thought is the idea it is perfectly possible to use method 1. as Harris's paintings were her original visions.
So as I said earlier I do not need to read Crowley (although I have) to use her beautiful deck. Nor do I need Crowley techniques to harness the secret powers of Tarot images seeking to influence events for my own purpose. (Magick) I may come to the same conclusions as Crowley or I may not- but it does not matter to me. I form my own system.
~Rosanne
 

Aeon418

Together they bent their energies to the formidable task of preparing the 78 cards of the Book of Thoth.

His original idea had been to execute a pack after the tradition of the Mediaeval Editors, corrected in the light of the descriptions given in The Equinox I, vii and viii. But she found technical difficulties, such as introducing "10rayed Angelic hands" all over the place, producing a grotesque effect; and she also observed that his teaching, in the course of his explanations went far higher and deeper than any-thing in any accessible models. She accordingly forced him---the laziest man in three continents!---to undertake what is to all intent an original work, including the latest discoveries in modern science, mathematics, philosophy, and anthropology; in a word, to reproduce the whole of his Magical Mind pictorially on the skeleton of the ancient Qabalistic tradition. He accepted this colossal burden; it renewed his energy and his enthusiasm.

Yet the burden was sore: the anticipated three months' work extended to five years. Her success as his interpreter surpasses belief. She had to work from his very rough sketches, often from mere descriptions, or from reading between the lines of the old packs. She devoted her genius to the Work. With incredible rapidity she picked up the rhythm, and with inexhaustible patience submitted to the corrections of the fanatical slave-driver that she had invoked, often painting the same card as many as eight times until it measured up to his Vanadium Steel yardstick!
To sum up. What is the Thoth Tarot? A collaborative effort between Crowley and Harris to reproduce Crowley's Magical Mind in pictorial form along the lines of the Qabalistic tradition. Harris acted as interpreter of Crowley's vision. In this she was incredibly successful. But Crowley still had to be consulted for corrections and final sign off.

Why did Harris insist that Crowley have nothing to do with the exhibition of the paintings? Because, even though she knew better, she still recognised that Crowley's reputation would turn off the kind of people who believe tabloid headlines and hypocritically crave and deplore salacious gossip and titillating scandal , i.e. the general public.

Here's a quote from a letter by Harris to Crowley.
The opposition against you in Oxford is very strong. My business is to get money to publish these cards if possible & this is nearly impossible in the present war-condition. I have been successful thro using what influence I possess in getting at people with money to come & see the Exhibition. This is using my social position foully. If they suspected that the cards were inspired by the Arch Magician of Black Magic (what do they mean?) they would withdraw their patronage. I have had this conveyed to me politely & impolitely. Therefore if you come to the Private View or show up in any prominence this attempt to launch the cards is doomed & all the work & money lost. Can you be so largeminded & detached as to keep away until the thing is launched--If you court notoriety, it is sure to appear ultimately that you are the source because so many people know it & I am really afraid of the avalanche which will fall on me.
 

chriske

Greg Stanton said:
PLEASE don't refer to me as "poor old Greg."

Sorry Greg. No offence intended.

Yep, DuQuette actually convinced me that the Thoth is very special. His book is fabulous. It made me want to dig deeper.

To quote DuQuette on the OTO: "Occult societies are not for everybody, and no matter what any of them may suggest to new or potential members, no organization has yet cornered the market on the wisdom of the ages" (UACTT p.4). I think that's great advice. It is fair to say that DuQuette doesn't convince everyone, but he did it for me. Then I took a look at Snuffin's book on the Thoth and was very pleasantly suprised. He is also OTO and I believe highly regarded.

I certainly agree that Harris's input into the paintings of the cards is under-rated. After all she was the artist, no matter how much AC directed her. From a purely aesthetic point of view, I would argue that the cards are the most beautiful set of Tarot cards that you are ever likely to see.

I have said a number of times that if people just want to play with the cards and have fun with them, then they should go ahead and not worry too much about the baggage that goes with them. But more study can only help understanding, so I shall carry on ploughing through the Crowley catalogue.
 

Greg Stanton

I agree -- Harris's art is under-rated. I suspect that one day she will be as highly regarded as Pamela Coleman Smith. If there's any evidence this is true, some people refer to the Thoth deck as the Crowley-Harris Thoth deck. This is certainly fair. While I no longer appreciate Esotericism, I have to say that I love the art deco/cubist style of the Thoth cards.

I enjoy reading DuQuette's books, even though I don't always agree with everything he says. He's funny -- which is a welcome quality in this field.
 

Rosanne

chriske said:
I have said a number of times that if people just want to play with the cards and have fun with them, then they should go ahead and not worry too much about the baggage that goes with them. But more study can only help understanding, so I shall carry on ploughing through the Crowley catalogue.
I agree that more study can only help understanding in any field. I am sure that many people who use Tarot and do not belong to any organisation of personal magic do not feel they are just having fun or playing with the cards lol. I am sure they use the cards in a very serious manner. I think you are right about the beauty of the cards.

Aeon418 posted the quote from the letter explaining Freida Harris's reluctance to have Crowley at the exhibition. It would seem she had the same problems as I do with reconciling Crowley's reputation/attitude/behaviour with her work. In thinking about this, does it not strike anyone- that this is less than honest. Here they are wanting to publish a deck, and recoup some money, sell to exactly the same people that aeon418 derides
the kind of people who believe tabloid headlines and hypocritically crave and deplore salacious gossip and titillating scandal , i.e. the general public.
They are using the general public???? The general public is us folks. Or do we think we are somehow not the general public? Would we not have gone to the exhibitions? I would have.
Anyway this goes to the heart of the matter of reconciling the Crowley's reputation with the Deck. The Artist was having difficulty with her public and Crowley's Reputation, and that reputation creates the same problem today- no matter how worthwhile Crowley is to study. I have no desire to treat the use of Tarot as elitist. I want Crowley not to have had this notoriety- bad luck for me and for many of the general public, who are not some sort of writhing ignorant mass licking their lips in a hypocritical craving and salacious gossip desiring manner. His behaviour was genuinely deplored, and his comments offensive- and although not outlandish today would still offend. We do not have to feel guilty for being offended by somethings Crowley did and said. We are not some sort of lower beings for feeling this offense.
I went once and saw some paintings of Tarot that were abhorrent and the Artist freely admitted that was his intention. I did not have to shut up in some sort of loyalty to Tarot.
For some reconciling Crowley with the Thoth deck is a hard task. That does not make them any less intelligent, any less thoughtful, or the ignorant public.That mythical mass of people who taken individually are usually exactly the same as ourselves.
~Rosanne
 

Greg Stanton

Rosanne said:
Aeon418 posted the quote from the letter explaining Freida Harris's reluctance to have Crowley at the exhibition. It would seem she had the same problems as I do with reconciling Crowley's reputation/attitude/behaviour with her work. In thinking about this, does it not strike anyone- that this is less than honest.
Crowley is still viewed, by a large segment of "the public", as a person who fascinates goth-types and rebellious teenage boys. It's not out of line to state that his reputation has damaged how his work is received, both during his lifetime and posthumously.

Like L. Ron Hubbard, only cool.
 

Aeon418

Rosanne said:
Anyway this goes to the heart of the matter of reconciling the Crowley's reputation with the Deck. The Artist was having difficulty with her public and Crowley's Reputation, and that reputation creates the same problem today- no matter how worthwhile Crowley is to study.
Reputation is like beauty. It's skin deep. And while we're throwing cliche's around why not mention the one about books and their covers. If something as shallow as reputation is enough to put some people off, too bad. In a way it's really quite sad how other people's opinions, the basis of reputation, stops people looking for themselves. But that's often the way of the world. Mob rule.

Frieda Harris was well aware of Crowley's reputation. But it didn't stop her befriending Aleister. Neither did it stop her working with, and learning from him. I'm pretty sure that during that time she realised that Crowley's reputation was mostly fiction. But that knowledge wouldn't stop Crowley's reputation having effects outside of their friendship. That's why Harris had to play it safe. After all, when confronted by an ignorant mob you don't hand them rocks to stone you with.

For a long time now I've regarded Crowley's reputation as a kind of litmus test. If you can see beyond the reputation you are probably the kind of person that will get something out of Crowley's work. But, on the other hand, if you're the kind of person that gets hung up on the reputation issue, you're probably better off looking elsewhere. But I can't help feeling though that it's a little like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz not looking behind the curtain.

Despite that though I have no problems with people using the Thoth outside of Crowley, so to speak. (And that's despite my reputation around these parts. ;)) If people want to use the Thoth as just another Tarot deck, fine. Good luck to them I say. But what I find frustrating is the attitude of people who try to persuade others from looking for themselves, just because they dislike Crowley's reputation. Or they try to down-play Crowley's influence on the deck and portray his input as some sort of crappy optional extra that is not worth bothering with.

Personally I don't regard Crowley as just an optional extra where the Thoth is concerned. He's part of the full package in my opinion. But I don't think the full package should be mandatory for all Thoth users. But it would be nice if those who don't want the full package wouldn't constantly decry it in an attempt to justify their own choice.
 

Rosanne

Aeon418 said:
.... and portray his input as some sort of crappy optional extra that is not worth bothering with.
Who thinks or says that?


But it would be nice if those who don't want the full package wouldn't constantly decry it in an attempt to justify their own choice.
Look to the thread question. You have said that you have no problem with reconciling The deck with Crowley, and have given your reasons, all perfectly valid for you. How about I turn this around and use your words in part to say this..... But it would be nice if those who want the full package, wouldn't constantly decry those who don't in an attempt to justify their own choice.
Let alone use comments in a superior tone about the deck could be used as just another Tarot deck. How elitist is that? It would be a strange forum if everyone had the same view- there would be no discussion. It seems that some followers of Crowley do not apparently even use Tarot. They consider the full package is minus Tarot. What would you say to them?
~Rosanne
 

Aeon418

Why do I always call the Thoth deck the Thoth, and not the Crowley Tarot? Because I recognise and fully accept that it was a collaborative project. The child of both Crowley and Harris. To ascribe it to either party is an insult to other. I have no wish to insult or down-play Harris' role in the creation of the deck.

The Frieda Harris Tarot anyone?
 

Umbrae

I think Crowley is a bit like escargot, or perhaps liver, or tripe. There’s a stigma that occurs before it goes into your mouth. Perhaps a bit of an acquired taste.

How to appreciate Crowley?

Mind you, I don’t post over here often, I can be seen as a bit of an anathema.

In the opening bits of “The Book of The Law” (1904) (Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX, as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI) it is stated that:
The study of these passages necessarily demands supreme human scholarship to interpret – it needs years of intense application.”
And in The Comment (of The Book of The Law):
The Study of this book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Great stuff!

Also:
Each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience.

Well now that’s worth pondering a while! And once we get into the Book itself, near the end we find:

47: This book shall be translated into all tongues : but always with the original in the writing of the Beast ; for in the shape of the letters and their position to one another : in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine. Let him not seek to try : but one cometh after him, whence I say not, who shall discover the Key of it all. Then this line drawn is a key : then this circle squared in its failure is a key also. And Abrahadabara. It shall be his child & that strangely. Let him not seek after this ; for thereby alone can he fall from it.

So we know that not only CAN we arrive at a different conclusion - it's expected.

When one reads Crowley, he urged each of us to write our own magical diary (journal). In it, we are to sort and categorize our own world, our own experiences upon (or onto) the Tree of Life. ‘777’ was his journal, however others use it as gospel, failing to write their own. Crowley was quixotic, on one hand he wanted followers (especially later in life when he was trying to publish his Tarot – he hoped that Jack Parsons would attract the money needed to the OTO to enable publication, that however failed), and on the other hand he demanded that we do our own homework.

When we do our own homework however, we may arrive at different conclusion than Crowley. At once this seems at odds. Others will tell us that we’ve failed to comprehend his writings.

But back in The Book of The Law he states:
In our present stage, the object that you see is never the same as the one that I see ; we infer that it is the same because your experience tallies with mine on so many points that the actual difference of our observation are negligible. For instance, if a friend is walking between us, you see only his left side, I his right ; but we agree that it is the same man. Although we may differ not only as to what we may see of his body but as to what we know of his qualities.

Arriving at differences is part of the joy of discovering and appreciating Crowley!

This poster urges that the reader read the books to discover the relevance of each quote for themselves.