Crowleyanity

[s1m0n]

Just a thought: should we have a subforum for 'Crowleyanity'?

[Saxarba]

The Church of Crowleyanity (http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/Article1015.phtml)





Our Church, while discarding wholesale the personal opinions and theories of Aleister Crowley, shall nevertheless accept His Holy Spirit, being both Logos Aionos and To Mega Therion, one with Aiwass in Heru-Ra-Ha, as its Light and the Breath of its Life; and its Policy shall be to promote the Heterodoxy of the Child of the Prophet, and to establish across the earth the Atheist Religion of Crowleyanity.

[m1thr0s]

so...is there a difference between wholesale discarding and retail discarding or is somebody just working really hard to sound smarter than they actually are?

errr...I kinda thought Magick would wind up being a good place for AC related discourse, although it sort of finds its way into a lot of things...

m1

[MythMath]

...or is somebody just working really hard to sound smarter than they actually are?
I know I am... :p

Hail Al...! :laugh:

[s1m0n]

errr...I kinda thought Magick would wind up being a good place for AC related discourse, although it sort of finds its way into a lot of things...


Aha. The spelling of Magick with a k is so common these days that it no longer brings Crowley immediately to mind.

[dev]

Use mAgiCk or magic(k)... makes it more clear...

:deveye:

[Filius Fortunae]

Crowleyanity sounds scarily similar to Christianity and sounds perhaps even more foolish to join a church thereof.

[m1thr0s]

These are all offshoots of the one true religion of course...
The original first and oldest worshipers of Inana...
also known as Inanity...

which is a little confusing, now that I think about it...:eek:

http://abrahadabra.com/images/inana01.jpg

link (http://www.kemetway.com/Digest/Content/Sumer.html) m1

[Saxarba]

all roads lead to Sumer (or uh...from Sumer :eek:)...

[m1thr0s]

my puns always seem to backfire...:(

m1

[MythMath]

I like your inane humor... ;)

[Saxarba]

:rolleyes:

[crossoflight]

The album ‘Island’, which was recorded in Iceland between 1986 and 1991 and is credited to HOH and Current 93, features a song called ‘Crowleymass Unveiled’, which proposes Crowleymass as a celebration in place of Christmas.

The song features the heralds of Crowleymass appearing in October; makes much of the urge to copulate; and extols the virtues of Beastly bliss. It also makes the point that ‘Crowley’ rhymes with ‘holy’…The little children are full of awe as each receives a copy of the Book of the Law as a Crowleymass gift (no other presents are distributed during the festivities).

Phrases from Crowley are scattered throughout the lyric, a recording of Crowley forms part of the mix, and the work ends with an extended chant from the work of Crowley, seemingly voiced by a choir consisting of everyone who worked on the record.

However, I wouldn’t urge anyone to rush to track down the piece. The song is not representative of any of the serious major trends explored by David Tibet and Current 93 – it’s basically a joke, perhaps an example of failed humour, or a throwaway treatment of an idea that could have been developed more seriously. It’s possible that ‘Crowleymass Unveiled’ shows Tibet mocking and renouncing something he once revered.

[MSVPVE.218]

Edit: Please excuse my poor english and my confusion, I hope you can get some of what it is that I am trying to say here. If not, Ill gladly take a slap on the balls, allways with a smile on my face. Most of the time I do deserve it, so dont feel bad about it! ;)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

To me, Magick is clearly allready associated with Crowley and Crowleyanity.
Sure, today, Magick, both as a word and as a concept has developed or evolved if you will, into something more than just the 'Crowleyan Method'.
So in order to avoid further confusion and to once and for all clear the the apparent confusion which some still seem to suffer from. A section dedicated to Crowleyanity might actually be a good idea. But to me personally, I just cannot see a useful purpose for another section dedicated purely to Crowleyanity. But as it apparantly still is confusing to some, it might after all needs to be discussed further.
For my own part, I neither recognize Thelema, Magick or Crowleyanity as the same thing.
Thelemic Magick is totally different from Magick in general, since Magick has become such a broad term today enveloping alot more than only Crowley's Thelemic form of Magick.
And Crowleyanity is something absolutely different from both Magick in general and pure Thelemic Magick also.
So, sure, I cant see why another sub for Crowleyanites wouldnt be helpful.
But I feel the Crowleyanites allready have a permanent home at Lashtal, but at the same time I dont want to offend any possible Crowleyanites that may reside here either.
So if there are any Crowleyanites around here, and you feel that another sub is needed, make your voices heard.
During my time here I have come to understand that Abrahadabra is all about evolution of all different kinds of Magick. Thelemic, Chaotic, Satanic, Qliphotic etc, so why Crowleyanites shouldnt have their own home here is at the same time kind of confusing actually.
The only question I have is if it is necessarry, so if you Crowleyanites think it might be needed and useful, by all means, feel free to gather here if you like.
My only concern is that it will become an empty sub with no activity whatsoever, but hey, I am still a novice and a pretty ignorant one aswell.
Voice your concerns, during all my years here so far, I have only been met with encouragement. So go ahead Crowleyanites, I welcome you as a fellow Thelemite!

Love is the Law, Love under Will!

[m1thr0s]

actually, I rather think this topic was launched tongue-in-cheek. Any website that has the gall to call itself Abrahadabra.com is going to garner more than an average number of people versed in Crowley's work...

As it happens, there was really nothing else to call it, so here we are...and while the formula itself doesn't really begin with Aleister Crowley, he is undoubtedly a major contributor to its increased attention over the last 100 years or so...

I don't see where any new forums are required at this time.

m1

[s1m0n]

actually, I rather think this topic was launched tongue-in-cheek.

Not at all.

The term 'Magick' didn't strike me as being specifically Crowley related. And there is a wide range of Crowley-related topics that wouldn't necessarily come under the heading of 'Magick' either. I used the term 'Crowleyanity' for this thread because as a term it isn't limited to Thelema.

I don't know. Where would I post if I wanted to comment on one of Crowley's books, for example, or on his points of view regarding one thing or another? If I asked the same question in relation to somebody like Peter J Carroll the answer would be simple: on the Chaos Magic subforum.

But if you say the Magick subforum covers all this, then fine.

[m1thr0s]

even though we have finally uncovered the fact that the term *Magick* was not invented by Aleister Crowley at all (see this (http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=3553) topic) , I still think it makes sense to assign it to him generally as its most outspoken proponent in the 20th century.

Pretty much everything he wrote centered on *Magick*, including his rather lame attempt at fiction, which is a curiosity of another kind altogether...

m1

[AfterViewer]

:)TAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER. http://www.excludedmiddle.com/LAMstatement.html

[Kuroyagi]

If Crowley-ites would only be fanboys it would be OK but the religious zeal some put into it makes them annoying. Esp. if you already KNOW the writings of AC and change/apply some of his ideas practically and then some nerd critisizes you for "being wrong" w/o actually looking at the thing you wrote/presented itself, being unable to focus on the greater picture or to use his intellect. Some of those people have "read themselves to death"...it often happens with those of lesser intellect, or even with those of higher: former are too ignorant, latter too lazy to always keep on thinking for themselves...I know, to learn one has to shallow and imprint lots of stuff but one should still be on guard always (is my advice, since most people even don't realize it themselves when they try to fuck with the freedom of others' mind on the base of unreflected and easily imbibed opinions).

[Ritual_Kiss]

...
Pretty much everything he wrote centered on *Magick*, including his rather lame attempt at fiction, which is a curiosity of another kind altogether...
m1

Diary of a Drug Fiend is awesome. Moonchild keeps boring me to the point that I never finish it when I try.

A crowleyanity forum would be great for those people who follow Crowley's work to a point that they contradict the meaning of The Law. Those aforementioned people who become dogmatic. You find it everywhere, but it's especially interesting within a religion that was supposed to be founded on spirtual individualism and indipendance.

[m1thr0s]

I liked Diary as well...more people should read it. In Diary, Crowley owns up to having come up with the Abrahadabra formula several years before the Book of the Law as a part of some project he was doing for the Golden Dawn or something...can't recall the details...

Yet most would-be Thelemites would be eager to deny this! To me it doesn't *prove* he's a fake or anything but it does tell us that the Book of the Law is intimately linked to his own conscious mind. When we are trying to sort it all out it helps to know what things were clearly there before, even if the difference in emphasis may have changed...

m1

[Ritual_Kiss]

...but it does tell us that the Book of the Law is intimately linked to his own conscious mind...
m1

Do Thelemites not believe that the human mind in itself is a product of an interconnected universe, or are they closer to Atheists? I was under the impression they believed that each individual is as a star on their own orbit, and each person was seeing things from their own unique angle but none the less part of a greater connected force.

If my interpretation is true, I don't see how how that should be a hard thing to admit. Just because an idea is a product of someone's consciousness, it doesn't negate the validity of the idea.