Crowley, and his forebear Eliphas Levi, are responsible for the stupid air of sulphur which hangs around a lot of modern esoterica.
AC has his apologists, and he was obviously clever, but he was unquestionably a complete turd, and created a religious system which was fundamentally Satanic, wrapped in enough layers of obfuscation that it can fascinate intelligent people, especially those who have received a substandard education in theology, which is practically everyone these days.
Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method of science, the aim of religion". A lot of HN matches that demographic.
There are better ways of squaring the circle, but they're less sexy.
Isn't most of theology just folks getting red faced arguing over things which are ultimately just made up, and are unknowable anyway in the first place? It's only a step away from a couple of guys shouting at each other about how the warp nacelles work in Star Trek.
Crowley might have been a drug-addicted sophist and not a good source for seeking ultimate truths. But was he a good sophist? I am interested in occultism and symbology, but only as entertainment. I am certain of my materialistic beliefs. It might be that he is so popular here because he is clever and decadent, something shocking and thrilling if you don't take it as truth.
Also, was he actually a fun sophist? You seem to have read a lot so I would ask for your opinion. Is he worth reading for entertainment?
Stepping over the general LHP/RHP question that you’re driving at, I’ll expand on this:
> Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method of science, the aim of religion". A lot of HN matches that demographic.
Hackish culture was playful, irreverent, simultaneously creative and destructive, competitive, and elitist (in a word: adolescent). Being part of it felt like sorcery, like you were finding and pulling strings others couldn’t see. I think there’s a heavy psychological crossover between the kind of people who got into that and into occultism, the kind of people who really like the idea of hidden power and taking control of the world around them. That’s also why you see the same people drawn to transhumanism, etc.
Tangentially, how much that culture still exists, I’m not really sure. I think most subcultures have ossified into collections of shibboleths without the creative power that formed them, even subsumed into the same global culture as a mere consumer aesthetic.
I avoided Sam Harris for the longest time due to some interviews of him that I had heard before, but I started listening to his meditation instruction recently, and it's by far the best I've ever heard for bridging the gap between traditional mysticism and modern secularism.
Many a modern individual has lost the community of 5 decades prior, a station occupied by the community church in many parts and more fixed abodes, and so strive beyond optimistic humanism to a thirst to believe in anything and anyone. Barking up the wrong tree when it is connecting with themselves and their neighbor that is missing and not depressive bibliomania, hypergrafia, or wandering the internet for flat earth conventions for connection conflated with meaning and sense of purpose.
For anyone insterested in reading Crowley, I was told Liber four is the most straightforward writing of his.
His collection of poems "White Stains" is just amazing as well - mostly speaking about human secretions of all kinds and ingesting them.
Edit:"White Stains, a collection of Crowley's poetry praised by W.B. Yeats, published in paperback for the first time, has been called 'the filthiest book of verse ever written' and of the first edition of 100 numbered copies, 83 were pulped and burned by Her Majesty's Customs in 1924."
Book 4 isn't a bad place, but Magick in Theory and Practice is more approachable as a first read. It was written as a series of letters to a female student, and Crowley's Victorian attitudes about the intellect of women made it so it was basically an ELI5.
To me, to not make up your own rituals is to not really understand any of this.
A good modern Crowley ritual based on the Absinthe book is to get some wine and other substances of choice, get quite inebriated over many hours and listen to Celtic Frost - To Mega Therion. Even better with a lover involved.
To just copy Crowley is to not understand that every man and woman is a star.
To treat Crowley as just some author of text is pure blasphemy.
However, let us concede the prohibitionist claims. Let us admit the police contention that cocaine and the rest are used by criminals who would otherwise lack the nerve to operate; they also contend that the effects of the drugs are so deadly that the cleverest thieves quickly become inefficient. Then for Heaven’s sake establish depots where they can get free cocaine!
Many people have had experiences that fall into categories that make them difficult to speak about. Because they may not be universally shared experiences, there's not much of a common vocabulary that feels adequate.
To me, a large part religion seems to be to provide such a vocabulary, and therefore, purposefully or not, monopolize the description of such experiences. By doing so, they inevitably funnel the rationalization of these experiences into certain paths.
The reductive alternatives offered by skeptics are not usually a satisfying substitute, since they are usually not talking about the same thing. Skeptics like to shift the conversation to what they consider the objective which, while not necessarily wrong, is a different conversation, and beside the point. To make an inadequate comparison: it's like discussing the objective nature and accuracy of poetry rather than the experience of it, and the impact on the reader.
There are many other ways to look at the development of western occultism, but from the perspective of language, it seems to me that it had a lot to do with establishing a framework that tries to side-step the effective monopoly of religious conversation, as well as the only alternative offered: plain denial of the experience.
You could, of course, lump the history of occultism in with religion and say "it's not significantly different"/"it's a mish-mash of borrowed ideas from traditional religion"/etc., if painting with broad brushstrokes, but I think it was a conscious effort to break out of the frameworks set by convention and religion.
It's an attempt to take command of the internal and external conversation regarding something deeply personal.
I believe this is important, because putting language to something (whether it's words or symbols) is a hugely important way to internalize, process, and develop the results of an experience, whatever it is.
There were some websites back in the early 2000s which would sell infomercial products about the Art of Sorcery and Aleister Crowley (The Wickedest Man In The World!) which were the creme de la creme.
Later I learnt about his K2 expedition and other things.
I remember stumbling across the angelfire site for a defunct occult order (the master, “Sir Faustus” or something like that, had apparently mysteriously disappeared). I understood maybe 1% of what I was looking at, but it felt very momentous. They had hierarchically organized lists of books and films that contained occult knowledge. Fun memories.
Learning about the Golden Dawn is a trip. I have yet to encounter a strain of English-language occultism that doesn't have a connection with them somehow... they're Erdős for people real into candles.
Crowley's "followers" are almost indistinguishable from new age types, except for the ether of long worn out hippie nonsense.
Occultism is something conveniently both esoteric enough to feel special but also hollow enough that you can wrap it around all your personal narcissism and still have it make sense.
If you want to see the "warring magicians on South Park" scene mentioned in the article (actually they were 'psychic detectives'):
https://youtu.be/22Tj_l4PcPs
Well, for one, Drs. Timothy Leary and John Lilly were both avid readers of his methods, and it helped shape their take on what in large part can be seen (and is sometimes explicitly referred to) as "programming the human mind." Ritual can be seen as a routine designed as an input that brings about a desired output, much like code being put into a machine.
For people who like the intersection of programming and the brain as a computer analogy, this scratches an itch. And when it comes to really initiating at least a semi-scientific approach to rituals of antiquity, Crowley was right in the middle of it. William James would be another good place to look if you ask me -- though honestly, Crowley mentions this in his reading lists, among quite a few good other sources.
I agree that he also has a lot of baggage -- the man enjoyed manipulating people, gaining power, and of course, gaining money to feed his cocaine and heroin habits. He was also a spy for MI-6. In some of his better moments he actively sought NOT to be some sort of messiah, but in many of his more mischievous times he reveled in it.
Tread carefully -- but yes, there's a lot to be curious about.
"The method of science, the aim of religion." Crowley appeals to people who have had enough religion to recognise that there's something to it, but can't reconcile it with the scientific materialism in our dominant culture, and are intelligent enough to want to try.
I’ve wondered the same thing too. I don’t really keep up to date on political stuff, but I get the feeling that there is a history that links libertarianism, the tech sector, transhumanism, and occultism. I had seen stuff about how Peter Thiel has funded a bunch of art-related events that may sometimes utilize this esoteric aesthetic.
Except the whole "kicking him down the stairs" bit isn't true. Richard Kaczynski, probably the foremost Crowley biography, has to address this about once a month on twitter.
I dunno man. That Usain Bolt. Seems kinda obsessed with running really fast.
Also that Magnus Carlsen. All he does is play chess.
W.B. Yeats was a literal writer by trade. Of course he did “all that writing”.
For people who are unfamiliar with his work, W. B. Yeats was an absolutely extraordinary poet. I would encourage you to check out “The Second Coming” for example[1]. It’s amazing for such a short poem how many times it has been referred to/quoted etc in other other works.
Highly recommend W. Sommerset Maughm's "The Magician" for a treatment of Crowley's personality and influence. The occult is full of tedious charlatans, and yet they reappear in history in influential forms like Machiavelli, Rasputin, Crowley, Mesmer, Bernays, Marcuse, and other literal mesmerists, with lesser lights as 20th century cult leaders, and I think Klaus Schwab and his transhumanist hokum is the current equivalent to these prior figures. His cohort has been clever enough to outlaw the mockery they so richly deserve.
Oddly, the marjority of Issac Newton's writing was esoterica, and his contributions to physics and maths were almost incidental to his huge body of work on occult topics. What fascinates me about the occult personally is that it's a fundamentally inferior ontology - where it's what you believe when you don't have belief. Its ideas manifest in cults, but also in theory, where Marxism and its consequent gobbledygook(s) are predicated on similar occult and gnostic premises. Before we had ideology, we had superstition, and the priesthood of superstition was these magical thinkers, imo.
> it's what you believe when you don't have belief
I know it's trendy to dismiss energy, chakras, astral projection out of hand, but there's some weird shit that feels every bit as real as any other experience if you know how to tap into them.
Someone entering trance states (like Crowley's wife apparently) and interacting with those levels of consciousness isn't engaged in belief, they're having experiences that are real to them.
> What fascinates me about the occult personally is that it's a fundamentally inferior ontology - where it's what you believe when you don't have belief
These characters are fascinating when they're safely in the past and they can be seen purely as drawing out an unacknowledged need in the zeitgeist. In the present, it's terrifying and infuriating to see people choosing their reality out of sheer self-indulgence.
[+] [-] b800h|2 years ago|reply
AC has his apologists, and he was obviously clever, but he was unquestionably a complete turd, and created a religious system which was fundamentally Satanic, wrapped in enough layers of obfuscation that it can fascinate intelligent people, especially those who have received a substandard education in theology, which is practically everyone these days.
Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method of science, the aim of religion". A lot of HN matches that demographic.
There are better ways of squaring the circle, but they're less sexy.
[+] [-] Simon_O_Rourke|2 years ago|reply
Isn't most of theology just folks getting red faced arguing over things which are ultimately just made up, and are unknowable anyway in the first place? It's only a step away from a couple of guys shouting at each other about how the warp nacelles work in Star Trek.
[+] [-] msla|2 years ago|reply
> Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN.
Because people are waiting for a Marvel to take them to space.
[+] [-] blockmarker|2 years ago|reply
Also, was he actually a fun sophist? You seem to have read a lot so I would ask for your opinion. Is he worth reading for entertainment?
[+] [-] themodelplumber|2 years ago|reply
Don't tell me: You learned of these ways from the one True Scotsman.
[+] [-] GloomyBoots|2 years ago|reply
> Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method of science, the aim of religion". A lot of HN matches that demographic.
Hackish culture was playful, irreverent, simultaneously creative and destructive, competitive, and elitist (in a word: adolescent). Being part of it felt like sorcery, like you were finding and pulling strings others couldn’t see. I think there’s a heavy psychological crossover between the kind of people who got into that and into occultism, the kind of people who really like the idea of hidden power and taking control of the world around them. That’s also why you see the same people drawn to transhumanism, etc.
Tangentially, how much that culture still exists, I’m not really sure. I think most subcultures have ossified into collections of shibboleths without the creative power that formed them, even subsumed into the same global culture as a mere consumer aesthetic.
[+] [-] colordrops|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cvccvroomvroom|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmbche|2 years ago|reply
His collection of poems "White Stains" is just amazing as well - mostly speaking about human secretions of all kinds and ingesting them.
Edit:"White Stains, a collection of Crowley's poetry praised by W.B. Yeats, published in paperback for the first time, has been called 'the filthiest book of verse ever written' and of the first edition of 100 numbered copies, 83 were pulped and burned by Her Majesty's Customs in 1924."
https://books.google.ca/books/about/White_Stains.html?id=b4N...
[+] [-] cykros|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xupybd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itairal|2 years ago|reply
A good modern Crowley ritual based on the Absinthe book is to get some wine and other substances of choice, get quite inebriated over many hours and listen to Celtic Frost - To Mega Therion. Even better with a lover involved.
To just copy Crowley is to not understand that every man and woman is a star.
To treat Crowley as just some author of text is pure blasphemy.
[+] [-] ed25519FUUU|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|2 years ago|reply
http://www.luminist.org/archives/cocaine.htm
However, let us concede the prohibitionist claims. Let us admit the police contention that cocaine and the rest are used by criminals who would otherwise lack the nerve to operate; they also contend that the effects of the drugs are so deadly that the cleverest thieves quickly become inefficient. Then for Heaven’s sake establish depots where they can get free cocaine!
[+] [-] fnordsensei|2 years ago|reply
To me, a large part religion seems to be to provide such a vocabulary, and therefore, purposefully or not, monopolize the description of such experiences. By doing so, they inevitably funnel the rationalization of these experiences into certain paths.
The reductive alternatives offered by skeptics are not usually a satisfying substitute, since they are usually not talking about the same thing. Skeptics like to shift the conversation to what they consider the objective which, while not necessarily wrong, is a different conversation, and beside the point. To make an inadequate comparison: it's like discussing the objective nature and accuracy of poetry rather than the experience of it, and the impact on the reader.
There are many other ways to look at the development of western occultism, but from the perspective of language, it seems to me that it had a lot to do with establishing a framework that tries to side-step the effective monopoly of religious conversation, as well as the only alternative offered: plain denial of the experience.
You could, of course, lump the history of occultism in with religion and say "it's not significantly different"/"it's a mish-mash of borrowed ideas from traditional religion"/etc., if painting with broad brushstrokes, but I think it was a conscious effort to break out of the frameworks set by convention and religion.
It's an attempt to take command of the internal and external conversation regarding something deeply personal.
I believe this is important, because putting language to something (whether it's words or symbols) is a hugely important way to internalize, process, and develop the results of an experience, whatever it is.
[+] [-] kitotik|2 years ago|reply
However, it does prove that click bait isn’t a new phenomenon!
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|2 years ago|reply
There were some websites back in the early 2000s which would sell infomercial products about the Art of Sorcery and Aleister Crowley (The Wickedest Man In The World!) which were the creme de la creme.
Later I learnt about his K2 expedition and other things.
[+] [-] GloomyBoots|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Loughla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kixiQu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoItToMe81|2 years ago|reply
Occultism is something conveniently both esoteric enough to feel special but also hollow enough that you can wrap it around all your personal narcissism and still have it make sense.
[+] [-] 8bitchemistry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xupybd|2 years ago|reply
Can some one help me understand why it's popular with this audience?
[+] [-] cykros|2 years ago|reply
For people who like the intersection of programming and the brain as a computer analogy, this scratches an itch. And when it comes to really initiating at least a semi-scientific approach to rituals of antiquity, Crowley was right in the middle of it. William James would be another good place to look if you ask me -- though honestly, Crowley mentions this in his reading lists, among quite a few good other sources.
I agree that he also has a lot of baggage -- the man enjoyed manipulating people, gaining power, and of course, gaining money to feed his cocaine and heroin habits. He was also a spy for MI-6. In some of his better moments he actively sought NOT to be some sort of messiah, but in many of his more mischievous times he reveled in it.
Tread carefully -- but yes, there's a lot to be curious about.
[+] [-] b800h|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheSpiceIsLife|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] layman51|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InCityDreams|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebursztein|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] widderslainte|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ElfinTrousers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SkylockeScarred|2 years ago|reply
Crowley, being a master magician, casted a spell.
Yeats, also being a master magician, kicked Crowley down a flight of stairs.
[+] [-] swayvil|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanhunter|2 years ago|reply
Also that Magnus Carlsen. All he does is play chess.
W.B. Yeats was a literal writer by trade. Of course he did “all that writing”.
For people who are unfamiliar with his work, W. B. Yeats was an absolutely extraordinary poet. I would encourage you to check out “The Second Coming” for example[1]. It’s amazing for such a short poem how many times it has been referred to/quoted etc in other other works.
[1] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-comi...
[+] [-] NovaDudely|2 years ago|reply
Or as it was put in Buddhism, a thousand words are pointless compared to a single word that brings peace.
[+] [-] enduser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sibeliuss|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lynx23|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motohagiography|2 years ago|reply
Oddly, the marjority of Issac Newton's writing was esoterica, and his contributions to physics and maths were almost incidental to his huge body of work on occult topics. What fascinates me about the occult personally is that it's a fundamentally inferior ontology - where it's what you believe when you don't have belief. Its ideas manifest in cults, but also in theory, where Marxism and its consequent gobbledygook(s) are predicated on similar occult and gnostic premises. Before we had ideology, we had superstition, and the priesthood of superstition was these magical thinkers, imo.
[+] [-] nprateem|2 years ago|reply
I know it's trendy to dismiss energy, chakras, astral projection out of hand, but there's some weird shit that feels every bit as real as any other experience if you know how to tap into them.
Someone entering trance states (like Crowley's wife apparently) and interacting with those levels of consciousness isn't engaged in belief, they're having experiences that are real to them.
[+] [-] dkarl|2 years ago|reply
These characters are fascinating when they're safely in the past and they can be seen purely as drawing out an unacknowledged need in the zeitgeist. In the present, it's terrifying and infuriating to see people choosing their reality out of sheer self-indulgence.
[+] [-] praptak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cykros|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swayvil|2 years ago|reply