11 ms·
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
by b800h 3y ago
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.
- colordrops 3y agoI 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.
- b800h 3y agoI've not heard of him - I'll have a look. This may not apply to him, but what I'm wary of is anything that makes the practice a personal improvement exercise - it has to reach for the heavens and encourage empathic love for other people, or it'll end up in the wrong place, IMO.
- fsloth 3y agoThat’s quite demanding. If one is in a dark place then one surely must first light one’s own path before reaching out? Augh, sorry about the horrible poetics. What I meant to say there is IMO nothing wrong in utilizing meditative practice for mental self-help and relaxation. Just trying to survive in a bleak world without going insane is not evil, even though the level of - um, “enlightenment” you remain at is “not depressed”.
- b800h 3y agoFair enough. But there's a lot to be said for finding meaning in helping other people.
- colordrops 3y agoYou should listen to him then, he talks exactly about this - that meditation is not meant to be a personal improvement practice, but to fundamentally change your life. He also covers metta, which is "loving-kindness" meditation, which is basically empathy practice.
- dbtc 3y agoI recommend Shinzen Young in addition.
- colordrops 3y agoHe's great as well, yes. One of the leaders in making buddhist meditation accessible to a western audience. Also Michael Taft.
- themodelplumber 3y ago> There are better ways of squaring the circle, but they're less sexy. Don't tell me: You learned of these ways from the one True Scotsman.
- Krustopolis 3y agoDoubtful. Sean Connery has been dead for several years now.
- WJW 3y agoSurely that doesn't really matter to any skilled occultist.
- b800h 3y agoWell they don't involve sex and drugs, or questionable attitudes towards women.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoWhat's wrong with exploring one's spirituality and self through drugs and sex? Questionable attitudes I understand, but 2 out of 3 seem fine to me.
- b800h 3y agoBecause it inevitably becomes about the drugs and sex, and not the spirituality.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoI'd prefer if you actually made an argument to support that this happens, because this simply does not match my experience at all. And you just asserting otherwise doesn't change that. And why won't you reveal what this wonderful method of "squaring the circle" is, since you seem so confident in its superiority? You're coming off quite smug about it, without providing any substance to back it up.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y agoMany 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.
- Simon_O_Rourke 3y ago> ...substandard education in theology. 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.
- swayvil 3y agoWithout an empirical reference somewhere in the conversation, it's just fanfic.
- b800h 3y agoFanfic of what?
- b800h 3y agoThere's a substantive difference between a religious argument on Twitter and proper theological argument which leans into philosophy. The problem is that people aren't typically exposed to the good stuff because teachers and the media don't know it either. Sadly even local religious leaders; that's a serious issue.
- 3astofw3st__ 3y agoDo you have any theological reading recommendations? Preferably not oriented (at least not wholly) around Christianity.
- b800h 3y agoI'll go out on a limb here because the alternative is recommending a load of Christian stuff in combination with Philosophy and Eastern theology. David Bentley Hart is quite good, and his book "You Are Gods" may well be what you're looking for. I haven't read that specific title though. I ought to, it's sitting in my bookcase.
- 3y ago
- msla 3y agoSo you say he fooled all the people with magic, and he waited on Satan's call? > Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. Because people are waiting for a Marvel to take them to space.
- b800h 3y agoHe certainly didn't fool all the people. And those he did fool were largely fooled by sophistry, not magic.
- throwanem 3y agoTrue, but there remains value in questions on the mode of thought that leads to such activities: "Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head?" And, too, given the general preoccupation necromancy seems to exercise both on practitioners in learned circles and on the public imagination, it's not a surprise to see so often asked, "Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead?"
- GloomyBoots 3y agoStepping 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.
- b800h 3y ago> 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. Good point - actually not just a case of hidden power but also the sense of wonder at a hidden universe beyond what the eyes could see. Yeah, good shout.
- blockmarker 3y agoCrowley 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?
- b800h 3y agoAbsolutely! He's very entertaining. As a committed materialist, what do you make of the Kalaam cosmological argument and others which make similar points? How can something come from nothing?
- blockmarker 3y agoI am not well-read enough to really have a reasoned answer, but mine is that we don't know. But just because there is something more, something we don't understand, doesn't mean that it's something greater. It's just something we don't understand. Through the ages people tried to answer the great mysteries with great answers, but they didn't achieve anything. Truth should have predictive power, and understanding of great enigmas should help explain lesser ones, like the laws of gravity can calculate the fall of an object, but these answers haven't done something useful. But lesser questions have been answered with lesser and less interesting answers, and they successfully predicted stuff. Through answering many small questions, we now know why rain happens, why the seasons change, or how eels and flies come into existence. And the domain of the great mysteries was reduced, bit by bit. Trying to answer the great mysteries, like the origin of existence, is building a house from the roof. Religious experiences and the numinous can be better explained by psychiatry and medicine than by theology. There might still be something not more, but greater, than our understanding. It is probable, since our intuition and our senses are limited. But if there is, it would be equal to a colour we don't see due to lacking color cones. We might be unable to intuitively explain how it's like to see color to a colorblind person, but it's not divine or magical, greater than the material world and what we can measure and calculate; it's just greater than our eyes or our vocabulary. That is at least my belief. It was hard to write somewhat concisely my beliefs, but I think I did a good enough job. I must say I'm not opposed to trying to answer the great mysteries, it's very similar to when the ancient greek philosophers tried to find the origin of matter. But I do not believe real truth can be obtained that way. Also, I must say that your comments in this post were great. A perspective very different to the common HN point of view, thought-provoking and in-depth. I also learned the word numinous, which makes me happy as I have now a word to describe something I couldn't before.