Member of the NEW TRAJECTORIES WEBRING

Monday, October 2, 2023

Lion of Light: Burn Up Thy Thought

Goats to NoWhere ("Four Red Monks Carrying a Goat Across the Snow to Nowhere"- Aleister Crowley) 


Lion of Light: "The Great Beast" (11-21, pg. 71-86)  

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

“You’ll hear the joke explained again.” That was the first and foremost thought as I read through the latter chapters of “The Great Beast.” Wilson was beyond fond of Crowley’s sense of humor; he was delighted by it and reveled in it. Wilson discussing Crowley’s blinds and double-blind sense of humor is like reading a gourmand describing a perfectly-cooked meal; he waxes so lyrical that it reads like poetry. Oz was absolutely correct about two points in his last post: that Wilson absolutely fulfills McMurtry's injunction to Duquette, and that Wilson does an excellent job reminding the reader of the similarities between Crowley’s language games and Joyce’s. I always thought that Ulysses and Finnegans Wake weren’t struggles because I had been exposed to the twilit, avian cacophony of occultic writing and, of course, because of Wilson’s framework(s). (I am not trying to claim that I understood/understand either of these novels, but rather that I was not too overwhelmed by the twists and turns of Joyce’s language because of my exposure to similarly-difficult writers.) 


One of Wilson’s greatest gifts would have to be his ability to engender further curiosity concerning what  lies beyond the curtain and to provide a trail of crumbs up onto the stage. I was struck by how well Wilson was able to remake himself as a Thelemite in this and other writings that come from this time: better yet, he makes himself and his characters into a postmodern Thelemic corps who never rest. Our author is able to dazzle and intrigue, his stage-patter is airtight, and he makes Crowley out to be as possibly-miraculous as the Old Beast could have possibly-asked. 


So, I’ve commented a couple times on this, at length, but I’m going to address the question again concerning how Wilson could have overlooked Crowley’s negative qualities. This is an example of early Wilson-on-Crowley and we have to remember he was very much on Crowley at the time; he was a heavy user during the early-Seventies. His enthusiasm for Crowley, his poetry-philosophy and his experimental mysticism (Scientific Illuminism) were those of a new near-convert. We can forgive some youthful indiscretion and assume that Wilson perhaps hadn’t had time to meditate properly upon Crowley’s moral shortcomings. But, we also know that Wilson had read everything he could get his hands on about Perdurabo at the time; while this is a small amount of work compared to today’s glut, it wasn’t insubstantial and had a great deal more net-literary merit. Wilson was aware of Crowley’s failures as a human being: I have, after my years of talking to both old men in my head, reasoned out two factors that contribute to Wilson's moral blindspot. Firstly, Wilson wasn’t looking at Crowley through the lens of the twenty-first century; we are, and much of the reputation that has (re)grown about To Mega Therion in the first few decades of this century is heavily informed by our changing ethics. Wilson was very much a twentieth-century-style individualist; through this lens Crowley can easily be seen as a flawed, romantic hero to the right person. It is very easy when one is looking from a perspective (that I could define with a plethora of now-commonplace qualifiers) such as Wilson’s to see Crowley as an unfairly maligned man who strove against the banal, rotten, even ranker hypocrisies of old-fashioned society. The same moldering ideals that Wilson strove against during his lifetime. 


Secondly, while others might contend my afterword’s assertion that Wilson “loved” Crowley, I don’t think it is debatable, at least in any meaningful sense, that Wilson loved Crowley’s sense of humor and wit. (Unless Wilson was just lying, lying all the time, when he put pen to paper.) You’ll hear the joke explained again. Wilson found no end of amusement in Crowley’s career of shocking the bourgeois-of-the-soul and his painstaking sense of humor. At times, it seems like Wilson is trying to trace multiple brick jokes Crowley laid the foundation for in his youth that only paid off in the Frater Oh Mh’s dotage, as if he’s afraid yet another observer would miss the punchline. I think all readers can agree that humor is a huge part of Wilson’s ethos and personal makeup…I imagine it is a large part of what attracts us to Bob. So, for Wilson to find someone who he believed to be truly profound while also being damned funny…perhaps we should call it a transmigratory trauma-bond. 


I’m sure Wilson knew Crowley could be downright unpleasant and mean-spirited; I suspect he believed Crowley did more good in his work and philosophy for those who need it than the pain he caused for others in that span of timespace. At the beginning of “The Hanged Man” Wilson writes: “The Beast lived on for 41 more years, and did work many wonders and quite a few blunders in the world of men and women.”  (Really, I should point everyone questioning Wilson’s affection toward Sri Paramahansa Shivaji towards “The Hanged Man” which provides a succinct, if somewhat rudimentary, characteristically wry commentary on Crowley-the-man. I’d also recommend rereading “Death” and then exploring Crowley’s Liber V vel Reguli carefully. Did Crowley ever truly forfeit his sense of honor? Did he forfeit it meaningfully in the eyes of Robert Anton Wilson?) I’m sure Wilson knew Crowley was nuts; I suspect he believed Crowley was pretty good at being nuts. And he did it with panache and a sharp, surrealistic sense of humor to boot. For Wilson, I believe that counted towards a lot. In an article I penned years ago, where I counter-ranted against Alex Jones and his ilk and proposed that thinkers such as Wilson and Bill Hicks were a better model of how to deal with conspiratorial thinking, a churlish commenter posted something along the lines of: “So Wilson and Hicks were better because they smoked weed and told a joke when they were talking about conspiracies?” I replied: “Yes. (Although Hicks didn’t really care for marijuana.)” I am perhaps exhibiting my hubris by thinking that Wilson’s reply to queries about Crowley’s moral dubiousness might be expressed in a similar manner. We can debate whether Count Svareff was a good person or if he really was a great beast, but I think we might be missing the (or, at least, Wilson’s) point entirely. 


I would ask the reader to carefully consider what they think of the concept of the Holy Guardian Angel. Wilson, like every other biographer-commentator-student ever, liked to pick his favorites of Crowley’s assertions and comments: he was fond of the idea that Crowley used that terminology since it was the most ridiculous option for describing such a profound-yet-ridiculous concept. You’ll have to forgive Wilson’s heavy-handed and loaded commentary on blood sacrifice and the greater moral inequities of extra-Crowley-terrestrials…the charges laid at the feet of other humans, while often overlooking the shocking inequities of the Great Beast, are enough to give one the vapors. 


“There’s nothing more romantic than a young magician writing about the Qabalah.”- George Cecil Jones, Masks of the Illuminati 


In Wilson’s rosy fingers, these snippets of the fretful fingerings of magic’s first blush, we can find some truths to the enigma of  Aleister Crowley. (And do remember to pronounce it as crow-ly as in hoe-ly.) There's a little bit of the pearlescent splendour on the hands of our Ipsissimus. If you aren’t overwhelmed by the lilting crassness and the blithe humor, that is. Wilson is driving at something he never quite spells out, sure, every reader who can see between the lines understands it’s a sex joke, but it pans out, truly. Consider another bit of early-Thelemic Wilson's adice and try to wade your way through the brilliant insanity of Louis T. Culling. After all these revelations, all I can attest to is: And in the end, a magician has to give every last drop. You will hear this joke again.

Love is the law, love under will.

A.C.



(Posted the wrong song yesterday. "Oh Sweet Nuthin" was just what was playing when I finished the post.) 






32 comments:

  1. I saw Donovan open for Yes in 1977.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric Wagner made the above comment.

      Delete
    2. That must have been an awesome show! I apologize for the music switches...I kept accidentally posting what was playing or songs I've already used before.

      Delete
    3. I saw that show in Vancouver. I remember Donovan singing extremely well as did Jon Anderson for Yes.

      Delete
  2. The more I study Crowley, the less convinced I am about a great deal of the negative hype around him. That said, there's still a bit to be desired on the personality front. Crowley seemed like a bad breaker-upper. I'm less convinced that he treated women poorly. His scarlet women often appeared to be strong women.

    Wilson, generally speaking, seemed far more interested in talking about the positives that made men like Leary, Crowley, Fuller, Reich, and Pound significant and meaningful to him. His "glossing over" of Crowley's shadow doesn't seem all that different to me that his treatment of the other four I mention.

    Generally speaking, SMI2LE, is a message of optimism and hope. I get that RAW was trying to promote optimism, hope, and intelligence. Dwelling on the negatives of a man doesn't seem to serve that.

    Ultimately, what's the point? Hey guys - here's this dude, he did some great stuff, but oh, he wasn't perfect. He was human.
    "No shit? Really? Boring."

    Haters gotta hate. Now more than ever, it seems. Why give them the time of day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. previous post by Quackenbush/Gathers

      Delete
    2. I've always had a soft spot for Crowley and generally don't like the tone of his detractors. While I'm not for hero-worshipping him, I think there's been a ressurgence in some rather prudish criticism towards the Great Beast from writers such as Gary Lachman and Phil Baker. These aren't the usual types of "hysterical" critics and I think it is an interesting phenomenon. Since "The Great Beast" has so much to do with the different facets of Crowley, I thought this would be a good place to give my "final piece" on the matter.

      I think a lot of us draw some of our morality from Wilson and can somewhat understand the beffudlement. I also strongly agree with what you said here about optimism vs. dwelling on humans being flawed. "No shit? Really? Boring." made me laugh.

      Delete
    3. Quackenbush, I think you might remember Dalryada from Crowley 101. She mentioned receiving a communication that you can find out what Crowley the man was like by observing the character of Uncle Fester from the old Addams Family TV show, believe it or not – she said she was surprised to hear that. I got the dvds of those shows and found it enlightening to watch Uncle Fester through that lens. She seems right, there's something to it.

      Delete
    4. Uncle Fester. Excellent. Thank you for that. I'm still in touch with Dalryada on Instagram. She makes cool jewelry.

      Delete
    5. RF, Reading Purdurabo in prep for chatting with Kaczynski shifted my views on Crowley. Not that Purdurabo was necessarily blowing my mind, but it's been a good 15 years since I looked closely at Crowley and Purdurabo catalyzed a new view on Crowley. Uncle Fester fits nicely with this.

      I have something to say about this man that I'll write up sooner or later. (spoiler alert: I mostly agree with the Regardie Eye in the Triangle assessment. Yes. That. I said it.)


      Delete
    6. Aside from (what appeared to me as) Regardie's bewilderment by and hamfisted discussion of Crowley's homosexual tendencies, I also really like his assessment. So I guess you're in bad company there, Mike. Ha.

      Love the Uncle Fester comparison. I'll have to watch some of the original show since Christopher Lloyd is "my generation's" Uncle Fester.

      Delete
    7. I'll always remember the meatloaf birthday cake.

      Delete
  3. Yes, I find humor very important to this work, much more than a peripheral pleastantry. In the Crowley part of the "Uncle Bob Explains Everything" talk, RAW starts by saying the reason he likes Crowley so much is that he's the funniest mystic he knows. Humor can be very instructive, maybe because it bypasses the rational mind. Deleuze maintains that nonsense makes a donation of sense. The writings of Lewis Carroll, which is on Crowley's reading list, gives a primary example of that, among other things, in The Logic of Sense. Falling under the rubrik of instructive humor we find the art of the put-on of which both Crowley and Wilson seemed masters.

    Apulieus, you mentioned looking into LIber Reguli in connection with the Death chapter. I know that ritual very well and did it just before reading said chapter and didn't see the link. However, Wilson does mention it, Liber V, in The Devil chapter so I'm thinking maybe that's what you meant to indicate?

    I don't share the view that Crowley was generally a bad person and that Wilson had a moral blind spot in order to write about him. I think he knew what he was doing. He mentioned forgiveness in relation to Crowley in the online course. I'm aware of a completely nutso belief system that allows the possibility of repairing of the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So many typos, so little time. Sorry about that! I think Crowley is laugh out loud funny at times, but I also think the same thing about de Sade.

      Delete
  4. I am sorry I did not post a comment right way. I am juggling multiple projects right now.

    1. I, too, saw the Yes tour that featured Donovan as the opening act, and it was one of my favorite concerts. My favorite Donovan song, "Atlantis," was the last song that was performed. I was really glad when Yes finally won admission to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

    2. I am intrigued by the suggestion in this week's post that Crowley is being "cancelled" according to 21st century mores. I am going to have to think about this some more.

    3. The discussion in Wilson's essay about mass killings by the Aztecs, the Nazis, etc., sheds a lot of light on many of the scenes and many of the comments in the "Illuminatus!" trilogy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Goddamnit, everyone got to see this concert except me. I'm not sure if it has quite got to the level of "cancellation," but that is how I framed it in hindsight.

      Delete
  5. Gary Lachman's own practice and knowledge of the occult comes from the Gurdjieff lineage rather than the Crowley one, which might explain his views on AC. Perhaps he simply has not spent as much time studying his works and life? Gurdjieff himself is said to have not thought much of Crowley when he met him.

    Although both Crowley and Wilson were fond of using humor, RAW tries much harder to get his readers in on the jokes. And despite this, he seems to be highly misunderstood, especially in regard to the whole conspiracies thing.

    So I think maybe Crowley being so convoluted might be playing against him. An air of superiority sometimes (often?) seems to transpire from both his writings and interpersonal relationships that I doubt really was causing "the world to evolve" and might indeed have been counter-productive.
    A put-on will only be instructive if the victim realize that there was a lesson in it. And sometimes, a mean joke is just a mean joke.

    But that, to me, should in no way devalue his writings, or else we might be guilty of "mixing the planes".

    That being said, I am still unaware of Crowley ever behaving as unethically as Pound, with his overt anti-semitism and public endorsement of Italian fascism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just always balked at the fact that Lachman considered Symonds any kind of authority on Crowley's life because of his obvious Xtian biases. You're absolutely right about the Gurdjieff lineage, I also thought Lachman was a bit of a Theosophists. (Toshosophical thinking...as my kind used to insultingly dub their kind.)

      I think that you can easily identify a superior tone in Crowley's writings...and he could be anti-Semitic as well, when he was in a pique. I do think that you're onto something about Wilson still being misunderstood despite his efforts to include the reader. I think that Crowley's ego and his knowledge of the capacity of the general public often led him to approach humor with an attitude of "if they don't get the joke, fuck 'em."

      I'm not sure that Crowley's lifetime was when most of his Great Work was ever going to be accomplished. He always had one eye on what was going to come. (While his hands were busy trying to sift through other people's pockets for spare change.) He certainly could be very cruel at times and I think he contained a lot of pain, for all his bravado. Hurt magicians hurt people.

      Delete
    2. Crowley could also be very kind at times as for instance when he saved his cousin's farm in Louisiana by doing some weather magick to make it rain despite not particularly liking his cousin. There are other examples. Someone in Crowley or Gurdjieff's position will feel a great deal of pain. When the heart expands it feels everything more intensely not just joy. I doubt most people have any idea. In my observation, Crowley's legacy has brought infinitely more joy to the world than pain. Disrespecting him by placing attention on some negative things he may have done once upon a time misses the point.

      Delete
  6. By the way, I think some might find interesting this Lon Milo Duquette talk on Crowley. He is being very transparent and straight to the point.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cq_owqvDrQQ

    ReplyDelete
  7. Apuleius, I forgot to mention what an awesome painting you chose for this post. Great title for the painting too.

    Spookah, I have that Duquette video on my "to watch" list. He's another one that uses humor very effectively. I should have clarified better – the type of put on I mean is one that teases the reader into thinking for themselves; that arouses skepticism that maybe this guy is full of it when he says whatever it is. That's where the instruction comes in if it does, that is if the reader doesn't unquestioningly accept everything they take in. I don't mean the kind of put on that's simply an out and out lie to benefit the liar such as what politicians often resort to. The humor can enter with the outrageousness of the put on.

    I read Lachman's autobiographical account of his years playing bass in Blondie. He did mention being in a Crowley group though didn't go into it too much. I remember his disappointment at not being invited to orgies. I didn't know he was involved with the Gurdjieffian work. Did he write about that anywhere? I did enjoy his book on Blavatsky.

    Speaking of put ons, there doesn't appear any plausible accounts of Gurdjieff offering an opinion on Crowley. The ones out there by James Webb, Fritz Peters and C.S. Nott seem all wildly different and unverified; meaning that no one other than narrator has backed it up. The story by C.S. Nott clearly sounds like propaganda meant to dissuade students from following Crowley. The one by Webb indicates unawareness with the Sufi idea of hospitality. Crowley does write in his diary about visiting Gurdjieff's Institute in Fountainbleau but G. wasn't there at the time so he spent a few hours talking with Major Pindar who was in charge with G.'s absence. Crowley offers some comments about their philosophy as he learned it from Pindar. Elsewhere in his writings, Crowley mentions a High Initiate who attain adeptship with completely different methods than his. I suspect he is referring to Gurdjieff, though no name is mentioned. This topic came up at the last talk/workshop I attended with RAW. He felt, and I agree, that the one plausible account of G. and C. meeting came from Gerald Yorke who was supposedly there. According to this account, they met briefly at a cafe in Paris and sniffed each other out like dogs, is how Yorke put it. If you have any other info of Gurdjieff opining on Crowley, I'd love to hear it.

    As far as humor, definitely no mean or cruel jokes meant to put someone down is cool, definitely not that kind of belittling humor. That violates the ethics of do what thou wilt. This is not the kind of humor RAW waxes enthusiastically about regarding Crowley. I'm unaware of Crowley playing cruel tricks on people under the guise of humor, but he's been accused of everything else under the sun so why not that too?

    Crowley could be very convoluted. That may be one reason RAW and others felt compelled to write about him. Crowley could also appear simple and direct: "every man and every woman is a star"; "there is no law above do what thou wilt"; "don't lust after results"; "make sure your shoelaces are tied before going out dancing", "don't read newspapers," etc. Joyce was another who appears extremely convoluted in his later works. But in the midst of the dream language of Finnegans Wake you'll find some very direct statements like "Love all." Whether the convolution works against Crowley or not, I don't know. He did manage to make it onto the cover of Sergeant Pepper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I really enjoy Crowley's paintings and that one has always been a favorite. Goats are important.

      Speaking of which...my MIL is watching a British detective show and mentioned to my wife that an episode involved a cult of "Crowley-followers." I had to call her and find out what we did...I asked if we sacrificed a child or fucked a goat. Evidently we didn't fuck it, but there was a goat involved.

      I like Duquette an awful lot and have learned a ton of practical skills from him over the years. I'll have to check out the video, Spookah.

      That is a great delineation of a put on, Anon. I especially like the clarification of the difference between a non-obvious put on and an out and out lie.

      I do remember Lachman mentioning how he's directly influenced by Gurdjieff, or at least a lot of indications to the fact. But, as I mentioned above, he is also very influenced by Theosophy. He really respects Colin Wilson and Wilson seemed to respect Gurdjieff more than any of the other mystics.

      I think I only recall the dubious story about Crowley visiting Fountainbleau and Gurdjieff instructing his people to "keep an eye on him." The Yorke account does sound pretty reliable. I generally trust Yorke, but then again I also have denounced Symonds and Baker (in some ways) in this comment thread and they both draw heavily upon Yorke. I can explain, I swear.

      Crowley certainly had a mean side and some of his jokes or humorous writings could be construed as cruel. But I've always felt he's being pretty puerile and juvenile, purposefully, as if he knows he's being childish, when he's being "bitchy." For example: the hilarious scene where Yeats (Gates) is slain by Frank Bennett's stand-in in Moonchild. Pretty much any description of his former Golden Dawn compatriots in that novel fits my description.

      I've never got a tattoo, but if I ever did it would be "For pure will, unassuaged of the lust for results, is in all ways perfect." Because why shouldn't I have a permanent reminder of my failures on my flesh? Ha. I think convoluted is an excellent one-word description of Crowley; perhaps I think of Crowley as a great thinker because I find the world so convoluted in and of itself.

      Delete
    2. Ok, so Crowley may have played dubious put down jokes in his fictional writing.

      I wrote the previous reply, I don't know why it posted as Anonymous about liking the painting, etc.

      Delete
  8. I cannot recall where I heard or read about the Crowley/Gurdjieff meet up, but it might be from Gary Lachman. Although I have read only a couple of books from him, I have seen a fair amount of his talks available on YT, especially the ones with Jeffrey Mishlove in the New Thinking Allowed.
    Here's one on 'Ouspensky and the Gurdjieff Work', so perhaps this is where he talks of his time getting personally involved in it, I can't be sure anymore.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lgurBMfwQw4

    Thank you for your precisions on the Gurdjieff/Crowley issue, you seem better informed than me on this so I ll keep it at that.

    Many people, such as Regardie, ended up breaking from Crowley. Who knows how much the reason for that was seen as a joke from Crowley's perspective.

    I agree that Lon can be pretty funny, and to me he exhudes a similar 'wise old crank' vibe than late years Bob Wilson.

    And to be clear, as far as I am concerned, I do find Aleister Crowley funny pretty often. In fact, when I am not laughing for a while, I start to suspect that I am not understanding what he is getting at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I kinda addressed each part of my response to how Crowley viewed those who broke with him in two of the responses above. I think he was a mean spirited person when he felt rejected and could be downright childish. His slanderous letter about Regardie after he split with Crowley, the "Regudie" letter, is gross and almost funny because of its heinous language.

      Sometimes you have to laugh at Crowley instead of laughing with him. And, taking into account my massive, egotistical bias, I do think that Crowley would have wanted that.

      Delete
    2. And yet Regardie holds responsibility for turning a great deal of people on to the Beast with The Eye in the Triangle. Seems like he got over Crowley's childish insult.

      Delete
  9. Crowley was definitely a bad man for some definition of the word bad. Maybe he’s your kind of bad or maybe not.

    I used to dream about him often and he appeared alternately as an old man or old woman. As a man he was himself and was an old celebrity concerned about his fame. As a woman something like the original Grandmama from Addams family. I mention this because of the Uncle Fester reference above.
    LVX-15

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Crowley was definitely a bad man for some definition of the word bad. Maybe he’s your kind of bad or maybe not."
      LOL, what does that even mean?

      Delete
    2. I think I understand: I'm a "bad" person by many people's defintion of the word. I was accused of being a Satanist and an Antichrist from a very young age, long before I discovered Crowley. I'm divorced, I read dirty books, I've been unkind in the past...there are people who have reasons enough to consider me a bad person. But some people find some of those traits endearing, or at least tolerable.

      Delete
    3. I also understand the subjectivity of "bad."

      Delete
    4. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bad

      Delete
    5. From dictionary.com
      ORIGIN OF BAD

      First recorded in 1200–1250; Middle English badde, bad; origin uncertain; perhaps akin to Old English bæddel “hermaphrodite,” bædling “womanish man”

      That’s too funny since I talked about my dream Crowley being both sexes. He was so bad!
      LVX-15

      Delete

Endure Our Reality

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.