Forums

Posted: 20-02-2002 11:03 Post subject: Aleister Crowley

I watched a very interesting programme on TV last night about Aleister Crowley. I'd heard of him and his connections with the occult, of course, but that was about the extent of my knowledge.

By gum, he were a bad bugger!!

What's your opinion of him? Did he really have the power to summon evil forces? Was he possessed by evil spirits? Was he just plain evil or merely misunderstood?

Carole

Posted: 20-02-2002 11:08 Post subject:

IMHO I don't think he was evil but he relished in the publicity that gave him. The Evil tag was just an example of good old Tabloid bull. Having read a few books about him I think he knew what he was talking about. As to if his magic worked, I have no idea, but it sounded interesting whilst I was a teenager:D .
I reckon, if he was around today, he would just be looked on as a bit eccentric.

Posted: 20-02-2002 13:30 Post subject:

I think he was just one more example of someone f*cked up by a too strict religeous upbringing. And what an egotist.

Posted: 20-02-2002 13:35 Post subject:

I watched the show with some trepidation, but actually I thought it wasn't too bad.
The problem is that people often apply their own agenda to 'Old Crow' and it is phenomenally difficult to cut through the bullsh*t that ensues and get a balanced picture of the man himself. He has become what ever people want him to be IYSWIM.

Evil? Probably not but certainly egocentric, and determined to push everything to the limits just to see how far people would let him go. More Marilyn Manson than Charles I suspect.

Posted: 20-02-2002 17:12 Post subject:

I thought the program was unusually well researched and presented for an "occult" program.

I do think he knew certain things yes. Bit of a mistake to stop that 6 month demon ritual because he couldnt be bothered though....what was it's name again?

I don't think he was evil, just amazingly self-centered as to make most other people his tools.

Posted: 20-02-2002 22:39 Post subject:

I thought the programme was pretty balanced, though the Xtians were clearly there just to make the numbers up.

My feeling about Crowley is that he's a bit like Freud, in that he obviously had some important insights, but the flaws in his character meant that he took the whole thing further than was reasonable. His cultural legacy is in many ways more important than his actual works.

In fact, his works are a bit like Jung's, large chunks of them being, to this reader, at least, pretty impenetrable.

Although they don't like to admit it, modern pagans owe their movement almost entirely to Crowley. 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law'/'An it harm none do as thy will' - coincidence, I think not! For me that's one of his positive achievements.

On the question of the Abra-Melin ritual, I've always thought it was quite spooky that the Loch Ness Monster comes to prominence (some would say into 'existence') only after Crowley fails to complete the ritual on the shores of the Loch.

Posted: 20-02-2002 23:12 Post subject:

Firstly, I have to admit that I found the presentation of the programme very similar to last week's on Rasputin - all those spooky graphics and split second video clips - it's just a personal opinion but I do find them tedious after the first half hour.

As for the subject himself - as I see it, Crowley was one of those highly charismatic people who can persuade those around him to do his will despite the consequences. There has been plenty of discussion on these boards of similar characters, who managed to exercise that power over many more people and to a much greater extent. Perhaps with the use of his charisma, plus a powerful voice, a clever use of fire and occult symbolism, Crowley persuaded those around him that they had witnessed the manifestation of evil spirits. What disturbs me is his ability to use these people to his own ends, with little or no concern for the damage to their welfare and mental health. The mountaineering story showed an early example of this disregard for others, even before he began his foray into the occult. Others may disagree but I feel that that's evil.

Posted: 20-02-2002 23:38 Post subject:

I would agree that he was "evil", but what a wonderful voice he had! We have a record of him somewhere in the house, "The beast speaks" or some such nonsense. I wonder what he would have been like if he hadn't been born to an xtian family-quite a usefull member of society.
What would we all have been if it wern't for St Paul? Pagans? Or would the Moslems have got here first?
New thread possibly. But i can't be bothered.

Posted: 20-02-2002 23:49 Post subject:

I got the impression that he was an egotistical 'poor little rich kid' who turned into a rebel without a clue. If he'd believed in the occult that he was practicing, would he have started, never mind abandoned, such a supposedly dangerous ritual? Instead, he took pleasure wherever he could find it, and abandoned people for whom he had responsibilities.

Not a nice chap. Smile

Posted: 21-02-2002 00:12 Post subject:

Derek is spot on, I think. Reading Crowley's stuff, I feel he was an
ironist who did not fully believe his own vapourings.

He attracted an entourage of thrill-seekers but did not seem to
frisk them for fat wallets quite so efficiently as today's cultists.

He avoided and was avoided by people more intelligent than
himself. Those he did encounter eg. Maugham, regarded him as
a figure of monstrous vanity rather than Evil. Dead / drunk

Posted: 21-02-2002 10:04 Post subject:

Very interesting views, everybody - thanks!

But, if he wasn't pure evil, what is? Is it possible for evil to be manifested in one person, or do we blame it on mental illness or some such? For example was Hitler himself pure evil, or did he just set in train a series of events carried out by others? He himself didn't kill anyone (unless he did in the Great War), but was ultimately responsible for the killing of millions.

Carole

Posted: 21-02-2002 11:40 Post subject:

I don't think people can be labelled as definitively 'good' or 'evil' but their actions certainly can be can be. Evil would seem to be an effect rather than a cause.
Branding someone as evil can also be seen as a cop-out in some ways because in effect it is denying that all human beings have an equal potential to do great harm.

Posted: 21-02-2002 11:44 Post subject:

Well then, what do you think causes evil actions?

Carole

Posted: 21-02-2002 11:57 Post subject:

free will maybe, i could be wrong, but couldn't a evil person do some good things for humanity, therefore people who only saw those actions think that he was a helpfull and kind person, so i believe its the actions that are evil or good, does that make any sense?

Posted: 21-02-2002 13:41 Post subject:

I would also say that evil actions come from people having free will.
All humans have the choice to act for the good, or to the detriment, of others. The evil comes in the suffering the latter choice causes. It is possible therefore for someone who usually does good things to make an evil decision or do an evil deed and vice versa. It is also possible for evil to result from someone acting from 'good' motives.