Aleister Crowley - Fundamentalist

[aish_mlchmh]

During a recent conversation, a friend of mine identified himself unabashedly as a "fundamentalist" and admittedly, there have been occasions when I've been labeled this as well. Not surprisingly, this term has been lobbied about by detractors and has even been embraced in part for this reason. One could always read "fundament" or the ninth

Comments

[aish_mlchmh]

Culprit??

"Culprit" in the sense of where the 'evil' of this "fundamentalism" emanates.:)

Fundamentalists (of any stripe) tend to pick and choose.

There is an emphasis with what people commmunicate generally. However, there are plenty of areas of agreement from which to draw and if the world view one brings to the table is rooted in the practices and teachings, it hardly follows that that amounts to a negative.

The bible and for that matter Crowley's corpus, contains numerous pieces that seem contradictory.

I don't see the comparison. Crowley was at pains in numerous ways (commentaries, essays, short stories, novels, etc.) to communicate his message.

If there is a singularity located somewhere within the assortment of texts that constitute "The Bible" feel free to point that out to me.

Xian fundamentalists see the bible as inerrant and infallible.
Thelemic fundamentalists see Crowley as inerrant and infallible.This is a false dichotomy in that "inerrancy" and "infalibility" aren't meaningful concepts within Thelema (hence I

[aish_mlchmh]

It is a very curious way to argue, but one that I find is becoming increasingly prevalent in this post-modernist age of deacadence.

There is a notable lack of accountability in this perspective.
By attempting to provide a negative about one's peer or superior (typically), it provides the person aserting the negative with an assurance in their own perspective - however flawed - and effectively circumvents any possibility for a serious analysis. Its essentially nihilistic.

However anyone trained in scientific and philosophical discourse knows that actual rational inquiry demands that they demonstrate their own claims, not invalidate those of others if they want to say something intelligible about their own claim.

Right, and when there is zero onus with demonstrating the claims that are made - based on the anti-individualistic notion of equality - superstition and stupidity (blind acceptance) of the worst sort eventually rise to the top.

It is simply not enough to merely point out a hazy argument that there are contradictions in

[aish_mlchmh]

The idea that people call others "Fundamentalist(?)(Fundamentalist What?)", and that this has some kind of qualified significance

I'm not asserting significance above and beyond what it reveals about the individuals who ascribe this terminology to others.

is only really playing to the same kind of social-identification psychology that I believe is distracting many people from moving past basic self-image issues into Magic itself.

Agreed that it may suggest that and that that would in such an instance amount to a hindrance. On the other hand, this terminology may also reflect a context socially apart from some inherent personal need to resort to a consortium of identifiers.

If you're not engaged in that social context, then why this would concern you - particularly based on your stated convictions - is admittedly lost on me.

In reality AC believed, along with Resh, and repeated in several places (significance is mine) that people in general can do no real Magic without K&C.Agreed. However, there are significant steps that lead

An explanation - as though one were needed

[aish_mlchmh]

I want responses that are on topic (which don't include infantile rants regarding Karl Germer) with what I wrote(I know that's a lot to ask from folks with "trans-abyss consciousness") and am not particularly interested in discussing the numerous personal issues that former members have with the structure of the O.T.O.; particularly when they're clearly at odds with Crowley.

Moreover, I pay for this journal, and if you don't like the fact that I monitor its responses, no doubt there are plenty of venues that are quite happy to slur the O.T.O.

[stevensteven]

Clearly, the Grandmaster's statement above is a call for fundamentalism. One would hope that everyone would want to get closer to the fundamentals of Thelema. I know if I was off-base in my interpretations of Thelema I would welcome clarification that brought me closer to understanding the prophet's meaning and intent.

Why do people demonize fundamentalism when they should be embracing it? Because it narrows choice. Fundamentalism does not allow for Thelema to mean anything you want, and as such we would no longer be able to have local bodies that spend more time or Buddhism or wicca, or other things than they do on Thelema. If we got closer to the fundamentals it would no longer make sense to appoint masters that are leaders of other religions or that don't consider the Book of the Law to be their primary practice.

A rejection of fundamentalism is a fear of being told NO.

[aish_mlchmh]

I know if I was off-base in my interpretations of Thelema I would welcome clarification that brought me closer to understanding the prophet's meaning and intent.

This is something that eventually happened to me at a crucial point in my career. Prior to this, more often than not, people were almost uniformly "hands off" in their dealings with me and in many ways, I don't think this did me any favors. Being called on some of my own "off-base" interpretations (some probably think I still have these)functioned as an impetus to re-examine the material and my relationship to it. Accepting the lie that all views are the same only assists in providing the aspirant by providing him/her with an barrier that doesn't need to be there.

[z111]

Sorry. I decided I really don't want in on this conversation. Maybe another time, but right now I think it's asking for stress (on my end) that I don't need to be seeking out right now.

But I will still enjoy following the thread.