|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 13, 2010 23:20:47 GMT
They do say that "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one." Yes, though it's important to not waste too much time on some of them. Exactly right; much depends on the qualifications and experience of the person with the opinion, and the nature of the query.. F'r instance, if one is seeking an opinion about a pain in a part of one's body, one would not, of course, consult one's garbageman about the matter; one would take one's questions to someone who has qualified in the discipline of diagnosis and treatment of bodily pains, i.e, a DOCTOR.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 14, 2010 1:09:20 GMT
Yes, though it's important to not waste too much time on some of them. Exactly right; much depends on the qualifications and experience of the person with the opinion, and the nature of the query.. F'r instance, if one is seeking an opinion about a pain in a part of one's body, one would not, of course, consult one's garbageman about the matter; one would take one's questions to someone who has qualified in the discipline of diagnosis and treatment of bodily pains, i.e, a DOCTOR. Unfortunately, none of this is proven to be a necessity unlike medical treatment. Also, you would not consult a Doctor you knew was or seemed to be a Fraud, no matter his list of credentials. Frauds often have a list of credentials, often real. Doesn't diminish the fact they are Frauds. Still, most of this deals with things that are not proven scientifically to be necessary. After that, we both have opinions. I agree with you as to what opinions are like; everybody's got one (which, by the way, is not necessarily true). ;D
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 14, 2010 2:12:33 GMT
My opinion is that you haven't really got anything to contribute to the subject; so far I have demonstrated a goodly knowledge of the TOPIC, i.e Crowley and Yarker et al, and all you can do is parrot the workd fraud-fraud-fraud without proffering ANY valid justification for your position, other than "that's what you think"! Crowley was a "mover and shaker' in the occult world of the fin de siecle period; it is indubitable that his opinions and knowledge were respected (for a time, anyway)among the ranks of the Initiates of the period to the point that he was accorded "high positions" -hardly "a fraud"!
Perhaps you would like to CLARIFY what you mean by "fraud"; this word seems to be a 'stumbling block' for you. I suppose that Crowley COULD rightly be considered a 'fraud' in the sense that he proffers incorrect and INCOMPLETE information about the TRUE nature of the Solar Power; in fact I have NEVER encountered as many ERRORS in Crowley's works as I have in the Ninth Degree text, which immediately makes me SUSPICIOUS..
He appears to have twisted many things around in order to justify his position (homosexual activityas a means to 'enlightenment') probably counting on the fact that most people were not nearly as well versed in correspondences as he was and thus could not tell when they were being treated like a mushroom (i.e. 'kept in the dark and fed BS")!
F'r instance he talks about the "seven" Planetary Powers in "The Book of the Unveiling of the Sangraal" but he ONLY MENTIONS SIX OF THEM. Why do you suppose he leaves out SATURN? I am pretty sure I know the answer to this one; I would be interested to see who ELSE here can supply an answer!
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 14, 2010 3:15:07 GMT
Somebody can read a text and think that they know something about the ritual. You alluded to the fact that you have read some Masonic rituals. How do you know that any of that is true? OTO, have you read it or have you experienced it?
It would not be unlike some orders to allow false information to be released. It keeps the cowans happy.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 14, 2010 3:28:04 GMT
My opinion is that you haven't really got anything to contribute to the subject; Fine by me. We both have our opinions. Isn't it great we are free to express them? ;D I don't recall ever stating in this conversation 'Crowley was a Fraud'. Certainly, I have no problem if I did, but I am prepared to back any statement I made. If I did NOT make such a statement, this is a strawman on your part. If I was claiming Crowley was a Fraud, I would offer information in that vein. I was speaking of Frauds in general, and how it remains *possible* Crowley was an intentional Fraud.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 14, 2010 3:43:20 GMT
You appear to be completely UNAWARE that there are time-honoured ways of "testing and trying" a person's claims to "higher knowledge", a lacuna which in its turn does not bode well for your OWN claims to knowledge! In any case, "in my turban is only Truth"; I can rightly claim to have "seen the Sun at midnight." I do not know if this reply is to rembrandt or myself. I do not recall making ANY claims to knowledge in this conversation, yet I could be wrong. I have been before, and there is no question I will be again. In fact, I'm quite pleased to be wrong from time-to-time. The greatest mistakes often lead to the greatest discoveries.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 14, 2010 22:33:05 GMT
So you "make no claims to knowledge", yet you are nattering on about "frauds". What, then qualifies you to discern between 'a fraud" and the "genuine article", if you have no knowledge? And you DON'T ; the very fact of your having failed to "test and try" OR even to be AWARE that there are protocols for DOING SO demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Oct 15, 2010 3:02:56 GMT
What are your qualifications? I certainly hope that they are not constrained to having read some rituals online or a few books. You don't know anything about KNOs1s because you haven't bothered to find out. You may not be the smartest person in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Oct 15, 2010 6:05:15 GMT
I ask all Brethren to please refrain from making personal comments.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 15, 2010 7:54:05 GMT
As everyone knows I am the smartest person in the world , so that concludes that argument.
Couple of cents I would like to chip in with.
These forum are not about being qualified to comment, they are for comment and for opinion. Opinion is always subjective and by its very nature will please some and annoy others. That is the nature of the beast.
I consider myself to be an intelligent individual and have made the error on many occasions of thinking I know more than others. I do not. I may have a different understanding, I may have an array of facts and I may have a deductive brain, but I am not better qualified to have an opinion.
With regard to Masonic ritual, a discussion I have had with many Brethren from many Countries. Some orders have lectures and discussions, some learn Ritual and some a mix of both. The common denominator is community all exercise a group involvement. So I am sceptical of anyone who just reads a ritual or lecture or book on Freemasonry because there is no way to understand Freemasonry without experiencing it full on.
You can not learn to ride a bike from an instruction manual, you may know the facts, but you will still falloff the first few attempts.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 15, 2010 14:29:48 GMT
So you "make no claims to knowledge", yet you are nattering on about "frauds". What, then qualifies you to discern between 'a fraud" and the "genuine article", if you have no knowledge? And you DON'T ; the very fact of your having failed to "test and try" OR even to be AWARE that there are protocols for DOING SO demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never said I had "no knowledge". That's your straw man and I believe it is a false one. I only stated that " I do not recall making ANY claims to knowledge in this conversation, yet I could be wrong." That's a direct quote, and does not equate to the claim that I stated that I "have no knowledge". Where do you get that from my statement, readily accessible? I have never made "claims to know in this conversation", and will back up that statement alone. Not the straw men created by others, Brah. I'm extremely careful to whom I throw my subjective pearls of wisdom. That is all. ;D I likewise never said I've never tested, nor did I state I've never tried. Another straw man. I am aware of frauds and proven frauds. Can you prove there are no frauds? Your comment that I "have no knowledge" insults me not in the slightest. You may well be right. What I do know is demonstrable. It doesn't mean I'll share it.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 15, 2010 23:49:56 GMT
So. Since this is a thread on Crowley and Yarker et al, shall we proceed with the discussion? If it is to be settled as to who knows what and how much they know, then only a discussion of the subject of the thread will settle that.
Now, if Crowley is "a fraud" then proof must be tendered. What substantiation is there for dubbing him 'a fraud"? He has written knowledgeably on the topic of freemasonry, on Qabalah, on occultism in general, and his books were in demand among occultists in their day. Also, he was, despite his "irregularities", accepted as an authority in some of the highest echelons of the European occult orders of the fin de siecle period, so much so that he was asked to 'revamp" rites and rituals. If he was 'a fraud" he was a VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ONE, since he participated in rites of evocation, and was a high-ranked member of the original Golden Dawn.
There; I have started the ball rolling, now I eagerly await further input ON THE TOPIC from the OTHER participants in this convo. >settles back in chair<
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 1:55:11 GMT
If I claimed Crowley was a Fraud in this thread, which I did not, I would certainly tender proof-actually, evidence. Only remember, I *never* in this thread made the claim Crowley was a Fraud. Since it is your straw man argument, it is up to you to prove that I said Crowley was a Fraud in this thread.
I offered that it's *possible* that he was. So the ball remains in your court. Now, if you are prepared to assert he was not a Fraud, you are the one responsible for tendering proof. Nothing you offer precludes the *possibility* that Crowley was a Fraud. Especially his being a very knowledgeable one, as the best Frauds are knowledgeable to the extreme. The one's I've had experience with are total morons, but that doesn't mean anything. They are not the best Frauds, and are actually very transparent. >remains settled in chair as before< ;D
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 2:13:18 GMT
I believe I have tendered PLENTY of proof, in that he moved in the HIGHEST echelons of occult Lodges in Europe. He was a student of Macgregor Mathers and was undoubtedly a Qabalist; in fact the better part of his "Confessions" consists of Qabalistic allusions of a very high order. Thus he is/was unquestionably a very high-level occultist. Allegations of "irregularities" are ALWAYS tendered when the question of his Masonic affiliations come up, but I have heard these accusations tendered about YARKER as well; it is clear to me that if there is personal aversion to someone, their Masonic affiliations are ROUTINELY called into question, so all these debates about "Crowley was/wasn't a Mason!" are ultimately pointless, and motivated by mere desire to distance oneself and the Order from such distasteful connections.
So. I myself am fully satisfied that whatever Crowley was and whatever I may think of him personally, he was a GENUINE occultist AND undoubtedly, a Freemason as well. There may be those who disagree. Now, THEY can proceed to state their case to the contrary...I await!
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 2:24:18 GMT
None of that is proof. Certainly, Frauds have moved in among the most educated of their times and still they were frauds. None of that knowledge excludes a person from being a Fraud. Knowledge makes someone not a Fraud? That's the funniest thing you've claimed so far! ;D Yes, Yarker may have had accusations tendered against him, though I do not think so. Still, it remains *possible* that he was a Fraud, whatever my opinion of the matter. There may be people that, but waiting will not cause me to take on the straw man you've created. If you are satisfied, I cannot imagine why it's such a big deal to you what I, a person you claim I 'DON'T' have knowledge, may or may not disagree. If I'm an ignoramus, you don't have to try to save me. I absolve you of such responsibility. If Crowley is everything you claim, he needs no apologist. We don't have to agree. I can have my opinion and you yours. We both, and everyone else, has one. Ain't it great?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 2:51:25 GMT
None of that is proof. Certainly, Frauds have moved in among the most educated of their times and still they were frauds. None of that knowledge excludes a person from being a Fraud. Knowledge makes someone not a Fraud? Absolutely. A fraud is someone who pretends to be something he is not. If Crowley knows all the ins and outs of Freemasonry, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the principles thereof, as he has done in "The Confessions" THEN HE'S A Freemason. Manly P. Hall wrote "The Lost keys of Freemasonry' LONG BEFORE he was EVER "raised" officially. So, you think HE's "a fraud" TOO? That's the funniest thing you've claimed so far! ;D Yes, Yarker may have had accusations tendered against him, though I do not think so. He did. Wish I could remember where I saw them. But, Yarker got his fair share of "heat" AS WELL. Still, it remains *possible* that he was a Fraud, whatever my opinion of the matter. There may be people that, but waiting will not cause me to take on the straw man you've created. If you are satisfied, I cannot imagine why it's such a big deal to you what I, a person you claim I 'DON'T' have knowledge, may or may not disagree. If I'm an ignoramus, you don't have to try to save me. I absolve you of such responsibility. If Crowley is everything you claim, he needs no apologist. We don't have to agree. I can have my opinion and you yours. We both, and everyone else, has one. Ain't it great?
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 3:05:30 GMT
Absolutely. A fraud is someone who pretends to be something he is not. If Crowley knows all the ins and outs of Freemasonry, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the principles thereof, as he has done in "The Confessions" THEN HE'S A Freemason. Manly P. Hall wrote "The Lost keys of Freemasonry' LONG BEFORE he was EVER "raised" officially. So, you think HE's "a fraud" TOO? It's fair to say that the Torqumada quite thought he understood the movings of witches, warlocks, and demons. So was he a pagan? According to you, he was. I'm sure the staunch atheist Richard Dawkins, would like to know he's actually a Fundamentalist Christian by your standards. ;D As far as I know, Many P. Hall NEVER claimed to be a Mason, yet you claim he WAS because of his knowledge? I think he would have disagreed with that assertion, yet I'll ask my friend who knew Hall very well. If he did not claim he was something he was NOT, I do not think him a fraud. My statement regarding Yarker was to disagree with the accusations tendered against him, not to say that they were not tendered. I apologize if I did not make that statement clearer.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Oct 16, 2010 4:02:44 GMT
Absolutely. A fraud is someone who pretends to be something he is not. If Crowley knows all the ins and outs of Freemasonry, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the principles thereof, as he has done in "The Confessions" THEN HE'S A Freemason. Manly P. Hall wrote "The Lost keys of Freemasonry' LONG BEFORE he was EVER "raised" officially. So, you think HE's "a fraud" TOO? It's fair to say that the Torqumada quite thought he understood the movings of witches, warlocks, and demons. So was he a pagan? According to you, he was. He was a JEW, apparently. I'm sure the staunch atheist Richard Dawkins, would like to know he's actually a Fundamentalist Christian by your standards. ;D I've never met a true "atheist", myself. it's invariably an overreaction to the idiocies of Christian fundamentalism and its doctrines, rather than any actual denial of God/ Higher Power . It may interest you to know that Crowley himself was born into a staunch Plymouth Brethren family, and knew no other book than the BIBLE until he was twelve. As far as I know, Many P. Hall NEVER claimed to be a Mason, yet you claim he WAS because of his knowledge? He himself said "Many a child comes into this world a Grand Master of the Masonic School, while many a revered and honoured Brother passes silently to his rest without having gained admittance to its gate" I think he would have disagreed with that assertion, yet I'll ask my friend who knew Hall very well. If he did not claim he was something he was NOT, I do not think him a fraud. Manly P. Hall was the 'real deal", no question. But Crowley had a very great deal of 'practical' knowledge, as opposed to "theoretical; I am uncertain as to the depth of that, of MPH. My statement regarding Yarker was to disagree with the accusations tendered against him, not to say that they were not tendered. I apologize if I did not make that statement clearer. I see. Yes, that is an important distinction to make. Crowley alweays said it was important that both sides of a discussion be clear on their use of terms and what is meant by them,( such as the word 'fraud", f'r instance.)
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Oct 16, 2010 4:18:42 GMT
Absolutely. A fraud is someone who pretends to be something he is not. If Crowley knows all the ins and outs of Freemasonry, and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the principles thereof, as he has done in "The Confessions" THEN HE'S A Freemason. Manly P. Hall wrote "The Lost keys of Freemasonry' LONG BEFORE he was EVER "raised" officially. So, you think HE's "a fraud" TOO? It's fair to say that the Torqumada quite thought he understood the movings of witches, warlocks, and demons. So was he a pagan? According to you, he was. He was a JEW, apparently. I don't know. I've never met him. Do you have proof he was a Jew? Some of my best friends are, and none of them seem like the Torqumada. I'm sure the staunch atheist Richard Dawkins, would like to know he's actually a Fundamentalist Christian by your standards. ;D I've never met a true "atheist", myself. it's invariably an overreaction to the idiocies of Christian fundamentalism, rather than a denial of God/ Higher Power A reaction does not preclude sincerity in their chosen proclamation. It may interest you to know that Crowley himself was born into a staunch Plymouth Brethren family, and knew no other book than the BIBLE until he was twelve. [/color][/quote] It may interest me to know that, if I didn't know that already. He also threw rocks at schoolchildren when he was a child, and his father owned a microbrew. ;D As far as I know, Many P. Hall NEVER claimed to be a Mason, yet you claim he WAS because of his knowledge? He himself said "Many a child comes into this world a Grand Master of the Masonic School, while many a revered and honoured Brother passes silently to his rest without having gained admittance to its gate" Yes, and he never stated 'I am a Mason' before he was made, and he would never have been made if he thought he was one already. I think he would have disagreed with that assertion, yet I'll ask my friend who knew Hall very well. If he did not claim he was something he was NOT, I do not think him a fraud. Manly P. Hall was the 'real deal", no question. But Crowley had a very great deal of 'practical' knowledge, as opposed to "theoretical; I am uncertain as to the depth of that, of MPH. Again, many Frauds are extremely well versed in their chosen area of Fraud. It does not decrease their Fraud. Of course, you keep pointing at Crowley, whom I never stated in this thread was a Fraud. My statement regarding Yarker was to disagree with the accusations tendered against him, not to say that they were not tendered. I apologize if I did not make that statement clearer. I see. Yes, that is an important distinction to make. Crowley alweays said it was important that both sides of a discussion be clear on their use of terms and what is meant by them,( such as the word 'fraud", f'r instance.)[/quote] Can we agree to the definition from the Oxford dictionary for fraud: fraud (fraud) Pronunciation:/frôd/ noun wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain:
he was convicted of fraud prosecutions for social security frauds
a person or thing intended to deceive others , typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities:
mediums exposed as tricksters and fraudsAgain, I've never claimed in this thread that Crowley was a fraud. I said it was possible he was a fraud. If you can prove that it is impossible you can win your case easily. Meanwhile, everyone has an opinion. I'll keep mine until proven otherwise, meaning convincing objective evidence proves Crowley could not possibly have been a fraud ever. Perhaps even longer just for fun. According to Crowley, I'm just performing magick anyway.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 16, 2010 6:03:04 GMT
I make no case for fraud, but simply ask that this article at British Columbia and Yukon site be read. Here are a few snipps to get you interested. www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/crowley.htmlIt is hardly surprising that when the London 'adepti' began openly to turn against Mathers in early 1900, Crowley immediately pledged himself to Mathers’s defence. Mathers, setting a fine example of masonic amity, proceeded to denounce Westcott privately for having forged the alleged correspondence with the German adepts upon whose foundation the warrant for the Golden Dawn was established. Crowley was sent to London as Mathers’s envoy and the whole fabric of the Order began to unravel in the face of the accusations of fraud levelled against Westcott. As far as Crowley was concerned, the matter ended with the 'Battle of Blythe Road' in April 1900, reducing the Golden Dawn to a fight in a police court over regalia. Little did Crowley know that his part in the break-up of the Golden Dawn, and his subsequent efforts to force Westcott to 'come clean' publicly as to its origins, made certain he would be shunned by Westcott’s friends and colleagues when endeavouring to regularize his position in England as a mason. ................................ Don Jesus Medina, a descendant of the great duke of Armada fame, and one of the highest chiefs of Scottish Rite freemasonry. My cabbalistic knowledge being already profound by current standards, he thought me worthy of the highest initiation in his power to confer; special powers were obtained in view of my limited sojourn, and I was pushed rapidly through and admitted to the thirty-third and last degree before I left the country. (The Confessions of Aleister Crowle y(1969), pp. 202-203). .................................. Crowley comments on the conferral of the 33° that 'it did not add much of importance to my knowledge of the mysteries; but I had heard that freemasonry was a universal brotherhood and expected to be welcomed all over the world by brethren.' (Crowley, Confessions, p. 695) Crowley was in for his first in a series of rude shocks where masonic recognition was concerned.
|
|