Theos-Talk Archives (September 1996 Message tl00323)

theos-l@vnet.net wrote:

>
> Richard Ihle writes>
> Welcome to the list, Robert.   Good job with the above.  (This is the same
> line of suspicious reasoning that is often used to keep marijuana illegal,
> isn't it?  That is, since marijuanna is the first drug used by most heroin
> addicts, marijuana must therefore be a cause of heroin addiction, they say.)
The fact that arguments containing logical fallacies may be brought
to bear against the use of marijuana does not mean that there are
not perfectly valid logical arguments which may be brought to bear
against the use of marijuana.  However, since I am not a marijuana
user, and I scrupulously avoid its use, I am not a partisan for
either the "for" or "against" position.  In California, there are
groups of people who partake of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and
prosecutors who will not prosecute them.  Nevertheless, there was
recently a drug bust against a group of this type in California.
I know a certain occult order which theoretically should be against
the use of drugs; but I am not above taunting them privately with
the fact that one of their study group leaders is a marijuana user
and dealer.

>
> A couple minor points, however:
>
> 1) I don't think I would venture to judge Aleister Crowley as "immoral."
The stated argument, which is made to illustrate a logical fallacy,
merely states that "many people believe Crowley to have been an
immoral man."  But there is obvious room for disagreement on this;
and I do not think that Crowley's fanatical followers, of whom there
are many in the U.S., would agree with this assessment.
>  Here is the extent of my misgivings about him as given in my original post:
>  "There were some things which I thought were valuable.  However, in the back
> of my mind was always this thought:  'Here is a man who reputedly knows so
> much and has all these powers, but his life story, when all is said and done,
> is basically that he started off with all the advantages of an inherited
> fortune and ended up more-or-less bankrupt and a drug addict to boot.'I believe this to be correct; however, even when the last penny of
his inheritance was spent, I am told his father had left him a
second inheritance providing him with 300 pounds a year in income, which
was no mean sum in those days.  Crowley died comfortably, if not
well off.

That Crowley poor was a viper has something to do with the fact
that he become poor, but also that he could be a viper in such
circumstances.  Had he grown up poor and worked for a living,
perhaps he would have developed different qualities of character.
But we shall never know this.


oe>  [Correct me if I am wrong in this.]  Furthermore, I gradually got
the
> distinct feeling that he may not have been the most ~wholesome~ guy around."
I think you are right.  Why does he need to invoke the name of Satan
(or at least a form thereof) somewhere in one of his A.A. rituals?
But most advanced occultists have concluded that they could not afford
to ignore Crowley entirely.  Also, I do not think that I can be
entirely in favor of his "ritual for destroying the Golden Dawn".

>
> By ~wholesome~ I was thinking more along the lines of "conducive to sound
> health or well-being"--his own and that of those who were influenced by
> him--rather than morality. To show what egregious non-logic I sometimes use
> in cases like this, I must admit that this feeling really didn't start taking
> hold until after I started seeing photographs of him.  As Albert Camus once
> said, "After a certain age, every man is responsible for his own face."
>  Unfair and inaccurate as it might be, I didn't like what I thought I saw in
> Crowley's face at all. Perhaps Crowley became somewhat obsessed with one of the Abramelin
demons, which he admitted, he often invoked.  Crowley is supposed
to stated:"God and Satan struggled for my Soul; God won; but now I
know not which of the twain was God, and which Satan."
 I had lived quite comfortably with all the iron
> daggers, pentagrams, and statements about how he wanted to be the Devil's
> "chief of staff" (or something like that) etc. for quite a while; however,
> once the trappings and ideas got connected to what, rightly or wrongly,
> seemed to me like a debauched face, I decided that perhaps it was time to
> investigate other paths as well (including other, not-so-Crowley, Magic
> paths).I think there is a lot to what you say.  But beware of seeing the
projection of your own shadow in Crowley.
>
> But I have done this type of thing "in reverse" as well.  Dare I reveal that
> one of the main reasons I became interested in Transcendental Meditation was
> that I liked the way the Maharishi always looked so smiley and benign? That I
> read the Secret Doctrine because HPB's eyes actually appeared capable of
> seeing Invisible Worlds?  Gurdjieff because of his mustache and Master-like
> presence?  Rudolf Steiner because of his pure, dispassionate countenance?
>  Krisnamurti because of the inner strength and resoluteness which seemed to
> radiate through his slightness?
>
> Is this something I shouldn't be admitting?   How do you get to be a seer
> without practicing your seeing, then?

No there isn't.  These are as good reasons as any to stop and listen
to what someone has to say, or to chant their mantras.  Incidentally,
your TM mantra is the same as a lot of other people's TM mantra; and
all teachers of TM know the entire truth about this.  But the state
of samadhi (or at least a state which they call samadhi) has more
interest and appeal to them than minor considerations of
intellectual truth.
>
> And 2)  Might an "analogical flaw" between your two "bad reasoning" examples
> be that the first one doesn't appeal to the ~intuition~ as having much
> potential for a specific cause-and-effect relationship?A logical fallacy is a mistaken way from drawing conclusions.  But
this does not prevent you from loving someone because you see
a special light in his eyes.  And Crowley's immorality, if indeed that
is what it was, would have a complete logical bearing on any
questions actually pertaining to immorality.
>
> Good old generic theosophy:  it can at least give the impression of saving
> you when you don't have a leg to stand on, otherwise. . . .
>
> Best wishes and Godspeed,
>
> Richard IhleBest wishes and Godspeed,
Bishop Word+
>