Discourse on Originality and a second on Crowley

Firstly one see that speaking of originality in a solely abstract and absolute way can be miss leading.

If so; then one would be lead to either: nothing, everything, the first thought, or the first moment, the first movement, or the first inward reflection; how ever one chooses to perceive it (of the seen and unseen ether, or birth of this current universal manifestation).

Moving away from the absolute, one then (gleaming consciousness) come to the labels and symbology. Does a label or definition, in essence already encapsulate the expression and meaning of the referred? Does poetry; mean that all written in creative verse is all ready allured to? Does the notation of music keys mean that all the symphonies and vibrations are already composed and fully comprehensible?

As tesla once stated .. we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable.

Is time is a chain reaction? And in the sense of cosmic fusion? Does very little veer off an indented course?

....

Origin came from early English origne (ancestry) which evolved from Latin (to arise, to be born)

So in a sense, one can see a few meanings in this word. One of inherited properties, the source of something’s existence, the place where something begins, where it springs into being.
...
1 + 1 = 3 meaning one idea with another idea give rise to a third idea. So in a sense this is originality, when these ideas haven’t been placed together, haven’t been utilised.
...
Jumping back to Crowley wouldn’t then his thought to publish as much occult material for the use of the public seems as an original thought (where ever he may of gleamed it from).

And what of his liber 777, an example of the diligence, creativity and his personal labour at the great work?

Yes Crowley was an egotist, and consequently further marked occultism as unsavoury. Though was his rebellion against the church and ideals of the time, coupled with his over zealous personality and self illuminating sense of humour, such a negative thing.

Why does one need to label a person good or bad, and why does one have to label the whole being as such. Can one not filter through and objectively lift that which has been synthesised and satisfies ones own sense of palatability?

Vagabond Soul wrote:Jumping back to Crowley wouldn’t then his thought to publish as much occult material for the use of the public seems as an original thought (where ever he may of gleamed it from).

Really not sure what you are trying to say here.

I might have a unique, original thought. Original to me. I'll decide to publish a romance novel. Now that's not a very original idea or action, is it? Only from my perspective.

And what of his liber 777, an example of the diligence, creativity and his personal labour at the great work?

His personal labour? Do you know the history of that document. Crowley added to it and published it. That doesn't make it original.

I was quite tired when I joined up the other evening, hence the disjointed nature of the post. My thought process was from a continuation to an old post in the forums to do with said topics, after reading through I felt that originality was getting a little abstract and Crowley was being dealt with a little harshly.

I personally have little interest in Crowley now in my studies. I find him interesting, and see the breadth of both his plagiarism and work.

I am quite familiar with 777 and its origins, though possibly a poor example, more so I was trying to make the point of him being a scholar of sorts, and of course adding his own flavour and original content.

Originality is a funny word, because we have to understand the context from which it is used. For example when we are researching a topic, there is many categories and aspects that could be deemed as original. Such as a theory, topic, method, base data, results, experience, approach, ect.

A lame example would be, Romance novel from the first person, current time. Or Romance novel set in Antarctica. Romance novel with the main characters being parrots..?

Anyways it was just a thought.

amandachen wrote:His personal labour? Do you know the history of that document. Crowley added to it and published it. That doesn't make it original.

Yes, an oft repeated claim based on innuendo and supposition with no actual factual evidence to back it up. Essentially the same as the "Crowley was a student of George Pickingill" claim. The latter lets the wiccans sleep better if they imply Crowley ripped off the witches, rather than the reality of the reverse. For the former it allows the anti-Crowley crowd to feel better about recognizing the usefulness of 777 if they convince themselves Crowley didn't compile it.

I also agree, worlock93, with the ease some people can take in dismissing any possible genius and originality in Crowley and any of his work.

I see that it stems from his own sense of humor not being understood, and often he took pleasure in publicizing his indulgences.So from the journalists propagating selected words, and surrounding rumors, he had a blackened reputation (becoming the anti-christ for the pockets of the media).

This hardly calls then to dismiss any glimpse of gratitude towards his work and his personal additions to the field.

Pop culture icon, “occult’s” first true celebrity and it’s prodigal son, a household name… Crowley is to the “occult” what MTV is to the music, Andy Warhol is to the painting, or Mc Donald’s is to the food…Nothing more and nothing less.

MercvrivsDvplex wrote:Pop culture icon, “occult’s” first true celebrity and it’s prodigal son, a household name… Crowley is to the “occult” what MTV is to the music, Andy Warhol is to the painting, or Mc Donald’s is to the food…Nothing more and nothing less.

Your views are insanely warped and poorly thought out.

MTV, regardless of the bastion of bullshit it became years later, monumentally changed the way individuals viewed music following it's inception by adding a visual element to the experience and gave national exposure to acts that may have gone nowhere otherwise.

Andy Warhol transformed art from a high-class uptight wealthy patron only exploitative business into something anyone could enjoy, create, participate and profit from.

McDonald's is, quite easily, the most important company in modern business today. They changed everything in their industry, creating a whole new class of food sales, transforming the way most company's (food or otherwise) do business and promoting brand recognition and the franchise system. There is absolutely no business today that hasn't been influenced by McDonald's in some way.

While your dismissive comments meant to say: "Crowley is rubbish just like these other things I don't like are rubbish" you actually just made the entire opposite argument, which is actually kind of impressive, though for all the wrong reasons.

I’m so glad that someone who eats at Mc Donald’s, watches MTV, enjoys Warhol, worships Crowley and uses Saxon genitive (possessive) instead of plural thinks my views are insanely warped and poorly thought out.

But it’s not your fault... MC Donald’s, MTV, Warhol or Crowley as symbols have been imprinted so deeply in your subconscious (and thus became effective behavioral stimulators) by people who don’t want you to eat, watch, enjoy or read anything but what they have prepared for you to consume.

I’m speaking against MC Donald’s, MTV, Warhol or Crowley as symbols so you don’t have any reasons to take this on a personal level by insulting my intelligence (which I’m always ready to defend).

We kinda had this discussion before in the other thread.

Anton LaVey is the mascot of the occultkids who haven't heard of Crowley. And Crowley is the mascot of the occultkids who haven't heard of the other Golden Dawners or Eliphas Levi or Tsongkhapa or whoever else.

MercvrivsDvplex wrote:I’m so glad that someone who eats at Mc Donald’s, watches MTV, enjoys Warhol, worships Crowley and uses Saxon genitive (possessive) instead of plural thinks my views are insanely warped and poorly thought out.

I see, taking the grammar nazi approach to an argument. This would be the usual bastion of someone with nothing important to say, let's see if this post shows anything different?

But it’s not your fault... MC Donald’s, MTV, Warhol or Crowley as symbols have been imprinted so deeply in your subconscious (and thus became effective behavioral stimulators) by people who don’t want you to eat, watch, enjoy or read anything but what they have prepared for you to consume.

looking....nope no actual response here... Funny though that you try to attack me for liking McDonald's (I don't) MTV (Yeah, 25 years ago) and Warhol (he's alright) based on what? My ability to point out their accomplishments and influence? If I say the nuclear bomb was one of the greatest accomplishments of 20th century does that make me a warmonger who's glad we blew up the Japanese? If I say Wal-Mart is the largest and most influential company in the world today, am I pro globalization and the exploitation of the third world?

I’m speaking against MC Donald’s, MTV, Warhol or Crowley as symbols so you don’t have any reasons to take this on a personal level by insulting my intelligence (which I’m always ready to defend).

Yet again, no actual response.... Yeas, they're symbols. Are we simply ignoring the fact that they are symbols because of the vast and overwhelming influence they injected into society? Nothing personal about it, you are completely free to hate Crowley or not, but at least try to make a rational argument. You may also want to reread the post as I never insulted your intelligence, just your viewpoint (possible self esteem issues maybe?).

Now I'd like to draw attention to the way I actually responded to what you said, instead of simply writing an elongated "go fuck yourself" response. You may want to try that sometime.

Amanda is 100% right.

Essentially we all interpret according to our own semiotic development and level of hermeneutical abilities, so I apologize for being impulsive and producing discord.

Its unfortunate that Crowley stimulates such a negative response, wether he posses any real threat to us as a iconic pleb to the masses I am unsure.

Though he was an interesting character, and my only point was to state that looking past the superficial, the out layering, the broader categorizing, can be beneficial.

I once had a dispute with a friend over our presumed thoughts on Einstein perspective of the world. He belived him as a diest, and I was more leaning towards a pantheist.

Only to have another friend step in and sum it up as all semantic and an Entomologically point of very.

I find such broad sweeping summaries un-useful in such discursions, for the allow further evasion of the microscopic elements at hand.


This topic, I know was a continuation of another topic, but I will restate it.

Originality... What do we each consider to be original. Is it catigories, is it an essence of being? Is a new way of thinking, is it something else 20% changed? ... ... etc


And Discourse on Crowley....
converse beyond the outer seems, is there any core truth that have resonated from his work with any in this community.' or is there any reason you particularly take disdain towards this man.

Vagabond Soul wrote:
...and an Entomologically point of very.

Look, I hope you're ok.

amandachen wrote:
I hope you're ok.

Great thanks, Life is amazing, synchronicity is incredible, and the universe is teaming with vibrant energy. I was writ ting a bit fast I meant Epistemological point of view. Are you ok?

and besides that section had nothing to do with the topic being my exact point. What is the purpose of speaking jargon and not even discussing what is on the table.

I think, as with my friend I was speaking of, it is of a superiority complex. People presume they already know, and rather then discussing, and offering up a valid point of view, they hack, or speak about diluted or macro parallels of the true conversation at hand.

In the end I called my friend a drone, for as too many people in this world, they are often sheep, or on a pedestal and unwanting of true discussion or communion.

Seeing as though nobody is accually going to speak of there thoughts on origonality or crowley, I see not point in futher comments on this thread.

This is what happens when you mention someone like crowley, people cant be civil (my gramma and spelling didn't help)

Onwards to more rewarding posts.

Vagabond Soul wrote:Seeing as though nobody is accually going to speak of there thoughts on origonality or crowley, I see not point in futher comments on this thread.

This is what happens when you mention someone like crowley, people cant be civil (my gramma and spelling didn't help)

Onwards to more rewarding posts.

You made it clear that you'd read the original thread where this had already been discussed and dealt with. What's your problem?

Vagabond Soul (Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:22 pm) wrote:Onwards to more rewarding posts.

Glad to have helped you to realize that you inspire unrewarding posts…