--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, 333 <nagasiva@l...> wrote:
> hi Ahn Eun Song!
> 333 regarding the ridiculous insinuation that I am
> fomenting some kind of 'anti-Crowleyan cult':
> # > with cults like Christianity and Islam arrayed against him,
> "Ahn Eun Song" <ahn.unsong@g...>:
> # The only group I've seen try to take issue with AC and try to
> # actively oppose his viewpoints, methods, etc. are the Fundies.
> agreed, in any sort of organized, fervent manner, though I would
> suspect that there are few to none of the Christians and Muslims
> who would, as groups, count themselves Crowleyites or Thelemites.
> some majority (not just single groups) of active anti-Crowleyites
> are fundamentalists.
OK. The above was just a short reality check for you and I.
> # And they do a rather shoddy job of it, getting most of their
> # facts wrong,
> agreed, but not all of them.
You are right. Occassionally, people get their facts right, and make
reasonable arguments that reveal that (gasp!) AC was an imperfect
human. I enjoy reading these. Sutin's Do What Thou Wilt: A Life is an
example of the type of 'fair and balanced' criticism I can recommend.
A good 90% (proabably more) of his facts are correct, as far as I can
tell, and he doesn't seem to be overly selective about the facts he's
willing to discuss. He discusses the good and the bad. Of course,
Sutin is no fundamentalist, of any sort, as far as I know.
> complete focussed solely anti-Crowleyan activities are really
> rarely to be found,
I thought as much. He's not a very easy target for those who aren't
willing to stoop to lying (e.g. see the fundamentalist's piss poor
> interestingly you can find anti-Crowley literature amongst
> a good number of WETraditionalists, primarily those who
> cleave to the White Light aspects off of HPB, Besant, Bailey,
> Rosicrucians, some of whom may even harken back to AC for
> their recognition (as Lewis). <snip> even a
> batch of the OTOs have anti-Crowleyan, anti-Thelema
> text explaining how they never wanted it in the OTO,
> consider it all to be bunk, etc.
Yes, I am aware of these, but I appreciate the reminders of specifics.
So far, I haven't bothered to look at any of these yet, but I know of
their existence. Although, I have read a little of Bailey and HPB.
I love the story of Milarepa.
> # > those who demolish the futile defenses of his
> # > de facto Satanism
> # What is a 'de facto Satanism?'
> cf. LaVeyan expressions. it generally refers to someone
> who qualifies as a Satanist (as does Crowley) who came
> before modern Satanism in the late 20th century.
OK. This is reasonable.
> I don't recall anyone saying that it was a 'main event'.
True. I am just seeking my own perspective.
> my response was directed to the silliness that I would
> wish to create some kind of anti-Crowley cult,
I can't imagine creating a cult around such a non-issue! Who thinks
you are doing this?
> they'd be the ones attempting to defend the man's
> de facto Satanism
Why would someone want to or feel the need to defend this sort of
thing. Sounds real meta! That someone might feel the need to
/explain/ some of AC's thinking or life etc., ok, I can understand
this. Defend? I don't know. He's dead. What use in defending a dead
> # 'Cultist' has consistently had a seeming negative
> # connotation in your usage, lately.
> it isn't necessarily a negative,
Your intent or the meaning of the word isn't necessarily used
negatively/ pejoratively? I know the latter, already.
> but I admire the willingness
> of cultists to take it as such. it's an academic term which
> merely means 'member of a religious sect or group' that has,
Yes, I know. I don't object to this usage.
> with the advent of the Anti-Cult Movement of the 1970s-1980s,
> and with the help of New Agers, Neopagans, former Satanists
> like Isaac Bonewits and his ABCDEFrame, and Thelemites, has
> come to be applied to extremist and minority religious as
> if they were of some different category (and danger level)
> than conventional and traditional religious cults who
> tend to use the term to slam and displace their rivals.
> oh totally. I'm a cultist too. :) I'm a Neopagan variant
> with membership in orders Thelemic and WET, am a member
> of a daDaesque eco-political global church,
Dada is one of the most vital art movements in the 20th century, IMO.
I'd like to hear more about this.
> and more.
> is cultism problematic?
What isn't problematic? Is the word 'problematic,' problematic?
Ah, but seriously, I think you have very good points, and ought to
keep at your present Work. I don't know. I don't know. It seems to be
the only wisdom and solace I have these days: I don't know.
> does the Method of Religion
> produce viable truths? you tell me.
I don't know. It's bound to, occassionally (see the above comment on
a stopped clock).
> # Less interesting was the supposedly 'Anti-Christian' bent.
> no supposedness about it. I thought Brothers Heidrick and
> Maroney pretty much nailed the lid on the coffin of this
> one, regardless of whether both of them believed the
> conclusion themselves (Brother Heidrick was one of those
> who made it clear, IIRC, that Crowley was anti-Christian
> but not anti-Jesus;
Ah, but even many fundamentalists will assert that the only thing you
need in order to be a 'good Christian' is to be centered in Christ.
Such a subjective standard would seem a bit loose for some, of
course, and hard to define, but I think you can see where I am going
with this. Some people lament (or rejoice) in the difficulty of
defining and nailing down 'Thelema.' The same thing can be lamented
(or rejoiced) in Christianity, along the lines set forth above.
> # Ditto Buddhism and Hinduism.
> these aren't small as global phenomena,
Small is relative. Buddhism is the smallest world religion. Ganja
smoking is probably the biggest world religion.
> but may be
> proportionately small wherever you happen to be
> (now you're in Korea, so I imagine they're
> widespread near to you at this time).
True. In South Korea, Buddhism is about as popular as Christianity.
I've seen varied statistics on this, but as far as I can tell, it
seems about 50% are Buddhist, 50% are Christian.
> # Ditto reading, and intellectual pursuits in general.
> again, not small in global phenomena, and becoming more
> and more popular all the time.
Well, in America, what percentage of the population reads something
other than Entertainment Weekly, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, this sort
of thing? I am fairly certain it's less than 50%. But, if you can
suggest that it is more reasonable to assume 51% or more I'll be
happy to change my mind on the topic, and reflect the same in my
contributions to the forum.
> xenophilia? :)
Ah, that's the word I was looking for! Thanks.
> it is something that I considered part of
> my general descriptor at one point when consulting with
> a variety of cults in the SFBay area, examining them as
> I was directed to them by condemners and examining them
> for their horrors (KCM, EST, Scientology, Eckankar, and
> of course all the various Asian religious outlets at my
> Pacific Rim locale -- the only one I really never got
> 'round to was the Rev Sun Myung Moon Church, 'Moonies').
The Moonies, eh? Wow, they are known as real wackos! ;) But
since 'common sense' is so often wrong, I'd be curious to see the
unvarnished truth for myself one day. Scientology and Eckankar also
seem to have valuable aspects hidden amidst not a little bit of muck.
I have never heard of KCM.
> we are similar in our interests, it sounds.
No doubt about it. In many places, your reading and experience is
much wider than mine. Years ago, I ran into some of your internet
postings and thought that I could learn a few things from you.