Ph: 78861855

Talk:Aleister Crowley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aleister Crowley article.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Article policies
No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Peer review A request for peer review has been made for this Thelema-based article. Please join the conversation about ways it may be improved.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.
How about a nice cup of tea?
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (2003) Archive 2 (2004-2006) Archive 3 (2006) Archive 4

Contents

1 Excessive 2 confusing layout 3 Photo Switch 4 Aleister Crowley; his character described by Somerset Maugham 5 Paedophilia 6 Confusing: "Here he finally broke with religion" 7 General Tone 8 Crowley: human or godly? 9 Cultural references section 10 Freemasonry disputed 11 Confrontation with Gurdjieff 12 30 or 36 Clarendon Square? 13 "scrambling on beachy head" 14 Alisteir Crowley and Winston Churchill

[edit] Excessive

This article is excessively-long for someone who wasn't that important in the course of human events. For example, Crowley was no Alistair Cooke, no Arthur C. Clarke, on Paul McCartney and no Elton John. There needs to be some sense of proportionality, and this article needs to be re-edited and greatly-reduced in length.74.249.77.168 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Its no longer than the article about Kevin Keegan, someone whose sole claim to fame is being good at playing football. Oh whoopie bloody doo. Well, thats the future of mankind sorted out then isnt it. Jeez..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.33.252 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] confusing layout

It is stated in the section on Crowley's childhood that the death of this father 'was a turning point in Crowley's life, after which he then began to describe his childhood in the first person in his 'Confessions. However, the section of 'The Confessions' quoted thereafter is in the third person!!

Why does this create so much confusion? If you look at the dates, the quote plainly refers to a time before his father's death. Furthermore, it comes before that event in the article (I don't know why you said "thereafter"). Dan (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Switch

I think that we should switch the photo of Crowley with the Mason hat with the photo of him in his arm chair. It looks more professional--Gpshaw (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why. That was his profession. Dan (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the opening photograph really gives the right impression as to someone not informed on cults etc. may simply think that he's a nutter who adorned himself in peculiar garments and symbols. If someone as controversila as Adolph Hitler is entitled to a proffesional photograph then I'd say that Crowley deserves one also. 86.10.97.187 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Moustan
Agree. Normal pic at top of page, wacky cultist pic further on? - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aleister Crowley; his character described by Somerset Maugham

Maybe I overlooked the subject in this page. Would it be inappropriate to ad a topic on his relation to contemporary writers such as Maugham? Apparently Maugham wrote “the magician†with Crowly in mind. Not his best writing though. 82.95.60.124 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paedophilia

Until I removed it, the term paedophile was among those used to describe Crowley at the beginning of the article, yet the article does not go on to explore or substantiate this claim. There is no evidence to suggest that Crowley ever engaged in sexual activity with under age children. I therefore think it misleading to describe Crowley in such terms.

Deantuhka (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


I agree. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the source material at hand at this moment, but I do recall in his "Confessions" that Crowley had his first sex encounter with a house maid when he was about 13 years old. According to conventional wisdom, that would make him a victim of paedophilia ! He presents that incident in his autobiography as "a great conquest." But let's be reasonable. A thirteen year old boy is not responsible for having sex with a maid any more than a student is with a teacher. He was abused (if he enjoyed it or not) according to our modern legal system. This may explain much about his macho attitude later in life. It was a self-defense mechanism to allow him to believe he was in command of the situation, when in fact he was a victim of maltreatment and child abuse. None of his biographers have picked up on this very important psychological detail ! Fkapnist (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at the Abbey of Thelema, he did get people to engage in bestiality with goats, but a paedo? I think that this might be an over-exageration. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

M, did you mean that last comment as a response to the one from February? (The one from Oct has several problems, starting with the fact that my source says 16). Dan (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing: "Here he finally broke with religion"

The article says "Here he finally broke with religion" but then contradicts itself by saying that Crowley "decided to pursue a path in occultism and mysticism". Maybe it should say "he finally broke with conventional religion" or "mainstream religion". Or maybe "he finally broke with the Church of England." Honestly, I don't know enough about Crowley to feel comfortable to change the article, but the way it is currently worded is confusing. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, he had broken with the Church of England even before he was born, as his family were Plymouth Brethren, a Nonconformist sect.
Nuttyskin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.199.50 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Occultism isn't exactly the same thing as religion (in the sense of, f.ex., Christianity), it's merely the study of the supernatural. ktr (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Theology is the study and development of dogmas. Theology is part of religion. It isn't exactly the same as religion, but it is part of religion. So it is occultism. Occultism supposes some kind of faith in the supernatural phenomena. This is religious faith, according to the definition from Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." "Things not seen" means occult phenomena, since occult means something that cannot be seen, hidden, mysterious, secret, charming. This makes Christian religion be 100% occult, because it relies on believing evidence for occult stuff (angels, demons, God, messages from such beings and so on). This is verifiable information based upon a print-published book (the Bible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Religion is the belief in supernatural entities based on faith, unlike occultism. I think we should clear up what kind of faith we're talking about here. Maybe you're confusing a general term such as 'occultism' with Wicca, Satanism, neo-pagan religions etc? And are you suggesting that we use citations from the Bible to support that occultism equals religion? You must be joking; the Bible is 100% non-NPOV for this occasion.
Anyhow, Here are some quotes; they can be used as sources in the article:
"occultism:
1. belief in the existence of secret, mysterious, or supernatural agencies.
2. the study or practice of occult arts".
—From dictionary.reference.com.
"Occultism, belief in supernatural sciences or powers, such as magic, astrology, alchemy, theosophy, and spiritism, either for the purpose of enlarging man's powers, of protecting him from evil forces, or of predicting the future. All the so-called natural sciences were in a sense occult in their beginnings; most early scientists were considered magicians or sorcerers because of the mystery attending their investigations. In the modern world occultism has centered in small groups that seek to perpetuate secret knowledge and rites alleged to be derived from the ancients".
—Reference.com. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/occultis (accessed: May 26, 2008).
"'Occultism is the intellectual and scientific temperament trying to extend its field of consciousness'; or in other words, the effort to know Reality, or the structural facts and laws of the Universe, on all planes of consciousness, and not merely as a transcedental extraphenomenal experience. It is the 'Higher Science'".
—William Kingsland, Rational Mysticism.
"The philosophy of occultism is the philosophy of all sciences and all religions of the world put togetther".
—H.P. Blavatsky, The Theosophist.
"Like science occultism is the investigation of an outside world or of outside worlds in their multiplicity of forms and colours, presented in dimensions of time and space. As such it is the observation and investigation of a world-image; as ordinary science explores the physical world-image so does occultism attempt to explore an etheric, astral or mental world-image. It, therefore, has the same possibilities and limitations which science has".
—J.J. Van der Leeuw, Conquest of Illusion. ktr (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We place no reliance/On virgin or pigeon/Our Method is Science/Our Aim is Religion -- Crowley. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All of which is beside the point. Crowley was not irreligious. He was simply adamantly non-Christian. If you are going to cherry-pick quotes to support an argument as to Crowley's beliefs, have the sense to quote from the man's own works (of which, gods know, there is no short supply). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.109 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Tone

The entire article, entirely separate from the difficulty of figuring out exactly who was telling the truth about Crowley's life, reads as though it were exclusively written by fanboys. The underlying tone - that Crowley was basically right about everything, and everyone who opposed him was a fool - is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

One example of many... >according to Freudian Steven Marcus, men in Victorian England had a common sexual fetish for thinly veiled descriptions of men spanking boys.[56]

Is this supposed to be accepted as fact? There's a BIG difference between "men in Victorian England..." and ONE FREUDIAN NAMED STEVEN MARCUS SAYING "men in Victorian England..." Why is being a Freudian enough to make him an authority? Anyway, granted that he is...

(In their reformatory institutions for children, men "were allowed to birch their inmates across the bare buttocks until the early 1920s, when under government pressure the cane or tawse over trousers became standard."[57]) OK, a website on corporal punishment - perhaps relatively authoritative..

And here we drift off into the authors' personal prejudice

>Many have cited one or both of these quotes from Crowley, without context, as proof of immorality and sometimes of a vast child-abusing conspiracy.[58]

Well, never mind Crowley, if you accept 56 and 57 as authoritative, then there WAS, IN FACT, a child-abusing conspiracy as big as Britain, at least. Why is the author so snippy about it? Al-Qeada is a conspiracy, Enron was a conspiracy, the CIA do nothing BUT conspire - it is their JOB, for chrissakes! All it means for an activity to be conspiracy is to have more than one person working for the same goal. Every business that has private strategy meetings is conspiring - we just need to get over our irrational fear of the word, and of looking at places in the world where people do band together to harm others for their own benefit.

Oh, and BTW - the argument that "being hit didn't hurt me, so it won't hurt others" is evidence of child abuse. A rational person would observe "being hit made me into someone who thinks other people should be hit against their will." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.180.126 (talk • contribs)

Apparently you've missed the point in a big way. The people talking about Crowleyan conspiracies are the people who bemoan the loss of this old-time child abuse, contrasting it with AC's principle of freedom and openness. And the Freudian bit is there to tell you where this information comes from, not to make it sound more authoritative (did you even see Crowley's reference to Freud in the previous sentence?) Dan (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crowley: human or godly?

According to Psalms 82.6, John 10:33-36 and Acts 17:28, Crowley is a god and a Son (or: offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). So, the Bible says that Crowley is a god. This is verifiable information based upon print-published sources. If you consider it accurate, please add it to the main article. If you don't consider it verifiable, please state below the reasons why it would not be verifiable, according to Wikipedia criteria on verifiability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The reasons are mainly this is the twenty-first (21st) century. Dr.K. (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate in an article that had to do with the name itself. Something like Crowley (name). The overall reason it would have no place in this article is that it simply doesn't refer to the same person, or persons. — MaggotSyn 00:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Crowley described himself as a Saint, not a Deity.His ego would have demanded that he call himself a Deity, if he thought that he was one.jonathon (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what you're saying, tgeorgescu, and I don't think any of these other commenters do either. It sounds like you refer to Bible passages that call the reader a god. But you haven't explained what, if anything, you think the article should say about this. Dan (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the argument is as following: According to Psalms 82:6, all human beings are gods. According to John 10:33-36, wherein John is quoting Jesus Christ's own words, all human beings who heard the Scripture are gods. According to Acts 17:28, all human beings are the offspring of God (Elohim, YHWH). Till here this is simply reading what the Bible has to say, litterally, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely litteral one). The Bible is a print-published source, peer reviewed by dr. Jerome of Stridonium and dr. Martin Luther (they established two different canons for the Bible; both such canons regard as valid and authoritative all verses quoted in this argument). All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. Crowley is (or was) a human being, therefore Aleister Crowley is a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH -- I use "is" instead of "was" since we may assume that gods do not cease to exist at the moment of their own death.) This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Does it count as interpolation? Since Baron Francis Bacon affirmed that syllogisms are no tool meant to increase our knowledge, we may consider that performing a syllogism upon some assumption is not interpolation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Btw, Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 speak about the Sons of God (using a capital letter is justified, since the Hebrew writing does not have capital letters, thus so as far as the Bible authors are concerned "sons of God" and "Sons of God" are one and the same "thing", or the same idea). Therefore the Bible says that God has more than one Son. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Using that sequence of verses everybody is a deity. As such, it lacks significant to warrant mentioning here. jonathon (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(to Tgeorgescu) No matter how peer reviewed you think the bible is, the book itself does not make mention of Crowley. The book predates him of course, so there is 100% no way it will be used as a source to determine such a haphazard remark. Do you bring this to the attention of every bio talk page, or is this just case specific? — MaggotSyn 10:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I admit it: the Bible says that we are all gods: you, me, Isaiah Berlin, Hitler, Stalin, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, etc. Therefore, it is applicable to all biographies from Wikipedia: the Bible says that all people whose biographies are present on Wikipedia are gods and Sons of God. If they happened to hear the Scripture being preached in churches, this makes the case even stronger, because it relies upon evidence provided by Jesus Christ, and quoted as a word of the Gospel. In Romanian language, the expression "word of Gospel" means "certain, sure, beyond any doubt". Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well wikipedia is my church and I'm contesting it ^_^. We can't use the bible to claim deity on any article. Its just silly to even express such a thing. — MaggotSyn 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the best talk page discussion I've ever seen! Thank you all! :D Zazaban (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't mention it. It was unusual and rather unexpected, to say the least, but fun. :-) Dr.K. (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If Crowley is mentioned at all in the bible it is probably as the "Beast 666," which gets many people to worship it/him. That nickname was given to him by his mother but he apparently took it quite seriously and tried to play the part as best (or worst) as he could...Fkapnist (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references section

Marilyn Manson has a song by the name "Diary of a Dope Fiend" and also refers to the Abbey of Thelema in the song "Misery Machine."
I've removed the above from the article altogether. The song title is not the same as the book title and would have been more appropriate over at the article on the book (See:Diary of a Drug Fiend). Any content that does not make mention of the subject or his biography shouldn't be here. The above content about Misery Machine can be addressed on the Abbey of Thelema article in the section about the Abbey. None of this is directly related to Crowley. — MaggotSyn 06:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Mr. Crowley was actually a song by the band Blizzard of Ozz, not Ozzy Osbourne. If you look at the Randy Rhoads article, you can see that this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.198.197 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The original idea was to name the band Blizzard of Ozz, yes, but it was marketed as Ozzy's solo band by the record company. If you look at the album, you'll see that Ozzy Osbourne is printed in big letters and Blizzard of Ozz in smaller letters underneath it, making it the Ozzy Osbourne band. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry disputed

FTA: "Crowley had claimed to be a Freemason, but the regularity of his initiations with the United Grand Lodge of England has been disputed.[4]^ E.g. Starr M P 2004, "Aleister Crowley: freemason!", Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/crowley.html , BC"

The reference cited is credited the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, which is a different governing body than the United Grand Lodge of England. Most biographers and historians, pro or con, generally agree that Crowley was initiated to some degree as a Freemason. Just because some guy in Canada eighty years later doesn't want Crowley associated with Freemasonry doesn't make it so. Sounds like rewriting history to me. I'm deleting without prejudice unless someone can give me a reason why not. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Until you can provide a counter citation, please do not remove content. — MaggotSyn 18:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Stay on the talk page and stop reverting, this will get you nowhere. — MaggotSyn 18:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(Trying Again) ::What would you accept as a counter-citation? Any number of published biographies? Personal note from the estate of Regardie? Phonecall from a past Hierophant of the OTO? As it stands, I would accept "the regularity of his initiations with the United Grand Lodge of England has been disputed by some" as a safely NPOV compromise. Yes? No? Discuss. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing the entire section wasn't a positive move toward change. I agree that there is a problem and I thank you for pointing this out. The British Columbia and Yukon Grand Lodge is listed as a regular lodge, so it does carry weight (I believe I once argued against this being presented into the article; check archive 4). Although, the statement will need some modifications. We can't use words like some, as they're weasel words. We need to phrase it so that it accurately depicts who is saying what, and why, without going too far. On the topic of citations: a good counter citation would be one that discredits the current disppute of his connections with the UGLE or regular freemasonry. If you have these, then when can create a new section in the article that delves deeper into the matter and explores his connections with freemasonry. But phone calls, unrelated estate claims and biographies of other people will not work either (unless its the biography of a regular freemason who initiated Crowley, or the estate has information not previously published, but is now publishing). Lets try this and see if it works:
Crowley had once claimed to be a Freemason(citation), but the regularity of his initiations have been disputed by the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon(citation), a recognized body of the United Grand Lodge of England(citation).
I think this accurately depicts what is being disputed, who is disputing, and why they have the authority to dispute in the first place. The why is what I'm most interested in, and I hope you can dig up some information to add into the article so we can further elaborate on this topic, as its much needed in the body on the article. Synergy 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly much better than before. Let's see if it can be expanded. - It doesn't stick. (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. I've been waiting for you to return. Likewise, I'll be waiting for the information you can uncover, so we can sort it out. Synergy 09:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) For the sake of accuracy, it must be noted that Crowley MORE THAN ONCE claimed to be a Freemason.

It seems that Crowley was asked to become a Freemason but was thrown out of the United Grand Lodge almost immediately. I remember seeing a photo of him dressed in a Scottish kilt standing outside of the lodge in protest of his being expelled. Fkapnist (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When did this supposedly happen? The kilt would make sense if it took place before he broke with ex-Master Mason MacGregor Mathers, and with Mathers' old patron Westcott, who at that point ran the original Societas Rosicruciana. But I have trouble fitting this into my mental time-line. Where did you find this information? Dan (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confrontation with Gurdjieff

This page mentions only the Webb reference who Ronald Hutton in his Wicca book says is itself unsourced and "probably gossip". But I think you will find the reference is Fritz Peters in his Boyhood With Gurdjieff. (Or possibly one of his two following books, but I thinkm it is the first). Will eventually get round to putting in the reference. Jeremy (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 30 or 36 Clarendon Square?

Several websites show his bithplace as 30 Clarendon Sq., not 36 as it is in this article. Anyone know for sure - have the council put a plaque on the birthplace of their most famous son?

edit: having visited this dull town just the other day I can confirm that there is no plaque on either house. Pity, as it is by far the most interesting thing about this town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.98.127 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "scrambling on beachy head"

There is little scrambling to be had on Beachy Head. There is quite a lot of rock climbing though, and what Crowley was doing there was rather advanced for the time. The article should be edited to better reflect this. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alisteir Crowley and Winston Churchill

Does this myth have any truth?

During the Second World War, at the request of friend and Naval Intelligence officer Ian Fleming, Crowley provided Winston Churchill with valuable insights into the superstitions and magical mind-set of the leaders of the Third Reich. He also suggested to the Prime Minister, if reports can be believed, that he exploit the enemy’s magical paranoia by being photographed as much as possible giving the two-fingered “V for Victory†gesture. This sign is the manual version of the magical sign of Apophis-Typhon, a powerful symbol of destruction and annihilation, that, according to magical tradition is capable of defeating the solar energies represented by the swastika.

source: http://www.redroom.com/publishedwork/understanding-aleister-crowleys-thoth-tarot Telaviv1 (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird. A second sourse would confirm it at least as a common myth and includeable I think. Unless it is prejudicial, but from what I read it doesn't seem so. It seems like an anectdote that may or may not be real, a second sourse would be enough, I think, to let it in.Sanitycult (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The part we can confirm, about Ian Fleming, already appears in the article. I guess it makes sense to mention the V sign as a common story. The Apophis connotation of the sign given here seems slightly off, by the way, though it may just be incomplete. Dan (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aleister_Crowley"

You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

How do you rate mobile version of this page?

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser