Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Crowley's sense of humor. Message-ID: <5517@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 29-Jun-85 14:59:18 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5517 Posted: Sat Jun 29 14:59:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:33:32 EDT References: <437@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5429@cbscc.UUCP>, <452@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5458@cbscc.UUCP>, <464@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 66 >> = Paul Dubuc > = Tim Maroney >> Definitely unhelpful; and truly disappointing. I would like to give >> Crowley the benefit of my doubt that this really is a joke (never mind >> that might I have a hard time seeing the humor in such a joke if it were >> one); that somehow he didn't really advocate human sacrifice at all. I >> would think that people who so strongly object to charges of satanic >> practice against Crowley and his disciples (is that a good word?) would >> be a little more helpful in clearing up any misunderstanding. > >If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human >sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is >obviously impossible to get away with that. No, I didn't believe the 150 part. (That was apparently added by a commentator anyway) But that's not what I'm talking about above, is it? The issue I wanted to get clear is that Crowley did not accept human sacrifice in principle. No matter. Some folks have already let me in on the "joke" by mail, and I am convinced that their explanations make sense. I'm glad they had a little more faith in me than you in this respect. >As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? >I have no desire to tear down a veil that was put up by a Magus. No one >told me what the subject of secrecy was; I had to figure it out myself. >It does not involve any imposition of one's will on another, such as >involving someone in something without their consent, or killing or >wounding someone, as should be obvious to anyone who has read my expositions >of Thelema. Pardon me, but my expositions of Christian doctrine haven't kept some people from interpreting it in the worst possible light, either. It didn't know your expositions were authoritative interpretations of Crowley's writings or that they should be received as such by others. >It does, however, run counter to taboo-list morality in its Jewish, Moslem, and >Christian manifestations. You would not find any such difficulty in Hindu >or Taoist cultures. And that's such an obvious hint that I may have already >overstepped the proper boundaries! No more, sorry. Proper boundries? So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate murder? >"Disciple" implies slavish obedience and worship. I disagree with Crowley >on a number of points and I do not worship him. So I don't think it's a >very good term. If you need to refer to us as a group for some reason, try >"Thelemites". Just don't call us late fo -- oh, never mind. It doesn't imply that to me, unless you're talking about the biblical "bond slave". Most people think of chattel slaves when you say "slavish". Is that the impression you get? BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd