On 23 Jul, 16:53, Erwin Hessle
erwinhessle.com> wrote:> On Jul 23, 9:05 am, 565
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> And I have now realized I was probably over-estimating Crowley and
>> this early work of his. I am for the first time reading his
>> Confessions and good god what an idiot ... Anyway, I've now changed
>> my mind
>
> So, let's completely ignore the fact that it's well known that Crowley
> dictated much of his Confessions whilst under the influence of drugs
Nice bit of apologetics that - "You can't criticize this book cuz it
was when he was a smackhead!"
I was laffin my ass off at the part where, even though he pretended to
be sceptical(cough), he reckons he has witnesses to him and his "guru"
being able to float off the ground while meditating. The man was a
four star LOON.
See, Crowley went to a super-duper exotic country in The Mystic Far
East, and if you go a place like that, well, you're guaranteed to get
Enlightened ya know? Especially if your mate is a Holy Monk. If your
mate is a Holy Monk that means you are Holy too, see? It rubs off,
honest. I mean, if he had come back from a Holy Mystic Place like that
where EVERYONE floats when they meditate without having had a super-
duper Mystic Experience, well.... what would the neighbours
think???!!!
> which inclined him to an over-inflated sense of self-importance along
> with a tendency to write lengthy, exuberant, rambling descriptive
> passages, many of which were edited out in the published version.
> Let's also ignore his diaries and letters where a lot more information
> can be gleaned about what he really thought when not writing for
> publication, not to mention the rest of his published works themselves
> and the fact that even in that one a great deal of more useful
> information can be obtained by simply failing to be terminally
> distracted by his occasional tendencies to talk himself up.
>
> After all, why go to the trouble of bothering with facts, when we can
> read *one* book, *once*, and just assume that the first kneejerk
> reaction that comes to mind represents the truth?
>
> The fact that your mind could be changed so easily by one simple
> reading should already have clued you into the fact that your initial
> views were pretty flimsy to begin with, and your subsequent views are
> just as likely to be so, but you've always had a problem with this.
> You had a nice cosy feeling down the pub once, and concluded that
> you'd unraveled the secrets of the universe. You read one line from
> Crowley in one short book and concluded that you knew everything there
> was to know about "true will". Now, you've read one book - *once* -
> that anyone seriously pretending to be a student of Crowley would have
> read years before now and suddenly you've concluded that you know
> everything that needs to be known about The Book of the Law, too.
>
> Face it - you're the same old idle and clueless rube you've always
> been; "good god what an idiot "
>
> Erwin Hessle, 0=0
