Yes, I know of the latter statement that goes with the first. I would caution against romanticizing about Crowley. Though it may be difficult to find a wholly objective piece about the man, it is clear that those around him did not fare well.
Several of his many mistresses lost their sanity or committed suicide as did a couple of his "friends". I intend to do more research on the man and at this point I will reserve most of my judgment. I will say that I see absolutely no evidence, even from the accounts of those who deeply admired the man, that he was anywhere near understanding the true nature of love.
I suppose, as with everything, I "read into" things my own "attitude" or "viewpoint". With my "slant" on him, with my own "interpretation", and even with some of Hubbard's material, I "like" some of each of their writings after my own angle of view interferes with and adjusts the "raw materials". Of course, my own interpretation "adds to", "alters" and often "enhances" what is actually there.
That's okay, as I am aware that I do it, and I sort of like that about myself. :confused2:
I am aware how many people got "fucked over" by both. They each will have to deal with that themselves - if such a thing as "karma" exists.
I have studied a great deal of the "occult" throughout my life, and I early on chose the "white path". I have a tendency to "interpret" whatever I read within THAT framework. Whether that be Hubbard, Crowley, Alice Bailey or modern writings on visualization techniques. As I see it, there is a basic subject of "magick" that, just as with some of Hubbard's "data", is simply "information". It is neutral. Both "white magick" and "black magick" emanate from the
same well. It is only the introducing of "intention" that qualifies WHICH TYPE of magick it is to be.
"Intention" meaning "solely for self with no concern for the welfare of others" (black), or "always taking into account the welfare of others" (white). Scientology is obivously along the darker side of the path. The MAIN and ONLY concern is for the benefit of the GROUP (Scientology), and as it is, most Scientology members strongly IDENTIFY with the GROUP known as the Church of Scientology. Within the framework of Hubbard's exact blueprint for Scientology, based on the total extant "materials", it can and never will "always take into account the joy, happiness and well being of ALL others". Participation with Scientology is driven by a concern for "self", where the "self" is concerned with growing and expanding into greater power and ability, and where the "self" basically "becomes the group" in Scientology. In reality all aims at "helping Scientology" are really a twisted version of "helping myself survive and screw everybody else who disagrees". It is definitely NOT a "white path" as the attention is directed almost entirely on the first and third dynamics, though the first dynamic often gets supplanted by the 3rd dynamic.
That is why, I suppose, I can read Hubbard or Crowley, and since the deeper "truths" exist independent of the "form", I can "extract" the "white" from the "black". I did that
unknowingly when I first encountered Scientology, but now, I do so knowingly and consciously.
I might rephrase, "I like my positive interpretations of Crowley" (or Hubbard), which tend to view them from within a decent form. For example, there is the raw "data" of "fixed ideas". It is simply information about how minds tend to allow ideas to solidify and form "beliefs", "convictions" and "strong opinions", often without or in direct contradiction to "facts". These sort of "fixed ideas" act to block learning and expansion of viewpoint. They color perceptions and even experience.
I "interpret" Hubbard's statements within a framework of eastern advancement, where fixed ideas are something to be rid of. They are something to become aware of in self and others, to assist in their removal, since they BLOCK ANY path to "freedom" and "heightened awareness". Of course, Hubbard also USED his indoctrination system to INSTILL a great many "fixed ideas" into the minds of Scientology members that render them "limited", "restricted", biased and UNABLE to "grow" past a certain point.
I am not a "follower" of Hubbard or Crowley. But, for certain things of each, I "liked" what I read. THAT probably had more to do with my own way of SEEING than it had to do with what was "there". :confused2:
Thanks Syn and Veda for "rounding out" the picture. There is no doubt that Crowley did NOT mean the sort of "love" that I myself enter into the mix when I read his stuff. Mine means "with full compassion and full intention for the happiness and well-being of all others". I understand NOW that Hubbard did NOT mean that when he talked of the "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics", though in my early days of gross unfamiliarity with Scientology and Hubbard, I ADDED that (mis)understanding and (mis)interpretation of my own when first reading about the "greatest good". I think THAT is an important factor in grasping the "trap" of Scientology, and that
many of us "added to" what was there to render it "better" and "more decent" than it actually was. We saw it nicer than it actually was, and we confused THAT (our own vision) with what was actually there. Granted we all do that about everything in life, at least to some degree.
Once I learned that a major mistake of my own was how I myself "colored" some of Hubbard's writings,
for the "better", I could separate out what was "his" and "what was mine". In the end I liked how I "made it better", but I realize that for the most part, Hubbard and/or Crowley's stuff tend towards the toxic and have little chance of use along the "white path".
Note: I have mentioned this before. In a certain way Hubbard tricked each of us, who were involved with Scientology at some point, to contribute out own innate goodness and decency into his matrix of nastiness. His words and ideas act as a sort of "conceptual vampire" that prod us to contribute our own "positive life energy" to his "life sucking" system. He often speaks in vague terms and leaves ideas undefined so that YOU can "fill in the blanks with your own decent notions". He was a tricky and nasty SOB. Scientology members come to imagine that they are contributing to some "wonderful movement" when really they are tricked into contributing to a farce which they CONFUSE with their own unqiue visions and interpretations. Scientologists rarely notice this discrepancy because of the strict restrictions on "no verbal data", no discussion of case, no discussion of Scientology terms and ideas outside of a courseroom or qual.
Scientologists are marching,
shoulder to shoulder, quite
deluded, each in their own unique way.
