Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

openculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#91

Post by standardly »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not. Its metaphor for truth which is unable to be expressed with precise language - because we lack understanding.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

I think he means the occult, not theology.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#92

Post by b800h »

standardly wrote: post #91
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

I think he means the occult, not theology.

The occult is a form of theology. The sense I take is that he's taking a pot-shot at the lot of it. But I could be wrong.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#93

Post by b800h »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not. Its metaphor for truth which is unable to be expressed with precise language - because we lack understanding.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

You might like to look at some apologetical writing. Christian apologetics, for example, are often split into three layers, essentially:

1. Is there a God - this is actually fairly straightforward to argue, simply because we can use analytical philosophy to reason about the unknowable and first causes and so on.

2. Is Jesus God - much tougher to approach for obvious reasons, but can at least be reasoned about if you've gone through step 1.

3. Should I be x sort of Christian - easier to reason about if you accept 1 & 2.

That first step is very approachable if you're already interested in things like logical proofs and higher physics.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#94

Post by krapp »

b800h wrote: post #93
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

You might like to look at some apologetical writing. Christian apologetics, for example, are often split into three layers, essentially: 1. Is there a God - this is actually fairly straightforward to argue, simply because we can use analytical philosophy to reason about the unknowable and first causes and so on. 2. Is Jesus God - much tougher to approach for obvious reasons, but can at least be reasoned about if you'…

Your first layer isn't really "Is there a God" but "Does the Judeo-Christian God exist?" Like Pascal's Wager, Christian apologetics begins by assuming that the only God that can possibly exist is the one Christians already believe in.

And neither logic nor higher physics proves that Christianity has the right idea out of the multitude of human religions and infinitude of possibilities beyond.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#95

Post by b800h »

b800h wrote: post #93
Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

You might like to look at some apologetical writing. Christian apologetics, for example, are often split into three layers, essentially: 1. Is there a God - this is actually fairly straightforward to argue, simply because we can use analytical philosophy to reason about the unknowable and first causes and so on. 2. Is Jesus God - much tougher to approach for obvious reasons, but can at least be reasoned about if you'…

@krapp - Disagree on that point. Obviously the three above are going to break down into further stages, but there are plenty of apologetic arguments which squarely fall into a broad question of "is there a God?" and not a more specific question.

You're right about the starting point though. By its very nature it has to start there, but it doesn't assume that the people it'll be arguing with will be in the same place.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#96

Post by GloomyBoots »

b800h wrote: post #25

Crowley, and his forebear Eliphas Levi, are responsible for the stupid air of sulphur which hangs around a lot of modern esoterica. AC has his apologists, and he was obviously clever, but he was unquestionably a complete turd, and created a religious system which was fundamentally Satanic, wrapped in enough layers of obfuscation that it can fascinate intelligent people, especially those who have received a substandar…

Stepping over the general LHP/RHP question that you’re driving at, I’ll expand on this:

> Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method of science, the aim of religion". A lot of HN matches that demographic.

Hackish culture was playful, irreverent, simultaneously creative and destructive, competitive, and elitist (in a word: adolescent). Being part of it felt like sorcery, like you were finding and pulling strings others couldn’t see. I think there’s a heavy psychological crossover between the kind of people who got into that and into occultism, the kind of people who really like the idea of hidden power and taking control of the world around them. That’s also why you see the same people drawn to transhumanism, etc.

Tangentially, how much that culture still exists, I’m not really sure. I think most subcultures have ossified into collections of shibboleths without the creative power that formed them, even subsumed into the same global culture as a mere consumer aesthetic.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#97

Post by b800h »

GloomyBoots wrote: post #96
b800h wrote: post #25

Crowley, and his forebear Eliphas Levi, are responsible for the stupid air of sulphur which hangs around a lot of modern esoterica. AC has his apologists, and he was obviously clever, but he was unquestionably a complete turd, and created a religious system which was fundamentally Satanic, wrapped in enough layers of obfuscation that it can fascinate intelligent people, especially those who have received a substandar…

Stepping over the general LHP/RHP question that you’re driving at, I’ll expand on this: > Someone asked why Crowley is perennially popular on HN. It's because his approach appeals to people who have experienced enough religion to understand that there is something there, but are struggling to reconcile it with our culture's dominant scientific materialism, because they're bright enough to want to try to. "The method…

> the kind of people who really like the idea of hidden power and taking control of the world around them. That’s also why you see the same people drawn to transhumanism, etc.

Good point - actually not just a case of hidden power but also the sense of wonder at a hidden universe beyond what the eyes could see. Yeah, good shout.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#98

Post by b800h »

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #77
b800h wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methods plural. I'm sorry if I'm coming off as smug - what I'm trying to get across is that a lot of people who have been failed by western religions in their desire for the numinous , and an understanding of how on earth it relates to everyday reality, can come across Crowley and buy into his approach. But actually, they might find that their own religious traditions have something that can do the job. Catholicism h…

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from. I think we're operating with a somewhat different idea of what the spiritual or numinous necessarily is or has to be. For me, mysticism was never all that appealing, regardless of what tradition it came from. I guess the mystic whose thought I'm most familiar with is Terence Mckenna, but I always ingested his thought with a sort of mysticism filter applied. I thought he had…

I get where you're coming from too, I've read plenty of RA Wilson for example, and the Autonomedia stuff.

I'd argue there are other ways of confronting the "animal" as you put it, but I have to leave the house now. Good talking.

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#99

Post by MockObject »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #87
ergonaught wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeaaahhh except there is an excerpt from one of his books where he suggest thats sacrificing a child produces the most potent magic possible, but you totally shouldnt do it (wink wink)

[dead]

Re: Aleister Crowley and William Butler Yeats get into an occult battle (2016)

#100

Post by DontchaKnowit »

Simon_O_Rourke wrote: post #90
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not. Its metaphor for truth which is unable to be expressed with precise language - because we lack understanding.

How can theology be a metaphor for truth when the core of what it's trying to reason about is unknowable? "Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief" [1]. The latter part I get, lots of people and groups (and regions) have religious beliefs and differences, so it's definitely worth some effort to figure out (from a sociological or anthropological view) what's…

In my estimation it is, in its basest explanation, a means of hacking religious reward system of ones own brain. We have this spiritual nature to us which cannot be explained, but the study of the divine is an excercise in honing and directing that spiritual aspect. This can absolutely affect real change in ones own mindset and behaviour. In this way, I say it is metaphor that reveals truth. It reveals truth about the way our brains work, what motivates us, how to direct ones own will, etc.

Now, on a more abstract and heady level, I would posit that because these techniques do induce real change in our brains, that they may point at a truth outside of ourselves. For instance- when I hear of occult practicioners worshipping demons of greed in order to obtain personal wealth- it makes me think that the idea of "demons" ought mot to be tossed out ebtirely. In a certain sense, theyre real. Worship of these demons amounts to giving oneself over to the spirit of that demon (e.g. greed) now does this mean there is a real flying bat like demon creature - no, but it is a lesson in the nature of these demons within ourselves. We all have inner aspects which are base and immoral, and when we choose to feed them, it is akin to worshiping a deity- i creasing the influence and control it has over your thought processes.

Hope this made sense. I find the intersection of occult practice, jungian psychology, and judeo christion demonology to be a very very rich subject where surprising insights abound.

Post reply on HN