What the Bleep do we know?

i cannot refute that crowley certainly contributed to the occult.

BUT...

anybody can write a bunch of formulas and present a bunch of sigils, but substance is where it's at.

crowley had none.

the point i am making with my last post is that would you take a liar seriously? would you take a man that was shooting profuse amounts of dope seriously (you must not of ever encountered a heroin addict...they lie about pretty much everything)? would you take a man that killed defenseless animals seriously? let alone while letting a goat fuck one of his lady friends and then attempting to slit its throat while it came all up in her? the fuck dude?

he inherited wealth, did a bunch of drugs, roamed around the desert aimlessly, and rounded up a bunch of people to follow his "mystically enlightening" philosophy, which was really him sinking into his own drug-ridden delusion.

might i add that it's pretty much common knowledge that most sorcerers, witches, and warlocks of any sort know that drugs and alcohol only dirty your channel, making a successful working that much more...unsuccessful.

drugs are amazing because they have the power to weave an illusion of divinity, of being closer to it, and are a catalyst for seemingly spiritual experiences. illusion rhymes with delusion, yes?

but yeah, i think there were a lot of people that did that. i think there was some guy named jesus that did that. and look at mr. leary; although an intelligent man, he seduced so many people to "tune in, turn on, and drop out". and that's just what they did. and now most of them talk like, you know, like, it's just, uhm, like, like, like, uhm, it's like...

shit's weetawded.

 

thank you. i'm not even sure where to begin.
if you dont like lsd:
throw out all your music.
give up on genetic engineering curing any diseases you might develop, cuz the guy who thought of that was on lsd at the time.
lsd, like many other things, is more like a mirror than a miracle drug. all it has to manipulate and expand is the mind you had to begin with. basically what i'm trying to say is just because you cant handle your lsd, dont assume i cant handle mine, as the government has.
want more examples of lsd influencing some of our most useful technology?
i have a list.
another thing is that one thing you have to understand before engaging in a conversation with me is that part of my mindset is the absence of a concept of truth of which i have any capacity to hold within my head. i gave up on plato's realm of forms several thousand years after his death. the title of one of crowley's books was The Book Of Lies, explicitly, as an artistic expression of the frailty of human language and the subjective nature of human logic, and i admired the hell out of it. there is no truth. but crowley's occultism has been extremely useful to me personally in my own occultism, and as an aid to help me understand a symbolic system through which i can attempt to map and communicate spiritual experiences, understand them, and communicate them to others (my ideal definition of religion).
and dont take things so literally also. most of the things he said about bestiality and having sex with little boys were thinly veiled allusions to other rituals, some kind of creepy, but none involving murder. do you respect the influence Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates had on the modern paradigm. they had intercourse with MANY a little boy. it was ok back then. i dont agree with it, but i leave that kind of thing out of my judgements of thinkers as much as they dont have the capacity to amuse me.
also look up diary of a drug fiend, its an account of Crowley's path to self actualization over the obstacles of hard drugs, which around the early turn of the century, they didnt know were so dangerous yet, like around the time freud was using a lot of cocaine.
any other questions?:cheers2:

 

I don't have time to read the thread right now, but I want to post this so that I don't forget.

Funny story... one of my professors in college, David Albert, was interviewed for the film. He didn't know exactly what the film was going to be about, only that it had something to do with quantum mechanics (one of his areas of expertise) and its implications. It became clear to him very soon into the interview that the filmmakers had an agenda that they were trying to push, and he even joked that he wasn't sure that they were going to get any use from what he had to say because he is skeptical of the link between quantum mechanics and such ideas as free will, consciousness, the powers of the mind, etc. He answered their questions, mostly with skepticism, and left. He sort of forgot about the film, and then when it was released, he was shocked to see that his comments had been very misleadingly inserted into the film in order to give the impression that he was generally supportive of the film's thesis. An example would be the film showing a couple of professors discussing how they believe that quantum mechanics implies that this or that is true, and then there would be a clip of Albert saying something like "these are very interesting ideas." Hahaha. He was pretty pissed, and if I remember correctly, they ended up releasing a sequel in which his true views were expressed more clearly.

Google David Albert and the film's title to get the story.

Basically, I wouldn't be surprised if the filmmakers weren't the coolest people.

 

Actually yeah, i heard about that. He seemed like an intelligent well-balanced man who knew about the topic. I would have liked to hear his honest, unedited opinion, though.

 

I think it's strange people think that the insane persons are not geniuses, but the persons in drugs like LSD are.

 

assuming thats true i would have to agree with thou. this attitude is not a universal consensus however, in fact many of our greatest influences throughout history were under the influence, pathologically mentally ill, or both. for example,
the double helix was discovered under the influence of lsd
salvador dali said the only difference between himself and a madman was that he was not mad
carl jung was known to have hallucinations, and use them in his work, believing hallucinations, like dreams, are a direct window into the unconscious
stanislov grof, a cutting-edge super-psychologist, posthumously psychoanalyzed great figures throughout history (i.e. buddha, jesus, mohammed) and found that by our modern standards they were all pathologically mentally ill (this is either an argument against all organized religion or in favor of the creative cultivation of mental illness, take thy pick, keeping in mind you cant have your cake and eat it too)
so i would personally say just judge a thinkerz ideas on the degree to which they compel and inspire thou, rather than, you know, what psychologists think of them or what drugs they're on.
iggy: