Crowley vs Spare
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:19 am
While reading Crowley's "Magick Without Tears," I came across ideologies I found remarkably similar to some things Spare wrote in "The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love)." as well as in "Anathema of Zos." I am new to Spare's works and less so to Crowley's though I have yet to read all of his writings.
The passages are as follows, and I will try to communicate effectively here my curiosity:
"Man has used the idea of God to dictate his personal conduct, to obtain power over his fellows, to excuse his crimes, and for innumerable other purposes, including that of realizing himself as God." Crowley in "Magick Without Tears"
"O Self my God, foreign is thy name except in blasphemy, for I am thy
iconoclast." Spare in Anathema of Zos
I feel this implies that in realizing oneself as god, it simply destroys the concept to a degree. The 'self' being the interconnection between our conscious and subconscious and the ego (and their manifest), upon realizing full potential it self destructs in a manner of speaking because now you have cast aside belief and are experiencing "truth", the Law. This is something we are either incapable of doing completely due to our limited ability to comprehend because the combination of conscious and subconscious would be too much for the waking mind to handle, or something that must have a catalyst to achieve. Either way, the "world" or existence as we know it would be altered to such a degree that our realization of it would no longer matter since there is an entirely new construct to realize upon said change.
" To believe that they are Gods (or
anything else) would make them such-proving by all they do, to be full
of its non-belief........ 'The Kia which can be expressed by conceivable ideas, is
not the eternal Kia, which burns up all belief but is the archetype of
"self," the slavery of mortality'........ " Spare in "The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love) The Psychology of Ecstasy"
Similarly- Crowley wrote,
"21. There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea, the means of measurement cease to exist." in 'Magick Without Tears: Chapter I- What is Magick?'
This only strengthens my thoughts on the matter. It seems that Spare viewed our existence as our perception (noted this is not a new concept to many of you, nor to myself.) and that to understand Kia would not be understanding Kia nor Zos. The self is now something new and altered. Therefor it becomes a redundant cycle. I have a short article on it I wrote before I posted here http://www.occultforum.org/forum/viewto ... 17&t=37334 prior to reading any of Spares works. Though the context is slightly different and I base it off of notion vs perception.
Spare also wrote,
"Others again, and those who have much knowledge, cannot tell you
exactly what "belief" is, or how to believe in what defies natural
laws and existing belief. Surely it is not by saying "I believe"; that
art has long been lost. They are even more subject to bewilderment and
distraction directly they open their mouths full of argument; without
power and unhappy unless spreading their own confusion, to gain
cogency they must adopt dogma and mannerism that excludes possibility
. . . . . . By the illumination of their knowledge they
deteriorate in accomplishment." also in "TBoP."
It suggests that he himself is uncertain as to how to believe in the supernatural/metaphysical or Magick. He strongly implies in his works it is all cognitive through subconscious manipulation. An example is here, and it coincides with the statement that we cannot believe by simply stating that we do;
"Unless desire is subconscious, it is not
fulfilled, no, not in this life. Then verily sleep is better than
prayer." from TBoP- and expanded upon somewhat in AoZ
"On Earth my kingdom is Eternity of DESIRE. My wish
incarnates in the belief and becomes flesh, for, I AM THE LIVING TRUTH.
Heaven is ecstacy; my consciousness changing and acquiring association. May
I have courage to take from my own superabundance."
Awareness seems to be the less desirable outcome (contradictory to the surface message) in Spare's writings to me, for to become aware is to alter the state of reality and then one is no longer truly aware. The idea ties in with Crowley's idea of Mental Processes, though seemingly opposites. Acquiring not requiring- association. Stating that it or he is given relation to something more easily understood for the sole purpose of pleasure or ecstasy in life, and making it something capable of analysis and/or synthesis.
"There are two operations, and only two, possible to thought. However complex a statement may appear, it can always be reduced to a series of one or other of these. If not, it is a sham statement; nonsense masquerading as sense in the cloak of verbiage and verbosity.
Analysis, and Synthesis; or,
Subtraction, and Addition.
1. You can examine A, and find that it is composed of B and C. A = B + C.
2. You can find out what happens to B when you add C to it. B + C = A." ~~Crowley in 'Magick Without Tears; Chapter XXVI: Mental Processes- Two are only Possible'
Kia being the "self" and Zos- Spare's Ego perhaps- there are many a belief, but it states in AoZ here
"Hostile to self-torment, the vain excuses called devotion, Zos satisfied
the habit by speaking loudly unto his Self. And at one time, returning to
familiar consciousness, he was vexed to notice interested hearers-"
making me feel slightly confident that Zos is the Ego of Spare himself (for it is his writings that gained popularity, and many a folk flocked to be taught by the man and understand his writings so as to achieve enlightenment outside a traditional medium {e.g. religion), and can be interpreted equally as the Ego in general if applied to another individual. When reading his works the words "Self" and "Truth" or "Law"- are always given importance in being capitalized, showing a conscious remnant of himself in all his writings- automatic or not. The relation being that by OBSERVING and learning what composes (becoming aware), there is only the opposite remaining- to deconstruct or construct to understand that A is indeed B+C (using said awareness to understand- but if awareness is existence AND understanding it becomes an oxymoron and redundant at that). If this is true, then in realizing the self or Kia, the only logical thing to do next is to attempt to recreate it by taking it's elements and combining them. Since thought is perpetuated by notion and perception- the reconstruction is actually possible- though it will (sorry for redundancy) or may- create something entirely new -though still the same, as it remains existence. It's like adding salt to water and mixing it until homogenous, over time it becomes heterogeneous and in returning to B & C the components can be mixed and recreated over and over.
This becomes the deterioration in accomplishment Spare speaks of. We have reached our end goal, though it becomes repetitive and regression can only come from this elevated consciousness until reached once again. It is safe to assume then that we can never realize reality nor existence except for in a single fleeting moment of blissful epiphany before becoming equally ignorant as before.
Crowley seemed to focus equally on Conscious perception as well as Subconscious perception. Making his works very much coincide with- as well as- contradict Spare. I am one for finding relations (though Spare wrote that it is incorrect to do so here
"Some do much to show the similarity of different religions; certainly
by it I prove the possibility of a fundamental illusion, but that they
never realise-or this Ukase they are the mockery, for how much they
regret! They suffer more conflict than the unenlightened. With what
they can identify their own delusion of fear they call truth. They
never see this similarity and the quintessence of religions, their own
poverty of imagination and religion's palliation. Better is it to show
the essential difference of religions."
"The words God, religions, faith, morals, woman, etc. (they being forms
of belief), are used as expressing different "means" as controlling
and expressing desire:" TBoP)
So in analyzing these great writers and occultists, I borrow from them both- as they compliment each other nicely.
In conclusion, there is no Kia or true awareness simply because we change it as soon as we understand it in its entirety if at all possible. Both Spare and Crowley sought to explain and understand that which is inexplicable through similar and contrasting means both- and each is thought to be much more aware than most. I believe that they were equally unaware as backed by my evidence presented all throughout this thesis of sorts. They are certainly great at describing how to NOT be aware, but neither were they aware for more than fleeting moments in time, nor were they cognizant of the grand workings of the cosmos as they changed them as soon as they understood those facets.
"Some believe any and every thing is symbolic, and can be transcribed,
and explain the occult, but of what they do not know. (Great spiritual
truths?) So argument a metaphor, cautiously confusing the obvious
which developes the hidden virtue." TBoP
Thank you,
Titor
(am interested to hear back on this)
The passages are as follows, and I will try to communicate effectively here my curiosity:
"Man has used the idea of God to dictate his personal conduct, to obtain power over his fellows, to excuse his crimes, and for innumerable other purposes, including that of realizing himself as God." Crowley in "Magick Without Tears"
"O Self my God, foreign is thy name except in blasphemy, for I am thy
iconoclast." Spare in Anathema of Zos
I feel this implies that in realizing oneself as god, it simply destroys the concept to a degree. The 'self' being the interconnection between our conscious and subconscious and the ego (and their manifest), upon realizing full potential it self destructs in a manner of speaking because now you have cast aside belief and are experiencing "truth", the Law. This is something we are either incapable of doing completely due to our limited ability to comprehend because the combination of conscious and subconscious would be too much for the waking mind to handle, or something that must have a catalyst to achieve. Either way, the "world" or existence as we know it would be altered to such a degree that our realization of it would no longer matter since there is an entirely new construct to realize upon said change.
" To believe that they are Gods (or
anything else) would make them such-proving by all they do, to be full
of its non-belief........ 'The Kia which can be expressed by conceivable ideas, is
not the eternal Kia, which burns up all belief but is the archetype of
"self," the slavery of mortality'........ " Spare in "The Book of Pleasure (Self-Love) The Psychology of Ecstasy"
Similarly- Crowley wrote,
"21. There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea, the means of measurement cease to exist." in 'Magick Without Tears: Chapter I- What is Magick?'
This only strengthens my thoughts on the matter. It seems that Spare viewed our existence as our perception (noted this is not a new concept to many of you, nor to myself.) and that to understand Kia would not be understanding Kia nor Zos. The self is now something new and altered. Therefor it becomes a redundant cycle. I have a short article on it I wrote before I posted here http://www.occultforum.org/forum/viewto ... 17&t=37334 prior to reading any of Spares works. Though the context is slightly different and I base it off of notion vs perception.
Spare also wrote,
"Others again, and those who have much knowledge, cannot tell you
exactly what "belief" is, or how to believe in what defies natural
laws and existing belief. Surely it is not by saying "I believe"; that
art has long been lost. They are even more subject to bewilderment and
distraction directly they open their mouths full of argument; without
power and unhappy unless spreading their own confusion, to gain
cogency they must adopt dogma and mannerism that excludes possibility
. . . . . . By the illumination of their knowledge they
deteriorate in accomplishment." also in "TBoP."
It suggests that he himself is uncertain as to how to believe in the supernatural/metaphysical or Magick. He strongly implies in his works it is all cognitive through subconscious manipulation. An example is here, and it coincides with the statement that we cannot believe by simply stating that we do;
"Unless desire is subconscious, it is not
fulfilled, no, not in this life. Then verily sleep is better than
prayer." from TBoP- and expanded upon somewhat in AoZ
"On Earth my kingdom is Eternity of DESIRE. My wish
incarnates in the belief and becomes flesh, for, I AM THE LIVING TRUTH.
Heaven is ecstacy; my consciousness changing and acquiring association. May
I have courage to take from my own superabundance."
Awareness seems to be the less desirable outcome (contradictory to the surface message) in Spare's writings to me, for to become aware is to alter the state of reality and then one is no longer truly aware. The idea ties in with Crowley's idea of Mental Processes, though seemingly opposites. Acquiring not requiring- association. Stating that it or he is given relation to something more easily understood for the sole purpose of pleasure or ecstasy in life, and making it something capable of analysis and/or synthesis.
"There are two operations, and only two, possible to thought. However complex a statement may appear, it can always be reduced to a series of one or other of these. If not, it is a sham statement; nonsense masquerading as sense in the cloak of verbiage and verbosity.
Analysis, and Synthesis; or,
Subtraction, and Addition.
1. You can examine A, and find that it is composed of B and C. A = B + C.
2. You can find out what happens to B when you add C to it. B + C = A." ~~Crowley in 'Magick Without Tears; Chapter XXVI: Mental Processes- Two are only Possible'
Kia being the "self" and Zos- Spare's Ego perhaps- there are many a belief, but it states in AoZ here
"Hostile to self-torment, the vain excuses called devotion, Zos satisfied
the habit by speaking loudly unto his Self. And at one time, returning to
familiar consciousness, he was vexed to notice interested hearers-"
making me feel slightly confident that Zos is the Ego of Spare himself (for it is his writings that gained popularity, and many a folk flocked to be taught by the man and understand his writings so as to achieve enlightenment outside a traditional medium {e.g. religion), and can be interpreted equally as the Ego in general if applied to another individual. When reading his works the words "Self" and "Truth" or "Law"- are always given importance in being capitalized, showing a conscious remnant of himself in all his writings- automatic or not. The relation being that by OBSERVING and learning what composes (becoming aware), there is only the opposite remaining- to deconstruct or construct to understand that A is indeed B+C (using said awareness to understand- but if awareness is existence AND understanding it becomes an oxymoron and redundant at that). If this is true, then in realizing the self or Kia, the only logical thing to do next is to attempt to recreate it by taking it's elements and combining them. Since thought is perpetuated by notion and perception- the reconstruction is actually possible- though it will (sorry for redundancy) or may- create something entirely new -though still the same, as it remains existence. It's like adding salt to water and mixing it until homogenous, over time it becomes heterogeneous and in returning to B & C the components can be mixed and recreated over and over.
This becomes the deterioration in accomplishment Spare speaks of. We have reached our end goal, though it becomes repetitive and regression can only come from this elevated consciousness until reached once again. It is safe to assume then that we can never realize reality nor existence except for in a single fleeting moment of blissful epiphany before becoming equally ignorant as before.
Crowley seemed to focus equally on Conscious perception as well as Subconscious perception. Making his works very much coincide with- as well as- contradict Spare. I am one for finding relations (though Spare wrote that it is incorrect to do so here
"Some do much to show the similarity of different religions; certainly
by it I prove the possibility of a fundamental illusion, but that they
never realise-or this Ukase they are the mockery, for how much they
regret! They suffer more conflict than the unenlightened. With what
they can identify their own delusion of fear they call truth. They
never see this similarity and the quintessence of religions, their own
poverty of imagination and religion's palliation. Better is it to show
the essential difference of religions."
"The words God, religions, faith, morals, woman, etc. (they being forms
of belief), are used as expressing different "means" as controlling
and expressing desire:" TBoP)
So in analyzing these great writers and occultists, I borrow from them both- as they compliment each other nicely.
In conclusion, there is no Kia or true awareness simply because we change it as soon as we understand it in its entirety if at all possible. Both Spare and Crowley sought to explain and understand that which is inexplicable through similar and contrasting means both- and each is thought to be much more aware than most. I believe that they were equally unaware as backed by my evidence presented all throughout this thesis of sorts. They are certainly great at describing how to NOT be aware, but neither were they aware for more than fleeting moments in time, nor were they cognizant of the grand workings of the cosmos as they changed them as soon as they understood those facets.
"Some believe any and every thing is symbolic, and can be transcribed,
and explain the occult, but of what they do not know. (Great spiritual
truths?) So argument a metaphor, cautiously confusing the obvious
which developes the hidden virtue." TBoP
Thank you,
Titor
(am interested to hear back on this)
)) If indeed we are all technically GOD (Zos-Kia duality inherent in ALL beings, not just Spare himself) even if only in the long run- one person realizing the higher-self would ultimately affect everyone and how they in turn would realize the higher-self since we are all part of a cohesive whole just unrealized. To be all knowing would be accessing the inherent information ingrained into our DNA by millennia of evolution (physical, psychological and spiritual[working with the singular entity idea]), but how can we know future information? The realization of self certainly implies access to this knowledge, (granted I believe in precog, though I have only had the occasional instance where I felt that such a thing was at play in my life) and on a grand-scale at that. So, to truly realize self as god, would we in turn as a species need to do this? Spare seemed to imply such a thing, making him perfect for this.