On 04/12/2013 01:59, Leigh Blackmore wrote:

Leigh

Interesting but I'm still not really persuaded on Crowley & Seth. You 
had to dig pretty hard to find many references to Seth,
I think Michael Aquino is right to say it just doesn't really figure 
much in Crowley - and when it does he tags it on as a rough equivalent 
of Shaitan (which really isn't right) Same with Church of Satan - there 
was one month dedicated to Seth amongst other gods, which I'd say shows 
a lack of understanding of the archetype. Thus you mention page 444 
where Crowley equates Set with Apophis the destroyer of Osiris - again 
its not right which shows he's not really that interested in the 
particulars of the archetype - which he could have delved deeper given 
some of the experts in his group.

Aquino's view of Seth is more accurate than Crowley's being based on two 
of the classic studies of the god - same goes for Don Webb -
TOS obviously does owe a lot to Crowley which permeates their work but 
the emergence of the Seth is really via the Kenneth Grant's "Typhonian"
interpretation of Crowley - where The Hidden God is supposedly revealed.

I'll write a little more later when I've looked again at your references -
btw I am not and have never been a member of TOS or COS ... : )


senebty


Mogg Morgan






> I am reading Levenda's book at the moment. It is useful so far as it 
> goes but I tend to agree it reinforces the 'Simon'- Grant Nexus in 
> regard to modern magick - a not very suprising bias on Levenda's 
> part.  Personally though, I'm glad to see a book which ties together 
> the Grantian focus on HP Lovecraft as well as on Aleister Crowley, 
> however. I'll be reviewing Levenda's book for the critical horror 
> journal dead reckonings (Hippocapmpus press) next issue.
>
> As to Set "not figuring much in Crowley's theorising", this is 
> inaccurate. Set is a key component in at least two of Crowley's major 
> magical formulae - that of FIAOF (where O represents Set, Shaitan etc) 
> - see /Magick /p. 163;  and LASHTAL, where ShT (Set, Shaitan) forms 
> the middle component of a formula flanked by the words LA (not-god) 
> and AL (god). (Crowley's explanation of this crucial formula appears 
> in /Magick /on p. 577-78). For further on Crowley's Qabala of SH 
> conjoined with T, see /Magick/ pp. 425-7.
>
> On p. 444 of Magick, Crowley equates Set with Apophis, the destroyer 
> of Osiris, and thus with the child Horus. Further correspondences of 
> Set outlined by Crowley can be found in his 777. Furthermore, Set can 
> be found in the AA grade signs Set Fighting and Set Triumphant (the 
> latter of which features in the crucial Crowley ritual The Star 
> Sapphire - see /Magick/ p. 570).
>
> There is, I believe, very little if any connection between Crowley's 
> magical system with regard to Set, and the originally-Satanic Temple 
> of Set, which was inaugurated by Michael Aquino as a new rescension of 
> La Vey's Church of Satan.  Aquino's and Crowley's views of the 
> god-principle Set are different in ways too numerous to detail here.  
> It's interesting though, that a more recent head of Temple of Set, Don 
> Webb, has written on Crowley, initially in his book FORCE AND FIRE, 
> and more recently in the expanded version (just out) OVERTHROWING THE 
> OLD GODS.
>
> Not sure, Margaret, what you mean by Crowley's emphasis on Horus in 
> his philosophico-magical system being "garbled." It seems to me that 
> Crowley eloquently explained as well as espoused the role of Horus in 
> his philosophy of the New Aeon. His view of Horus as initiator of the 
> New Aeon of Thelema permeates his magical writings.
>
> On Grant vs Crowley, it is, of course ,well-known that Grant's 
> rescension of Crowley's Thelema is completely 
> 'heretical'/unconventional, focussing chiefly on the Lam Working and 
> its outcomes, as well as on the Nightside of the Tree of Life and 
> explorations of sexual magic more to do with extraterrestrial 
> lifeforms than Crowley posited (even though he claimed /Liber AL /was 
> transmitted by a praeterhuman intelligence). This unconventionaly in 
> grant's occult work based on Crowley is one reason why the American 
> OTO took legal action too force Grant to remove the lamen of the OTO 
> from his later books. Naturally there are those (myself amongst them) 
> who find Grant's system fascinating and have worked with it; but it 
> shouldn't be confused at all with Crowley's aims or methods, but 
> considered a postmodern deconstruction/reconstruction of them.
>
> Blessings/93
> Leigh Blackmore (FR LVX/NOX; Aurora Australis Thelemic Temple)
>
>
> On 3/12/2013 11:13 PM, mandrake wrote:
>> On 03/12/2013 10:09, Margaret Gouin wrote:
>>
>> Cheers
>> I'm planning to read soon but was very struck by the title and review 
>> (some of which are mixed- bemoaning the lack of index and some 
>> repetitions) even so i get the drift that Kenneth Grant's 
>> interpretation of the Crowley, identifying the "hidden" archetype of 
>> "The dark lord" in the work - ie Egyptian Seth et al -Seth does not 
>> figure much in Crowley's theorising, neither so in other cults such 
>> as Church of Satan up until the publication of Kenneth Grant's first 
>> book and perhaps same time the formation of Temple of Set and other 
>> cults focussed on "The dark lord" in one form or another.  The 
>> absence of Egyptian Seth from Crowley is surprising, makes a lot more 
>> sense than the focus on other deities such as Horus, which anyways is 
>> quite garbled -
>>
>>
>>
>> [log in to unmask]] Sent: 29 November 2013 10:06 To: 
>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: 
>> [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Sexual cult in Babylon? Margaret The late 
>> Kenneth Grant is a practitioner and author who has an important 
>> interpretation of Aleister Crowley's magick and especially his 
>> channelled text The Book of the Law. His books are more intuitive 
>> than scholarly - there is a new book by Peter Lavenda (the creator of 
>> the "Simon" necronomicon) called "The Dark Lord" which supposedly 
>> reexamines Grant's thesis, (I haven't read it yet but others here may 
>> know whether its is a good summary of the issues. ) Grant's is one of 
>> the most interesting interpreters of Crowley and has given rise to 
>> many interesting new religious movements - The Temple of Set and the 
>> whole "typonian" directions of modern magick. I'll see if i can 
>> summarise the thesis later, although others here might do a better 
>> job. senebty Mogg Morgan On 29/11/2013 08:07, Margaret Gouin wrote:
>>>> <snipped> ... Kenneth Grant's groundbreaking thesis about the "dark
>>>>> lord" is also close to the action although some of the mythology is
>>>>> quite creative.
>>>>> senebty
>>>>> mogg morgan
>>
>
>