The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Convictions, morals, other societies and religions.
obnoxion
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by obnoxion »

I think this might be a topic where almost anyone could have something to say. It can also be an extremely tricky subject for responsible public discussion. This is why I suggest we limit our examples to people who have already finished their lives work, and leave the still living authorities out of this discussion.

A questionable authority can be a person whose lousiness is obvious to most. But perhaps a more dangerous one is the kind, who has nine out of ten things right, but the tenth wrong thing is absolutely wrong.

I have a few examples in mind, but I begin with this one.

When I was younger, I just loved to read the books of Montague Summers. They very nicely fitted to my taste of Lovecraft's horror stories of magical realism. But as entertaining Mr. Summers is, he would be a thoroughly lousy occult authority. In a way his legacy still lives in the form of satanic panics waged by christian 'experts'. But there hasn't been anyone who would have exceeded the entertainment value of mr. Montague Summers. Yet an occult authority he is not.
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Wyrmfang »

The only occult writers who I have once taken as a kind of authorities are H.P. Blavatsky and Nefastos, and at this point I have have to refrain commenting the latter one :D

About Blavatsky... Her reputation as a liar is widespread even among occultists. Usually one might be cautious because of such reputation, but I, ten years ago, reacted in the opposite way. Because I found Blavatsky´s ideas inspiring I took a defending stance on everything concerning her (most likely because of my kind of luciferian temperament). Today however, when I still find the basic idea of theosophy convincing, I have had to question seriously almost everything else Blavatsky has said. And when remembering the fact that the basic idea of theosophy is not Blavatsky´s invention but something that has always existed in the minds of truly religious people, it is obvious that I see Blavatsky as a very questionable authority. Sources that seem not to exist at all, absurd claims concerning science even on the scale of her time, highly questionable and even obviously wrong knowledge claims about historical facts, claims concerning differrent thinkers that clearly rely on one (often very dubious) source instead of actual research work etc. etc.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Nefastos »

obnoxion wrote:I think this might be a topic where almost anyone could have something to say. It can also be an extremely tricky subject for responsible public discussion.


Good points both.

For myself, the answer is easy enough: Aleister Crowley. He have had tremendous impact on the modern (Left-Handish) occultism, and is the occultist for many people today. We can't just pass him by unnoticed.

Yet his practical ethics are not only scandalous - which means nothing, because occultism is not about formalities - but downright selfish, opportunistic & dishonest. Even that could have been more funny than depressing, were not many of the tales told of him (and by him) made legendary, mythical & awe-inspiring. Thus from Crowley modern occultism have inherited liability to bravado, occult power machismo, hedonistic tendencies veiled as positive creativity & self-will, and all that blurring where the facts meet fiction and real devotional occultism gives way to personal roleplaying.

But.

Granted, Crowley gave modern magic much more power of imagination it had beforehand. He watered the quite dry esoteric circles, and while publishing material that wasn't his, he also opened more wide the gates for the coming neophytes. He didn't do what he did because of selfless reasons, but still some good became of it.

And another thing. It was not only Crowley's fault that he did what he did. His own past masters had faults in budding, and in Crowley they just blossomed full. The easiest example is MacGregor Mathers, whose texts Crowley published without permission; yet Mathers had not altogether prohibited all dishonesty & prideful grandieur in his own workings. In occultism, little errors escalate the more rapidly the more intensive is the occult process: and whatever we say of Crowley, he was intense. Creative, artistic, smart, driven man with powerful imagination.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Azoth
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Azoth »

The whole Wiccan tradition is highly questionable, and its occult authority (cough) is Gerald Gardner, so I'd probably go with him as my winner. In his defence, however, he was just one in a long line of dubious figures connected with that 'line of tradition', so all of the blame cannot lie with him.

The dubious line of the modern witch tradition began with Lamothe-Langon and Karl Ernst Jarcke, who fabricated medieval documents in their pseudo-historical works, which were then cited by Jules Michelet in his 'poetic' version of the history of the witch trials La Sorciere. This line of work was then continued by Charles Godfrey Leland with Aradia and Margaret Murray in The Witch Cult In Western Europe, the preposterous and absurd claims of which gave Gardner the 'historical' background of his neo-tradition.

I once wrote an article that explains this dubious history a bit more concisely which you can take a look at here.

Take that pseudo-history and mix it with a few knocked-off, aesthetically amended Crowley rituals and hey-presto you get a bunch of young women to dance naked around you under the light of the moon!

The runners up's prize goes to Anton LaVey for inventing a religion in the name of something he didn't believe in.
Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph - Robert E. Howard, Beyond the Black River.
User avatar
Heith
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Heith »

As a runester, I'd like to mention Ralph Blum. He's the author of The Book of Runes, came out sometime in the 80s. I'm unsure if he is to be credited for the so called "Wyrd"-rune (also referred to as "the rune of destiny"), that is, a blank one, but his book is the oldest one (that I recall from the top of my head) where I've seen this rune mentioned. The Wyrd - rune is quite common in the US nowadays, I think. In the original runic system it does not exist.

What Blum did is, as he had bought a (24+1) set of runes from someone at the beach, he had looked at them and found one blank. As we know, this is a common thing for example in decks of cards. You always get a few extra, in case you lose a card or two. The author must have missed this idea and thought that the empty block was a authentic rune. So he took it as a part of his futhark and came up with a meaning for it. Of course, one can argue that the system one uses matters very little, interpretations are in the head of the reader, so to say. But to me personally runes as a system are so arcane and powerful on their own already that this kind of pick & mix can have quite awful results. The runes are not toys, and Blum makes them into playthings.

This is a person who has done absolutely no research on his subject at all. None. He has relied solely on his intuition, and re-arranged the elder futhark (well, something like the elder futhark at least) wildly by pulling the runes out of the bag and happily settling for that. And quite many people read his book and think it's excellent. Well, I admit, it has nice pictures and a cool cover that oozes mystery. But it also has rune poker, and the book as a whole is a sorry excuse for a beginner's guide. Blum's Wyrd-rune has birthed a whole range of books that use this system. To me he is a prime example of irresponsibility. But perhaps I'm a tad serious about things...?
User avatar
Azoth
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Azoth »

Katla wrote:As a runester, I'd like to mention Ralph Blum.
Damn, I'd forgotten that phoney ever existed until now. The blank rune! That always reminded me of the blank tile in Scrabble. And just like that blank tile, it's worth absolutely nothing. :D. Plus, Perthro covers the concept of Wyrd quite nicely anyway.

Blum's definitely questionable, but I'd never go as far as to call him an 'authority'. Still, I suppose some people did, though they're probably the types who went on to do rune readings at psychic fairs with ignoble intent.
Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph - Robert E. Howard, Beyond the Black River.
User avatar
Heith
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Heith »

Azoth wrote: Blum's definitely questionable, but I'd never go as far as to call him an 'authority'.
I did think about this a little before posting as well. Certainly to me he is not an authority, but obviously quite many people have considered him to be. I posted this in hopes that it might save someone from being Blumed ;)

You're into runes as well I see (or if not, have some knowledge of them). Good! Mayhaps we'll discuss the topic in the future.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Nefastos »

I actually like Ralph Blum. He certainly is one of those New Age teachers who make up lackings in their knowledge with enthusiasm, but his intuition seems to be more healthy than most of his colleagues. As of his empty rune, I personally didn't even think that it was meant for serious business concerning the runic lore, but being harmless & even beneficent add for his audience: the people who are not serious occultists - or for me, who consider myself as a serious occultist, but with different emphasis. When you are just learning the ropes of the business, I see it even healthy to have a possibility for this kind of "zero answer", as like a safety valve for beginners. Brings to mind the black "Void" Tarot arcana from Quest for Glory IV. :)

I see New Age teachers and occult teachers as two separate things. From the latter, I expect ingeniosity, high intellect & true ethics. From the former, just honesty combined to certain intuition and real interest on the subject they are discussing. For, let's face it, if one would truly put oneself in the real occult business, all that "think happy while finding your magical insight" talk of the New Age gurus would have changed to horror & despair that the true occult tests necessarily bring about when one starts challenging his of her inner demons.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Azoth
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:36 am

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Azoth »

Katla wrote:
You're into runes as well I see (or if not, have some knowledge of them). Good! Mayhaps we'll discuss the topic in the future.
Yes, I have a great interest in the runes. They're probably the only practical magical system I feel I'm attached to in a way that you could say comes from the blood.
Barbarism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. And barbarism must always ultimately triumph - Robert E. Howard, Beyond the Black River.
Angolmois

Re: The Most Questionable Occult Authorities

Post by Angolmois »

From my own personal experience I will have to answer to this question: Julius Evola, with whom I've wrestled for over a decade. It is the lucid, sane and calm Evola that focuses on esoteric mysteries I honor very much even today, but the one blind spot in his thinking was his own "personal equation" of hyper-masculine solarity which transformed his esotericism practically into violent, hubris-ridden political extremism. It is his grey ethics that cause very serious consequences when taken as such. I have even found some kind of an omen in his name spelled backwards: A-love, without love and empathy; it means that he was without buddhi, full of atma and manas. I think he calmed down a little bit after coming to an age (some have even proposed he secretly turned to Catholicism after attacking Christianity for decades), but the very essence of his personal contempt for anything that didn't satisfy him or he didn't properly understand, is a very dangerous attitude for an esotericist. He would have made a fine Kshatriya in the Vedic times, when the world was very different. It is "Evola with Compassion" that I can accept.

From the Finnish occultists I have to say: Pekka Siitoin. There are even people who take his so called philosophy seriously. It is full of half-truths mixed with all kinds of seriously flawed views.
Locked