obnoxion wrote:This is a very good point! And we might add that there were also students who prospered, Israel Regardia being perhaps particularily sane example.
Yep, Regardie seems to have always been a very level-headed, critical thinker (like Crowley himself, who was very skeptical about everything before he committed to things).
How I mentioned Achad
(Jones) and Parsons
; I think they started off on a very positive note but after a point, their egos or ulterior motives got to them. Parsons getting swept up by Hubbard's scams didn't help his situation either. I think if Parsons had met Crowley earlier, he would have produced more within the OTO. Liber 49 (Babylon) is interesting as it is, but I'm so on the fence about it.
The Babylon working, is still perhaps one of the most intriguing events in Occult history for me, in so many ways.
Sadly Parsons death also caused Cameron
to loose her mind to an extent, which is sad but I also have a bit of an infatuation with her and her art too. Though she still produced great art throughout all her life
Same for me. Grant goes very deep, and his exegesis were for me the most convincing arguments for the Liber AL being a genuine holy book. But Grant cuts too many corners in his intepretations. He is, I think, ultimately a poet. And he seems to need a lot of licence...
I also think that his followers tend to lack the real depth of Grant's thought. Judging by his work, I actually consider David Lynch to be a most genuinely Grantian artist I know. The depth of originality needs to be abyssic.
Yep, I just lap up Grants
comments on Liber Legis
. While I don't always agree about many of his conclusions, he says things that are very much outside of my own perception of Thelema, that I can't help but enjoy it. In other words it challenges and intrigues me but also forces me to suspend my judgement because of how much it intrigues me.
I've been reading Liber Okbish
a lot recently and the Mauve Zone is an important idea. Dreams, the subconscious and new images attributed to already established symbols are probably the best lenses (for me) to interpret his writings. Otherwise, his writings can come off a bit...conspiratorial or just crazy...
He definitely explored the subconscious more in-depth than Crowley ever did, maybe even Jung
On a related note (with Liber Okbish), the spider imagery has been turning up a lot in my dreams coincidentally recently