ViolinAddict wrote: This is a first person account (by one of its participants) of a blood ritual invented by Crowley called "The Mass of the Phoenix" He describes the best motives... the best times... best tools... and his own opinions, fears, and doubts. I think there may be a lot in this that we can use.
The Mass of the Phoenix usually involves a small scratch. No one is going to be carving themselves up with it. Here is the actual ceremony itself:
WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE EVEN PRONOUNCE THE MAN'S NAME RIGHT?!
That irks me to no end. They're going to stick the name of our religion on their front page, appropriate some religious symbols of ours, use the image of a person from our religion....
And they can't even bother to find out how to pronounce his name?
Again, in 1944...you find out that Crowley is living in Aston Clinton, Bucks...which is north of London.
This video series has nothing to do with Thelema or with the real Aleister Crowley.
This concerns me. They are bending the truth about Aleister Crowley. This could be for one of two reasons
A) They're about to weave a yarn that intentionally disregards all accuracy to the truth in either literal fact or spirit for the sake of telling a retarded story that uses random garbled historical reference points to be cool.
B) They're about to weave a yarn that intentionally breaks with adherence to historical fact to tell a story that keeps with the spirit of whatever. (I'm sure someone could detail a massive list of factual inaccuracies in the Illuminatus trilogy, but why would or should anyone care?)
Sadly, the suggestion of Crowley's involvement with the "disappearence" of a woman seems to point to the former, but it could just be a red herring
I've got a Morse Code anagram for you to decode, Cassie:
Sfonzarelli wrote:Sadly, the suggestion of Crowley's involvement with the "disappearence" of a woman seems to point to the former, but it could just be a red herring
Well, I have to say...I've been worried about this from the beginning. Yes, this story is fiction, but Crowley and Thelema are not fiction. You have a large group of people who will believe anything that is said about Crowley and/or Thelema with no basis in fact. Point in case: saying Crowley performed satanic rituals in Zennor. Anyone who studies Crowley from legitimate sources finds out that he wasn't a satanist....and was actually a pretty holy person devoted to spirituality.
Then you have that group of people that will take a work of fiction to be fact. Point in case: the DaVinci Code.
I really REALLY wish the creators had thought this through a little bit more than it's beginning to seem that they did. I still have hope that there will be a decent twist to this story...but it's just as likely that they will defame an actual religion for no reason.
I don't think it's fair to just assume that "a large group of people" will believe "anything that is said" about Crowley or anything else for that matter. Many people have posted many different links to all kinds of websites from varied points of view. People can draw their own conclusions and even if they do choose to believe something other than what you believe, you really can't force them to do otherwise... And while there are both definate truths and definate non-truths, there are also things that none of us could possibly know None of us actually were around when Crowley was and none of us knew him nor are we privy to all the details of his life. All that is left are documents. People who believe that he was evil may be correct. People that believe he was holy may be correct. It is impossible to know and it's unproductive and rediculous to argue about.
spaciegirl wrote:I don't think it's fair to just assume that "a large group of people" will believe "anything that is said" about Crowley or anything else for that matter. Many people have posted many different links to all kinds of websites from varied points of view. People can draw their own conclusions and even if they do choose to believe something other than what you believe, you really can't force them to do otherwise... And while there are both definate truths and definate non-truths, there are also things that none of us could possibly know None of us actually were around when Crowley was and none of us knew him nor are we privy to all the details of his life. All that is left are documents. People who believe that he was evil may be correct. People that believe he was holy may be correct. It is impossible to know and it's unproductive and rediculous to argue about.
spaciegirl wrote:None of us actually were around when Crowley was and none of us knew him nor are we privy to all the details of his life. All that is left are documents. People who believe that he was evil may be correct. People that believe he was holy may be correct. It is impossible to know and it's unproductive and rediculous to argue about.
Actually, many of us were around when those that knew Crowley were around. He only died in 1947. As far as his diaries, documents, etc. They paint a pretty good picture...as well as the movement he started.
To say we know nothing about him because he's not here and we didn't know him personally is ridiculous. We might as well not teach history in schools or learn about any historical figures because we ourselves were not there.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. - Mahatma Gandhi
While the Potential Bullshit factor is a little troublesome here, let's again, please, for at least the next several hours, keep the literary device of the Unreliable Narrator forefront in our minds.
Remember that lots and lots and LOTS of people, as demonstrated in this very Phorum, manage to pick up on lots and lots and LOTS of inaccurate nonsense off the internet. True regarding any and every subject. True regarding the persona of Aleister Crowley, the nature of alternative religions, and even regarding the metahistory and personalities involved with this project's development.
Honestly, it probably wouldn't be very realistic for an emotionally charged, creeped-out young kid like Daniel, already going into this research with a suspicious mindset and a bruised ego, not to latch on to some unsettling real-or-invented rumor. Watch what other people are coming up with -- very lurid scenarios like rape, virgin sacrifice, demon conjuring.
Try not to get too hot under the collar that Daniel found a supposed article that he is interpreting to state that Crowley was in Arizona in 1943. Mesh has not even attempted to have Daniel name a source here, so in meta-terms, they aren't trying to even trying link this rumor to an actual internet source known to be fairly reliable.
Also notice that Daniel seems tired and frustrated in this video after doing a lot of research on ancient Egypt and on Crowley -- it's significant, I think that Youself is not portraying Daniel as especially panicky or frightened or indignant or judgmental.
Nora Volkova wrote:While the Potential Bullshit factor is a little troublesome here, let's again, please, for at least the next several hours, keep the literary device of the Unreliable Narrator forefront in our minds.
Honestly, it probably wouldn't be very realistic for an emotionally charged, creeped-out young kid like Daniel, already going into this research with a suspicious mindset and a bruised ego, not to latch on to some unsettling real-or-invented rumor. Watch what other people are coming up with -- very lurid scenarios like rape, virgin sacrifice, demon conjuring.
Try not to get too hot under the collar that Daniel found a supposed article that he is interpreting to state that Crowley was in Arizona in 1943. Mesh has not even attempted to have Daniel name a source here, so in meta-terms, they aren't trying to even trying link this rumor to an actual internet source known to be fairly reliable.
I understand what you're saying here....and it makes sense.
It could also be that the Creators picked something easy to refute....Crowley in Arizona in 1944.
I'm worried....but if you see in my comments, I am keeping the possibility open that they're still going to twist this. I guess we'll know in the next couple of days with what Bree says about the ceremony.
They could be feeding the propaganda...in order to climax it and then make the twist...
I'm still worried about it though lol. It's really 50/50 right now.
spaciegirl wrote:It is impossible to know and it's unproductive and rediculous to argue about.
So why do you keep being so venomous?
Nothing I just said was venemous at all....and Tannhaus, you can talk and talk and talk but no one can testify to the character of this guy unless they knew him...and even then, it's a judgement call. (and I'm pretty sure that most of us were not alive in 1947..and what's the difference anyway..the point is that none of us knew him?!) Just becuase you consider the sources that are available to be reliable does not mean anyone else will or has to. I think we all get the point that you think he was just swell, but no matter how many different ways you try to spin it, that's still merely an opinion. You can't deny that.
aleksmakk wrote:Have we ever explored the possibility that Daniel is the target and Bree is the bait? Am I just loopy from thinking about this for so long?
Oh that's such a rip-off of Wicker Man, if it's true.
...no children are harmed in the making of cakes of light.
-----BEGIN MAGIC CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 1.5.1
MCH/TA,X ++ CO1,PEG/SG,W+,N++, Dd+, Dr+, A, a+, C++, G++, QH+++,666+++, Y+++
------END MAGIC CODE BLOCK------
