sacredashes
Wow. Ravenest, you have gone through great lengths to prove your point and your article is impressive.
I won't be as presumptuous as to claim Crowley was schizo, I asked if he was because somewhere in history, many great perople were discovered to have suffered from some form of neurosis.
To claim Jesus was neurotic, I wonder how that would appear so to anyone when he did no harm. To claim Mohammed was neurotic, well, then Moses would have been neurotic as well, they shared similiarities in the their leadership of a people oppressed. If we look for a crack in someone, we will find it. Sometimes we stumble upon it but then again, even the chosen by God were men when they walked upon the earth. Difference is they acted according to their principles and in the end, we make our choices to accept or reject their messages based on that, don't we?
I am a Muslim and if you asked me, there is a difference between a zealot and a believer. One practises according to one's faith, the other seeks to impose his/her believes on others regardless of the damage done.
Who really knows who is mad until madness shows itself in harmful ways not to oneself but in the action one does that effect the masses.
On that topic, how many people (I don't keep track, maybe some here knows) have lead cults that ended in mass suicide? How many people have ordered their followers to harm those outside their camps simply because they are unbelievers? Were the leaders of these cults divinely inspired or simply suffering from delusions? Who really knows?
We change our minds often enough, villian today and hero tomorrow. But if we are seeking answers, is it wrong to question or is it acceptable to follow blindly the masses who are already in the "herd" mentality?
There may be some unspoken friction between psychology and the tarot, each camp views the other with distain but in reality, they cover similiar ground using jargons specific to the "inner" circle. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
Back to the topic though, I think that when there is a crack in a theory, it means that the theory may have a fraction of the entire thruth but does not encompass the entire truth. Because if there are inconsistancies in a theory and humans aren't perfect, it's not unreasonable to deduct that theories thought up by humans may be flawed.
From your article, ravenest, it seemed that these gentlemen were on their personal journey to seek answers themselves but whether they found it, the followers of each camp are still argueing their stand to this day.
Ash
I won't be as presumptuous as to claim Crowley was schizo, I asked if he was because somewhere in history, many great perople were discovered to have suffered from some form of neurosis.
To claim Jesus was neurotic, I wonder how that would appear so to anyone when he did no harm. To claim Mohammed was neurotic, well, then Moses would have been neurotic as well, they shared similiarities in the their leadership of a people oppressed. If we look for a crack in someone, we will find it. Sometimes we stumble upon it but then again, even the chosen by God were men when they walked upon the earth. Difference is they acted according to their principles and in the end, we make our choices to accept or reject their messages based on that, don't we?
I am a Muslim and if you asked me, there is a difference between a zealot and a believer. One practises according to one's faith, the other seeks to impose his/her believes on others regardless of the damage done.
Who really knows who is mad until madness shows itself in harmful ways not to oneself but in the action one does that effect the masses.
On that topic, how many people (I don't keep track, maybe some here knows) have lead cults that ended in mass suicide? How many people have ordered their followers to harm those outside their camps simply because they are unbelievers? Were the leaders of these cults divinely inspired or simply suffering from delusions? Who really knows?
We change our minds often enough, villian today and hero tomorrow. But if we are seeking answers, is it wrong to question or is it acceptable to follow blindly the masses who are already in the "herd" mentality?
There may be some unspoken friction between psychology and the tarot, each camp views the other with distain but in reality, they cover similiar ground using jargons specific to the "inner" circle. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.
Back to the topic though, I think that when there is a crack in a theory, it means that the theory may have a fraction of the entire thruth but does not encompass the entire truth. Because if there are inconsistancies in a theory and humans aren't perfect, it's not unreasonable to deduct that theories thought up by humans may be flawed.
From your article, ravenest, it seemed that these gentlemen were on their personal journey to seek answers themselves but whether they found it, the followers of each camp are still argueing their stand to this day.
Ash