Author Topic: Kenneth Grant  (Read 1169 times)

Xepera-maSet

  • Guest
Kenneth Grant
« on: September 19, 2018, 07:38:04 pm »
So I'm reading the Cults of the Shadow and have to ask: did Grant just make shit up? He says some of the craziest shit I've ever seen, completely without or against known evidence/fact too. Associating Set with Sirius was just the first I saw. He literally calls El a god of the Stellar Tradition...

Xepera-maSet

  • Guest
Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2018, 07:49:42 pm »
Or perhaps more appropriately - was Gerald Massey just BSing? All Grant's ideas seem rooted on Massey.

Liu

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2018, 07:21:14 pm »
So I'm reading the Cults of the Shadow and have to ask: did Grant just make shit up? He says some of the craziest shit I've ever seen, completely without or against known evidence/fact too. Associating Set with Sirius was just the first I saw. He literally calls El a god of the Stellar Tradition...
Not sure whether I'm fully convinced, but I recently heard the argument over at RF, too, in one of your threads there, that El is rather stellar than solar in that he normally communicates via the stars and is associated with them more than with the sun in the bible. So I see how one could argue for that.

Haven't read much anything by Grant so far.

Frater Sisyphus

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2018, 12:35:25 am »
So I'm reading the Cults of the Shadow and have to ask: did Grant just make shit up? He says some of the craziest shit I've ever seen, completely without or against known evidence/fact too. Associating Set with Sirius was just the first I saw. He literally calls El a god of the Stellar Tradition...

I think when it comes to Grant, you gotta accept that sometimes he makes metaphysical pronouncements, sometimes symbolic, other times psychological and archetypal, and some times he doesn't make the distinction clear. Generally it's best to follow the themes of the respective chapters foremost.
Theosophy plays quite an influence in his way of deconstructing and reconstructing the elements he explores within different texts, sometimes textual but often speculative. Some of our different reactions to his (and Crowley's and Blavatsky's) work is, in part, due to preconceived notions of what a thing represents (and this aspect is ever-present in forms of Gnosticism). In the context of Grant's application and apparent synonymity of things, you kind of have to look at it from the root upwards.
Compared to "regular" Thelemites, Grant has a position that he starts with which fuels his whole work, whereas in "regular" Thelema, things are left far more ambiguous (which is also a selling point for many)  :)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2018, 12:38:59 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Setibelial

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2019, 08:47:56 pm »
A good way to read Grant is to think of his works(besides The Magical Revival)as an act of Magic itself as he is letting his Subjective Universe flow into his works. There's is useful insight's besides his constant talk of "Kala's" aka in crude terms Pussy Juice lol.
"Behold for I have crushed a Universe!"

Frater Sisyphus

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2019, 03:58:07 am »
Another things about 'ole Ken G. is that his works are very much veering into the shamanic and voudon domain. This makes him particularly confusing and unrelatable for a large portion of Thelemites. Grant's take on Thelema with the Typhonian order is very different in goals than Crowley.

However there isn't a lot in Grant that wasn't at least subtly implied by Crowley at some point in his work (and even jokingly in some of Crowley's fiction).

At it's root Grant's Thelema is a boiling pot of tantra, shamanism, voudon, kabbalah, surrealism (and bring it into esotericism). More than anything else, the raison d’être of the Typhonian tradition is an extreme emphasis on attaining altered states of consciousness, of which Crowley generally only tapped the surface of (even between his various iconic workings). Kundalini in particular takes a much larger role in Grant's world than Crowley's. Whether it's a result of orientalist over-emphasis on that form of yoga or not, I can't really tell.

One of the strange things though is that Grant's own ontology is more or less Advaita, which is a step back from what Crowley proposed with the traditional Thelemic ontology, which is beyond nondualism. In some areas I don't think Grant either cared about Crowley's insights or he intentionally diverted away from them.

Still the fact does remain that Grant is the only favorable potential successor to Crowley, when it comes to that whole debacle. Nobody else in general tried to do anything even remotely interesting with the Thelemic system. In the case of Grant, he obviously tried to synthesize the root of both the A.A. and the OTO with a lot of foreign elements. Whether or not it's true to the cross-history lineage Crowley himself claims to be a fulfillment of is up to you, I guess.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 04:02:04 am by Frater Sisyphus »

Frater Sisyphus

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2019, 06:18:36 am »
Generally speaking, he's not a general reference of mine in the outward sense but the trajectory of his work in the inward sense, is quite revolutionary. His slice of Thelema places things in a context which, at the very least; puts it in a synchronistic firing-line where so many potentialities manifest themselves.
His world is at the beginning of what in the future would be a more prolific venture; being, a wholly multi-field, holistic implementation of Thelemic magick and qabbala.
In the sense that there are so many strains that Thelema bumps shoulders with but either only dips it's toes in, or shys away from. As far as the mainstream Thelema community (for instance) is concerned, it's dead.
The Aeon of Horus (and it's consequent concentric expressions) is one aspect, the actual Liber Legis itself is another, the implications of Thelema explored in Kenneth Grant's work combined with the insights he provides does give a good idea of where it can go (and of course, there are aspects of overlap with Chaos Magick, regarding certain technologies) but it is in-and-of-itself an organic tradition that needs to be given further incentive.
Of course, the true initiates will always remain obscure, unknown and misunderstood until they have their 15 minutes of fame. The path of the Great Work however is an uphill struggle when there is the counter-work of technocratic-suprafascism knocking at the beds of the world.

As Liber Legis says:

"Also ye shall be strong in war.
Moreover, be they long kept, it is better; for they swell with my force. All before me.
My altar is of open brass work: burn thereon in silver or gold!
There cometh a rich man from the West who shall pour his gold upon thee.
From gold forge steel!
Be ready to fly or to smite!"



As it says in #3 "There is a word not known".

Hapu

Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2020, 10:26:19 am »
...when there is the counter-work of technocratic-suprafascism knocking at the beds of the world.

It may amuse you to learn that I googled "technocratic suprafascism" and your post right here was the second reference!

Xepera-maSet

  • Guest
Re: Kenneth Grant
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2020, 12:50:58 am »
It's true that Kenneth Grant seems to move to dualism again, but what's interesting is the AL seems to suggest both nonduality and duality, almost as if since consciousness creates it's own reality ones mind can make their reality a duality. The seekers and chosen of Nuit are nondualists, but Hadit/Horus and Ra both promote dualism, especially Ra where Hadit is more a balance between chapters I and III.