Anonymous - Thursday, February 10th, 2011 - 12:22 PM
I'm hoping a number of you here know our ol' "visionary" comics writer Grant Morrison. How many of you have seen the Disinfo Lecture he gave some years back? In that lecture and in his recently released biographical documentary he talks about his alien abduction, always stating something along the lines of, "Robert Anton Wilson said Crowley has techniques for contacting aliens; I went and read the shit and did them and these techniques work! I went to Kathmandu in 1994 to be abducted aliens and I was! The technique work!" He never says shit about what the fuck he is talking about, what he did, or WHY it was Kathmandu he needed to go to. The only thing I can find about Crowley and aliens is the Amalantrah Working he did to "contact beings from other dimensions", which led to his coming into contact with a figure (his sketch of which looks similar to your typical "gray" alien) named "Lam." Is this what Grant was talking about? Did he recreate the Amalantrah Working? He never fucking says anything about it. Does anyone know what RAW says about Crowley and aliens, and in what books he says it?
tl;dr What the fuck is Grant Morrison referring to when he talks about Crowley's techniques for contacting aliens?
Also Grant Morrison is boring and unimpressive with good presentation.
If it's anywhere, I imagine it'd be in RAW's "Cosmic Trigger": he seems to delve into both topics therein, and that might be where Grant Morrison got his info from. Given Morrison's personal idea of the cosmos, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he was saying that Crowley's workings to get in contact with higher intelligences of any sort (not specifically "aliens") were the ones he used, and what he interpreted as being "aliens" were one and the same as whatever intelligences Crowley has summoned up - it's a recurring theme in The Invisibles, at any rate.
I really dig Morrison, though. I got done reading Animal Man 3 (which I loved) last week , and just finished All-Star Superman & JLA: Earth 2 (which I didn't) today, and I'm in the process of reading "Our Sentence Is Up" at the mo' to get deeper into the Invisibles while I wait for my SO to get "Talking With Gods" in the mail. I think I'm kind of a rabid fanboy.
No. 18366 - Anonymous - February 11th, 2011 - 7:14 AM
Been a long time since I read it, but I don't think it is in Cosmic Trigger. There is probably more on the subject in Kenneth Grant's assorted lunacies than in RAW.
Grant is probably thinking of the Amalantrah working. Also, either he's lost his mind or is merely pretending for the attention, IMNSHO.
Yeah, Animal Man did sound kind of cool; he talks about it a little in Talking with Gods. That's the one where he drew himself in and explained to the protagonist that he was a comics author and had control over the death of his family, right? I do like that concept, and the Invisibles does sound like something I would enjoy, but really I think what bugs me is that he's writing fiction -- I don't see how writing about superheroes and superpowers could interest him when he could write about real life and real magic. In my eyes it's kind of nonsensical and maybe even irresponsible. I just feel like anyone in his position -- with the resources he has at his disposal, with an audience as large as the one he has the power to reach -- should be producing art about normal people in THIS reality, exploring magic, power and consciousness in THIS world. It's just like, you know, if he's done magic and has experienced the effects of a hypersigil, it doesn't make sense to me that he's more interested in continuing DC superhero lines instead of publishing this vital knowledge so relevant to the potential and future of his race when he knows most people are unaware of it.
No. 18377 - Anonymous - February 13th, 2011 - 11:36 AM
op, all im saying is that if he is a DC author, do yo ureally think that coming out and going "hurrdurr, magic is real!" would be good for his public image? im sure the company might eve nfire him for it.
Well, that's what I'm saying; why write for DC at all?
No. 18381 - Anonymous - February 14th, 2011 - 1:45 AM
>>18377
Grant Morrison, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman pretty much say "magick is real" constantly and they both write or have written DC titles. I'm almost inclined to believe most of the authors of Hellblazer tend to follow that doctrine to some extent.
No. 18382 - GoetSorceror - February 14th, 2011 - 3:16 AM
>>18376
Why /wouldn't/ he keep doing the stuff he loves just because he's into magick? Just because you're a magician doesn't mean you have to drop all your other, "lesser" interests and focus solely on that. Besides, the fiction he writes often takes cues from magick, in as much as he's bringing something to the comics medium that wasn't really there before - Invisibles being the biggest magic-themed work, but Doom Patrol certainly takes cues from magick, New X-Men drops a few hints, and All-Star Superman - while it's not really my cup of tea - is about a solar hero-deity who uses his heroic abilities to perform Twelve Great Labours, in a very Hero With A Thousand Faces kind of way. Admittedly I was skeptical of his works too (particularly New X-Men) prior to reading them, but he writes these comics with such an eye to real-life that there's always something I can take away from them, even if it is "just" superhero fiction.
Besides, if he were writing about real people all the time, I imagine the number of people buying his stuff would drop. I know a lot of people who haven't really heard of magick as it's practiced now, but like what Grant Morrison does fiction-wise and can appreciate the occult concepts he introduces in his stories.
>>18381
Morrison and Moore say it frequently and with gusto - I've never heard Neil Gaiman saying he believes in magic, is that true? It'd be very in-keeping with the stories he tells, at any rate.
No. 18383 - Anonymous - February 14th, 2011 - 3:47 AM
Alan Moore is not running around claiming insane shit, though. Alan is, by all accounts, a brilliant and thoughtful man, on many levels, who when faced with a choice between money and personal and artistic integrity, has chosen the path of integrity. I don't know the man personally, but we have at least one mutual friend, who I respect a great deal both as as a man and as an occultist.
I could be wrong, but don't know that we can place Morrison on an equal footing.
No. 18385 - GoetSorceror - February 14th, 2011 - 7:43 AM
>>18383
That's completely fine - it's alright that Moore and Morrison aren't the same in terms of artistic ideals and integrity, but they don't have to be. In terms of comic books, they're both pretty awesome writers, and in terms of magic, they may both have different views, but they both provide an excellent source of inspiration - last weekend I was doing some prepatory work for psychogeography a la Moore's From Hell, which also involved calling upon Saint Mungo on the subway as the patron of Glasgow in a way redolent of Grant Morrison's pop magic. Regardless of what Morrison actually believes about the nature of the universe, his abduction, hypersigils and so on, he still brings about a lot of interesting material to consider and shakes up (post)modern magick. I'm not personally asking him to be a saint, just a comic-book writer and magician.
No. 18391 - Anonymous - February 16th, 2011 - 2:58 AM
Thankfully, there are better and more credible sources available.
No. 18519 - Radgey Gadgey - March 12th, 2011 - 5:31 AM
When Morrison talks about contacting aliens using the techniques of Crowley, he's merely labelling the entity as an 'Alien' - Crowley may have called it a 'Deamon' - someone in the middle ages a 'Forest Spirit'. Essentially it's very much down to individual interpretation.
No. 18526 - Anonymous - March 13th, 2011 - 4:41 AM
Also, why make excuses for him? If he wants to make stupid statements like this, then he should be just as willing to bend over and take it like a man.
No. 18528 - Radgey Gadgey - March 13th, 2011 - 5:18 AM
Re - Anon - Google some of Morrison's previous interviews at comic book conferences etc, he clearly states the above opinion. Also try reading some of Robert Anton Wilson's books on when he thought he was receiving message from outer space then decided it was his left brain talking to his right brain before settling on it being a six foot white rabbit as in Irish folklore.
I realise from the outset that a lot of these guy's theories soeem completely crazy but when you carry it through to its ultimate conclusion aren't we all?
No. 18533 - GoetSorceror - March 14th, 2011 - 6:42 AM
"Better and more credible sources" for what? Inspiration? That's a completely subjective idea - someone can be inspired by the sails of a windmill as much as they can Battleship Potemkin. As for credible: why is credibility a factor when it comes to inspiration? If I'm looking to be inspired, I don't pay much heed to whether something is real or true, just the ideas it generates for me.
Given that you want to give it to Grant Morrison in that fashion, perhaps you should message him rather than insisting he "take it like a man" anonymously on a paranormal-themed message board he most likely doesn't visit? If you're the same anon as above, you seem to have a big issue with Morrison that would perhaps be better resolved by talking with him rather than adopting "Grant Morrison is stupid" as a mantra.
I think I've read every piece of non-fiction that Wilson published, but thanks for the suggestion.
As for Morrison, I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through is crap, If you haven't a citation to hand, you should have simply stated as much.
No. 18535 - Anonymous - March 14th, 2011 - 7:35 AM
There are better sources for the study of magic, obviously.
And the only issue I have with Morrison is that he's apparently a loon.
No. 18536 - Anonymous - March 14th, 2011 - 9:32 AM
>>18535
Again, it's all relative. I've personally gotten a lot out of Morrison's style of magick, and I know some folks who can say the same. If his stuff works for him, that's fine - it's certainly working for me. As for whether or not he's a loon, I'm going to reserve judgment: in a field where 90% of folks believe they can alter reality by jerking off over squiggly lines and construct imaginary friends that can help them achieve their desires by inspiring coincidence (no offense intended to any party here), any comment on how crazy other people's systems may seem would come off as disingenuous at best.
No. 18538 - Anonymous - March 15th, 2011 - 4:14 AM
Works for you? And what exactly have you accomplished lately? The fact that you are here wasting time attempting -- and failing -- to defend the work of Morrison does not speak well of you at all, friend.
What is remarkably stupid about this thread is that Crowley never claimed to have methods for contacting aliens. Wilson did not make any such claim, either. It was Kenneth Grant that flogged this LAM nonsense and his magical writings barely rise to the level of bad fantasy fiction.
Grant does not know his ass from a hole in the ground. This latest bout of silliness is just another nail in the coffin containing his credibility.
I don't think it's really your call to make whether or not I'm a) wasting my time, b) failing to "defend" Grant Morrison and c) whether my presence here doesn't "speak well" of me. For the former, I've made the decision to be here to discuss things that interest me, including Morrison's work. I could probably be balancing my checkbook or attending to coursework at the moment, sure -- I'm not living my life 100% efficiently. But then, I never took the oath that I would live my life that way, either; it seems more trouble than it's worth, and I like being here. /sanc/'s a fun distraction. Being that "the world of magic is a mirror" and all that -- why are you here? This thread seems less about you posing a question and more about you shouting an answer, being confrontational and assholic along the way. Is that achieving your goals?
Similarly, it's pretty arrogant to assume that you're "winning" in an argument primarily about opinions of a popular figure, especially when you're actually taking part in the argument - how do you score something like that? How do you gauge how much ground you've taken over your opponent? Have you been keeping score?
Finally, as for what I've accomplished recently - a great relationship, shrugging off vestiges of contacts I didn't want anymore, embarking on the university course that best suits me, working on a number of really inspiring creative projects and building on a life I've always wanted. As always, there are things I want to change about my life, but the methods I've used/am using based on Morrison's work certainly hasn't generated or let them happen - that's down to me not having taken care of them yet.
No. 18547 - Anonymous - March 17th, 2011 - 3:24 AM
It is indeed my call, if you are going to argue from your own authority. Whether or not you have actually accomplished anything of note has a direct bearing on your claim that Morrision's material is useful.
No. 18548 - LuinbarielDreamwalker - March 17th, 2011 - 9:45 AM
Goet is a bro. He most definitely knows what he's talking about. Over the years (yes, actual years) that I've spoken with him online I have never had any reason to doubt him. He has never been anything but intelligent, well spoken, and well researched.
I am not saying this immediately requires you to agree with him; however perhaps being less confrontational on your part might actually be beneficial. You are obviously free to question him, but you're not fooling anyone with your attitude of superiority. It is not required here.
Approach each other as equals even if only for the sake of civil conversation. This is not 4chan anymore.
>>18548
Cheers, Luin, especially regarding the last sentence. I guess I need a mediating presence around to keep me flying off the handle, so thanks for bringing me back down to earth, haha.
>>18547
We're getting into the messy territory of semantics and inductive reasoning here, chief: my opinion of Grant Morrison is that his work is useful. Does that mean that he is or is not useful? If his work is found useful by one person, does that make him useful? What if it were two? Two hundred? How do I gauge how useful he was, and what is the threshold I must pass before I can consider him useful? Does the fact that I think he's useful mean anything? Whose opinion does matter enough to classify him as useful?
Regardless, it's a bit silly of us to start a rational debate about his overall usefulness on a messageboard where by and large we can barely substantiate the claims we might make (I can't give statistical data on how effective his methods are) -- the fact that we're talking about magick, which by and large seems devoid of statistical proof, further clouds the issue. All we have here are opinions, and the only purpose this place has is to discuss our opinions in a way that generates something useful for one or both of us. If we're just debating to "win", what's the point? Neither of us gets much out of it, nothing useful is gained, and if we're coming at this from a position of animosity, neither of us will be inclined to consider the other's opinion in order to expand our outlook a little. It's pointless. I'm cool with calling a ceasefire if you are, dude.
