﻿How radical was Crowley in his psychological, naturalistic interpretations of occult
experiences? Did he invariably consider such experiences to be the result of an
alteration of consciousness or was there a more “enchanted” worldview to accompany that?
Stay tuned to find out!
[Music]
Hello everyone, I’m Dr Angela Puca and welcome to my Symposium. I’m a PhD and a
University Lecturer and this is your online resource for the academic study of Magic,
Esotericism, Paganism, Shamanism and all things occult.
Today’s video is brought to you by the kind friend of the Symposium,
Cosimo. Thank you so much for commissioning this video and I truly hope you enjoy it.
Today’s episode is all about naturalistic and psychological interpretations of occult practices
and it is sourced from the fascinating paper “The Variety of Magical Experiences”
authored by Prof Marco Pasi.
We know that Crowley was influential in the contemporary perception of entities as having
a psychological nature but, as Pasi argues, Crowley’s intent to be the prophet of a new
religion likely prevented him from embracing the process of psychologising to the fullest.
Wouter Hanegraaff noted that the progressive psychologising of esotericism begins with
Mesmer’s discovery of animal magnetism and continues through the whole of the nineteenth
century. Ann Taves has interestingly suggested that, during this period,
those who “offered naturalistic or secularising explanations” of religious experiences were not
necessarily “critics” or outsiders to religion. In some cases, such as in Spiritualism,
the “dominant tendency to dichotomise religious experience and naturalistic explanation” was
actually challenged. This means that naturalistic explanations
of religious experiences were not seen as contrasting their religious meaning.
The occultist movement of the late nineteenth century manifested a similar approach as they
attempted to reconcile science and religion. Trying to reconcile these two fields,
perceived as increasingly distant, or even totally opposed to each other, could indeed be considered
one of the vital traits of modern occultism. That said, there is something about this
process that is specific to the twentieth century, when – specifically at the beginning
of the century - new dynamic psychological theories were being developed and popularised.
Crowley’s approach is particularly interesting because he tried to apply these new developments
to magical and spiritual practices. For him, the psychologising of Esotericism and Magic
explored new avenues. First, he was likely influenced by William James’s famous classic
“The Varieties of Religious Experience,” originally published in 1902. A book that
influenced greatly Crowley’s perception of magical experiences. Crowley refers
to James’s book in several of his works and seemed particularly fascinated by the distinction between
“once-born” and “twice-born” religions as well as by what James had to say about
Yoga and the experiences of religious “geniuses”— namely, founders of religion.
As Pasi explains, Crowley was also acquainted with the activities of the Society for Psychical
Research and with some of its members. In 1895 he was admitted as an undergraduate student to
Trinity College in Cambridge, where he would spend three years without getting his degree.
Trinity College was also the place where the Society for Psychical Research originated in 1882.
In 1908 the Society for Psychical Research went on to investigate the famous Italian
medium Eusapia Palladino. The report of this investigation was published a year later,
and it was positive toward the medium’s claims. However, in his autobiography,
Crowley mentions that he studied the book and later paid a visit to the medium in 1911/1912
so that he could test her during a séance. Fun fact, Crowley was much more sceptical
about the phenomena produced by Eusapia Palladino than the two professional psychical researchers.
Eventually, he concluded that all the extraordinary phenomena he witnessed during the
séance were quite possibly the results of tricks and sleight of hand. Not only does Crowley deny
the authenticity of Spiritualistic phenomena but he also tries to explain why men of science end
up being persuaded by their reality. Crowley sees a pattern in the fact that this persuasion often
takes place at a certain age when the “sexual power begins to decline.” So, basically, psychical
researchers are subject to credulity because their declining vital energies impair their judgment.
Crowley’s was somehow connected to the polemics that had divided occultists and Spiritualists
since the two movements had come into existence. Marco Pasi highlights that the common polemical
argument of the occultists had consisted in contesting the interpretation of Spiritualist
phenomena—mostly pertaining to the identity of the entities supposedly involved in the séances— but
not their preternatural status. Yet, Crowley was even more radical in his criticism and denied the
very authenticity of the phenomena. When Crowley published Mathers’ adaptation of the Goetia
he added a small introductory essay titled “The Initiated Interpretation of Ceremonial Magic,”
in which he addressed the problem of the reality of the entities described by the grimoire and the
efficacy of magic. In this text, he expressed the idea that it is not necessary to consider these
spirits and demons as “really” existing—meaning independently from the magician’s self.
They can be seen, in fact, as “portions of the human brain.”
So, when the invocation of one of these spirits occurs, a specific part of the
magician’s brain is stimulated. One that corresponds to the particular spirit.
Interestingly, Crowley seemed willing, at least in certain contexts,
to interpret the effects of ceremonial magic, and the entities traditionally involved with them,
purely in physiological, not even psychological, terms. Magical phenomena are therefore explained
from a strictly materialistic point of view: they are only taking place in the brain,
which creates the illusory perception of spiritual entities. This reductionist approach may have been
motivated by the need to make sense of traditional spiritual practices in a modern, secular context
and to make them compatible with a positivist and naturalistic way of thinking. Crowley presented
this naturalistic interpretation of magic in the early years of his spiritual career and it was
published in 1904, the same year when Crowley received from Aiwass, “The Book of the Law.”
However, it must be noticed that, even though this conceptualisation was important
for Crowley from a theoretical standpoint, he did not adopt it consistently over the years.
There are plenty of occurrences where Crowley’s encounters with entities are
not framed as contacts with “portions of his brain” or as parts of his unconscious psyche.
We can conclude this because Crowley established initial contact with most of these entities thanks
to the help of a visionary partner, very often a woman. This is how he made contact with Aiwass,
who appeared through his wife Rose and revealed to him “The Book of the Law.” And we find a similar
pattern with other less influential entities in his work, such as Amalantrah and Ab-ul-Diz.
Crowley didn’t seem to regard these entities as products of his or his partner’s unconscious
mind or brain. They were not fabrications but rather conceptualised as independent,
preter-human beings, with their own autonomous personalities and existences. And they were
even subjected to careful testing to prove not only the identity of the entities, so that the
possibility of an evil creature in disguise would be ruled out, as well as their autonomy from the
personality of the magician and/or of his scryer. In that sense, Aiwass and other entities
conceptually resembled more the mysterious “Secret Chiefs” of the Golden Dawn or the elusive
“Mahatmas” of the Theosophical Society rather than “portions of Crowley’s brain.” As the former were
understood as enlightened masters who had reached a very high level of initiation but were still
living on this realm of existence. To sum it up, Crowley’s psychological interpretation of
the entities occultists come in contact with was a bit inconsistent and appears
to be more prevalent in certain contexts and times during his spiritual journey.
Conceptualising entities in psychological and/or naturalistic terms still revealed to be incredibly
influential for traditions and practices that developed after Crowley, providing a perhaps
more “rationalistic” theoretical framework to frame occult practices in a “secular” age.
This is it for today’s video. Thank you again,
Cosimo for reaching out and commissioning a video on this topic.
As for you, my kind viewer, if you like my content and want me to keep the academic fun going,
please consider supporting my work with a one-off PayPal donation, by joining Memberships
or my Inner Symposium on Patreon, where you will get access to our Discord server,
monthly lectures and lots of other perks depending on your chosen tier.
And if you did like this video, don’t forget to SMASH the like button, share the video with your
friends, subscribe to the channel if you haven’t already and activate the notification bell because
YouTube is naughty and might not let you know when there’s a new upload from me.
Thank you so much for being here and stay tuned for all the Academic Fun!
Bye for now.
[Music]