Our guest author is Ken Figuly who is a professional writer who has written for Rolling Stone, and other magazines, has published books out on the market, worked with various music artists and is a magician in his own right. He is a lifelong student of the Golden Dawn and Hermetics. He is currently working on a novel on the Golden Dawn.
S.L. MacGregor Mathers and Edward Alexander Crowley, being both extraordinary and human,
had negative and positive influence on the occult world. The positive characteristics are quite
obvious: both were significant dignitaries in modern Occultism, their works eminent to this day.
The undesirable assumptions formed when Crowley challenged and, to some degree,
discriminated Mathers as defective and unfit inside his position within The Golden Dawn.
Politics are permitted. I don’t refute this. Conclusions, on the other hand, require a substantial
expense. I don’t wish to sound petty; even feelings retain a reasonable amount of liability.
Revisionist history is not always faithful to the time it defines. Crowley was, in many
ways, a revisionist. Of course the concept of revision isn’t a bad thing if it is aimed at a
plausible, constructive outcome.
At times it can become difficult to distinguish the fine line between certainty and
fraudulence. This is not to suggest that outright deceit is acceptable. Hearsay is often
complicated and lying is, at its best, a complete alteration of accuracy; in other words, it is
downright distasteful to completely revise history regardless of intent unless it serves a more
truthful account within progressive means, certainly not to attack someone else’s character.
This idea of revision, when utilized on the internet, can alter reality to such an extent
that entire belief systems can become overwrought with unscrupulous outcomes. I’m hard
pressed to use the word “unfair” to describe any living inspiration. The world is only unfair
within its complacency. We are all, and must remain, responsible for our own words and
actions regardless of how difficult that may seem. Unfair is merely a word that has little basis
for comparison, although attacking anyone with convoluted disdain is, to me personally,
imbalanced and therefore one-sided, misleading and unfair.
I try never to draw a comparable difference between something that lacks semblance. I
certainly wouldn’t try and pose a just disagreement with that as a basis for an impartial dispute;
apples and oranges come to mind.
Allow me to pose a couple of question: what happens when someone decides to divide
both sides of a similar belief structure? Another question I want to pose is this: at what point
are politics allowed to divide an entire family of beliefs, expelling its frontrunner of his or her
position simply because it’s simpler to expel them than to defend them? Brotherhood should
be global and not ironically altered.
The paradox in the case of Mathers and Crowley is that Mathers was the responsible
party who invited Crowley to explore many of his own beliefs, the very same philosophies that
he later utilized to build himself up and at the same time tear down what Mathers stood for.
I’m not taking sides. I am suggesting that both parties had good knowledge to impart. Why
vandalize one school of thought for the other? Differences will always exist. Magic is not a
perfect form of artistic endeavor. It is, however, open for argument and innovative criticism.
More recently the case between Robert Zink of the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn
and John D. Griffin of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, both men are clearly gifted;
both men share a similar love for the magical arts.
The issue that I have. The issue that concerns me most, is a question of honor. What
happens when more time is spent criticizing the opposition? In this case a schism occurred,
making all parties involved appear unsupported.[
Regarding Robert Zink and John D. Griffin, neither is the weaker party; neither men
lack the ability to impart insightful knowledge. It’s unfortunate to read, on so many occasions
over the last few years, the amount of pessimism written by John D. Griffin concerning Robert
Zink. I don’t believe for a second that it is even necessary. John D. Griffin is, in his own right, a
knowledgeable academic within the magical arts. Why would this man, being who he is as an
educator of light, elect to obscure his own good name in pursuit of slandering Robert Zink? Is it
pride of knowledge or politics of obsession? Where was the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn
when their Imperator General, a member of their family, needed them most? ( Could it be that some of the leaders were looking at this as a chance to advance their own position and thus cause desertion within the membership to the point of convincing people that somehow[[[[ true honor came through breaking ones oath? )
Shame on the Esoteric Order of the Golden Dawn for taking sides in this matter and
shame on John D. Griffin for perpetuating the rift. We are all accountable for the loss on both
sides. Nothing comes to any good when conflict takes the place of integrity.
In love and light,
NOTICE: Kenny Figuly and others will be contributing to this blog. be sure to subscribe for hardcore Golden Dawn Information.