Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Crowley's "Mongoose" Joke

05:12 / 25.01.03

Alright, I only know this because I read Promethea, but reportedly Crowley once told a joke that had some metaphorical relevance to magic/k, going somewhat like this, forgive me if you're already familiar with it:
There are two strangers sitting on a train. The first sees that the second has a large crate he's carrying around with him, so he inquires whether some sort of animal is encaged within it. The second man replies that yes, there is, and in fact it is a mongoose. The first man is bewildered by this and askes why he would be carrying a mongoose around. The mongoose-carrier says that it is for his brother, who has been suffering from a bizzare form of skizophrenia whereby he imagines that there are snakes all around him, and he is bringing the mongoose to his brother to deal with the snakes.
"But," inquires the first man again, "aren't these imaginary snakes?"
"Why, yes," replies the second man, (and as you've presumably guessed) "is an imaginary mongoose."

Would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that Crowley is saying that magic/k ISN'T real, but rather that it's a nessecary solution to another contstuct residing within the imagination, religion? Or am I completely wrong in this?

As an aside: I'm completely new to all of this, and to be frank it all seems a bit tinfoil hat to me... don't mean to be rude/a troll though, so accept my apologies...

09:27 / 25.01.03

Can't remember and I don't have my Crowley books with me - I think it's from Magick in Theory and Practise and refers to the reality or otherwise of the astral plane, the way it's inherent nature or reality is not knowable, though I may be completely wrong here.

What I can recall correctly its that there's a weird dialetic of truth/untuth going all the way through Crowley, which is one of the things that makes him such a sophisticated writer. A lot of the qabalsitic paradoxes in "The Book of Lies (Falsely so called)" are examples of this.

ps. please add a topic abstract to any threads in future - it aids searching the archive. Ta.

11:39 / 26.01.03

Imagination and Reality are a duality.
Transcend the duality.
There is no difference between imagination and reality.
What we believe is true.
"Reality, as you perceive it, will conform to your beliefs about the way it is."

13:28 / 27.01.03

I'm hardly a Crowley scholar, but I've always read the mongoose story to suggest that one utilize the solution best suited to the problem (i.e., in R.A.W. language, to choose your reality tunnel for the job at hand). If a person sees imaginary snakes, catch them with an imaginary mongoose. If a person believes themselves to be possessed by the Christian Devil, perform a Catholic exorcism. If a person believes themselves to be under magickal attack, render a magickal defense. This sidesteps the question of how or why magick works, or why one system/method works in some circumstances and not in others; do what works (or seems to) and worry about what's "real" some other time, if ever.

This fits in with his admonition (in the preface to one of his books, I forget which) not to ascribe any objective "reality" to any of the spirits, Gods, etc. referenced in the book, and to simply take note that certain actions appear to produce certain effects. Take from that what one can.

And yes, murielw, it can all seem a bit "tin-hat," until one starts experiencing it for themselves. Then the magick seems pretty real, and you just start to question your sanity from time to time.

}{
~Lepidopteran

19:32 / 27.01.03

> and you just start to question your sanity from time to time.

Just wait til you hear the voices!

03:28 / 28.01.03

I am Jack's arched eyebrow.

Ok, I was going to just lurk, but this thread has dragged me back in. Some may bless you, Muriel, others may curse you.

The "Mongoose story" appears at the beginning of chapter 18 of Magick in Theory and Practice, the subject of which is, boradly speaking, working in the astral. Before he gets into the subject at hand, he comments that it's necessary to discuss "the question of reality", and launches into the story (which I reproduce here):

There is a story of an American in the train who saw another American carrying a basket of unusual shape. His curiosity mastered him, and he leant across and said: "Say, stranger, what you got in that bag?" The other, lantern-jawed and taciturn, replied: "Mongoose". The first man was rather baffled, as he had never heard of a mongoose. After a pause he pursued, at the risk of a rebuff: "But say, what is a mongoose?" "Mongoose eats snakes", replied the other. This was another poser, but he pursued; "What in hell do you want a mongoose for?" "Well, you see", said the second man (in a confidential whisper) "my brother sees snakes". The first man was more puzzled that ever; but after a long think, he continued rather pathetically: "But say, them ain't real snakes". "Sure", said the man with the basket, "but this mongoose ain't real either".

Crowley comments, "This is a perfect parable of Magick."

The point that Crowley is making is not that "magick is imaginary", certainly, nor that one use the tool suited to the job; rather, his point (and this is reiterated in various forms throughout his works) is that the boundary between the "imaginary" and the "real", or the "objective" and the "subjective" are pleasant fictions in which we like to indulge.

Magick works perfectly well. Just like the imaginary mongoose did.

03:32 / 28.01.03

On an extremely related note, Crowley writes at the beginning of Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae:

In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth, and the Paths, of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes and many other things which may or may not exist.

It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things, certain results follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them.

(This is the comment that Lepidopteran paraphrased earlier in the thread...)