Top 10 Sinister Current Left Hand Path Authors Options

Howdy,

Top 10 sinister current left hand path mythos authors

(in no particular order!!!)

1) Stephen Sennitt
Just the other day I recieved the little book The infernal texts: Nox and Liber Koth* by Stephen Sennit. And it made me very frustrated to have waited until eight years after its publication before discovering it. Anyways I think Sennitt deffinitly qualifies for a place on the top ten sinister authors. I like his take on the mythos - his little grimoire seems quite good from preliminary experiments with it.

2) Simon
Well, he is just an editor, but nevertheless :-)

3) Kenneth Grant
The brightest or darkest shining genious of the present time.

4) The couple Schreck

5) Howard Philip Lovecraft
THe sleeping prophet. In spite of his denial of the reality of the things he wrote about them he still wrote better than many occult authors.

6) ....

7) ...

8) ...

9) ...

10) ...


Well, I can't think of any more!!! So, what's up with that??? THere is a dar tarot in the making but since it isnt out or finished yet I cant list the designers of it.

Since we aim at apocalyptic overthrow of the present order and world domination I think we really should have at least a top ten list of authors!

Please help me with the last five!

Nox

P.S. * As anyone can deduce Sennits text is really about me and the book of Koth :-)

Well except for lovecraft and simon I'm not sure about the others. Are you interested in only fiction? If not then I'd throw in Anton Levay and Aleister Crowley and the dude(s) who invented discordianism and the OTO. If you consider chaos magick lhp.

Are you interested in only fiction? If not then I'd throw in Anton Levay and Aleister Crowley and the dude(s) who invented discordianism and the OTO. If you consider chaos magick lhp.

Hm ... no, I am not interested in fiction at all - except as a means of conveying occult knowledge.

I don't know about Crowley I am not sure if he was particularly lhp adn without belittling his historical contribution I think nowadays the best reason to study crowley is that it will prepare you for understanding grant.

My take on chaos magick - the stuff that is called by that name is just that it is golden dawn a little bit liberated from the worst dogma. It doesnt come close to morkocks take on it and certainly does not approach the chaos of seth or the typhonian tradition. This would also be my reason for not allowing lavey into the club.

n

the best reason to study crowley is that it will prepare you for understanding grant. so it seams you put life long work of poet,mage( to some prophet) rock star before r'n'r was born, in service of introduction to grants work (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)
i guess you have lot of vegetables left to eat still, sweetie. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sadomaso.gif) but, hey, we all are students and here to learn...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/hypocrite.gif)
and one for your list AOSpare

Are we thinking of left hand path as in writers for the "darker" roads of magick or just overall notorious writers who came out with some type of taboo in their magick? Although A.O. Spare and Crowely are rather sinister, I don't consider them "left hand" path writers though. For "Pacts with the Devil" I'd consider Jason S. Black a left hand path writer, but not overly sinister. Hmmm... A.O. Spare and Aleister Crowely both brought an incredible amount of information and techniques to the table for almost every present day occultist though, and I think some practitioners might be offended to think of them as "left hand path", seeing as most of their practices were for gaining personal empowerment through the divine not taking it from other people. No doubt they've done some questionable things, but I don't think they outright promoted it as a general practice in magick..after all Crowely said, "Love is the Law..."

This post has been edited by Angalor: Aug 7 2006, 10:03 AM

art is one, and i ll stray away bit from topic... and people use words to name certain types of working. finally i see all roads leading to one ending, now sinister current or left hand path i understand it as working that uses destructive and creative principles and equaly respects both. what gave it name of sinister was method it uses, or way it externalizes perception of universe.

art is one, and i ll stray away bit from topic... and people use words to name certain types of working. finally i see all roads leading to one ending, now sinister current or left hand path i understand it as working that uses destructive and creative principles and equaly respects both. what gave it name of sinister was method it uses, or way it externalizes perception of universe.

Ok..I'm not quite sure I completely understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying they're both the same? Like instead of being black or white..it's all grayish and mashed together? Art is one?! Like as in sinister?

This post has been edited by Angalor: Aug 8 2006, 01:43 PM

You have a right hand = dexter and a left hand = sinister and are therefore a mish-mash combination -- (or are you??) LEFT AND RIGHT (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif) They are the part of the same.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)

This post has been edited by Alafair: Aug 8 2006, 02:02 PM

(IMG:http://www.kandayata.net/grafix/tarot/toth/14_Kunst.jpg)

very nice picture.
In the end we are all drops of the same ocean of energy.
Wheter it is left hand the path, is defined by the perception of the act. From wich angle you go at it.

Not stopping a child molester while you know about his acts, is left hand path in my opinion. Though i might use some rather "dark" magick to stop the person.

It all swirls toghether in the end, there is only the grey path, and nothing else.

Hmm..although I'm not denying that magick is one form in the end but my main question is the intent behind it. I'm going by what Israel Regardie said about the left-hand path. He describes it as a selfish form of magick. To say that there's nothing to distinguish between them is saying there's really no defining line between doing good magick and bad magick. There's no morality or ethics involved in the end, it's all grayish.

Showing the art card from the Thoth deck doesn't really explain to me what you mean towards the basis of magick. The Art card is a symbol of unity achieved," there is no more evil because everything is likewise useful and good." It defines basic principles and operations in alchemy. It also foreshadows the final stage in alchemy. The Lovers card is more appropriate. It is the symbol of opposites coming together, but not yet fully achieving unity. Eve and Lillith. The dove and the worm.."there is love, and there is love. The serpent and the Dove." (From the book of the Law). You have two separate principles that can either meld together to achieve a balance of purity or they can remain opposing forces. Loving through good and purity, or loving yourself through selfishness.

This post has been edited by Angalor: Aug 15 2006, 03:58 PM

the best reason to study crowley is that it will prepare you for understanding grant. so it seams you put life long work of poet,mage( to some prophet) rock star before r'n'r was born, in service of introduction to grants work (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

Of course I do. Listen: I am not denying Crowleys immense historical importance - hell, his work changed the course of history and his works are where I got my magickal education.

However when we are talking about today I am not aware of anyone of the same stature as Grant. And there is nothing unusual with someone standing on giants shoulders who actually surpasses their predesessors.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

Let me check one thing with you - I don't want to imagine that you are just jumping in to defending the beast because he is such a great guy, so I have to ask you: have you read and "understood" any of Grants post three of death work?

i guess you have lot of vegetables left to eat still, sweetie. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sadomaso.gif) but, hey, we all are students and here to learn...

Well, I am not much into either vegatables or being in the sub position ... and to be honest I don't know if I am to interested in learning either of them ...

and one for your list AOSpare

Thanks, of course! How could I forget him!

n

I would like to add Stephen Mace (depending on your LHP definition . . . sorry, got bored reading the thread)