Attitudes about angels, demons, gods, etc.

I have a question that I hope that some of you may be able to answer.

Aliester Crowley believed that the spirits of the Goetia were simply aspects of the human brain. Moreover, Crowley is quoted as saying, '...the universe as I know it, is purely subjective...'. Any one who has studied Crowley knows that he based his magical universe on the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

Did any of the other original members of the Golden Dawn (i.e.- Westcott, Mathers, Farr, etc., etc.) hold a contrary view to Crowley's subjective universe? In other words, did any other G.D. members hold the view that angels, Demons, Gods, etc., were a part of the Objective universe?

Thank you, in advance.

Dion Fortune's writings often speak of such beings as though they are external to one's self, just like other people are. Interestingly enough, she said (I don't have the exact quote handy) something to the effect that there are far more discarnate beings than there are living ones out there.

One could argue that both views are partly right, and that there really are spirits which have an existence independent of us, but nonetheless some critters are simply 'all in the head'. Another possibility is that what one perceives to be such entities are actually mental reflections of some outside archetype.

Thanks for the info. That is one of the more intelligent answers I have heard so far. I have posed this question to many Golden Dawn'ers and the majority have not a clue as to what I am saying when I speak on the topics of Subjective and Objective realities.

thanks,

(snip)

Not just they, but philosophers and all sorts of others have wondered about things like this. The most sensible thing I have read was by W. E. Butler - can't remember where or exact quote but, for all the thousand things I would argue with him about, this one is as good as I've ever found to describe my own experience -

'It doesn't matter whether or not the secret chiefs exist; the point is, the universe _behaves_ as though the secret chiefs exist'.

Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to all the other creepy-crawlies. The exercise of the Will defines the magician, not what s-he defines as objective or subjective. After all, about the only thing that all mystical traditions agree on is the non-existence of the Self. Given that, the exact existential state of other creepy-crawlies is

You are correct, for in his 1904 edition of the Goetia he clearly states that the spirits are aspects of the human brain. Crowley believed that through that guise of subjectivity he could interface reality in patterns that produced 'modes' of results, wouldn't you say?

In such terms, he drew upon a magical philosophy through a priori categorical system, not unlike Kant. Crowley seemed to, on many levels, have a Kantian simi-transcendental philosophical tradition (postulate). Furthermore, you can almost see Kant in Crowley's 'Theorems.'

Perhaps Dr. W.W. Wescott. (Frater Sapere Aude) After all, he was the one who brought the Cypher Manuscript to the Golden Dawn, isn't he.