Since the publication of my articles Chinese Whispers: the Origin of LAM and Kenneth Grant: Pseudo-Initiate, I’ve been accused of not ‘getting’ Grant. These people tell me I fail to understand that it doesn’t matter if Grant’s stories are true or not. After all, he’s being ‘creative’.
I’ve been a practising Chaos magician for over a decade. I once put a psychic suppository up my bum (and convinced a room full of magicians to do the same) in order that I might entice a sentient celestial brick with a tangerine so it could communicate via the tarot the correct astral address for me to ‘post’ my wish in order for it to materialise.
I once contacted the healing spirit the Electric Blue Oraculon by randomly selecting numbers from a phone book that were then chanted in order to ‘dial’ the spirit’s secretary, who we then spoke to by dunking our heads in a bucket of water. The fun part came when we thanked the spirit with cigar smoke.
I know how to be creative when it comes to magical practice, and I believe it is a piss-poor magician who requires real world evidence before he can take ownership of his magick.
Yes, I believe Grant has made up the entity named LAM, who has no historical basis in the magick of Aleister Crowley. This has not stopped me working with LAM on a number of occasions (with very strange results).
Would LAM be any less interesting or ‘real’ if Grant said ‘Look, I made this entity up! Would you like to meet him?’ Would Spare be any less magically innovative and respected as a magician if Grant hadn’t spread bullshit stories about his powers? The truth is, magical creativity doesn’t require lies, and if the lies are not even part of magical practice, on what basis do you consider them ‘magically creative’?
What experience is afforded to the magician by the Spare myth, or the idea that LAM is an extraterrestrial that interrupted the Amalantrah Working, or the notion that Crowley long sought the Grant Clan Grimoire, or that Grant is the successor to both the OTO and the Zos Kia Cultus, or that Crowley didn’t utter the word of the Aeon – it was Grant?!
At best these are simply self serving lies; at worst, they are a deliberate obfuscation of the practice and purpose of magick.
Kenneth Grant is responsible for more confusion within the occult scene (and let us not forget the knock on effect this has had on the crap written about UFO/Satanic abuse on the net) than any one else. I think I would be giving him too much credit to believe he has done this on purpose; and so that’s why I consider him a Pseudo-Initiate. For all his ‘creativity’, he has actually only been magically creative once, and that was with his instructions for contacting LAM.
Please, if anyone can provide another example, I’d love to hear it.