Introduction

It's not often that one encounters analogies that make even seasoned readers resort to slamming their head on a desk in frustration. Recently, while delving into Aleister Crowley's interpretation of the Tao Te Ching, I stumbled upon a particularly egregious example, an analogy that, in its attempt to elucidate, only succeeded in creating more confusion. This article will dissect this analogy, explore why it falls flat, and perhaps offer some reflections on why some analogies work while others fail.

The Analogy in Question

Crowley's analogy begins thusly: “I am only too painfully aware that the above exposition is faulty in every respect. In particular it presupposes in the reader considerable familiarity with the substance thus practically begging the question. It must also prove almost wholly unintelligible to the average reader him in fact whom I especially aim to interest. For his sake I will try to elucidate the matter by an analogy. Consider electricity. It would be absurd to say that electricity is any of the phenomena by which we know it. We take refuge in the petitio principii of saying that electricity is that form of energy which is the principle cause of such and such phenomena.”

What the Analogy Hopes to Accomplish

The analogy aims to contextualize the idea that reality is far more complex than we can simply observe or understand. It suggests that the form of our experience, which we can understand as the phenomena caused by electricity, is a result of something deeper, an underlying energy that determines not just the nature of these experiences but their very existence. The analogy presupposes a certain level of understanding about electricity and energy; however, this is precisely what makes it problematic.

Why the Analogy Fails

Most people's understanding of electricity is fundamentally flawed. They imagine it as a squiggly, liquid substance that flows through wires—much like how ancient societies understood heat. This misconception is not a product of ignorance or lack of information but a result of the way we visualize and conceptualize these abstract concepts. When Crowley posits that the analogy of electricity helps the 'average reader,' he fails to consider that the vast majority of people do not possess the necessary scientific knowledge to understand electricity as a measure of relationship changes and structural exchanges between objects.

Popular Misconceptions about Electricity

Many laypeople see electricity as something like a glowing, blue liquid, moving through wires, perhaps even with a viscosity similar to mercury. This is a widespread misconception because it is easier to visualize than the abstract idea that energy is a measure of potential and it is the changes in that potential, rather than a substance itself, that creates the phenomena we observe.

Why This Analogy is Excellent Despite Its Failure

Despite its failure to help the average reader, the analogy is effective in one significant way. From a philosophical perspective, it serves to highlight the complexity of experience and the need for deeper understanding. The analogy also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between the observed phenomena and the underlying cause or principle that determines these phenomena. This distinction is crucial in various fields, including science, philosophy, and even modern technology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Crowley's analogy, while intended to elucidate the complexity of our experience, falls flat due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the target audience's knowledge base. The analogy is a stark example of how poor analogies can fail to achieve their intended purpose. However, it also serves as a reminder of the complexity and depth that lie beneath the surface of our everyday observations. For those seeking a better understanding, there is much to be gained from delving into scientific and philosophical concepts that challenge our preconceived notions.

References

1. Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. Translated by Aleister Crowley.

2. Hasbro, IDW Publishing. Transformers comic series. Panels from issue 4.