| From the Galleries |
2075 pictures in 33 albums
Members' Creations
DEVIL VERSION 2
Last Updated Picture:
Spectral Perdurabo on Cefalu Abbey
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
32,934,085
Yesterday's visits:
27,846
Registrations:
Today: 2
Yesterday: 2
Overall: 6880
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
Now then the father of all issued as a mighty Wheel; the Sphinx, and the dog-headed god, and Typhon, were bound on his circumference.
-- Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Yathaniel |
|
Post subject: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
 Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 03:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
I find myself troubled by the fact that in an environment where many occultists, and even some Thelemites, are casually referencing Aleister Crowley as the author of Liber AL Vel Legis, the newest version of the text bears his name on the side, implying that this is, in fact, the case.
I do not imagine I am alone in my frustration and disdain for this lack of respect and attack upon the very basis of Thelema.
Anyone care to share their thoughts on the issue, and why the OTO rather than countering this more strongly, produced a book in a manner that seems to give credence to the argument, by seemingly listing Crowley as it's author. Was this the first copy of Liber AL to do this? It certainly is the first I have seen with his name on the cover.
Personally, I think one can espouse the opinion that Aiwass was Crowley's HGA, without appearing an ignorant fool, however asserting that Crowley is the the author of Liber AL, or that Aiwass was a name he wrote under, frankly angers me with its arrogance, and more or less makes a liar of Crowley, denigrates Liber AL, and puts it in the same category as his grocery list.
I don't know why I have such a strong reaction to this, necessarily... But its getting on my nerves.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 03:58 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
| Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the OTO deliberately placed Crowley's name on the cover to imply he is the author, and is somehow seeking to subvert Thelema thereby. It just seems a strange addition to make, and I wonder if this was not thought-out fully at the time someone designed the cover. But, more than that, maybe I'm being biased by my own surroundings, but it seems like these statements about Crowley being the author of Liber AL are popping up more and more lately... Wondering if anyone else is noticing this, and is also getting annoyed. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 04:22 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel, consider the general legal issues related to publishing in any case, not to mention the particular legal issues related to publishing books by AC, an author now deceased with a posthumous publishing history involving some contention. I'm sure that you will see the practicalities involved, and how they must take priority over the subtitles and finer points. Also see the introduction to the edition in question, which I assume is the centennial edition, which addresses these finer points quite clearly, as do most editions.
This, by the way, is my own observation, I do not represent the OTO in any way. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 05:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
Camlion wrote: › Yathaniel, consider the general legal issues related to publishing in any case, not to mention the particular legal issues related to publishing books by AC, an author now deceased with a posthumous publishing history involving some contention. I'm sure that you will see the practicalities involved, and how they must take priority over the subtitles and finer points. Also see the introduction to the edition in question, which I assume is the centennial edition, which addresses these finer points quite clearly, as do most editions.
This, by the way, is my own observation, I do not represent the OTO in any way.
When I purchased my first copy of Liber AL Vel Legis (from a mainstream bookstore) several years ago (I think 14), it's cover had only the title. I may be wrong, but I think the centennial edition (ironically enough), was the first copy of Liber AL to bear Crowley's name on the cover. The edition I reference appears to be 1987 Weiser edition. Unfortunately I do not have it at hand now, but I don't recall that edition crediting Crowley as it's author. If anyone has it, perhaps they can verify the accuracy of my recollection.
This could have been easily mitigated by the addition of "as received by" to the side bearing Crowley's name to avoid any misunderstandings about authorship. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't imagine that would have complicated matters given Weiser was publishing the text without mention of Crowley's name on the outside whatsoever.
I understand what you are saying, but to me, the author is not so much a subtle point, but the very basis for the texts legitimacy, which is evidenced by Crowley's own introduction to it. Given this, I become perplexed.
My intention isn't to turn this into a political issue. I don't know the ins and outs of who designed what, though I think I heard somewhere it was a member who was expelled from the Order who did so, which, if true, is yet another strange occurrence surrounding the edition.
Bibles are published regularly. They do not have an author listed upon them, divine in nature or otherwise. I do not see what the problem was here. The fact is Aleister Crowley did not write Liber AL, and shouldn't be listed as it's author, and this is a point I imagine the OTO must be aware of.
As far as the legal publishing issues go, I would imagine they are on much shakier ground if they are officially listing a man as the author who explicitly states he did not author the text, and the text itself makes it clear he lacked even the authority to edit it. Pretty shaking ground indeed... Who benefits? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Iskandar |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 05:39 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 355
Status: Offline
|
|
| Yathaniel, could you be more specific: which edition are you talking about? I have several editions published by / through OTO and none of them lists Crowley as the author of Liber AL. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 05:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › Bibles are published regularly. They do not have an author listed upon them, divine in nature or otherwise.
My point exactly. Consider the provenance of the bible. Consider its history of revision. Consider its resulting lack of any real value as a result of such neglect. I prefer that Liber AL not suffer that fate, that it benefit from the legal protection that modern law at least temporarily affords it, which it seems to me might necessitate legally identifying its human author.
Also, remember that the formal title page clearly states "as delivered by..."
Perhaps someone in the know from the OTO might care to comment? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 05:54 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3043
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › As far as the legal publishing issues go, I would imagine they are on much shakier ground if they are officially listing a man as the author who explicitly states he did not author the text, and the text itself makes it clear he lacked even the authority to edit it. Pretty shaking ground indeed... Who benefits?
I appreciate that you're new here, but you might find it useful to refer to previous posts. The copyright issues surrounding the Holy Books have been discussed here several time. "Inspired texts" are, after all, hardly a new concept in publishing.
The speed at which you moved to this post from "I'm not suggesting the OTO deliberately placed Crowley's name on the cover to imply he is the author, and is somehow seeking to subvert Thelema thereby" leads me to suspect your motives, as indeed I did when I saw your first post on this thread.
But, whatever... Check previous posts here before launching into conspiracy theories, please, and address the question raised above: "Could you be more specific: which edition are you talking about? I have several editions published by / through OTO and none of them lists Crowley as the author of Liber AL." |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Los |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 06:36 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 305
Location: NY
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › I understand what you are saying, but to me, the author is not so much a subtle point, but the very basis for the texts legitimacy Not to open up an entirely different can of worms, but I'd question that assumption. The text's "legitimacy" comes from the fact that it is true -- i.e. an unbiased investigation of nature would lead any individual to conclude that Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The Book just dresses up that truth in poetic language.
It's rather inconsequential whether there is "really" such a thing as a "praeterhuman intelligence." In fact, I would say that making the truth of Thelema contingent on the rather questionable existence of metaphysical entities -- that no one can demonstrate the existence of --limits its power. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Camlion |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 06:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
Los wrote: › Yathaniel wrote: › I understand what you are saying, but to me, the author is not so much a subtle point, but the very basis for the texts legitimacy Not to open up an entirely different can of worms, but I'd question that assumption. The text's "legitimacy" comes from the fact that it is true -- i.e. an unbiased investigation of nature would lead any individual to conclude that Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The Book just dresses up that truth in poetic language.
It's rather inconsequential whether there is "really" such a thing as a "praeterhuman intelligence." In fact, I would say that making the truth of Thelema contingent on the rather questionable existence of metaphysical entities -- that no one can demonstrate the existence of --limits its power.
Without getting back into the issue of praeterhuman intelligence, I agree with you, Los. The overarching value of the Law of Thelema is that it works in practical application. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 07:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Yathaniel wrote: › As far as the legal publishing issues go, I would imagine they are on much shakier ground if they are officially listing a man as the author who explicitly states he did not author the text, and the text itself makes it clear he lacked even the authority to edit it. Pretty shaking ground indeed... Who benefits?
I appreciate that you're new here, but you might find it useful to refer to previous posts. The copyright issues surrounding the Holy Books have been discussed here several time. "Inspired texts" are, after all, hardly a new concept in publishing.
The speed at which you moved to this post from "I'm not suggesting the OTO deliberately placed Crowley's name on the cover to imply he is the author, and is somehow seeking to subvert Thelema thereby" leads me to suspect your motives, as indeed I did when I saw your first post on this thread.
But, whatever... Check previous posts here before launching into conspiracy theories, please, and address the question raised above: "Could you be more specific: which edition are you talking about? I have several editions published by / through OTO and none of them lists Crowley as the author of Liber AL."
93 Paul,
Copyright issues are not really my concern or interest, to be honest. I think that's an altogether different issue. The second printing of the 2004 centennial edition is what I was referring to. While the inside of the book does state "as received by", the cover simply states "Crowley The Book of The Law" On the side, which it seems could confuse. It just struck me, personally, as being a bit out of place when I noticed it some time ago, and I suppose this has been exacerbated by recent comments I've read in articles on Liber AL, attributing authorship to Crowley.
My intent with that statement was really meant to clarify, though in rereading it, I can understand your interpretation. I have no subtle agenda, though I suppose people will tend to see what they look for. The fact I refer to the organization in question as "OTO" rather than the alternatives, could also be taken into account, as far as my opinion on the Order goes, which I have, as of yet, not seen as entirely relevant to state.
Honestly, maybe it is a trivial matter... I just become a bit concerned that it is reflective of a more general movement, seeking to downplay the authorship of the text, which is of primary importance, in my estimation. I just wonder what the reasoning behind making this edition was, since I have not seen this in previous versions of Liber AL, though I don't discount the possibility it was done in the past. If anyone can vouch for the fact this was not the first time, I'd be, perhaps set at ease. I still do not see the reason for it, and I do see reasons against it.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 07:16 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
Los wrote: › It's rather inconsequential whether there is "really" such a thing as a "praeterhuman intelligence." In fact, I would say that making the truth of Thelema contingent on the rather questionable existence of metaphysical entities -- that no one can demonstrate the existence of --limits its power.
Indeed. Religious cults formed off the back of supposed communications with gods, "praeterhuman intelligences", spacemen and other supernatural entities are ten-to-the-penny. To assert that this is where Thelema's "legitimacy" comes from is to assert that all the other crackpot scams based on the same type of claimed but undemonstrable source are equally "legitimate".
The only test of Thelema's "legitimacy" is to see how well it stands up to scrutiny. One of Crowley's biggest mistakes, in my view, was putting any emphasis at all on the book's claimed "praeternatural" origins, certainly if he was interested in it being taken seriously by a significant number of sane and sensible people. In doing so he missed an opportunity for creating a religious/spiritual/whateveryouwanttocallit movement actually grounded in fact rather than spurious fable and dubious mysticism, which is particularly ironic when you consider that's what he was apparently trying (unsuccessfully) to do with "scientific illuminism". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 07:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
Los, Camlion,
While I definitely agree Thelema is true on it's own merits and not that of who delivered it, the very first words of Liber AL are Crowley's introduction, in which he sets forward an argument for the authority of the author, so it seems that Crowley, at least, considered the source and it's verification as being an intelligence beyond human as of primary value and importance. If this were not the case, I fail to see why he would devote the opening of the introduction to it.
Perhaps I do overstate the importance of it's author being praeter-human... In the grander scheme of things, it is not particularly relevant, and I think Liber AL can stand on it's own, no matter who the author is. However it did seem important to Crowley for it to be understood that he was a scribe in it's dictation, rather than it's creator. But beyond that, it is a fair generalization that non-Thelemites believe Crowley's account to be complete b.s., and given that insult, I see the value in maintaining otherwise.
For one to argue that Crowley wrote the book implies, to me at least, that Crowley is a liar and a fraud as far as the founding text of Thelema goes, and I think such a position must be an attack on Liber AL Vel Legis and Thelema itself. Maybe I'm overly sensitive to it for some reason... As I stated initially, I'm not really sure why it bothers me as it does, but everytime I see someone quoting "Crowley" by quoting Liber AL, I am pretty thoroughly annoyed. I think Crowley placed much emphasis on the books origin and the nature of it's author, and it seems that must be for a reason.
93s. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 07:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Erwin,
"One of Crowley's biggest mistakes, in my view, was putting any emphasis at all on the book's claimed "praeternatural" origins, certainly if he was interested in it being taken seriously by a significant number of sane and sensible people..."
It is at this point that I'm not sure whether to pull out my hair or start chain-smoking again... But, I guess I've said what I can say already. I'm really not sure how you reconcile a system of magick and dealing with such entities in a variety of capacities with the notion that such concepts elude sane and sensible people...
For one, I am quite pleased Crowley did not have mass-appeal as his guiding principal when he revealed the origins of the central holy text of Thelema... Besides, it's content alone would likely preclude the acceptance of any "sane and sensible" people who would have rejected it solely on the basis of it's authorship by a being other than an incarnate man.
I see what you're saying, but I think the method of it's revelation is important, and that is remains relevant and significant for us in our current practices. To remove it from Liber AL, would remove part of what I see as our legacy and our own potential.
3 posts in a row is me running my mouth, so I'll bow out and enjoy the discussions later. I decided on smoking, rather than hairpulling.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 08:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › I'm really not sure how you reconcile a system of magick and dealing with such entities in a variety of capacities with the notion that such concepts elude sane and sensible people...
By observing that Thelema is not "a system of magick and dealing with such entities in a variety of capacities". It's a philosophy of individual conduct and a general practical system of determining the most optimal course of individual conduct for each individual. All this business about talking to imaginary demons to discover the location of buried treasure, pretending to be Egyptian gods, and dressing up in robes and pointy hats and prancing around a circle is - fortunately - entirely separate from Thelema. One could advance the relatively modern argument that ceremonial magick and all of its trappings are one method of determining said most optimal course of individual conduct, to which I would respond that if it is such a method, it's an exceptionally poor and inefficient one.
Yathaniel wrote: › Besides, it's content alone would likely preclude the acceptance of any "sane and sensible" people
Is the implication here that you don't consider yourself to be a "sane and sensible" person?
Yathaniel wrote: › who would have rejected it solely on the basis of it's authorship by a being other than an incarnate man.
If its content was based on fact, it would be accepted by "sane and sensible" people by definition. You can argue that there just aren't many "sane and sensible" people about in the first place, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Yathaniel wrote: › I see what you're saying, but I think the method of it's revelation is important, and that is remains relevant and significant for us in our current practices.
"Relevant and significant" how, precisely? Give me an example. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aleisterion |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 08:14 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
Posts: 239
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
|
|
"Perhaps I do overstate the importance of it's author being praeter-human... In the grander scheme of things, it is not particularly relevant, and I think Liber AL can stand on it's own, no matter who the author is."
Very true, but Aiwass was the only author and that was Crowley's position to the end. According to both Crowley and the discarnate mind involved, every hand that touched pen to its paper was under the firm control of this other mind. And from direct experience I do believe this not out of faith but out of the certainly of actual knowledge. But I'll go no further here as I have no wish to throws fuel over any flames in this forum. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
kidneyhawk |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 08:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Jun 02, 2006
Posts: 1504
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: ›
"Relevant and significant" how, precisely?
Erwin,
My own reading of Liber AL leaves the strong impression that the influence, subconsciously or otherwise, of the poet Aleister Crowley is most certainly present in the text. Crowley will point out that as a man of no small literary accomplishment and skill, he would have never made such terrible grammatical errors and such in the text. However, in an altered state of consciousness, a masterful writer may very well go racing into such territory...in fact, Crowley initially regarded the book as an interesting example of "automatic writing."
Despite this, Crowley not only would proclaim it to be the communication of an Intelligence operating distinctly and independently from his own but would attempt to provide "proof" for this. AC was certainly not a credulous thinker...and his shrewd skills of analysis he perpetually brought to bear on this text. So there is certainly more to his account than merely the assertion that the book was "inspired" or "dictated." He seems to have attempted, as much as possible, to apply "the method of science" to the "religious" phenomena of receiving this text. And not only that, but he also reaches points where, weighing out the odds and looking at all the known factors involved in the book's creation, he feels very strongly that it HAS been "proven" to be of an origin beyond the human mind.
I understand what you are saying in terms of Thelema expressing a Way, regardless of where we stand in acceptance of the "Crowley Account." However, we are still left with Crowley's lifetime of continuing conviction, based on all his recorded facts and subsequently revealed information, that this was neither a leg-pull nor a sad instance of self-delusion.
In this light, I'd be very interested in what your thoughts are regarding some of the material where AC examines the nature of the book (such as passages in The Law Is For All, where he discusses the number of the Stele, his attempt to really press Rose's rambling through the meat grinder of sober assessment and tabulate the unlikelihood of her stunning accuracies etc).
It would seem that Crowley was tapping an unexplored area of Nature, one not commonly encountered by the conscious mind and opening to possibilities beyond average experience, while maintaining his sharp and critical nature all the way through. And such a discovery would be "relevant and significant" in broadening our understanding and engagement with what we are in the Universe. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aleisterion |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber AL
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 09:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
Posts: 239
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
|
|
"I have no wish to throws fuel over any flames in this forum"
?!
In the absence of an edit button, I'll have to apologize for writing too fast... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber A
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 09:46 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
kidneyhawk wrote: › Despite this, Crowley not only would proclaim it to be the communication of an Intelligence operating distinctly and independently from his own but would attempt to provide "proof" for this. AC was certainly not a credulous thinker...and his shrewd skills of analysis he perpetually brought to bear on this text. So there is certainly more to his account than merely the assertion that the book was "inspired" or "dictated." He seems to have attempted, as much as possible, to apply "the method of science" to the "religious" phenomena of receiving this text.
I'd certainly agree that there is "more to his account". Exactly what that something is is open to speculation, however.
kidneyhawk wrote: › And not only that, but he also reaches points where, weighing out the odds and looking at all the known factors involved in the book's creation, he feels very strongly that it HAS been "proven" to be of an origin beyond the human mind.
I'm not so convinced. He certainly said that that's what he felt, but that's not the same as it actually being what he felt. Maybe it was, I don't know. I'd agree that he "was certainly not a credulous thinker" which is why I'm inclined to think his "proof" was more for the benefit of others than for himself, but it may indeed be the case that he actually did think that. As I've said before, if he did, then I think he was simply wildly mistaken. Despite all his "weighing out the odds," any and all of his "proofs" rightly belong within marks of quotation.
kidneyhawk wrote: › However, we are still left with Crowley's lifetime of continuing conviction, based on all his recorded facts and subsequently revealed information, that this was neither a leg-pull nor a sad instance of self-delusion.
Again, maybe, maybe not. I'm not aware of any way to tell for sure right now, so we can't get much closer than educated guesses at the moment.
kidneyhawk wrote: › In this light, I'd be very interested in what your thoughts are regarding some of the material where AC examines the nature of the book (such as passages in The Law Is For All, where he discusses the number of the Stele, his attempt to really press Rose's rambling through the meat grinder of sober assessment and tabulate the unlikelihood of her stunning accuracies etc).
For the reasons given, "what I think" of that material is "not very much", at the end of the day. Certainly I don't think any of it is "relevant" or "important", at least not to Thelema or any actual practice, ceremonial or otherwise.
To the specific points you've raised, as I've said here before I think the most likely significance of the number of the Stele is that it was selected precisely because of its number, rather than its number being a spectacular coincidence. We can't rule out the deliberate creation of a mythology around the Stele after it was noticed as a result of being numbered 666. I have no problems at all with the idea of a deliberate deception on Crowley's part; as he'd admit himself, it would hardly be unprecedented.
As to Rose's "stunning accuracies", we only have Crowley's word that she said anything of the sort in the first place, as well as for her loudly proclaimed ignorance of the entire subject. Also as I've suggested before, the idea of a genuine honest-to-goodness "praeternatural intelligence" possessing Rose's mind and then stooping to engage in extended expositions over such mindless trivia as its "lineal figure" and its "place in temple" - all of which are man-made ideas in the first place - is highly suspect in and of itself. At the very most, if Rose did correctly answer such questions, and her ignorance as complete as Crowley would have us believe, then I'd still attribute it to simple coincidence, regardless of Crowley's rather odd attempt to ascribe a probability to the event. Regardless of the improbability of Rose's guesses, the probability of actual honest-to-goodness "praeternatural intelligences" going around engaging in such silliness is still far more improbable, to my mind.
Again, I can do little more than speculate, but my best guess is that the mythology of the "reception" in its entirety, including the supposed "proofs" of the "praeternatural origin" of the book was a calculated attempt to impress people who are inclined to be impressed by such things, to beef up Crowley's claim to have discovered something worth paying attention to. And, as I said in my previous post, I think it had the opposite effect to the one he intended by making it all seem a little tawdry and vulgar.
kidneyhawk wrote: › It would seem that Crowley was tapping an unexplored area of Nature, one not commonly encountered by the conscious mind and opening to possibilities beyond average experience, while maintaining his sharp and critical nature all the way through. And such a discovery would be "relevant and significant" in broadening our understanding and engagement with what we are in the Universe.
Leaving aside the fact that I cannot accept that either the account of the reception, or such practices, have anything to do with "broadening our understanding" of anything, since at best I consider such practices to be an exercise in creative imagination and not "engagement with what we are in the Universe" at all, I'm still not seeing how the truth or falsity of the "reception" is either "relevant" or "significant" to such practices. They can be carried out whether one believes the published account of the "reception" or not, and indeed can be carried out if one has never even heard of Crowley or Thelema at all - there are plenty of other such claimed communications on record, after all. The only "relevance" I can see is that if one accepts the published account, then one gives oneself license to believe that one is also receiving communications from discarnate intelligences, in which case the "relevance" would be a lesson not to accept the published account, which is contrary to the implication in the assertion of the original poster. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
phthah |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 10:55 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Posts: 178
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
Alesterion wrote: › And from direct experience I do believe this not out of faith but out of the certainly of actual knowledge. I would like to hear more about this "direct experience". I don't see how this could be throwing fuel on the flames or whatever. Why should you not be able to present your point of view? Please elaborate.
93 93/93
phthah |
_________________
"There is no grace: there is no guilt:
This is the Law: DO WHAT THOU WILT!"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 11:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 22, 2006
Posts: 91
|
|
A. You can’t copyright a book written by “Aiwass” Re: Liber AL
B. You can’t copyright an extract from a book written by “Aiwass” Re: Liber Oz
C. Assign a new author to these publications and you can copyright them.
D. This procedure provides you with a monopoly on the Law of Thelema and its publications. It also prohibits any further editions from being published by no-copyright holders.
E. Why? Profit, no pun intended. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aleisterion |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 01, 2009 - 11:59 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2003
Posts: 239
Location: Alabama
Status: Offline
|
|
Phthah wrote: "I would like to hear more about this "direct experience". I don't see how this could be throwing fuel on the flames or whatever. Why should you not be able to present your point of view? Please elaborate."
Well, nobody's stopping me from presenting my point of view, but this isn't really the thread in which to disseminate my own personal experiences with what I firmly believe was Aiwaz back in the '70s and '80s, and which was reintroduced to me in 1992 by a certain young woman who was very gifted in magick. It's a great story but pretty long. And I'm so obsessed with scratching one creative itch after another that I have little time to post in depth online anymore. Might be a good idea for a book someday who knows. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 12:28 AM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3043
Status: Offline
|
|
666TSAEB wrote: › This procedure provides you with a monopoly on the Law of Thelema and its publications. It also prohibits any further editions from being published by no-copyright holders.
Before we get carried away with all this "naughty OTO" stuff yet again, I wonder if we can establish exactly what's being referred to here?
I have in front of me what I believe is the most recent edition of the BOTL as a standalone work as published by the OTO. It's a rather handsome little hardback book, designed by John Crow for OTO UK. The spine of the book says only "The Book Of The Law" and the front cover: "Liber AL vel Legis sub figura CCXX as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI." The back cover is blank. I can find no copyright notice in the book and, significantly, absolutely no mention of Crowley anywhere in the whole publication. The Centennial Edition referred to in this thread, which mentions "Crowley" on the spine, is factually accurate in that that edition includes Crowley's lengthy Introduction.
So, what precisely is the edition that's being referred to, Yathaniel and 666TSAEB, and how does it connect with plans by the OTO to obtain "a monopoly on the Law of Thelema" (as if such a thing were even possible)? |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Los |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 02:11 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 305
Location: NY
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Indeed. Religious cults formed off the back of supposed communications with gods, "praeterhuman intelligences", spacemen and other supernatural entities are ten-to-the-penny. To assert that this is where Thelema's "legitimacy" comes from is to assert that all the other crackpot scams based on the same type of claimed but undemonstrable source are equally "legitimate". Thank you for expressing that so nicely, Erwin.
I've always found that the attitude of "religious cults" can be summed up by the ignorant bumper sticker: "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."
"Faith" is the excuse we give ourselves for believing in something that's not justified by evidence and reason. Most superstitious religions in the world encourage belief based upon faith in a "holy book" or "prophet" or one's "personal experiences" of mythological characters (aka "energized enthusiasm"). If those things actually constitute a sound basis for belief, then we'd have to accept every "crackpot scam" ever devised.
Yathaniel wrote: › it is a fair generalization that non-Thelemites believe Crowley's account to be complete b.s., and given that insult, I see the value in maintaining otherwise. Well, see, I don't believe in "maintaining" things to be true because of what other people think; I believe in actually seeking the truth.
There is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that "praeterhuman intelligences" exist and that one of them "dictated" a magical book in 1904.
Now this doesn't mean I necessarily think Crowley is a "liar" who "faked the whole thing." That's a distinct possibility, certainly, but it may not be the whole truth; it's quite possible that Crowley embellished upon some kind of actual "experience" (automatic writing? a very minor auditory hallucination?), incorporating elements like the Stele into the myth. Others have suggested that another living person wrote the Book of the Law (I once heard the suggestion that Rose may have dictated it in a trance, for instance...I think that is highly unlikely due to the number of "Crowleyisms" in the text).
I don't think that a realistic estimation of the event of Liber AL's writing constitutes an "attack" on anything. In fact, if you really want to go down the road of considering what non-Thelemites think, most non-Thelemites would be more inclined to listen to someone who had a nuanced understanding of Crowley's often-ridiculous claims than someone who uncritically accepted everything Crowley claimed.
kidneyhawk wrote: › AC was certainly not a credulous thinker...and his shrewd skills of analysis he perpetually brought to bear on this text. For the most part, this is correct -- which makes it all the more baffling that Crowley seriously thought that his numerological games could actually "prove" anything to an unbiased third party.
You can play number games with any text in the world...we can discover codes in Moby Dick, but does that mean that Herman Melville was in contact with the Secret Chiefs?
Crowley *was* pretty sharp. So was he just fooling himself? Or was he playing the part to convince others? Are there more than two options? I just don't know. It doesn't really matter, outside making for interesting food for speculation.
lashtal wrote: › So, what precisely is the edition that's being referred to, Yathaniel and 666TSAEB, and how does it connect with plans by the OTO to obtain "a monopoly on the Law of Thelema" (as if such a thing were even possible)? If the centennial edition has Crowley's name only on the spine and doesn't actually assert that he's the author anywhere...what exactly is the problem? I mean, the text *is* associated with Crowley, no matter what your views are on the "praeterhuman" question, so I don't think it unfair to put his name on the spine of the book. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Iskandar |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:09 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 355
Status: Offline
|
|
| There is also a large format, green "The Book of the Law: The Illuminated Edition," the title page of which states "Received by Aleister and Rose Crowley" and "Illuminated by Susan E. Jameson." It was issued in 2004 e.v. by Neptune Press in London, in collaboration with "Ordo templi Orientis U.K." It states that "This edition has been published to celebrate 100 years since the reception of The Book of the Law." There is an additional title page that simply states :The Book of the Law: Liber AL vel Legis as Delivered by XCIII = 418 to DCLXVI." The cover of the book states: "The Book of the Law" as well as the spine does. No mention of Crowley as the author. I think this is a typical straw man case. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
93,
Good to see some interesting points of view here. Yes, it is the centennial edition I was referring too per two of my previous posts.
I think it's noteworthy in that it is the only edition of Liber AL I've seen (or anyone has mentioned so far) that does bear Crowley's name on the spine, or at all on the cover. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory for why this is the case, but am genuinely perplexed why it deviated from what seems the tradition of not making such an implication on the outside of the text. I see no benefit to doing so, and maintain it is likely to mislead, though the inside, does state the issue clearly.
I'm really not familiar enough with copyright issues to comment upon them, except to restate that no previous edition of the Book of the Law published with the copyright, that I have ever seen bears the name of Crowley on the outside, except for this version, so clearly it is not necessary. It not being necessary, I wonder as to the intent.
Does Necronomicon list an author? It's been 16 years since I've seen a copy, but I do not think it does. It's copyright seems to not be in any jeopardy. Mind you, I'm definitely not comparing Liber AL to Necronomicon. It's just an example.
Paul's point about the introduction is logical enough, but previous editions also including this introduction still do not have this characteristic, so if it is "correct" to attribute the text to Crowley on the outside, it seems to imply it is incorrect not to, which would cast all previous editions in the light of such an error. I'm not sure it is either correct or incorrect, but that doing so may mislead, and personally seems inappropriate, but this is just my personal thought... Perhaps more "feeling" than thought, at that.
Someone is quoted as mentioning "a monopoly on the Law of Thelema", but I see no such quote anywhere above. That is not my position, so I won't speak to it one way or the other, though frankly when it comes to Liber AL, since everyone keeps bringing up copyrights, I really do not see why copyright is such a necessity. The text itself seems to suggest the content should be unrestricted. Even conceding that if Crowley must be considered it's author as a technicality to protect a copyright, frankly, why is protecting a copyright on a text meant for all more important than attributing such text to it's rightful author?
To me this point is a side-issue, anyway... I place more emphasis on trying to understand the significance, if any, of why the centennial edition is unique in that is bears Crowley's name on the outside along with the title. I think most reasonable individuals would conclude form seeing the outside of the book that the implication is that Crowley is the author.
As to the broader of issue of why Aiwass is important within Thelema, first, because Crowley emphasized this importance himself, and he of all people, being Thelema's profit should be expected to have the best understanding of what is or is not vital to it's understanding and application.
Secondly, can one really do their Will, to the degree a Thelemite aspires to without involving oneself in the type of ritual that it seems is looked down upon by some, for it's lack of "reason". Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian angel seems, to me at least, to be the only means of understanding one's Will, and without such understanding, how can one be expected to follow the Law? Crowley has much to say on the specific process for attaining such knowledge, and I'm afraid much to the apparent dislike of some revisionists does indeed seem to involve the type of seemingly archaic activities alluded to in the statement:
"All this business about talking to imaginary demons to discover the location of buried treasure, pretending to be Egyptian gods, and dressing up in robes and pointy hats and prancing around a circle is - fortunately - entirely separate from Thelema".
If you take Aiwass out of the picture, and you rob the Thelemite of the ability to even determine Will fully by K&C, let alone seek to accomplish it per Liber AL Vel Legis. Unless there's a way to accomplish K&C without the mysticism that Crowley and others have believed is necessary. I don't think anyone here is suggesting such a thing, however...
This is my thinking, anyway. For what it is worth. I think it really is not such an insignificant point when one studies the ramifications. Though, I will concede that Liber AL can stand on it's own merits even if it had been written by Crowley, it was not, and he felt this was significant... Whether one accepts that Aiwass was Crowley's HGA or not, framing Aiwass as some "imaginary" being does not seem to be a mindset conducive to attaining K&C.
You guys are definitely making me explore my beliefs on the issue, and I'm grateful for it.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
| Ah, really missing an edit function. I meant "being Thelema's prophet" not "being Thelema's profit". Not sure what happened there... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber A
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:25 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
kidneyhawk wrote: › It would seem that Crowley was tapping an unexplored area of Nature, one not commonly encountered by the conscious mind and opening to possibilities beyond average experience, while maintaining his sharp and critical nature all the way through. And such a discovery would be "relevant and significant" in broadening our understanding and engagement with what we are in the Universe.
On re-reading this, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted this aspect of your question. If the suggestion is that, the existence of "praeternatural entities" aside, either Crowley or Rose "tapped an unexplored area of Nature" that gave them seemingly "praeternatural" powers and that the "relevan[ce] and significan[ce]" of that is that other people can tap into such areas, then obviously I'd greatly dispute that. I treat suggestions of "praeternatural abilities" arising from some usually unencountered area of the mind or self with just as much skepticism as I treat suggestions of the existence of external "praeternatural entities". Apart from anything else, the things that were actually accomplished as a result of Crowley's claimed experiences with "praeternatural beings", whether internal or external, were almost comically trivial and insignificant, despite the twenty course meals that he liked to make of them. So, whatever their nature, these "beings" don't seem to have an awful lot to offer, casting further doubt on the "relevan[ce] and significan[ce]" of accounts of purported encounters with them. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:27 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
No strawman case. It's the 2004 centennial edition published in 2006 by Red Wheel/Weiser ISBN 1-57863-308-7
I have a scanner is packed in a box, but if anyone is really maintaining I've spent all this time of this thread based on something I invented, I'll go ahead and dig it out, and upload a picture of it. The fact it seems so unbelievable only furthers my argument that it is unique in this characteristic, and I am glad I'm not the only one who would have trouble accepting such a thing. I don't think I would have believed it either, had it not been in my hand at the time I saw it's spine, but it is there. Again, not suggesting a conspiracy just wondering what the point of that was, and also wanted to confirm that this was the only edition to do so, which it seems, by the reactions here, it indeed was. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Yathaniel |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Crowley is not the author of Liber A
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:46 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 28, 2009
Posts: 46
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: ›
Apart from anything else, the things that were actually accomplished as a result of Crowley's claimed experiences with "praeternatural beings", whether internal or external, were almost comically trivial and insignificant, despite the twenty course meals that he liked to make of them.
93. Wow... I am sort of assuming you're making Liber AL an exception to this rather acid statement, but given previous posts, I'm not certain.
And, this, I think is why the issue of the centennial edition is noteworthy, because it seems like it's a manifestation of the current of thought you are expressing here, which definitely does not appear to be Thelemic, based on my understanding.
Surely you do not discard Liber AL in such a manner or the Knowledge and Conversation in such ways? If not, I am interested in how you reconcile following the Law of Thelema without the ability to reach a full understanding of Will, if you believe such practices to be merely supernatural nonesense.
You've made so compelling arguments, but I fear I must be taking your position wrong, because it seems you are saying Liber AL was trivial and that Will can be determined without K&C. If so, I'm not following your position well, and do not see how it could be Thelemic.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 02, 2009 - 03:58 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 654
Status: Offline
|
|
Yathaniel wrote: › Secondly, can one really do their Will, to the degree a Thelemite aspires to without involving oneself in the type of ritual that it seems is looked down upon by some,
Yes, one can.
Yathaniel wrote: › Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian angel seems, to me at least, to be the only means of understanding one's Will,
This is a mere tautology, since "Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian angel" is just another way of saying "knowing the Will". Neither need have - and usually don't - have anything to do with ritual or any of the rest of it. The accounts of Frank Bennett's illumination provide a well-known example.
Yathaniel wrote: › Crowley has much to say on the specific process for attaining such knowledge,
He did, "the mind is the great enemy; so, by invoking enthusiastically a person whom we know not to exist, we are rebuking that mind" being an example that naturally springs to mind.
Yathaniel wrote: › If you take Aiwass out of the picture, and you rob the Thelemite of the ability to even determine Will fully by K&C, let alone seek to accomplish it per Liber AL Vel Legis.
That'd be the same Liber AL vel Legis that doesn't mention the Holy Guardian Angel - or Knowledge and Conversation with it - even once, right?
Yathaniel wrote: › Unless there's a way to accomplish K&C without the mysticism that Crowley and others have believed is necessary.
Well, I don't really know what else to tell you, other than what people "believe is necessary" is really not a very reliable guide to such questions - actually finding out is a far superior method. You're talking as if you think that actual "Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" is some kind of ancient and time-honoured method of self-examination instead of the (misguided) attempt at discovering buried treasure that it actually is. The whole reason Crowley adopted the phrase in the first place is because "the theory implied in these words is so patently absurd that only simpletons would waste much time in analysing it. It would be accepted as a convention, and no one would incur the grave danger of building a philosophical system upon it."
If you seriously think that knowledge of the Will is only available to people who dress up and perform pseudo-Christian ceremonial rituals invented by Victorian freemasons, or bellowing medieval conjurations intended to afflict your neighbour's cow with the pox, then I don't think anything I can say is going to convince you otherwise. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 20° 
: 
in 2° 
: Anno IVxvii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
