Notifications
Clear all

Evidence presented in 'Liber L vel Bogus' by R T Cole  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS

J T
 J T
(@j-t)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 7
10/05/2015 9:37 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
Why are these extracts from the man's diaries taken so seriously? He was on enough drugs to choke a horse. Even if it is a sign of his mentality, it means absolutely nothing if a praeterhuman mind were responsible for Liber Legis. When it was written, how it was written, for why it was written, all matter not at all if a praeterhuman intelligence were responsible. And if not, then why did Crowley become more and more obsessed with Aiwass over time?

What evidence is there that a "preterhuman" mind is responsible for the book? If Crowley claims it was written at a specific time under specific conditions, and if that story turns out to be a fabrication, then I think that it does matter. I agree with Azidonis here that his character also plays a role in determining whether or not we should just take his word for it.

It sounds like Aleisterion is saying though that even if AC didn't write it under the circumstances which he described, it still could have been written by a so called "preternatural" being. I guess that no matter what comes to light from this book, some people will still be determined to believe that it is of supernatural in origin no matter what. Although if the book does do a good job of establishing Crowley made it all up, then it does definitely start to seem even less likely that a preternatural entity wrote it.

@ Michael, I don't recall RTC claiming anywhere that his book would present evidence against the existence of preternatural men. People who want to believe, are likely going to keep on believing that Crowley was some kind of prophet. If you guys are expecting Cole to have delivered evidence in his book that aliens and preternatural beings are make believe, then I think you will be sorely disappointed. I have personally never believed the preternatural tale, and I wasn't expecting that any book needed to be written to assert that this part of the tale never happened. Neither do I believe that AC was being entirely honest.

Which is why I welcome a book like Bogus. It will be interesting to see what else is in it. If these are just the spoiler free bits, then I am very excited to read the rest.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
10/05/2015 10:00 pm  
"J T" wrote:
@ Michael, I don't recall RTC claiming anywhere that his book would present evidence against the existence of preternatural men. People who want to believe, are likely going to keep on believing that Crowley was some kind of prophet. If you guys are expecting Cole to have delivered evidence in his book that aliens and preternatural beings are make believe, then I think you will be sorely disappointed. I have personally never believed the preternatural tale, and I wasn't expecting that any book needed to be written to assert that this part of the tale never happened. Neither do I believe that AC was being entirely honest.ill be interesting to see what else is in it. If these are just the spoiler free bits, then I am very excited to read the rest.

If by "Michael" you are addressing me, then perhaps you could tell me where in my post I suggested that Cole was "claiming anywhere that his book would present evidence against the existence of preternatural men". Why don't you address the point sthat people make, rather than the points you would have liked them to have made?


ReplyQuote
J T
 J T
(@j-t)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 7
10/05/2015 11:30 pm  

You said:

"Michael Staley" wrote:
This was hyped in the most absurd, extravagent and long-winded manner as being a book which would demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley. And yet, thus far, the focus seems to be on flaws in Crowley's character.

Cole's book either does what it says on the tin, or it doesn't. Can we move on please from dwelling on whether or not Crowley was a child-molestor, and consider what evidence Cole puts forward to prove his contention that The Book of the Law was fabricated.

I have seen far worse promotion campaigns for books launched in the past. What evidence are you expecting or wanting? I think that if the case can be made that Crowley was just a coked out nut job, then that is pretty damning evidence against Liber Al being the product of preternatural men. That he was nuts would certainly make more sense than the narrative left by Crowley in his Equinox of the Gods. I hope there will be more info about the time table, and the watermark and things like that, but if all this book does is establish that Crowley could have been nuts, then a book like this is long overdue.

In fact, the more I think about this… Yes that is it. The key to understanding all of his writings. He must have just been really high, like all the time. Or nuts. It all makes sense now.

It occurs to me however that no matter what this book contains, there will still be people who say "What? Is that all?" I also think that even if there were conclusive evidence that AC made it up, that people would still choose to believe. Personally I never thought the case for preternatural men was all that strong to begin with.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
11/05/2015 3:26 am  

JT, 

Belief without certainty is folly; but belief based on certainty is flawless. Crowley's ill will was clearly indicated in the Book of the Law itself, and that ill will is of no consequence to the intelligence actually directing the proceedings. Crowley was but a puppet, which is all a prophet (i.e. "forth-speaker") ever really is, and his own foul machinations of ill will never stood a chance against the perfect plan of the Master. The evidence for praeterhuman intelligence, however, doesn't rest with the Book of the Law, which is merely the first of many transmissions from such intelligence. The proof lies in our ability to evolve by those transmissions; and in time I believe this will come to pass.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/05/2015 3:53 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
The proof lies in our ability to evolve by those transmissions;

Sorry, but no. Crowley's proof (ie. success with his system) lies with Crowley, not with us.

Our 'evolution' had nothing to do with who/what Crowley's was, as Crowley.

Also, please don't play the "V:.V:.V:.V:.V:. is infallible, but Crowley the man wasn't" card.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
11/05/2015 4:23 am  

Azidonis,

Sorry, but no, it wasn't his system in the first place. You're welcome to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.


ReplyQuote
J T
 J T
(@j-t)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 7
11/05/2015 4:44 am  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
JT, 

Belief without certainty is folly; but belief based on certainty is flawless. Crowley's ill will was clearly indicated in the Book of the Law itself, and that ill will is of no consequence to the intelligence actually directing the proceedings. Crowley was but a puppet, which is all a prophet (i.e. "forth-speaker") ever really is, and his own foul machinations of ill will never stood a chance against the perfect plan of the Master. The evidence for praeterhuman intelligence, however, doesn't rest with the Book of the Law, which is merely the first of many transmissions from such intelligence. The proof lies in our ability to evolve by those transmissions; and in time I believe this will come to pass.

I get the feeling like no matter what, this guy is going to believe that preternatural men were responsible. Even if we find a hand written letter, signed by Crowley and several diaries detailing how he faked it, along with photographs of him next to the stele dated 1902 or earlier, and a big banner in his hand that says "shove it, world", I am sure that people here like this Aleisterion will insist that Crowley was still merely a puppet for some secret chiefs or higher purpose.

Just look at mormons, they don't care what you say about their prophet… and he really was a pedophile. If that does not deter them, then I am confident nothing RTC publishes will stop people from believing in Crowley's religion.

Aleisrerion, didn't you take biology in school? Evolution is driven by natural selection, and environmental factors. It has nothing to do with your imaginary friends.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
11/05/2015 4:53 am  

Please let us focus on the claims and evidence presented by RTC in his book.  If we need to bicker back and forth there are a number of other threads available for just that.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 5:10 am  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Please let us focus on the claims and evidence presented by RTC in his book.  If we need to bicker back and forth there are a number of other threads available for just that.

Exactly. "Irrelevant posts and content will be deleted without delay" - OP

Let us hope it shall be so.


ReplyQuote
J T
 J T
(@j-t)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 7
11/05/2015 5:11 am  

I am waiting to read the book much like the rest of you.

So to recap, we have:

The time table on which the boats ran.
The cover page, was it the original one or the typescript one?
The watermark issue.
A psychological profile of Crowley.

Is there anything else? Can anyone tell us anything more about these issues without giving away more of the book?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 5:35 am  
"J T" wrote:
The watermark issue.

So far nobody has brought forth Cole's argument, including proofs, that the watermark "Alex Pirie & Sons / London" "Standard Typewriting" visible on many of the manuscript pages, can ONLY be dated to 1905 or later.

It is there, and several members here, including the author himself, could present it. So? Let's assess the evidence.

NB - If the evidence is photographic, and you (possessors of the review copy) are uncertain about the rights to reproduce it here, then an alternative is to post the source of Cole's photographs - address/link, book, or article - and we can go find it ourselves.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 7:22 am  
"threefold31" wrote:
Your citing of the weekly run of the Isis and Osiris is an important clue. It seems that both ships going on a weekly run might be excessive; since it looks like a two week turnaround for a single ship based on the other dates given. A once-weekly run by each ship makes the most sense, because there isn't enough time for one ship to do it every week. But that leads you to conclude that he was really on the Isis.

Indeed - that's the only solution that allows Besant's and Crowley's chronologies to work together. There is an error somewhere - Crowley's recollection of the name of the ship, or Fernee's dates for Besant in Italy - "around 19-22 April". It's the "around" that gives me pause; Leland's chronology has her in Rome, Florence, Genoa, but gives no dates. That is a straight trip north and west, and could have happened on those dates. But if the dates are correct, she could not have been on the Osiris.

Osiris itinerary, April-May 1904

1 April
2
3
4 Dep. Brindisi
5
6 Arr. Cairo (Port Said)
7
8 Besant leaves India
9
10
11 Dep. Cairo
12
13 Arr. Brindisi
14
15
16
17 Dep. Brindisi (Besant arrives at Port Said?)
18 (Dep. Isis from Port Said?)
19
20 Arr. Cairo (Arr. Isis at Brindisi?)
21
22
23
24
25 Dep. Cairo
26 (Crowley in Paris already)
27 Arr. Brindisi
28
29
30
1 May
2 Dep. Brindisi
3
4
5

I wrote Leland yesterday morning on the off chance he could give more information on Besant's itinerary, but have received no confirmation back yet that he even received it.

On Crowley's recollection of Osiris and the story "The Needs of the Navy" (in Snowdrops from a Curate's Garden, pp. 99-111), I wondered if the name of the Captain might be a clue as to which ship it was. He names him as "Captain Spelton", but I can find no such Captain, yet. Obviously it is probably a pseudonym.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
11/05/2015 8:48 am  
"J T" wrote:
You said:

"Michael Staley" wrote:
This was hyped in the most absurd, extravagent and long-winded manner as being a book which would demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley. And yet, thus far, the focus seems to be on flaws in Crowley's character.

Cole's book either does what it says on the tin, or it doesn't. Can we move on please from dwelling on whether or not Crowley was a child-molestor, and consider what evidence Cole puts forward to prove his contention that The Book of the Law was fabricated.

I have seen far worse promotion campaigns for books launched in the past. What evidence are you expecting or wanting? I think that if the case can be made that Crowley was just a coked out nut job, then that is pretty damning evidence against Liber Al being the product of preternatural men. That he was nuts would certainly make more sense than the narrative left by Crowley in his Equinox of the Gods. I hope there will be more info about the time table, and the watermark and things like that, but if all this book does is establish that Crowley could have been nuts, then a book like this is long overdue.

In fact, the more I think about this… Yes that is it. The key to understanding all of his writings. He must have just been really high, like all the time. Or nuts. It all makes sense now.

It occurs to me however that no matter what this book contains, there will still be people who say "What? Is that all?" I also think that even if there were conclusive evidence that AC made it up, that people would still choose to believe. Personally I never thought the case for preternatural men was all that strong to begin with.

Where has there ever been a reference to "preternatural men"? Does Crowley use this absurd, incoherent  term anywhere? Although I've not read Cole's book, I've read much by him over the years and have yet to come across him using this term. So why are you?

The matter is simple. So far as I'm aware, having waded through the hype over the years, Cole's book purports to establish that The Book of the Law was not transmitted by a praeterhuman entity as Crowley maintained, but was fabricated by him.

The fact that on occasions Crowley took drugs, lied, cheated, swindled etc is not in itself evidence that Crowley fabricated The Book of the Law. Hence my suggestion that thus far, Cole's book doesn't do what it says on the tin. The fact that "it all makes sense now" to you is fine; I don't find your opinion persuasive, but clearly you're welcome to it.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 11:12 am  
"threefold31" wrote:
I am also presuming Ianrons' material to be accurate regarding the departure dates for the Osiris, (presumably gotten from the P&O archivist). He does not specify the actual departure date of the Isis, but we can make an estimate within a day or two based on a weekly run of the ships.

Right. For those who would like to check, it was back in 2005, and the P&O historian and archivist Ian Rons spoke to was Stephen Rabson -

"I telephoned Stephen Rabson, P&O's historian and archivist at the National Maritime Museum today, and he provided me with several important details.
…Regarding the S.S. Osiris, the shipping dates for April 1904 were as follows:

  Brindisi dep.  4th -- arr.  6th Cairo dep. 11th -- arr. 13th Brindisi
  Brindisi dep. 17th -- arr. 20th Cairo dep. 25th -- arr. 27th Brindisi."

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1668#p1668

If Besant really departed from India, presumably Bombay, on April 8, 1904, then she could not have been on the Osiris to make a circa April 20 appearance in Rome.
Crowley could not have left as late as April 25, because he is indisputably in Paris on April 26.

If Paul's suggestion of Crowley's departure of April 11 is plausible, then he could not have seen Besant on board the Osiris - again presuming, in this scenario, that her chronology is correct. Besant's departure from India on April 8 is corroborated by two independent sources, Ben Fernee and Kurt Leland.

So, for both of them to have been together on a ship from Port Said in April of 1904, it has to be the Isis

Finally, Crowley clearly believed it was the Osiris, but he did not "insist" on it, as in reaffirming his position in the face of a challenge. He merely recollects it; it could well be, and must be if he really met Besant on board, the Isis.

Explanations for his mistaken recollection could be that he was not paying attention and merely assumed. Perhaps the first trip he made from Port Said to Brindisi was on the Osiris and it stuck as the normal or only ship that did the run. The ships were identical (certainly to the layman). The trip was only about 25 hours, and perhaps, given his general level of excitement, inclucing meeting the Theosophical luminary Besant, he paid no attention the "Isis" monogram that was presumably everywhere, on the writing paper and napkins, and on the tickets, for instance (atlhough he may not have taken personal care of that last detail and never seen it).

A mistaken recollection on his part is really the simplest explanation.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 1:01 pm  

The date of Crowley's return to Boleskine in 1904.

In the passage from Cole’s book cited by Paul Toner (now deleted), Cole says that Crowley and Rose returned to Boleskine by the end of the month of April. For those who can read it, what is the source for this?

I am unaware of the evidence for that precision. Crowley is vague, and his biographers equally. It seems to be unknown, but I would like to be corrected. From his own published remarks and his diary, we can say he was at Boleskine in the summer, but that is as far as I know. With the knowledge that he was in Paris on April 26, we can say that it is not impossible for him to have returned to Scotland by April 30 (for instance), but is it necessary to think that he was there by then?

1. Kaczynski knows, without citation unfortunately (it’s not his fault; he is not expected to have known that these questions would arise somewhere), that Crowley left Paris the next day, April 27 –

“In all, Bennett enjoyed discussing the supernatural and the nature of intelligence with Crowley. AC had just written the essay ‘Time,’ and Bennett offered to introduce him to his friend, science fiction author H. G. Wells (1866-1946), that evening at the Metropole for comments on his essay. (…)
Despite the letter of introduction, Crowley never appeared at the Metropole to meet H. G. Wells. The next day he returned to London and ultimately Boleskine.

(Perdurabo, 2nd ed., p. 130)

2. Sutin knows that Crowley met with Clive Bell as well as Arnold Bennett. Unfortunately there is again no citation, and neither Crowley nor Kaczynski reports a meeting with Clive Bell.

“Upon arrival in Paris, Crowley socialized with two members of the Chat Blanc circle of 1902-3, Clive Bell and Arnold Bennett. “

(Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister Crowley (2000), p. 140)

3. Churton posits a longer stay in Paris, over two months, based on the date of Crowley’s petition for a Masonic initiation there, June 29, 1904:

“Resident in Paris until mid-summer, Crowley petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343 for initiation on 29 June. “
(Aleister Crowley, the Biography (2011), p. 108)

Churton’s citation for this is note 35, p. 436: “Petition signed by James Lyon Bowley, British Embassy chaplain, Paris.”

4. Crowley says:

“My wife and I passed a short time in Paris and renewed old ties. One incident stands out in my memory as peculiarly amusing. We asked Arnold Bennett to luch at Paillard’s. ..
(…)
“We wandered back to Boleskine, after arranging with a doctor name Percival Bott to come and stay with us and undertake the accouchement.”

(Confessions, p. 405)

His phrasing “a short time” accords well with Kaczynski’s report, and seems to cast into doubt Churton’s assumption of a two-month stay in Paris.
His phrasing “wandered back” imples a leisurely pace in London  and perhaps a few other places in the southern UK, rather than a rapid return to Boleskine.

It seems that Crowley could have returned to Paris at least once then, presuming he had to be there in person to submit the petition Churton cites.

By any account, he does not appear to have been in a hurry to get back to Boleskine.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4920
11/05/2015 1:47 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Please let us focus on the claims and evidence presented by RTC in his book.

You took the words right off my keyboard. This thread has specific parameters set out in the OP. Note that posts are supposed to be about what EVIDENCE is presented in the Bogus book. It's like a courtroom!  Please stick to the EVIDENCE folks ::)


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
11/05/2015 2:21 pm  

Seems like quotes will be deleted, interested in how many words seem fair, Paul?
Also @belmurru,  the watermark is mentioned,  though references a section,  not part of the promo edition.
RTC says.
"According to archives, the "London" brand of "Pirie & Sons" 'Standard Typewriting' paper was not commercially available until late 1905."


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
11/05/2015 2:52 pm  
"ptoner" wrote:
Seems like quotes will be deleted, interested in how many words seem fair, Paul?
Also @belmurru,  the watermark is mentioned,  though references a section,  not part of the promo edition.
RTC says.
"According to archives, the "London" brand of "Pirie & Sons" 'Standard Typewriting' paper was not commercially available until late 1905."

Thanks, Paul. That gives some hints where to look.

I guess we'll have to wait, then. Or, try to do the research ourselves


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1012
11/05/2015 3:18 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
This was hyped in the most absurd, extravagent and long-winded manner as being a book which would demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley. And yet, thus far, the focus seems to be on flaws in Crowley's character.

Cole's book either does what it says on the tin, or it doesn't. Can we move on please from dwelling on whether or not Crowley was a child-molestor, and consider what evidence Cole puts forward to prove his contention that The Book of the Law was fabricated.

"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Please let us focus on the claims and evidence presented by RTC in his book.

Is there any claim at all, in the book in question, or on the back cover of the book in question, where it in a plain and straightforward manner is stated that the said book will "... demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley."? 


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
11/05/2015 3:34 pm  

@wrwb there are far too many points of reference to list,  that are cited. Personally for me,  the time line,  ACs nature and desire to form his own order,  with him at the helm.  Was planned. As I can not quote sections of the book,  without being edited,  I will refrain posting them.  Paul also has a copy of the book,  yet has not mentioned anything in relation to it.


ReplyQuote
Aleisterion
(@aleisterion)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 329
11/05/2015 5:42 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
Please let us focus on the claims and evidence presented by RTC in his book.  If we need to bicker back and forth there are a number of other threads available for just that.

The point of Cole's book seems to be that Crowley was a man of extraordinary ill will as well as a fraud. As for the former charge, that he was a man of ill will, Aiwass (transmitting the message of Hadit, L ii.10-13) has already made it clear that Crowley was possessed of ill will; and yet it failed to matter, Aiwass having the stronger will. The very term "praeterhuman" means "beyond human", i.e. beyond the ability of a limited brain to fully realize, yet that doesn't mean humanity cannot be edified thereby, nor does it mean that one so edified cannot achieve superior levels of awareness through contact therewith. It makes no odds to me whether you laugh at this or not, for I know I've been enlightened and improved through such contact, and the inability of others to accept the reality of praeterhuman intelligence is of no consequence to me whatsoever.

As for the second point, that being fraudulent invalidates  the message, this point is invalid if the message itself comes from a superior source and not entirely from the scribe under its inspiration. There are historical examples that support this notion. Take Edward Kelly, for example, a scoundrel and liar whose work was nonetheless brilliant in ways exceeding his own limited understanding. There was also Blavatsky, whose mischief Crowley applauded, making the point that she was justified in faking miracles in order to further her popularity, for in so doing she conserved subtle power so as to channel it to better ends.

In light of all this, I fail to see how character assassination necessarily devalues the Book of the Law or its power to edify. And I don't think that a few little white lies or omissions mean that the whole thing is to be dismissed. I value the baby not the bathwater.


ReplyQuote
ZIN
 ZIN
(@zin)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 82
11/05/2015 6:33 pm  

@Aleisterion : Well said! Meeting adjourned... ;D


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/05/2015 6:46 pm  
"Aleisterion" wrote:
I fail to see how character assassination necessarily devalues the Book of the Law or its power to edify.

Well, based on what others have said about the contents of Cole's book, I think the point of the "character assassination" is to establish that Crowley had the kind of personality that would perpetrate a fraud of this sort. Many times when I've pointed out that there's zero reason to think that preterhuman intelligences exist, let alone that one dictated a magic book to an obscure poet, true believers respond with non-responses like, "But why would he make it up??" It's a non-response because it's irrelevant to the point: if there's no reason to think it's true, then there's no reason to think it's true. Whether or not there's an explanation for why Crowley might have said what he said doesn't change that fact.

But Cole is doing more than simply pointing out that there's absolutely no reason to think that there are preternatural intelligences, much less that one dictated a magic book to an obscure poet. He's actually advancing the position that Crowley faked the whole thing, so he's (I think) trying to lay the groundwork for why Crowley would do so. His answer seems to be, essentially, that Crowley was nuts. It's not that he's saying Crowley was irrational or incoherent -- it's that Crowley seems to have had a "screwed up" sense of how to treat other people and interact with the world around him. He also had a nutso religious upbringing that probably caused innumerable psychological scars.

Cole's point seems to be that this is exactly the sort of personality that would delight in creating a hoax that would cast him as a prophet or messiah figure.

Now, I personally think that the value of the Book of the Law itself is not contingent on who wrote it. The words stand or fall on their own merit, as far as I'm concerned. But there are at least some people who don't think this way: they think the Book is important primarily because it comes from some "preterhuman" intelligence that will uplift humanity through "contact." As I've been saying, there's absolutely zero reason to think that the source of the Book is "preterhuman," and Cole seems to think that there's reason to suspect that Crowley deliberately lied about the writing of the Book.


ReplyQuote
J T
 J T
(@j-t)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 7
11/05/2015 7:23 pm  
"Michael Staley" wrote:
Where has there ever been a reference to "preternatural men"? Does Crowley use this absurd, incoherent  term anywhere? Although I've not read Cole's book, I've read much by him over the years and have yet to come across him using this term. So why are you?

The matter is simple. So far as I'm aware, having waded through the hype over the years, Cole's book purports to establish that The Book of the Law was not transmitted by a praeterhuman entity as Crowley maintained, but was fabricated by him.

The fact that on occasions Crowley took drugs, lied, cheated, swindled etc is not in itself evidence that Crowley fabricated The Book of the Law. Hence my suggestion that thus far, Cole's book doesn't do what it says on the tin. The fact that "it all makes sense now" to you is fine; I don't find your opinion persuasive, but clearly you're welcome to it.

Ha, yeah Crowley took drugs on occasion… kind of like how I breathe on occasion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought the preternatural men thing comes from the intro to the Book of the Law where Crowley claims that his book is conclusive evidence that consciousness exists separate from the body. We don't really need a book by RTC to debunk this claim. If it were true, physicists would be all over thelema and magick. That is already pretty convincing evidence that his book wasn't written by preternatural men.

Although if RTC just wants to demonstrate that Crowley fabricated it, Bogus just needs to establish that Crowley did not write it on the days he claimed, or under the circumstances he claimed. If it could be shown that the Book of the Law was not spontaneously written on those three days, but that it was in fact a deliberate attempt on Crowley's part to produce a "magical" work, I will consider Bogus to have delivered.

I am not counting on Cole's book to prove that the Book of the Law is conclusively not the product of preternatural entities. I will be content only if it does a good enough job of establishing that Crowley could have made it up.

No matter what RTC publishes in his book, no matter what anyone learns, or discovers, that it will not dissuade the true believers from wanting to think of Crowley as their prophet. The people who want to believe in preternatural men and secret chiefs are still going to believe in them. So if it fails to deliver in that aspect, I would not fault the Cole.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
11/05/2015 8:20 pm  

Well, we'll see how the thread unfolds as our reviewers marshall and assess Cole's evidence; that, after all, is the purpose of this thread. However, you don't need Cole's book to establish the possibility that Crowley fabricated the whole thing; of course it's a possibility, and one that I shoiuld imagine many of us have considered.


ReplyQuote
Tao
 Tao
(@tao)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 316
11/05/2015 8:20 pm  
"J T" wrote:
I am not counting on Cole's book to prove that the Book of the Law is conclusively not the product of preternatural entities. I will be content only if it does a good enough job of establishing that Crowley could have made it up.

I would have thought the possibility of fabrication was already well established. I would hope for a bit more from a book that purports to "provide... a definitive, point-by-point (comprehensively referenced to unpublished source documentation) proof demonstrating beyond all doubt that Aleister Crowley DID NOT receive Liber L. vel Legis on 08, 09 & 10 April 1904." And I would expect this thread to focus on that claim, i.e., the evidence presented should either debunk "reception", or "08, 09 & 10 April 1904", or both. All other points are circumstantial. IMHO.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
11/05/2015 10:44 pm  

Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
12/05/2015 1:07 am  
"Tao" wrote:
I would have thought the possibility of fabrication was already well established. I would hope for a bit more from a book that purports to "provide... a definitive, point-by-point (comprehensively referenced to unpublished source documentation) proof demonstrating beyond all doubt that Aleister Crowley DID NOT receive Liber L. vel Legis on 08, 09 & 10 April 1904." And I would expect this thread to focus on that claim, i.e., the evidence presented should either debunk "reception", or "08, 09 & 10 April 1904", or both. All other points are circumstantial. IMHO.

Dwtw

I have to agree with this sentiment. Saint or sinner, Crowley's character only shows what he was capable of, not what he did. We already know he was capable of deceiving; it is irrelevant to proving that he made up the Liber AL reception 'myth'. He could have been morally spotless and done the same thing, e.g., if he had auditory hallucinations, or a dream that convinced him the event really happened. I'm not denying he had a ton of character flaws, even to the point of being reprehensible. And his flaws are certainly worth investigating. But they are a separate issue from Liber AL.

The question remains whether he received it when he said he did, or even receive it at all, or did he just make up the whole thing? 

The possibilities are:

A: Aiwass is a real discarnate intelligent being
B: Aiwass does not exist
C: Crowley heard the actual voice of Aiwass
D: Crowley had auditory hallucinations
E: Crowley told the truth
F: Crowley fabricated all or part of the story

We must then grant the biconditional {A Iff C}. That is to say, if Aiwass existed, then Crowley heard his voice, and logically if he heard his voice he must have existed (regardless of whether the tale is completely true in every other detail). This leads to the following.

1. A/C/E = Aiwass is real and dictated Liber AL; Crowley told the truth about what happened.
2. A/C/F = Aiwass is real and dictated Liber AL, but Crowley fabricated parts of the story for various reasons.
3. A/D/E =  this is a contradiction, because A implies C
4. A/D/F =  this is a contradiction, because A implies C
5. B/C/E = this is a contradiction, because C implies A
6. B/C/F = this is a contradiction, because C implies A
7. B/D/E  = Aiwass is not real, but Crowley hallucinated that such a being dictated Liber AL, and told the truth.
8. B/D/F =  Aiwass is not real, but Crowley hallucinated that he was, and fabricated parts of the story.

The only other possibility is this: IF A or B and NOT C or D, THEN F:
Aiwass may or may not be real, but Crowley heard nothing; thus he fabricated the entire event story.

One can see from the above that the existence or nonexistence of Aiwass is separate from both the dictation/hearing and the telling of the tale. Neither Cole nor anyone else can prove or disprove the first two points in isolation. We weren't there. All that anyone can do is dispute the story that was told about them. The question is whether Cole is able to prove the final possibility; that AC heard nothing and fabricated the whole story.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
12/05/2015 1:14 am  
"ptoner" wrote:
(Cole)... highlights the near impossible time scale of ACs traveling for that time period. Crowley dining with Bennett on 28th of April, in Paris, with just 4 days to travel 2,500 miles from Egypt.  Then onto Boleskine via London for the end of the month. 

Dwtw

So to return to the evidence; if in fact RTC claims that Crowley was in Paris with Bennett on April 28 1904, then he is wrong about that. The evidence shows it was actually the 26th. Allowing that it may have been a typo, it does not change the fact that he also claims AC could not have possible gotten to Paris in four days. This is flat out wrong. He most certainly could have. As noted in the P&O history,

http://www.poheritage.com/Content/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/94110OSIRIS-1898pdf.pdf

part of the point of having the Isis and Osiris steaming into Brindisi and Port Said on a weekly basis is that they reduced the travel time between Egypt and the UK from 12 days down to 4 If you can get from Cairo to London in 4 days, you can surely get to Paris in less time than that. So this claim of Cole's is also wrong.

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
12/05/2015 3:31 am  

As Mr. Cole pointed out to me several years ago, anyone who carefully read David Allan Hulse's Genesis Of The Book Of The Law is going to come away with many more questions. "Bogus" is a work that's been brewing in his brain for along time, I recognise the framing of some of his phrasings in our correspondence.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
12/05/2015 6:03 am  

If I recall correctly, the only topic raised thus far which has not yet been examined is the mention of OS27 - whose import escapes me. Anyone?


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2077
12/05/2015 6:49 am  

RTC has confirmed,  that the 28th was a typo.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
12/05/2015 10:51 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?

There was quite a long discussion in which I played a part about a couple of years ago – see the thread entitled “Introduction to Liber AL date”, Replies #13, 15 et seq. on page 5 of the Thelema board.  It was also mentioned in another couple of threads to a lesser extent although these did not carry any fresh/ additional information.  Maybe when the previously unpublished Yorke-Achad correspondence is released there may be something more – I think Mick is involved with bringing this out soon?  Possibly by this time he is able to throw more light on the matter.

I think the issue is less around whether the reception of The Book of the Law would have taken place in Cairo over the course of three days a week earlier than alleged, as to whether it took place at all, and it wasn’t written instead over the course of three years from the comfort of Boleskine House.  That is the greater (April) fool’s joke, according to Richard T. Cole.

With a feast for this the three years writing of the Book of the Law ?!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
12/05/2015 11:30 am  

RTC has confirmed,  that the 28th was a typo.

oh sure, that's one theory...  but given what we know about his character 😉


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1019
12/05/2015 5:03 pm  

Kurt Leland, responsible for the Annie Besant chronology cited in post 36 of this thread,
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=90488#p90488
has responded to me, confirming Besant’s departure date from India of April 8, 1904, from a report of her movements in the Theosophical Review for that year, thus corroborating what Ian Rons reported from Ben Fernee’s visit to the London Theosophical Library in 2005 –
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1700#p1700

Thus she could not have been on the Osiris on April 12, 1904, which is the only time Crowley have taken it.

Further, although he has a lot of material on her movements and whereabouts, the sources he has checked don’t name any of the ships or the dates of landing at Port Said, nor of the precise dates of her activities in Rome, Florence and Genoa. However, Ben Fernee’s range of “19-22 April” is consistent with her leaving India on April 8 and taking the Isis on April 17 or18.

If this topic is judged too tangential to the subject of this thread, I’ll be happy to start on a new one on the implications of this chronology for the last part of Crowley’s stay in Cairo in 1904. I find it interesting, and really the only tangible “discrepancy” in Crowley’s account of events. Either he did not meet Annie Besant at all (which I find implausible), or he was not actually on board the Osiris, but instead the Isis, when he met her (which I find plausible).


ReplyQuote
threefold31
(@threefold31)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 429
13/05/2015 4:15 am  

Dwtw

I for one don't think the topic is tangential. Timing AC's movements in Cairo to corroborate or debunk his story requires investigation of the ships and their timetables. To that end, for any future researchers, it should be noted that the times listed on the P&O fact sheet for the Osiris are not correct; the math simply does not add up.

http://www.poheritage.com/Content/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/94110OSIRIS-1898pdf.pdf

1600 km (864 nautical miles) in 25.6 hours would mean a speed of 63.16 kph, equivalent to 34 knots. This is much too fast for any ship of that era. This is obviously a typo. The correct info is given on the Isis fact sheet:

http://www.poheritage.com/Content/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/93385ISONZO-1898pdf.pdf

Here, the distance is covered in a time of 46.25 hours, meaning a speed of 34.6 kph, equivalent to 18.6 knots. This is much more realistic. This is also confirmed by the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers, who tally the shipping records for 1898 (the year of the launching of the Isis and Osiris), and give an estimate of 20 knots for the voyage on page 268:

http://tinyurl.com/nawj5qr

This confirms that the trip from Port Said to Brindisi took about two days, or 48 hours, as already noted elsewhere. This means that the rail trip from there to London also took two days, since the Journal points out that the whole journey could be done in four days, as does this page with a nice photo (one wonders if AC and AB are aboard!):

http://www.poheritage.com/the-collection/galleries/Photographs/Ships/ISIS-arriving-at-Brindisi

Given that Paris is approximately 3/4 of the distance from Brindisi to London, we can estimate a travel time of 3 1/2 days or so to get to Paris. So for Crowley to have lunch with Bennett in Paris on April 26th would require him to leave Poet Said no later than the morning of April 22 at the latest, and it does not seem there was a ship leaving Egypt on that day.

Sorry for all the minutiae, just wanted to warn future researchers of the discrepancies.

Given all that, it seems established that AC could not have been on the Osiris with Besant. So he either disguised the fact he was on the Isis, or he mixed it up with the Osiris. I believe the evidence indicates that he did meet Besant, so how did this mix up happen? Did he and Rose travel on the Osiris on their prior trip to Cairo the previous autumn? If so, when he saw the Isis he could have easily mistaken it for the Osiris, since they look identical, and he may have been unaware of a sister-ship.

Besant could not have taken a ship sooner than April 17/18 from Egypt. Interestingly, this is "about a fortnight" after April 3, the alleged 'actual' date of the third chapter. Did Crowley not only swap the writing dates to a week later for his story, but also swap the names of the ships?

Litlluw
RLG


ReplyQuote
jdes
 jdes
(@jdes)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 61
13/05/2015 7:28 am  
"threefold31" wrote:
Dwtw
Here, the distance is covered in a time of 46.25 hours, meaning a speed of 34.6 kph, equivalent to 18.6 knots. This is much more realistic. This is also confirmed by the Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers, who tally the shipping records for 1898 (the year of the launching of the Isis and Osiris), and give an estimate of 20 knots for the voyage on page 268:

This seems to be confirmed by ( http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/PO_Liners1.html ):

Iris(1898-1920 - 1728gt)
Osiris(1898-1922 - 1738gt)
Sisters Iris and Osiris were built in 1898 by Caird & Co, Greenock, and were designed for the express service from Brindisi to Egypt. They had a speed of 19 knots which was fast by P&O standards at the time (My emphasis.). Isis was sold in 1920 to Bland Line of Gibraltar and renamed Gibel Sarsar for services to Morocco. Broken up in Italy in 1926. Osiris was broken up in 1922.

It appears the Osiris was involved in an incident on the 2nd May - and puts The Osiris off Brindisi on the 2nd May (source: http://www.poheritage.com/Content/Mimsy/Media/factsheet/94110OSIRIS-1898pdf.pdf ):
 

02.05.1904:
Obliged to stop when 9 hours out of Brindisi by the Russian gunboat Khabry which fired a blank shot across her bows.  Two Russian officers came aboard with an armed boat’s crew and demanded to  see mails bound for Japan, as Russia and Japan were at war, but  two hours later and after about 250 bags had been inspected on  deck - not including any mail for Japan, which was stored at the  bottom of the hold - Osiris was allowed to proceed.

This seems to confirm that The Osiris had left Brindisi on the 2nd May - so the timetable quoted by belmurru appears accuarate.

Postcard of The Osiris:

On the P & O Heritage Site ( http://www.poheritage.com/the-collection/galleries/Photographs/Ships/ISIS-arriving-at-Brindisi ) there is a picture of The Isis alongside which is a short description:

ISIS (1898) and her sister OSIRIS (1898) were designed for the express service between Brindisi and Port Said, linking mail and passengers travelling by train through Europe. This reduced the journey time to Egypt from 12 days to four days (my emphasis).

A.C. could therefore have left Port Said and been in Paris within 4 days.


ReplyQuote
Walterfive
(@walterfive)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 856
13/05/2015 3:48 pm  
"christibrany" wrote:
Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?

. No, it was Crowley himself, in that pesky 1st edition of Equinox Of The Gods. He says "It must have been the first of April" that he began The CairoWorking. Someone posted a photo of that page here, a couple years ago. Leila Waddel also said it occured on April first in one of her diaries or published letters.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/05/2015 10:16 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?

. No, it was Crowley himself, in that pesky 1st edition of Equinox Of The Gods. He says "It must have been the first of April" that he began The CairoWorking. Someone posted a photo of that page here, a couple years ago. Leila Waddel also said it occured on April first in one of her diaries or published letters.

Just a note: April 1 and April 8 were both Fridays.

Just Monday I was writing about something that I knew occurred on a Friday night in January of 2015. I looked at the calendar, and decided it must have happened early in the month, so I dated the event as January 2. Then yesterday, while going through more notes about it, I saw one of the items pertaining to the event dated January 14, and the entire series of events came back to me. I realized that the actual date of the event was Friday, January 16, 2015 beyond all doubt.

Could Crowley and Rose have been caught up in a similar situation? Absolutely! Will the evidence show it? Still waiting on the book.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1012
13/05/2015 11:35 pm  
"ptoner" wrote:
Seems like quotes will be deleted, interested in how many words seem fair, Paul?
Also @belmurru,  the watermark is mentioned,  though references a section,  not part of the promo edition.
RTC says.
"According to archives, the "London" brand of "Pirie & Sons" 'Standard Typewriting' paper was not commercially available until late 1905."
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
Is there any claim at all, in the book in question, or on the back cover of the book in question, where it in a plain and straightforward manner is stated that the said book will "... demonstrate that The Book of the Law was fabricated by Crowley."?
"ptoner" wrote:
@wrwb there are far too many points of reference to list,  that are cited. Personally for me,  the time line,  ACs nature and desire to form his own order,  with him at the helm.  Was planned. As I can not quote sections of the book,  without being edited,  I will refrain posting them.  Paul also has a copy of the book,  yet has not mentioned anything in relation to it.

The points about ACs nature and desire to form his own order, are circumstantial, and so far, the options of transport available for Crowley at that time, do not seem to entirely debunk AC's story about "08, 09 & 10 April 1904", concerning his The Book of the Law.

So far, the watermark issue seems to be closest to entirely debunking both AC's story about "08, 09 & 10 April 1904", and his story about "reception", concerning his The Book of the Law.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
14/05/2015 3:27 pm  
"Walterfive" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?

. No, it was Crowley himself, in that pesky 1st edition of Equinox Of The Gods. He says "It must have been the first of April" that he began The CairoWorking. Someone posted a photo of that page here, a couple years ago. Leila Waddel also said it occured on April first in one of her diaries or published letters.

Thanks Walter!


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
14/05/2015 6:34 pm  
"christibrany" wrote:
"Walterfive" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
Forgive me for being of short memory when it comes to things I don't really care about, but I am curious , when/where were there references about AL being received on 1 , 2 and 3 APRIL?  Was it in Grant, or?

. No, it was Crowley himself, in that pesky 1st edition of Equinox Of The Gods. He says "It must have been the first of April" that he began The CairoWorking. Someone posted a photo of that page here, a couple years ago. Leila Waddel also said it occured on April first in one of her diaries or published letters.

Thanks Walter!

You’re quite well come there, chris.  (Oh sorry, you were thanking Walter! Never mind - forget that I ‘spoke’…  😉 ;D)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
14/05/2015 8:11 pm  

You can have some thanks too Jamie, for free.
Here (._.)/*


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
15/05/2015 10:31 am  

Don’t mention it chris! (Oh sorry, you didn’t mention it! Never mind - forget that I ‘spoke’! ;D  ;))

Going back to the discussion before I manage to irritate Paul here, I’m not clear whether the issue of April 1st is actually mentioned as a significant factor in RTC’s book.  Okay, it may well have possibly made a difference with regard to shipping times and all that, but given that his central thesis appears to be that the whole text of The Book of the Law, or Liber L as was, amounted to a premeditated invention of Crowley’s and that it was written not in Cairo but at Boleskine, this particular matter of the precise date when it was allegedly received in April would appear to be at least secondary if not completely irrelevant to his case?  Therefore is this week's mooted discrepancy dealt with anywhere at all within Liber Bogus as a significant factor, can anybody confirm? 

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4920
15/05/2015 9:12 pm  

An extensive review of Liber Bogus, with comments from Richard Cole. appeared today (about 9 hours ago) at ...
https://www.facebook.com/jerry.e.cornelius


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 3104
15/05/2015 10:00 pm  

Not visible to the non-facebook heathen, sadly...


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2569
15/05/2015 10:21 pm  

I hate facebook and have no account.  Can you paste the review please, Mr Blue God?


ReplyQuote
newneubergOuch2
(@newneubergouch2)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 287
16/05/2015 6:39 am  

It is an excellent detailed and to the point review (by J.Cornelius- his recent Essays book is worth reading also). I would copy and paste but i am on a mobile device. Sorry.


ReplyQuote
Hamal
(@hamal)
Member
Joined: 7 years ago
Posts: 547
16/05/2015 1:11 pm  

"BOOK REVIEW: Let me tell you about Liber L. vel Bogus, The Real Confession of Aleister Crowley (2014) by Richard T. Cole. You are either going to loathe this book and want to burn the author for his blasphemous thoughts about our prophet or you’ll thoroughly, if not gleefully, enjoy it. Then again, there is always the third possibility. You will absolutely adore the book but you still want the author toasted for the mere Hell of it. As for me, I’d rather sit down with Richard, lift my glass of beer in a toasting-like fashion and ask him, “So, what’s next?”

Most serious Crowley scholars easily stumble upon one anomaly after another of historical contradictions and most of the stuff which Cole writes about has long been known in some circles. Cole just had the balls to write these anomalies down and ask some hard questions; maybe not with all correct assumptions and interpretations but none-the-less most of what he says will get you thinking, cringing and/or tossing the book into a bonfire. Like Cole, I’ve always loved examining Crowley’s life and his writings more thoroughly than most. I have a huge library, along with massive files and back in the early 80s I started noticing, let’s say, a reinterpretation of the facts not only by Crowley himself but by his followers as well. Perhaps I’m just a natural skeptic or maybe my bullshit meter is just calibrated a little too high for my own good but I take little at face value. If it’s important enough for me to believe in then it’s important enough for me to research its validity. My life is governed by a scientific approach to everything and I do mean everything. Still, regardless of the ‘flaws’ in Crowley’s over-all story about how he came about receiving Liber AL vel Legis I still tend to think of myself as an avid Thelemite who looks at the book as being ‘inspired’. Is it a New Aeonic Bible? I guess that is up to each individual to decide for themselves and that depends on where they stand on the Holy Mountain. Flatland dwellers, or wallowers in the mud, tend to worship everything like drooling puppy dogs in heat but the higher up the mountain an Adept climbs they understand the truth behind a profound statement written by the old man himself – “The Common defect of all mystical systems previous to that of the Aeon whose Law is Thelema is that there was no place for Laughter.” This has been my approach to everything related to Aleister Crowley and it is wise that others take a similar approach. I am reminded that any researcher worth their weight in salt will find hundreds of unique qualities and distortions related to the birth of The Holy Bible itself as well as almost every other spurious religious writing, so why should it surprise us that the foundation stones of Liber AL are any different? History is a constant flowing stream where facts, like rocks, are often worn down smooth with time.

Still, magicians must study psychology. It is the new frontier of Knowing Thyself. In this light we must examine the structure of a creative mind and realize how poetry, art, writing or any other creative expressions emerge from the depths of our unconscious. In other words, Liber AL vel Legis reveals more about Crowley’s psyche than anything else. Was it written when and how Crowley claims? Does it matter? Yes and no. Argue not, convert not. Adepts tend to believe that Crowley incarnated in order to be a vehicle of something beyond his conscious self. Every channeler, user of automatic writing or any other such methods will always tell you that what they received blows their mind and they will argue until the day they die that the message received is something beyond even themselves. I agree because I fall into that category. Crowley is no different. However, when Crowley the man interfered with his creative genius he (perhaps) tried to interpret and make Liber AL vel Legis historically into something more than it really was. To do such there is little doubt that he consciously begin creating a mythos based on his personal Wants rather than his True Will. This doesn’t negate the worth of the original manuscript.

In other words; it’s ok to hate the messenger, not the message!
One should remember that it is difficult if not impossible for a mere mortal to be an Adept twenty-four hours a day. As high up into the mountain or upon the Tree of Life an Adept may climb and transmit their sacred Words, their bodies and consciousness will always reside in the flatlands.

Cole is admittedly a bit harsh in his interpretations and words while discussing his views about Crowley as “a cold, manipulative liar and debased lunatic” on the flatlands but in many ways this is what initially drove me to appreciate the man (big smile here). I didn’t see a New Age white-lighter who is always ‘perfect’, who smiles and loves everyone, I saw someone who was human; someone who didn’t hide his foibles and craziness. He drank a lot, did drugs, fucked like a rabbit, believed strongly that the slaves were there to serve him and he shit just like the rest of us and perhaps even more creatively than most. Yes, he’s not a Christian. He’s a Satanist. He lived his life to its fullest, made few apologies for his behavior and lived by his own law of “Do what thou wilt.” In other words, just because it was Crowley’s destiny to incarnate and give us Liber AL vel Legis it doesn’t mean that his over-all life epitomizes its teachings. We cannot forget the fact that he was born in 1875 about thirty years before the reception of the Aeon. He was an old aeonic soul and he lived his life accordingly. He was born on the cusp, it meant that he was torn between the morals and ethics of two aeonic teachings.
As far as Cole’s presentation of the facts of facts, although he makes a lot of valuable points throughout his book, he tends to forget the old rule that if you get twelve people to walk down a street and later write about what they saw, you’ll probably get twelve different interpretations of reality. An author’s words, my own included, often reveal more about themselves than the subject that they’re writing on. Cole is no exception to this rule. The first part of his book purports to be a biographical sketch of Crowley’s life, laying out Cole’s belief about Crowley’s sexuality, behavior and attitude toward humanity. There is little I find of fault in his interpretations but I must warn the reader that the book omits the more positive or important aspects and tends to focus solely on Crowley’s negative behavior which many of his Victorian counterparts were just as guilty of as well. It was a period of rebellion against society and religion, more importantly it was a war against morals. Liber AL vel Legis was Crowley’s psyche vomiting how the world was changing and whether or not the mundane facts of its birth are ‘flawed’ it still gives us the clearest vision of the collective unconscious of unfolding before humanity, whether or not humanity as a whole was willing to acknowledge this or not. If the message contained in the manuscript was solely Crowley’s personal archetype being vomited through automatic writing then the book would most likely have fallen by the wayside long ago and would not still resonate in the souls of so many.

Yes, Cole makes many good points but he also makes a lot of assumptions about Crowley’s life as well as giving us personal interpretations of facts that might not resonate with some of the readers, me included. In some ways, Cole maybe ‘distorting’ history as much as Crowley did himself, ironic isn’t it? But if we, as Adepts, are going to act like scientists then we must be open to research on all points regarding Crowley’s life and be willing to keep an open mind. For this we say, “Bravo, Richard!” As I see it, this is a must read book for every Thelemite and with that remember, you do don’t have to believe everything you read"

- Jerry Edward Cornelius, Yesterday at 1:40pm ·


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5320
16/05/2015 1:19 pm  
"newneubergOuch2" wrote:
It is an excellent detailed and to the point review (by J.Cornelius- his recent Essays book is worth reading also). I would copy and paste but i am on a mobile device. Sorry.

I agree that it's an excellently written review, perceptive, critical and complimentary as the work merits. What the review most certainly isn't, though, is 'detailed'!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 3
Share: