Crowley and his dis...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his discrepancies  

Page 1 / 5
  RSS

Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/01/2013 4:20 pm  

I just found this upcoming book and thought it may be of interest to some of you here.

http://www.quicksilver.uk.com/RTC/bogus.htm

RT Cole claims that this book will be of monumental significance to anyone interested in A.C. and Thelema.
He says Crowley fabricated the events surrounding the reception of Liber AL to secure his position as 'Prophet of the New Aeon'.

Let's face it, it wouldn't be the last time Crowley "fiddled with the books", as it were, to make things "fit"; such as the Book of Lies - publishing of OTO central secret - publication date discrepancy - to secure his position as Prophet of the OTO.

It will be very interesting to read this forthcoming book to see what Cole has to say on the matter.

In my opinion, the whole 'Equinox of the Gods' scenario has always smacked of something just alittle bit far-fetched.
This is certainly not to say that I dismiss Liber AL, or his teachings/practices, etc. (quite the contrary in that regard).
In fact, I hold Liber AL in the highest regard as a remarkably beautiful example of human expression in it's own right.

Although I greatly admire Crowley for his many, many achievements and the invaluable spiritual insights that he gave to humanity, I can't help thinking that he was an extremely dubious character, in terms of his almost maniacal drive to be "The Chosen One".

Did he successfully cross the Abyss and truly control that most insidious entity - the Ego?

Any opinions/insights?


Quote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
11/01/2013 4:51 pm  

Crowley was vague about many aspects of the reception of The Book of the Law, such as the precise location. His diary for this period is skimpy and obscure. He had no explanation for Rose being able to supply missing words and to rewrite parts, and freely admitted as such in The Equinox of the Gods. However, until fabrication can be demonstrated, I'm happy to accept his account, enigmatic though it is.

There have been several forthcoming "gotcha" episodes over the years that were supposed to be about to expose Crowley's account as fabrication, but didn't in the event amount to much. At one time, for instance, there was supposed to be a list of passengers on a boat sailing from Egypt prior to the reception dates. Then again, someone was going to demonstrate that the paper on which The Book of the Law was written couldn't possibly have existed at the time. We'll just have to wait and see what Richard Cole comes up with this time.

Personally I've never been that interested in Crowley's position as Prophet of the New Aeon, and if it could be demonstrated that the account of the reception of The Book of the Law was a fabrication, it wouldn't bother me that much.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/01/2013 5:56 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
However, until fabrication can be demonstrated, I'm happy to accept his account, enigmatic though it is.

Strictly speaking, the proper skeptical position to take toward any extraordinary claim is not to accept the claim until there is sufficient evidence to support it. Even without any direct evidence that suggests the account was fabricated, one would be wise to refrain from accepting Crowley’s story as true.

Of course, as we’ve noted in conversations on these boards over the years, there’s plenty of reasons to be highly suspicious of Crowley’s story as he tells it, on top of the fact that there’s not sufficient evidence to accept his claims as true.

Cole has been hinting for some time now that he has some kind of evidence to disprove the account, including a quick hit-and-run post some years back, in the middle of some obscure thread, where he claimed that the paper on which the Book of the Law was written bears a water mark that dates from *after* 1904, which would demonstrate that at least part of Crowley’s story was a direct lie (it would not necessarily demonstrate that all of it was a lie, but it would cast severe doubt on the rest of it).

Ultimately, however, I’m not sure that proving that Crowley was fabricating the story – if such a thing can be conclusively proven – is of “monumental significance” (or of any kind of significance) for Thelema. Interesting for those who make a study of AC's life, certainly. Relevant to this website, certainly. But not significant for Thelema.

Thelema is defined by the Book of the Law, however that Book happened to have come into existence. If it were, as a few examples, written consciously by Crowley, written consciously by some other flesh-and-blood person and given to Crowley, written by Crowley in a trance state, dictated to Crowley by some other flesh-and-blood person in a trance state, etc., etc., it wouldn’t change what the Book says or what Thelema is.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
11/01/2013 6:17 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Thelema is defined by the Book of the Law, however that Book happened to have come into existence. If it were, as a few examples, written consciously by Crowley, written consciously by some other flesh-and-blood person and given to Crowley, written by Crowley in a trance state, dictated to Crowley by some other flesh-and-blood person in a trance state, etc., etc., it wouldn’t change what the Book says or what Thelema is.

I certainly agree with that.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/01/2013 7:28 pm  

I agree with Los in that the method by which the book came about will not change what the book actually says.

However, I think that if the method by which Crowley claims the book came about is proven to be false, it does have an effect on Thelema as a whole. For instance, Crowley mentioned that Thelema as he presented it was the greatest possible contribution he could make to humanity, for he gave his own life in its entirety, regardless of the consequences, in order to bring it into fruition and to what we have now.

I can't remember exactly where I read that, perhaps in Liber 418, The Equinox of the Gods, or Confessions, but I did come across it a month or so ago when we were discussing all of the 14th Aethyr stuff.

Point being, if indeed the method by which the book was written is proven to be a fabrication, then Crowley poured his entire life into perpetuating an obvious lie. This is not a "Book of Lies" type of lie, either. It would be a blatant, in the face, outright lie, designed only to help prop him up on a pedestal with the other saints, sages, and saviors of mankind.

It will be interesting to see what R.T. Cole came up with.

The watermark theory was proven false, by the way.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/01/2013 7:49 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
However, I think that if the method by which Crowley claims the book came about is proven to be false, it does have an effect on Thelema as a whole. [...] if indeed the method by which the book was written is proven to be a fabrication, then Crowley poured his entire life into perpetuating an obvious lie [...] designed only to help prop him up on a pedestal with the other saints, sages, and saviors of mankind.

Well, first of all, that wouldn't be an effect on Thelema, but an effect on (some people's) perception of Aleister Crowley, which are two separate things.

Second of all, there are levels of degrees of "lies" here. If indeed the story is a fabrication, it may have been an exaggeration of an authentic instance of suddenly-inspired "automatic writing" designed to interest people in the Book and its contents. Or if the story was entirely fabricated -- and if Crowley wrote the Book himself consciously as a fraud -- he still might have sincerely believed in the content of the Book and simply thought the reception story was a way to make it more appealing.

In other words, a deliberate fabrication would not necessarily be nothing more than an ego trip for Crowley, though it would indeed also be that.

The watermark theory was proven false, by the way.

I must have missed it.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/01/2013 8:16 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
However, I think that if the method by which Crowley claims the book came about is proven to be false, it does have an effect on Thelema as a whole. [...] if indeed the method by which the book was written is proven to be a fabrication, then Crowley poured his entire life into perpetuating an obvious lie [...] designed only to help prop him up on a pedestal with the other saints, sages, and saviors of mankind.

Well, first of all, that wouldn't be an effect on Thelema, but an effect on (some people's) perception of Aleister Crowley, which are two separate things.

Second of all, there are levels of degrees of "lies" here. If indeed the story is a fabrication, it may have been an exaggeration of an authentic instance of suddenly-inspired "automatic writing" designed to interest people in the Book and its contents. Or if the story was entirely fabricated -- and if Crowley wrote the Book himself consciously as a fraud -- he still might have sincerely believed in the content of the Book and simply thought the reception story was a way to make it more appealing.

In other words, a deliberate fabrication would not necessarily be nothing more than an ego trip for Crowley, though it would indeed also be that.

The realization of a deliberate fabrication would cause more than a bit of change in the tenets of various organizations, and perhaps some turmoil in "Thelemites" in general.

You probably won't have that issue. That's not a knock against you. You haven't based your approach on the belief that the events occurred exactly how Crowley claims they did. But many others have, and it would indeed be a great shock to them, to find out their Prophet was just a bold-faced liar concerning the central document upon which he based his life's effort and energy, and also upon which they (the 'worshipers') base theirs.

"Los" wrote:

The watermark theory was proven false, by the way.

I must have missed it.

I think it was tai, who eventually put the myth to rest.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/01/2013 8:40 pm  

If perhaps Crowley did fabricate the whole thing then he probably wouldn't have cared that it was so.
As far as he could see, humanity needed a firm kick up the behind and took the initiative to spark this off.
"Tell a big enough lie and everyone will believe it" I heard somewhere - not that I would personally ever adhere to that philosophy.

The important thing, and it has been touched upon in slightly different words in this thread, is what this all means to you and how you use it as an individual.
Take what you Will from it and run with it, whether it's from a bonafide source or not.

However, I do remember Crowley saying (in MWT perhaps?) that honesty is the best policy.
Now there's one to chew on!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/01/2013 8:47 pm  
"morphon" wrote:
However, I do remember Crowley saying (in MWT perhaps?) that honesty is the best policy.
Now there's one to chew on!

This made me think of the guy he went out chasing the mythological creature with. Crowley was a known prankster.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
11/01/2013 9:08 pm  

I've spent some time researching the Cairo Working, AC's various accounts of the process, the Egyptological basis (or at least theogeny) of much of Thelema, the life of Ankhefenkhons I, and so on. As such, I was surprised during the course of a lengthy and detailed correspondence with R T Cole to see that he has discovered much that is interesting, intriguing and, to my knowledge, previously un-noticed.

I eagerly await his publication and look forward to watching the course of its ripples, as it were.

"Azidonis" wrote:
The watermark theory was proven false, by the way.

I've seen very little evidence either way on this one and would greatly appreciate a pointer to this 'proof'.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4503
11/01/2013 9:17 pm  
"morphon" wrote:
If perhaps Crowley did fabricate the whole thing ...

It is unlikely that he fabricated the whole thing. He was, after all, married to Rose and it seems likely that they visited Cairo, probably in 1904, and the Stele 666 is still there to this day (we hope).

Now, if he fiddled with the details, then that's what he did.

The core enquiries of the tale are:

(a) Was there a contact (via Rose or Edward) with a "being" called Aiwass?
Whether or not A.'. was an alien, a Sumerian demon/god, an Ipsissimus, an HGA, a Man, or simply a "higher" aspect of Crowley, the question remains - was there a contact? Blavatsky and Bailey (among many others) claimed a similar contact with Mahatmas, and Dee et Kelly communed with Angels, so there are precedents for such contacts. Hades and high water, even I can actually claim such a contact with Djwhal Khul and others, whereby I channeled info that was informative for myself and others. Now it may just have been a part of my subconscious or superconsciousness and not an independent being, but that's not the point and it's not the question.

(b) Did AC write Liber AL as some form of dictation?
Regardless of the source (the dictator), if he scribbled down AL as a flow of data from some (perceived) other source, then there's not much to pick apart. He tells us that some words were changed or substituted afterward; he tells us that he set the manuscript aside for a hile (years) and then got re-interested in it.

Maybe he made up some details; as pointed out, he was a known prankster. Maybe he just put the story together the best that his memory recalled it. If Richard T Cole (or anyone else) comes up with any proof that changes the story, then we'll have to re-examine the story. But that doesn't change the fact that we're all doin' our own Great Work, and that's a term that transcends AC and AL and the mind itself.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/01/2013 9:19 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
I've seen very little evidence either way on this one and would greatly appreciate a pointer to this 'proof'.

If it's not in the current set of forums, it's in the old set, which I do not have access to.

There was a rather lengthy discussion some time ago about the watermarks on the paper, and whether or not the paper itself was even available at the time that Crowley said Liber L was written.

As I said, I believe it was tai who came up with the evidence to support that such paper was indeed available to Crowley during the time period.

I don't remember the name of the thread, and a search for "watermarks" does not reveal it. But it was definitely a discussion on this site.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 501
11/01/2013 9:34 pm  

The search function can't be expected to pass the Turing test. Try 'watermark' or 'pirie'.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/01/2013 9:38 pm  

Let's not forget that Crowley faked his own death as well.
What was that to achieve?
Publicity?
Money?
All of the above?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/01/2013 10:14 pm  

Cole's claim about the watermark was posted here: http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29.msg59887#msg59887


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
11/01/2013 10:34 pm  

It could be argued that people expect far too much from Crowley.
But he did step up to the plate as Prophet so he had to take the rough with the smooth, as will all of those who have alot 'invested' in Thelema if the events surrounding the reception of Liber AL are proven to be a fabrication.
For those others that don't have anything to lose - well, it's business as usual 🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/01/2013 10:36 pm  

Thanks for citing the thread.

Incidentally, I did the initial search for "watermark", and not "watermarks" as my post indicated, and my search cache reminded me. For some reason or another, my eyes was caught by the "swan fountain pen" thread, and I missed the gem that you have presented.

The thread itself is worth a read in conjunction with the current one.


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
12/01/2013 12:18 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
it would indeed be a great shock to them, to find out their Prophet was just a bold-faced liar concerning the central document upon which he based his life's effort and energy, and also upon which they (the 'worshipers') base theirs.

This is where we cue the humorous horn sound... how does it go? Wah-Wah

"Shiva" wrote:
"morphon" wrote:
If perhaps Crowley did fabricate the whole thing ...

It is unlikely that he fabricated the whole thing. He was, after all, married to Rose and it seems likely that they visited Cairo, probably in 1904, and the Stele 666 is still there to this day (we hope).

What's unlikely about it? Did Rose ever leave a record? It's not as if he would be incapable of such a thing.

"Shiva" wrote:
The core enquiries of the tale are:

(a) Was there a contact (via Rose or Edward) with a "being" called Aiwass?
Whether or not A.'. was an alien, a Sumerian demon/god, an Ipsissimus, an HGA, a Man, or simply a "higher" aspect of Crowley, the question remains - was there a contact? Blavatsky and Bailey (among many others) claimed a similar contact with Mahatmas, and Dee et Kelly communed with Angels, so there are precedents for such contacts.

Well we can pretty much rule out the existence of aliens or sumerian gods as the culprit, since evidence is severely lacking to show that either exist in any meaningful sense here. I'm not sure what you would be implying by saying he met an Ipsissimus, or HGA. If it was a physical man, than that raises further questions. If it was his "higher self" than big whoop. I seem to recall several heated discussions though, where it was established that Crowley was not merely referencing Aiwass as his higher self or HGA.

If indeed this "contact" was of the nature of Blavatsky's and others, than we already know that it is no contact at all. Just a really good myth. One which he hoped would inspire a revolution. Obviously he wanted people to take him seriously, this was supposed to be a new world religion after all.

As for Dee, yourself, and others... I don't know what precedent you mean. All we know is that human beings are gullible. That they are susceptible to strange experiences when drugs, sex, yoga, incense, drumming, and/or chanting come into the mix. If I am understanding this correctly, the Genesis of Liber Al, was not such an event. It was a fabrication, meant to look like such an event. One that would play off the sensibilities of the very people who Crowley was trying to appeal to. Bloody brilliant if you ask me.

"Shiva" wrote:
Hades and high water, even I can actually claim such a contact with Djwhal Khul and others, whereby I channeled info that was informative for myself and others. Now it may just have been a part of my subconscious or superconsciousness and not an independent being, but that's not the point and it's not the question.

Useful how? Did you solve world hunger, or the energy crisis? Did you utter something that someone relayed to someone else, that inspired them to do something helpful? I've had plenty of these trippy experiences as well. Sometimes in the aftermath I'll have a good idea to write a song, or paint a picture. I like to think someday I could inspire someone too. Other people may dream up new inventions or write books. However, sometimes the things we come up with are just bunk garbage, and we need to know how to sift through the dud thoughts.

Whether or not there is substantial reason to think sprites, elves and gods exist, IS a relevant conversation, and one that I think we should not abandon or be afraid of embracing. The subconscious/indepoendant being thing is not totally avoidable.

"Shiva" wrote:
(b) Did AC write Liber AL as some form of dictation?
Regardless of the source (the dictator), if he scribbled down AL as a flow of data from some (perceived) other source, then there's not much to pick apart. He tells us that some words were changed or substituted afterward; he tells us that he set the manuscript aside for a hile (years) and then got re-interested in it.

Maybe he made up some details; as pointed out, he was a known prankster. Maybe he just put the story together the best that his memory recalled it. If Richard T Cole (or anyone else) comes up with any proof that changes the story, then we'll have to re-examine the story. But that doesn't change the fact that we're all doin' our own Great Work, and that's a term that transcends AC and AL and the mind itself.

That's certainly looking at the glass half full. You put "the dictator" in parenthesis while referencing the source, indicating that you are not quite accepting of the possibility that Crowley thought of the whole thing, part and parcel, himself.

The conversation really should be about why he would do such a thing. How well did he do this thing? Is it all over, and should we pack up shop? Has Thelema had a good run, or will it persist?

I am sorry for all those who have invested several decades of their lives in thelema based completely off the notion that there are spirits and ghosts and other things out there to communicate with. I'm sorry to the people who need a big divine plan to be playing out, leaving us clues to figure out along the way. I guess the jokes on them and Crowley gets the last laugh.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 315
12/01/2013 12:59 pm  

I'm afraid someone has missed the point altogether?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
12/01/2013 1:16 pm  

That's putting it bluntly.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
12/01/2013 2:32 pm  

Just for clarity...

With reference to Azidonis' posts above - and my thanks to Los for identifying one of the previous threads on this site that dealt with the matter - I'm unable to find any post, by Tai or any other user, demonstrating that the 'watermark issue' has been in any way resolved, one way or the other. I hope that RTC will provide more information in his book: what we have at the moment is, of course, nothing more than his assertion in a post in the previous thread, which provided no evidence.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
12/01/2013 2:40 pm  

Regarding the thread about the watermark, can someone post an image of it (and others by Pirie for comparison), since some of the links in the old thread are broken and I couldn't get any images from the couple that did work. Please?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/01/2013 3:10 pm  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
As for Dee, yourself, and others... I don't know what precedent you mean. All we know is that human beings are gullible. That they are susceptible to strange experiences when drugs, sex, yoga, incense, drumming, and/or chanting come into the mix. If I am understanding this correctly, the Genesis of Liber Al, was not such an event. It was a fabrication, meant to look like such an event. One that would play off the sensibilities of the very people who Crowley was trying to appeal to. Bloody brilliant if you ask me.

It amounts to "Black Magick" of the fullest sense, by his own definition even.

Surely you understand the implications of that...

"lashtal" wrote:
Just for clarity...

With reference to Azidonis' posts above - and my thanks to Los for identifying one of the previous threads on this site that dealt with the matter - I'm unable to find any post, by Tai or any other user, demonstrating that the 'watermark issue' has been in any way resolved, one way or the other. I hope that RTC will provide more information in his book: what we have at the moment is, of course, nothing more than his assertion in a post in the previous thread, which provided no evidence.

No, sir. I must be wrong. There are many presented viewpoints in the thread, but alas, no definitive, broadly accepted statement, by tai or anyone else, concerning the factual history of the watermark. The laundry is still hanging in the courtyard. My apologies.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 439
12/01/2013 3:31 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the proper skeptical position to take toward any extraordinary claim is not to accept the claim until there is sufficient evidence to support it. Even without any direct evidence that suggests the account was fabricated, one would be wise to refrain from accepting Crowley’s story as true.

The "proper skeptical position" will likely only concern staunch skeptics, which many on this forum are not. There is a simple reason to reject the skepticism you advocate: there is no joy in continually feasting on sour grapes or throwing them in the faces of others. Most humans spend their lives indulging in fantasies in the form of movies, literary fiction, or dishonest relationships in order to escape the harsh, brutal realities of existence; in the case of the Cairo Working, if it were proven a hoax, which is a virtual impossibility, it would still be a remarkable concept that has brought joy and fascination to countless individuals.

Of course, as we’ve noted in conversations on these boards over the years, there’s plenty of reasons to be highly suspicious of Crowley’s story as he tells it, on top of the fact that there’s not sufficient evidence to accept his claims as true.

Highly suspicious? Really? For the sake of brevity, perhaps you will provide a list of the reasons I should be highly suspicious of Crowley's account of the Cairo Working, and we can focus a discussion on those.

Cole has been hinting for some time now that he has some kind of evidence to disprove the account, including a quick hit-and-run post some years back, in the middle of some obscure thread, where he claimed that the paper on which the Book of the Law was written bears a water mark that dates from *after* 1904, which would demonstrate that at least part of Crowley’s story was a direct lie (it would not necessarily demonstrate that all of it was a lie, but it would cast severe doubt on the rest of it).

The only way the watermark might be established as having been introduced after 1904 is if the business records of Pirie & Sons indicate as much, and even then, there is no guarantee those records would be accurate. I'm more inclined to subscribe to the "seeing is believing" school of evidence; we can see the holograph exists, which for me carries more weight that any questionable evidence dug up from the distant past.

The presence of Crowley and his wife in Cairo during the months of February and March 1904 has been established through newspaper clippings that place them at various hotels during those months; short of evidence that places them somewhere else in April of 1904, there is simply no means for demonstrating the Cairo Working is a hoax.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
12/01/2013 3:55 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Regarding the thread about the watermark, can someone post an image of it (and others by Pirie for comparison), since some of the links in the old thread are broken and I couldn't get any images from the couple that did work. Please?

The OTO webpage for Liber AL shows it rather clearly on page 7 of the manuscript (and on some other pages as well; note that the all the pages in chapters II and III are upside-down as regards the watermark) -

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=7

"Pirie & Sons" is written in a banner in the middle of the shield, with "Alex" above the banner and "London" below it; the word "Standard" appears above the shield, with "Typewriting" below the shield. I don't see any date.

Given that it would appear to be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate the facile assertion that this watermark is from 1906 or later, as RTCole claims, and since he has not provided this evidence in the nearly two years since he made the assertion, I assume that it is not so easy to prove this claim, and that, therefore, the assertion is either baseless or rests on extremely flimsy circumstantial arguments (or even mere speculation).


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
12/01/2013 4:00 pm  

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 439
12/01/2013 4:23 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
Regarding the thread about the watermark, can someone post an image of it (and others by Pirie for comparison), since some of the links in the old thread are broken and I couldn't get any images from the couple that did work. Please?

I was unable to find few other watermarks by Pirie & Sons, but found a general description of them that indicates there were those with dates, and those without; the sheets used to record Liber L has one of the watermarks without a date. The best image of the watermark is found on the seventh page of the holograph, as seen in the scans of Liber L provided by the O.T.O.. There is link to the page provided below. The watermark consists of the word "Standard"; below that is the symbol of a crown; below that is an insignia with "A. Pirie & Sons" written on it; below that is the word "Typewriting." Page 44 of the holograph shows the stack of blanks sheets were turned upside down between the time the first and second chapters were written.

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=7

http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=44


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4503
12/01/2013 4:41 pm  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
What's unlikely about it?.

Quote from my post: "It is unlikely that he fabricated the whole thing."
Note the italics. "whole thing." As in, "in its entirety."

"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Useful how? Did you solve world hunger, or the energy crisis?

The word was "informative," not useful. Your entire post is grumpy and mainly argumentative. Your sense of humor is lacking. Take a happy pill.

[/align:2x9a0gs8]

It also seems like you have a discrediting agenda hidden in many of your posts. Are you one of those who are referred to as "them" or "they?" I think so.


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
13/01/2013 2:21 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
The "proper skeptical position" will likely only concern staunch skeptics, which many on this forum are not. There is a simple reason to reject the skepticism you advocate: there is no joy in continually feasting on sour grapes or throwing them in the faces of others.

If I remember correctly, Crowley advocated exactly the kind of skepticism which you disparage. Your logic is absolutely astounding. Essentially you are saying :"Oh! Just let the little kiddies believe in santa clause, ok? Who cares if it's stupid and childish (and possibly intellectually dulling). they're having so much fun playing make believe. Boo! Your'e no fun!"

Most humans spend their lives indulging in fantasies in the form of movies, literary fiction, or dishonest relationships in order to escape the harsh, brutal realities of existence

Yes, you are quite correct. Plenty of opportunities exist in the secular world which offer any average joe access to what religion once sought to provide (and monopolize). Good morals like love and courage. Drama, and comedy... these are all found in movies, music, books, etc. A good artist or author should be able to get the idea across without it becoming convoluted by any dogmatic tripe.

Highly suspicious? Really? For the sake of brevity, perhaps you will provide a list of the reasons I should be highly suspicious of Crowley's account of the Cairo Working, and we can focus a discussion on those.

Forget for a second all the personal emotional investment which you have in this subject, and consider that there is really no good reason to accept the account, given the factual basis. Even if Crowley were in Egypt, what does this prove about the existence of spirits who dictate books? Why on earth would we accept anything less than that he wrote it himself? Until preternatural men becomes the most logical and reasonable conclusion, we should not go on Crowley's word alone. Unfortunately his character does not really speak to his benefit.

"Shiva" wrote:
"It is unlikely that he fabricated the whole thing."
Note the italics. "whole thing." As in, "in its entirety."

Why unlikely? Don't just reiterate what you said, answer what you think. If you really want to know what I think... IF Crowley did not fabricate it entirely, maybe we can assume that he really did come into contact with some secret chief, or third order (a physical one). Could it be that they directed him to carry out such a hoax, having some larger agenda in mind?

OR, did Crowley merely feel that religion could never totally be beat? Maybe he conspired to found a religion that would revolutionize and change the perspective from which we usually approach the subject? Can we forgive him for putting forward his best effort and giving it all he had?

And for clarity, I'm not trying to be specifically argumentative, and sorry if you felt that way. The internet is not very good at conveying emotion I guess. You'd be mistaken to think I don't have a sense of humor about this (or that I haven't taken plenty of happy pills).


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
13/01/2013 3:24 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Forget for a second all the personal emotional investment which you have in this subject, and consider that there is really no good reason to accept the account, given the factual basis. Even if Crowley were in Egypt, what does this prove about the existence of spirits who dictate books? Why on earth would we accept anything less than that he wrote it himself? Until preternatural men becomes the most logical and reasonable conclusion, we should not go on Crowley's word alone. Unfortunately his character does not really speak to his benefit.

Sorry for the double post. I can imagine the kind of response this comment might get, so I just wanted to ask please that nobody respond with mention of their own "spiritual" types of evidence as proof. Please do not respond by saying that you have your own personal reasons to believe in spirits, and whatnot, and that we will all just have to accept it based on faith in your convictions.

I'm specifically asking you why any free, reasonable, and thinking person, should accept this just based on what Crowley has presented us (given what we can know about the facts). Remember that's the facts which we all agree on, and not just the personal things which you accept as fact... Let's see if we can explore this without splitting hairs on exactly what the interpretation of the word "facts" is.


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
13/01/2013 4:16 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
Most humans spend their lives indulging in fantasies in the form of movies, literary fiction, or dishonest relationships in order to escape the harsh, brutal realities of existence; in the case of the Cairo Working, if it were proven a hoax, which is a virtual impossibility, it would still be a remarkable concept that has brought joy and fascination to countless individuals.

Sorry again for the tripple post, time constraints keep me from editing the other comments I made. I just wanted to further point out how it seems Herupakraath is trivializing, and devaluing Themela here. Placing it on a level equal to smoking weed, or playing dungeons and dragons.

Escaping the harsh realities of this life is nothing to be admired. Life is a beautiful embrace. Accepting the hardships that were brought on by our own actions, as well as accepting the circumstances into which we enter life, is what makes us well adjusted adults.

The book of the law tells us that life is pure joy. This is in stark contrast to the old world religious view, which teaches that life is suffering, and that material reality is a curse to be cleansed of. It places emphasis on some imaginary life afterward, and shifts focus away from the beautiful gift of life in the present.

The games we play, the hardships, all the drugs, sex, etc. These can all help deepen and enrich our view of life, or they can distort and challenge us to grow.

I'd like to say that if people are using thelema for no more than an escape, a replacement religion, or crutch, than they are truly missing the point. I see now what Los and Erwin mean when they say that these people find their wills in spite of, and not because of, thelema. Sure maybe it's not such an over all bad thing, if it impresses a sense of values beyond what the limited Old Aeon offers, and gives their lives some relative meaning... I really don't see it though. I see all this silly mystical stuff doing more longterm harm than good.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/01/2013 4:32 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
There is a simple reason to reject the skepticism you advocate: there is no joy in […]

And fundamentalist Christians tell me that they reject my skepticism because there is no joy in insulting Christ and refusing the glory of his name. That the story of Christ’s life is “a remarkable concept that has brought joy and fascination to countless individuals” tells us nothing about whether it’s true or not, just as the fact that the story of the reception of the Book of the Law has brought joy and fascination to countless individuals tells us nothing about whether it's true or not. Your argument carries no weight.

The "proper skeptical position" will likely only concern staunch skeptics […]I'm more inclined to subscribe to the "seeing is believing" school of evidence; we can see the holograph exists, which for me carries more weight that any questionable evidence dug up from the distant past.

Come on, now. I see the sun travel around the earth every day, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it does circle the earth. Similarly, I see there’s a manuscript, and I see that there’s a tale that Crowley told about it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the manuscript came to be in the way that Crowley said it did.

short of evidence that places [Crowley and his wife] somewhere else [other than Egypt] in April of 1904, there is simply no means for demonstrating the Cairo Working is a hoax.

This is also wrong.  There are plenty of other ways to demonstrate it was a hoax, and Crowley’s presence in Egypt in 1904 doesn’t confirm that the story he told about Egypt in 1904 is true.

Let’s say, as a hypothetical scenario, that the Book was written on paper that wasn’t produced until 1906. If that particular scenario were true, then Crowley and Rose could have been in Egypt in 1904 and then Crowley could have produced the Book in 1906. So if we can establish that Crowley and Rose were in Egypt in 1904, it doesn’t really tell us much.

perhaps you will provide a list of the reasons I should be highly suspicious of Crowley's account of the Cairo Working

In the first place, I’m not inclined to take you up on this offer because this argument is very well worn and kind of boring to people who are familiar with it: go read one of the older Cairo Working threads if you’re really dying to know what I might say in response to this question.

But in the second place, I’m not terribly inclined to “discuss” much of anything with you if your capacity for evaluating claims is so poor. Just look what you’ve said: “I reject skepticism because it doesn’t give me joy,” “Seeing is believing [in the most simplistic sense of “seeing”],” and “the only way to demonstrate it’s a hoax is to prove Crowley was somewhere else.” These are three knockout blows to anything resembling sensible discourse.

"MoogPlayer" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"It is unlikely that he fabricated the whole thing."
Note the italics. "whole thing." As in, "in its entirety."

Why unlikely? Don't just reiterate what you said, answer what you think.

Shiva meant that it’s unlikely Crowley fabricated the entirety of the story because Crowley actually was in Egypt at the time he said he was – therefore, he was telling the truth about that one part of the story at least (and hence, he didn’t entirely make it up).

Of course, Crowley telling the truth about one tiny part of the story doesn't tell us anything about whether he was telling the truth about the rest of it, including the supernatural stuff....


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/01/2013 4:56 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
The conversation really should be about why [Crowley] would do such a thing.

Ehh, there’s way too much speculation in there for it to be a really productive conversation.

I mean, I can think of a number of reasons someone might fabricate the story of a supernatural "reception" of a book, with some considerable overlap between the reasons. These reasons include: to convince other people that the book is important, to beef up Crowley’s image among others, to beef up Crowley’s image to himself, to dress up a sincere instance of automatic/inspired writing so that it would sound more impressive, as the result of honestly misremembering the events surrounding a sincere instance of automatic/inspired writing, as the result of dishonestly selectively misremembering events surrounding a sincere instance of automatic/inspired writing, actual mental psychosis, a narcissistic need for attention, just to fuck with people, or just to pass the time.

And that’s certainly not an exhaustive list.

Which one(s) are true? *shrugs* How would we even go about determining that?

How well did he do this thing?

Well enough that a few people buy the story, but that’s not saying much. There are people who believe Joseph Smith’s nutty story – a lot more than the number of people who believe Crowley’s story, by the way – and Smith’s is so much more obviously a lie.

Is it all over, and should we pack up shop? Has Thelema had a good run, or will it persist?

None of us is likely to get a satisfactory answer in our lifetimes about the fate of Thelema. I predict that when the last person reading this message today has died, hopefully far in the future, Thelema will still exist as a fringe, obscure “semi-religion.”


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/01/2013 5:11 am  

If Cole's book proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Cairo Working was a hoax, then what?


ReplyQuote
eol
 eol
(@eol)
Member Admin
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 252
13/01/2013 11:56 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If Cole's book proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Cairo Working was a hoax, then what?

Then nothing. I really doubt that this book will bring anything apart from financial gain to Mr Cole but let's say he proves that Crowley didn't write Liber AL in 1904. and that there isn't anything "supernatural" about it. Will that really matter for anyone truly believing in core values of Liber AL? I don't think so. Those values whether brought by some super being or written down by Crowley one rainy afternoon are there to stay. I speak for myself(and quite a few other people as I have noticed) when I say that it won't really matter whether Cole proves anything or not. It won't diminish the poetic value of this text. It won't diminish the philosophical value of this text either. Liber AL will continue to be a flaming trigger for many people. A trigger that will inspire them to pursue the Great Work. As a friend of mine said on FB, when it comes to the Great Work the origin of Liber AL is irrelevant. I tend to agree.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
13/01/2013 1:27 pm  

I feel similarly to eol. The content of The Book of the Law is more important than its provenance.

In my experience, many - and perhaps most - Thelemites who accept Crowley's account of the reception of The Book of the Law keep in mind the possibility that Crowley's account might prove to be not wholly accurate. We are not, after all, blind believers.

Doubtless financial gain for Richard Cole from this book would be a fine thing, but I doubt that he's booking a holiday in the Bahamas just yet. The market for the book would be small. I remember Richard's excellent Thelema Revisited, the archives of which Richard allowed me to plunder for a contemporary picture of the Abbey in Beelzebub and the Beast. Richard has wanted to prove Crowley's account of the reception a hoax for some time; time alone will tell whether or not he succeeds. In the meantime, I'll look forward to the publication of his forthcoming book.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1000
13/01/2013 2:19 pm  

Finding out that Crowley wrote it in 1906 wouldn't bother me a bit - it'd be as interesting as anything else about Crowley - I haven't believed in the supernatural explanation for nearly 20 years (maybe never, but I can say I entertained the idea for 15 years before that). As far as I'm concerned, it is an example of Crowley's poetic genius, part of which was to sometimes get in trance-like states and write like hell. It seems he could fan a spark of inspiration into a days-long outpouring of the "voice" inside him. It's a familiar, ancient, oracular and poetic technique. Before we knew about the unconscious, of course people frequently took it to be the words of a god or demon. For people who want to believe in supernatural beings, it is proof that they exist - and it is important that they prophesy and make other pronouncements that prove knowledge (presumably) beyond that of the author. Crowley clearly wanted to believe that Aiwass was such a being, and his apologia for the book during the rest of his life was the attempt to show how it did in fact demonstrate the existence of "praeter human" entities who are messing with us to help us "progress."

Whenever and however it was written, it was certainly written by Crowley.

If Cole can show that "came into my possession in July 1906" means that it was written then - with proofs such as a datable watermark, it will be very interesting from a psychological point of view (the confusion of his memory I mean, or, the willingness to deceive himself and others that it was otherwise). But I still find it hard to believe that it was written then, given that he apparently discussed it with Elaine Simpson in Shanghai in April of 1906. Are these diaries fabricated as well? (Perdurabo, p. 155 (2nd edition of course)). I don't have the Motta publication of these diaries that Kaczynski cites, but what can we make of them then? Did Motta write them to buffer Crowley's account, in some weird anticipation of the rediscovery of the ms. of Liber L with the "July 1906" (and "automatic writing") note on the title page?

From Kaczynski (pp. 155-156) we also learn that he was, I suppose, in London for most of July 1906, in bad health, in hospital for a few days and recovering from an operation. His main magical and intellectual work at the time was with GC Jones, preparing to found the AA. So perhaps he "received" the book then, in his doubtlessly somewhat trancey state, and with a motive - to prove the authority to found such an Order. But this would mean that the 1906 diaries published by Motta are false.

If they are true though, it is interesting that the message he received from Aiwass through Elaine was to return to Egypt, with Rose, in the same surroundings, to get some signs, "real power". Although it never happened, it seems possible that Crowley could have conflated the imagining of this message with the earlier trip in 1904, and thus placed the composition of the book in the wrong year (I know I have sometimes misplaced important events by a couple of years, thinking something that happened in 1990, when I was 24, actually happened in 1987 - only checking my diary can help). But this still doesn't address the "July" part of the 1906 story, since all of this stuff with Elaine happened in April.

Something doesn't add up, unless the book was actually written in 1904 and Cole's intimations are baseless. I don't mean accepting Crowley's interpretations and conclusions about its source and what it proves, just the facts that he wrote it in 1904, over the course of three days, April 8, 9 and 10, in Cairo.

As far as I can tell, that is the simplest explanation.


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
13/01/2013 7:51 pm  

Well well well- this conversation has been going on & on for a few years now in other threads, & there is always a new one to rehash the older ones. If you ask me (have you?), just the plain fact that it was François Rabelais who created the concept of "Thelema" a few hundred years before Crowley was born should explain almost everything. Crowley was a great & inspired author, & that alone is enough. I forgive him for his nasty side- the beauty of his work has withstood the test of time, & he is truly a creative genius. We should celebrate this,& not pick his work apart.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
13/01/2013 8:01 pm  

Horemakhet, I wouldn't say that this thread intended to pick apart his work, even if it has perhaps gone that way at times. I think it's about picking apart his motives. If he claimed the highest grades of attainment and crossed the Abyss successfully, wouldn't this imply that he had utterly controlled his ego?
Interestingly, this was the question posed at the very beginning of this thread, to which NOBODY has addressed.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/01/2013 8:14 pm  
"morphon" wrote:
I think it's about picking apart his motives. If he claimed the highest grades of attainment and crossed the Abyss successfully, wouldn't this imply that he had utterly controlled his ego?
Interestingly, this was the question posed at the very beginning of this thread, to which NOBODY has addressed.

Well...

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think that if the method by which Crowley claims the book came about is proven to be false, it does have an effect on Thelema as a whole. For instance, Crowley mentioned that Thelema as he presented it was the greatest possible contribution he could make to humanity, for he gave his own life in its entirety, regardless of the consequences, in order to bring it into fruition and to what we have now.

I can't remember exactly where I read that, perhaps in Liber 418, The Equinox of the Gods, or Confessions, but I did come across it a month or so ago when we were discussing all of the 14th Aethyr stuff.

Point being, if indeed the method by which the book was written is proven to be a fabrication, then Crowley poured his entire life into perpetuating an obvious lie. This is not a "Book of Lies" type of lie, either. It would be a blatant, in the face, outright lie, designed only to help prop him up on a pedestal with the other saints, sages, and saviors of mankind.

"Azidonis" wrote:
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
If I am understanding this correctly, the Genesis of Liber Al, was not such an event. It was a fabrication, meant to look like such an event. One that would play off the sensibilities of the very people who Crowley was trying to appeal to. Bloody brilliant if you ask me.

It amounts to "Black Magick" of the fullest sense, by his own definition even.

Surely you understand the implications of that...


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
13/01/2013 8:34 pm  

Crowley needed a rather large ego just to go through his life & accomplish his work. This was a man who was beset with enemies from the start of his career. There were so many people ( WB Yeats being a famous example )who tried to tear him apart. Jealousy. You can see now: the new generations read Crowley, & not Yeats. This is the "Aleister Crowley Society"- why attack him here? Did he not get enough of that in his own life?


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
13/01/2013 8:49 pm  

Some Crowley quotes, on the subject of "black magic":

“To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires.

“I have been accused of being a ‘black magician’. No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic to practice it."

“In Paris, and even in London, there are misguided people who are abusing their priceless spiritual gifts to obtain petty and temporary advantages through these practices.

“The Black Mass is a totally different matter. I could not celebrate it if I wanted to, for I am not a consecrated priest of the Christian Church.”

"belmurru" wrote:
As far as I can tell, that is the simplest explanation.

As Los points out, just because he was in egypt when he said he was, doesn't really mean anything. It could still have been written and thought up by him, or written later on, even if he were in egypt in april 1904.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
13/01/2013 8:51 pm  
"Horemakhet" wrote:
This is the "Aleister Crowley Society"- why attack him here? Did he not get enough of that in his own life?

A couple of issues arising from this comment...

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread is 'attacking' Crowley. But, even if they were, why not? It's 'The Aleister Crowley Society', not 'The Aleister Crowley Appreciation Society'. Crowley's behaviour was often utterly reprehensible - to avoid criticism or to object to 'attacks' is to deny the evidence and would be against common sense.

I've studied the man's works for the best part of four decades and am under no illusions about his motivations and failings. There's no reason for the membership to deny the facts or to avoid their discussion.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/01/2013 8:53 pm  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Some Crowley quotes, on the subject of "black magic":

“To practice black magic you have to violate every principle of science, decency and intelligence. You must be obsessed with an insane idea of the importance of the petty object of your wretched and selfish desires.

“I have been accused of being a ‘black magician’. No more foolish statement was ever made about me. I despise the thing to such an extent that I can hardly believe in the existence of people so debased and idiotic to practice it."

“In Paris, and even in London, there are misguided people who are abusing their priceless spiritual gifts to obtain petty and temporary advantages through these practices.

“The Black Mass is a totally different matter. I could not celebrate it if I wanted to, for I am not a consecrated priest of the Christian Church.”

Of course, Moog. But if he fabricated the whole thing, deliberately lied in order to secure a place among "prophets", if he simply made the whole thing up in a fit of self-aggrandizement, one which he based his entire life around, then what you get is... an act of black magick, by his own definition.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/01/2013 8:56 pm  
"lashtal" wrote:
"Horemakhet" wrote:
This is the "Aleister Crowley Society"- why attack him here? Did he not get enough of that in his own life?

A couple of issues arising from this comment...

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread is 'attacking' Crowley. But, even if they were, why not? It's 'The Aleister Crowley Society', not 'The Aleister Crowley Appreciation Society'. Crowley's behaviour was often utterly reprehensible - to avoid criticism or to object to 'attacks' is to deny the evidence and would be against common sense.

I've studied the man's works for the best part of four decades and am under no illusions about his motivations and failings. There's no reason for the membership to deny the facts or to avoid their discussion.

Agreed, Paul.

I would only add that had Crowley been worried about what a small handful of people in a small pocket of the internet would say about him almost 60+ years after his death, then he probably would have not even begun his "Great Work".


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
13/01/2013 9:10 pm  

I am not attacking Crowley or any one in my posts.

Naturally, it's the groups like OTO (and others), who attract members on the basis that Crowley's story is totally accurate, that are burned by this. More and more people who draw this conclusion over time, means less and less people being attracted to those organizations, and what they offer. That is, unless those organizations decide to change their stance on these fundamental issues, and promote a more universal view.

Time will tell.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Of course, Moog. But if he fabricated the whole thing, deliberately lied in order to secure a place among "prophets", if he simply made the whole thing up in a fit of self-aggrandizement, one which he based his entire life around, then what you get is... an act of black magick, by his own definition.

This should only bother people who believed in his wild tale from the get go, or who have some emotional or other (maybe financial?) investment in people buying and propagating it. I think Paul's got the right idea. As long as you aren't under any illusions yourself, the man and his life/work can make an interesting and inspiring subject.


ReplyQuote
chuck
(@chuck)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 52
13/01/2013 11:12 pm  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
This should only bother people who believed in his wild tale from the get go, or who have some emotional or other (maybe financial?) investment in people buying and propagating it. I think Paul's got the right idea. As long as you aren't under any illusions yourself, the man and his life/work can make an interesting and inspiring subject.

93

From The Book of Lies:
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/01/2013 12:14 am  
"morphon" wrote:
If he claimed the highest grades of attainment and crossed the Abyss successfully, wouldn't this imply that he had utterly controlled his ego?

"Crossing the Abyss" implies that one has destroyed the self, i.e. the sense of "unity" that binds together its disparate elements. But those elements themselves don't get destroyed. What that means is that someone who "crosses the abyss" isn't necessarily going to act any differently than how he or she acted before crossing the abyss: the difference is that person will experience the universe in a permanently-changed way.

What that means is that no behavior is necessarily inconsistent with being a Master of the Temple.

That means that there's no reason, a priori, to assume that a Master of the Temple wouldn't make up a story, exaggerate details of a story to promote interest in an idea, play a trick on everyone, or even enjoy thinking of himself as a Grand Poobah. Or all of the above.

So, in short, Crowley's claim to have crossed the abyss isn't challenged in any way by the veracity of the reception story.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/01/2013 2:31 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Of course, Moog. But if he fabricated the whole thing, deliberately lied in order to secure a place among "prophets", if he simply made the whole thing up in a fit of self-aggrandizement, one which he based his entire life around, then what you get is... an act of black magick, by his own definition.

This should only bother people who believed in his wild tale from the get go, or who have some emotional or other (maybe financial?) investment in people buying and propagating it. I think Paul's got the right idea. As long as you aren't under any illusions yourself, the man and his life/work can make an interesting and inspiring subject.

He spent his life propounding, as White Magick, what he called the Great Work. If his presentation of it is based upon a premise of Black Magick, how do you think that affects his legacy?


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 439
14/01/2013 3:48 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
"herupakraath" wrote:
The "proper skeptical position" will likely only concern staunch skeptics, which many on this forum are not. There is a simple reason to reject the skepticism you advocate: there is no joy in continually feasting on sour grapes or throwing them in the faces of others.

If I remember correctly, Crowley advocated exactly the kind of skepticism which you disparage. Your logic is absolutely astounding.

My logic astounds you because you're exploring the Black School of Magick and have your feet firmly planted in it. Crowley defines the Black School of Magick as "that of pure scepticism." Sound familiar? Crowley advocates skepticism as a useful perspective, not as an ultimate point of view that leads to ultimate truth. He wrote that all truth is relative, which limits the usefulness of skepticism. If you grow wiser with age, you will see the other schools of magick have their uses as well, and that Crowley could not have believed in secret masters, guardian angels, gods, or even the concept of true will without borrowing elements from all three schools.

Essentially you are saying :"Oh! Just let the little kiddies believe in santa clause, ok? Who cares if it's stupid and childish (and possibly intellectually dulling). they're having so much fun playing make believe. Boo! Your'e no fun!"

There is nothing you can say or do that will change the predilections of others; you are only wasting your energy in trying to, and even if you could, what would you do, limit them to your narrow point of view? People believe what they believe because it either makes them happy, or because it reduces friction with their surroundings that allows them some peace of mind, which is fine with me.

Highly suspicious? Really? For the sake of brevity, perhaps you will provide a list of the reasons I should be highly suspicious of Crowley's account of the Cairo Working, and we can focus a discussion on those.

Forget for a second all the personal emotional investment which you have in this subject,

My investment is one of time and hard work; emotions have little to do with it.

consider that there is really no good reason to accept the account, given the factual basis.

In Magick Without Tears, Crowley describes the holy books of Thelema as the best examples of the White School of magick, which includes the Book of the Law: in it, reason, the driving principle of the Black School of magick, is declared a lie that is negated by a factor infinite & unknown that adepts of the White School of magick tap into in order to form their perceptions of truth. The use of the infinite & unknown factor amounts to a form of "mystical comprehension" that is simply beyond adepts of the Black School of magick, so it's no surprise that you have the attitude you do. The threat the Book of the Law poses to the Black School of magick is what fuels the attacks on it by adepts of the Black School.

Even if Crowley were in Egypt, what does this prove about the existence of spirits who dictate books?

The original subject of the thread is potential evidence that exposes the Cairo Working as a hoax; the Book of the Law could originate from a source other than "spirits" and the working not be a hoax, meaning a deliberate deception perpetrated by Crowley.

Why on earth would we accept anything less than that he wrote it himself?

In my case, being an adept of the White School of magick, and having tapped into the factor infinite & unknown, a significant body of work has been produced that suggests the Book of the Law is genuine. The work mentioned, when revealed, will cripple the influence the Black School of magick has on Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 5
Share: