Crowley and his dis...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley and his discrepancies  

Page 2 / 5
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/01/2013 2:16 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
Crowley advocates skepticism as a useful perspective, not as an ultimate point of view that leads to ultimate truth.

"Scepticism, absolute in every dimension, is the sole possible basis of true Attainment." -- Aleister Crowley, Little Essays Towards Truth


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/01/2013 2:30 pm  

Yes, and from Albert Pike, freemasonry's greatest luminary:

"Doubt, the essential preliminary of all improvement and discovery, must accompany the stages of man's onward progress. The faculty of doubting and questioning, without which those of comparison and judgment would be useless, is itself a divine prerogative of the reason."

It's basics, really, but worth underlining for those struggling with it.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
14/01/2013 2:41 pm  

Yes, and he had applied scepticism, and established to his own satisfaction such things as the existence of praeter-human intelligence.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/01/2013 2:45 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Yes, and he had applied scepticism, and established to his own satisfaction such things as the existence of praeter-human intelligence.

And the question for us today is whether he had properly applied skepticism.

Crowley created a system that has skepticism at its heart, but that's no guarantee that he applied it correctly or lived up to the standards of his system consistently. If we take him at his word about some of his beliefs, it is obvious that he did not live up to his own standards on that front.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/01/2013 2:56 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If we take him at his word about some of his beliefs, it is obvious that he did not live up to his own standards on that front.

Yes, and woe betide he who takes Crowley at his word! There be dragons!


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/01/2013 4:10 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Yes, and he had applied scepticism, and established to his own satisfaction such things as the existence of praeter-human intelligence.

And the question for us today is whether he had properly applied skepticism.

Crowley created a system that has skepticism at its heart, but that's no guarantee that he applied it correctly or lived up to the standards of his system consistently. If we take him at his word about some of his beliefs, it is obvious that he did not live up to his own standards on that front.

I think scientific progress has something to do with it as well.

I find it intriguing though, how the same guy who said, "There is no god but man", also enjoyed answering to 'otherworldy intelligences'.

This is a completely opposite approach than others have taken, before and since Crowley. It will be interesting to see how that effects his legacy.


ReplyQuote
OKontrair
(@okontrair)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 501
14/01/2013 5:18 pm  

Generally speaking I tend to agree with Los but the ideas 'properly' and 'correctly' looks to me like pseudo moral constructs from within a framework where such matters are already settled and fixed.

The notion of 'taking Crowley at his word' or not brings with it choices of which word from so many and from which context. A trivial example; on a recent thread is a quote about 'Black Magick' that comes from a ghost written newspaper article that was part of a reputation repairing campaign. No criticism here just recommending care.

My real reason for posting though is that Azidonis's post reminded me of this from AC about his former G.'.D.'. colleagues:

"The rebel camp broke up in anarchy. They issued various hysterical manifestos, distinguished by confusion of thought, inaccuracy of statement, personal malice, empty bombast, and ignorance of English. One error is worth rescuing from oblivion. 'Nothing in the above resolutions shall effect our connection with the Rosicrucian Order.' The poor darlings meant affect."

This doesn't really apply to Azi; he could well be spot on.

OK


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/01/2013 5:37 pm  
"OKontrair" wrote:
This doesn't really apply to Azi; he could well be spot on.

I suppose it could be effect, but the two terms always avoid me. So before, I posted, I looked them up.

I meant affect in the sens of definition 1: " to act on; produce an effect or change in".


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
14/01/2013 7:48 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

What if? What if this and what if that? Should "it" turn out to be true, so what? Should Liber AL momentarily fad into the fog of time it would not matter. It is here to stay and perhaps the future holds a fuller, more complete understanding? To be honest, my personal belief is that what has been presented to us as "the original" written reception is not that at all. I believe it is a rewrite done by A.C. after the fact. That said, is also meaningless.
What does matter to me is the effect that the writing has had on my personal consciousness and beyond. From the first time I read it nearly forty years ago to the last moment I just set it down. Each individual takes something different and unique from it while it is completely beyond others. For me it continues to cause changes in perception and thinking. That is all that matters and should it ever stop I will set it down and leave it behind. The only other written words to have anywhere near the same effect for me  is Liber VII. Each line presents a tapestry of rich visual images inside my mind. You may call me a superstitious idiot lost in a mystic daydream, I'll take that and wear it gladly.
As for Mr. Coles as yet unseen work, if he can squeeze a few bucks out of it and shake the tree a little bit in the process....I can only wish him all the best. The sheep do need to be sheared occasionally.  ::)
In the end it will not matter to me.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/01/2013 8:48 pm  

It seems to me from his website that this author has a very strong bias he's pushing from the get-go.  As an historian, I can tell you that this often leads one to look for and overemphasize certain "evidence" and ignore others.

An analysis of the writing of the Book of the Law compared to Crowley's other writing (including the other Holy Books), makes it quite clear at the very least that the Book of the Law was written in a very different state than usual, and was not "cleaned up" in the typical Crowleyan fashion. Which in itself is quite odd, because it seems at odds with Crowley's literary ego and his self-image as the great genius of the poetic and written word.

93!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/01/2013 1:02 am  
"Swamiji" wrote:
...the Book of the Law was written in a very different state than usual, and was not "cleaned up" in the typical Crowleyan fashion. Which in itself is quite odd, because it seems at odds with Crowley's literary ego and his self-image as the great genius of the poetic and written word.

93!

I might be wrong about this, but I believe Crowley dashed most of his works off in one go, and didn't edit or revise them post scriptum. Or at least I know he claimed that in at least one place, and Louis Wilkinson seems to concur in his introduction to "The Law is for All". Analysis of the lexicon of Liber Al aside, I think the text has Crowley written all over it, personally.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
15/01/2013 10:57 am  

"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
(translation by Christopher Hitchens, hence known as "Hitchens' Razor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchen s'_razor)

Cole asserted unequivocally, and emphatically, that the paper of the manuscript of Liber L dates from 1906.

For the record (in case Cole decides to edit it) -

"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Walterfive - "Agreed! Just because Crowley separated the Title Page of Liber L from the rest of the manuscript in 1907 (IIRC) is no reason not to include it."

If I may propose a reason for omitting the much-neglected 'Title Page' in this genre of computation...

The Title Page is a large sheet of complimentary paper stamped "Cairo Hotel" in Arabic (top left), and folded in two to make a crude, wrap-around cover. Crowley almost certainly abstructed this from the Cairo Hotel during his Egyptian honeymoon with Rose, in April 1904. Conversely, the 65 manuscript leaves are all examples of Alexander Pirie & Sons (not 'Pipie', as incorrectly stated in the big blue brick) standard 1906 watermarked typewriting paper, manufactured especially for sale in London. As such, Crowley could not have obtained these from the Cairo Hotel, or anywhere else in Egypt, during his honeymoon.

Since the two items are products of different continents and different time periods, and Crowley himself separated the specimens... Is it prudent to re-combine them?

(I have added bold emphasis to the original assertion and the strong conclusion drawn from it)

He asserted it without evidence, and has not, in nearly two years, addressed the doubts cast on this assertion by the fact that the paper bears no date, and that, according to Azidonis ( http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=74256#p74256 ), a LAShTAL member named Tai demonstrated that it is a baseless assertion. Cole's refusal to accept responsibility for the assertion, either to prove it or to admit his error, casts doubt on his scholarly integrity.

But we needn't even go that far - the assertion was made without evidence, and we can simply dismiss it without evidence. We can take it as nonsense, hot air, bullshit, or whatever you want to call it. The only effect it has had is to damage Cole's reputation, for those who pay attention.

Ignoring baseless assertions and incoherent circumstantial arguments (like those on Cole's prospectus page for "Liber AL vel Bogus"), we can address the single perplexing item in the evidence Crowley provides, already noted by Los on the old thread http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29.msg60097#msg60097 , namely his handwritten statement on the title page - "MS (which came into my possession in July 1906 a c. oct. '09").

Crowley's own attempt to explain this note is "I meant that I would be its master from this date", which Los, understandably, rejects on the grounds that it is a locution that no native speaker of English would use.

This is a strong point, but what it seems to imply, that Crowley received the manuscript from somebody else in July 1906, is contradicted by the fact that his own diary has him discussing the manuscript with Elaine Simpson in Shanghai in April of that year (including her vision of Aiwass with the command to return to Egypt with the "Scarlet Woman" (presumably still Rose)). This very important point was already raised by Lutz in the old thread (where its significance was ignored) http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29.msg60092#msg60092 , and me yesterday on this very thread http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=74309#p74309 (where its significance was once again ignored - does no one know how to evaluate evidence?)
Any theory which asserts that Crowley wrote Liber L in 1906 has to explain these diaries, limiting the book's composition to between January and early April of 1906, and STILL has to contend with Crowley's remark that the manuscript "came into [his] possession" only in JULY of that year!

The other fact that seems to contradict the reading that he somehow first got the manuscript in July of 1906 is that it is in his handwriting - i.e., he wrote it. So "came into my possession" is not so straightforward as the simplest reading implies, since this remark is itself parenthetical to the abbreviation "MS" - manuscript. So it means that this particular manuscript came into his possession in July 1906, and it is not a copy of another manuscript that he received from somewhere else.

What are we to make of it? Can we accept Crowley's ham-handed explanation that "came into my possession" means "I would be its master"?

We might consider that to "possess" had a meaning familiar to Crowley, unusual nowadays but acceptable, of "possessing" a woman, i.e. having sex with her. In Crowley's language of seduction mastering and possessing a woman are the same thing. But still, the phrase is usually active - "I possessed her", not "she came into my possession", so it is still highly unusual diction for a master of English, and we may legitimately wonder why he used that turn of phrase.

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear others (which take the April 1906 record into account as well, of course).

 


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
15/01/2013 12:32 pm  

I am glad Paul saw fit to clarify this distinction between “The Aleister Crowley Society” and “The Aleister Crowley Appreciation Society” in Reply #42, which I had raised myself in the “New book on the Gnostic Mass” thread Reply #70.  Naturally A.C. needs to be viewed ‘warts and all’, nevertheless the sentiments for Crowley seem to vastly outweigh those against him on this site.

The point I made about Crowleyanity also appears to have been implicitly answered, which at its most basic can be defined as a ‘cult of the personality’ alone (and at its most complex something else also, & not so easily summarised in a short phrase).

It’s true though that he faced such opposition and “bad press” during his lifetime that it’s almost a shame in a way that there isn’t actually a society that’s prepared to stand up for him and in effect say: we know the guy could at times be an absolute sh– –ower (as Terry-Thomas would say), but we applaud the bugger for his efforts all the same, warts’n’all.

I would be surprised if A.C. faked the larger part as opposed to the smaller details of the circumstances around the Reception – it would add a whole new layer of “rascality” to his “doings” but nonetheless if done in accordance with his T.W. who would anyone be to say “nay”?  It would not therefore actually be black magic as such, & would not invalidate the integrity of the Book’s contents itself.

Maybe Richard Cole is also going to inform us he has managed to track down that elusive testament of Amado’s, Crowley’s Book of Desolation??

Ying Tong Iddle I Po,
Norma N. Joy Conquest.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
15/01/2013 1:06 pm  

obscuruspaintus - "As for Mr. Coles as yet unseen work..."  Unseen?  Are you suggesting that Paul Feazey, owner of this web-site, fabricated a post made on January 11, 2013, 09:08:45. In which he noted:

"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."

Paul was one of numerous knowledgeable individuals with whom I engaged in a "lengthy and detailed correspondence" prior to the release of this material. In this respect, I am deeply indebted to Paul (and others). His suggestions, insights and criticisms unquestionably proved vital in uncovering several key pieces of the mystery, in the placement of others, and in the refinement of this work as a whole. The salient point in Paul’s post is "previously un-noticed." To prevent further, perhaps misdirected speculation, I'll mention that the 'watermark' issue is entirely incidental to material presented in Liber L. vel Bogus. On this theme, I'll also note that the 'evidence' allegedly proving the watermark theory false is based on an article in the October 1947 edition of 'Maple Leaves - Journal of the Canadian Philatelic Society of Gt. Britain.' This reprints A. E. Stephenson's  "paper read to the Canadian Study Circle at the Philatelic Congress of Great Britain, Birmingham, 1947" and relates to the watermark on a small quantity of paper manufactured by Alex Pirie & Son as purchased by the Canadian government, for the specific purpose of printing its 1868-88 runs of "Large Head" postage stamps.

I wholeheartedly encourage everyone with an interest to study these mysteries for themselves.  As a precursor, I recommend a careful (word-by-word) comparison of entries Crowley recorded on the critical dates (08, 09 and 10 April 1904) in his personal diary and its occult counterpart, The Book of Results (a document Crowley described as "unspoiled and authoritative") - Both are reproduced in Equinox I, 7 and Equinox of the Gods. Advanced students will benefit greatly by widening their search pattern to include a cross-referencing of this material against Crowley's original source notebooks, namely OS23 and OS27.

Jamie barter - “Maybe Richard Cole is also going to inform us he has managed to track down that elusive testament of Amado’s, Crowley’s Book of Desolation??” I have not investigated the reality, or otherwise, of this particular document, though suspect that Amado simply followed his father’s lead and fabricated the whole story.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/01/2013 3:57 pm  

R.T. Cole - I look forward to reading your book. The work you have done to prove AC did not receive Liber Al in the way he said, is in my view much needed, as Thelema desperately needs to distance itself from kooky supernatural jibber-jabber. However, having had a quick glance at your website, you claim that there is now, "no Thelema". And this I take issue with. Because as certain members of this website (not me, I'm a newcomer) have been at pains to point out to "Thelemites" over several years in painstaking detail, the system known as "Thelema" and defined by its founder, Aleister Crowley, does not depend on the existence of "Aiwass" or "spirits" or "the planes" and all the rest. In fact, when seeking a good definition of Thelema,  one might say it's: "a system for distinguishing what is authentic from what is illusory". So I welcome your book! But it does not, and could never invalidate Thelema. 93 93/93


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
15/01/2013 4:46 pm  

Unseen to me is the only implication.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/01/2013 7:18 pm  
"selfseeker" wrote:
Thelema desperately needs to distance itself from kooky supernatural jibber-jabber.

Why personify "Thelema"?


ReplyQuote
michaelclarke18
(@michaelclarke18)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 1264
15/01/2013 8:05 pm  

The whole point of having a magical diary is to be able to relate cause to effect. When some form of action is initiated by the magician, the exact details can be captured, Later the efficacy of the practice can be judged. Over a period of time, it will therefore be possible to build up a far more informed picture of what elements were the most effective.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/01/2013 8:14 pm  
"selfseeker" wrote:
In fact, when seeking a good definition of Thelema,  one might say it's: "a system for distinguishing what is authentic from what is illusory".

No, in fact this has nothing more to do with Thelema than "a system to distinguish strange drugs from familiar drugs." Thelema is about the "True Will" (it's in the name already), and about how to follow this "consecrated path". It's not about "distancing oneself from supernatural jibber-jabber", it's not about distancing oneself from rationalistic jibber-jabber and it's also not about authenticity. And if you sincerely believe that Richard's book will in any way prove that Crowley "made it all up", you're more naive then most of your posts already demonstrate. Not to mention that demonstrating that Crowley did not receive Liber AL in the way he said cannot (applying logic) invalidate all other claims he made, be they about the supernatural or about hard scientific facts. Maybe the reception legend will be shaken up some more (it's quite shaken up already). But I guess we will all have to wait for the book.

And I - as a hobby historian/researcher - am very much looking forward to Richard's book.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
15/01/2013 8:17 pm  

Excellent post, Lutz, as so often!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
15/01/2013 8:19 pm  
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
The whole point of having a magical diary is to be able to relate cause to effect. When some form of action is initiated by the magician, the exact details can be captured, Later the efficacy of the practice can be judged. Over a period of time, it will therefore be possible to build up a far more informed picture of what elements were the most effective.

Wrong thread, perhaps?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/01/2013 8:28 pm  

93!

Come to think of it, Crowley scientific method is the exact opposite of "distancing oneself" from anything at all. You might want to rephrase that, selfseeker? Even your avatar name is not really chosen in a "Thelemic spirit", if I might say so.

Love=Law
Lutz, the "real" Simon Iff


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
15/01/2013 8:51 pm  
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
To prevent further, perhaps misdirected speculation, I'll mention that the 'watermark' issue is entirely incidental...

I've not seen your evidence that the watermark 'proves' that the paper on which Liber AL is written wasn't manufactured until 1906 but it's hardly an 'incidental issue'!

If you can prove that AL was written on paper that wasn't made until two years after AC claimed to have produced his scribbles, then, surely, all other evidence is incidental in comparison?

As an aside, the article you refer to, Maple Leaves - Journal of the Canadian Philatelic Society of Gt. Britain, is freely available in full here: http://www.canadianpsgb.org.uk/mpl/mpl-1947-10-v002n01-w005.pdf

I will be very interested to see how its content supports your hypothesis! Needless to say, there's no mention of 1906 in it...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/01/2013 10:41 pm  

Great post, belmurru.

I agree that we can discard Cole’s unsubstantiated claims unless and until there’s any evidence for them.

"belmurru" wrote:
This [the weird phrasing on the cover page] is a strong point, but what it seems to imply, that Crowley received the manuscript from somebody else in July 1906, is contradicted by the fact that his own diary has him discussing the manuscript with Elaine Simpson in Shanghai in April of that year

Leaving aside the possibility of Crowley mixing up the dates at some point, what about this option: perhaps the manuscript existed before 1906 but was technically in someone else’s possession (i.e. perhaps Crowley and some other person together produced the manuscript as part of some “automatic writing” exercise – with Crowley taking down dictation -- and then that other person held on to the manuscript of their joint work for a few years before it came into Crowley’s possession, somehow “officially,” in 1906).

So what does that mean, then? Crowley borrowed it in 1906 to use with Simpson?

I’m just wildly guessing here, so…*shrugs*


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/01/2013 1:09 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
"selfseeker" wrote:
In fact, when seeking a good definition of Thelema,  one might say it's: "a system for distinguishing what is authentic from what is illusory".

No, in fact this has nothing more to do with Thelema than "a system to distinguish strange drugs from familiar drugs." Thelema is about the "True Will" (it's in the name already), and about how to follow this "consecrated path". It's not about "distancing oneself from supernatural jibber-jabber", it's not about distancing oneself from rationalistic jibber-jabber and it's also not about authenticity. And if you sincerely believe that Richard's book will in any way prove that Crowley "made it all up", you're more naive then most of your posts already demonstrate. Not to mention that demonstrating that Crowley did not receive Liber AL in the way he said cannot (applying logic) invalidate all other claims he made, be they about the supernatural or about hard scientific facts. Maybe the reception legend will be shaken up some more (it's quite shaken up already). But I guess we will all have to wait for the book.

And I - as a hobby historian/researcher - am very much looking forward to Richard's book.

Love=Law
Lutz

If we're going to seriously put the Thelemic system forward, publicly, as a method for attaining one's full potential, and arriving at a true (as in 'accurate') knowledge of ones will, and a practical guide the execution thereof - then yes, it's absolutely necessary to make it abundantly clear that the method has zero, zilch, nada, to do with spooky supernatural tomfoolery. Clearing up the absurd story of the 'reception' of the Book of the Law is an excellent place to start.

93s


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/01/2013 1:51 am  

belmurru - "....the fact that his own diary has him discussing the manuscript with Elaine Simpson in Shanghai in April of that year."

belmurru's post is "great" only in a sense that it represents a great example of the manner in which individuals (and groups) tend to see only what they want to see, and not what is actually present, then regurgitate their misconceptions as fact. The dairy entry in question (18 April 1906) makes no mention of "the manuscript," (though is noteworthy as it marks Crowley's first reference to Liber Legis, or derivations of, anywhere).  To many, this may seem like a pedantic distinction. However, in this particular instance, the Devil is very much in the detail!

Leaving aside subtleties, and focussing on broad strokes.  Can any member of this site offer a plausible explanation of the conspicuous entries relating to the five key events (i.e. 18 March cross-examination of Rose, 21 March visit to the Boulak and 08, 09 & 10 April chats with Aiwass) Crowley recorded in both his personal diary and its occult counterpart, The Book of Results?

Los – “I’m just wildly guessing here, so…*shrugs*” Wild guessing will get you nowhere. As previously mentioned, a thorough study of OS23 and OS27 will negate any requirement for guesswork. 


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/01/2013 2:55 am  

Where can we read the contents of OS23 & OS27?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
16/01/2013 9:11 am  
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
belmurru - "....the fact that his own diary has him discussing the manuscript with Elaine Simpson in Shanghai in April of that year."

belmurru's post is "great" only in a sense that it represents a great example of the manner in which individuals (and groups) tend to see only what they want to see, and not what is actually present, then regurgitate their misconceptions as fact. The dairy entry in question (18 April 1906) makes no mention of "the manuscript," (though is noteworthy as it marks Crowley's first reference to Liber Legis, or derivations of, anywhere).  To many, this may seem like a pedantic distinction. However, in this particular instance, the Devil is very much in the detail!

Which "devil" is that?

Thank you for the clarification, in any case. You are of course right, he doesn't say "the manuscript" - but I don't claim he wrote those words (the phrase is not placed between quotation marks). The "fact" is a reasonable inference on my part that it was the manuscript they discussed, but there is room for some doubt there (see below). I am not sure it is really anything more than a pedantic distinction, though (unpublished books, whether typed or (nowadays) printed from computers to various kinds of small printing devices, are still often casually referred to as "manuscripts", even if not technically handwritten).

As I clearly point out in my post, I'm relying on Kaczynski's account, which in turn relies on Motta's publication of the diaries. I note that Kaczynski on page 155 indeed also does not say "the manuscript", but "The Book of the Law".

Note also that I don't put the phrase "the manuscript" in quotes, because I am not quoting the actual diary, since I don't have Motta's version, so I cannot be accused of misleading anyone. That and the fact that I clearly indicate my source for the information.

It does seem to be a "pedantic distinction", as you say, since it is a reasonable assumption that by "Liber Legis" on April 18, Crowley means the manuscript of Liber Legis, rather than a printed version of the text. Crowley does, however, claim that he made a typescript of the book soon after he wrote it (Confessions, p. 403), and sent it to various people, including Mathers (this is Kaczynski's inference, anyway, p. 130). So it could be that he was carrying about one of these typescripts in 1906, and the April 18 entry refers to that rather than to the manuscript per se.

Beyond that, I see no reason to speculate further. What he was discussing with Elaine Simpson was either the manuscript or a typescript of Liber Legis. So what particular "devil" is in that detail?

Actually, I suppose I AM willing to speculate further, based on the "typescript theory". That "devil" may actually help Crowley's case (the one we are arguing, in any case) - that is, if he were relying on a typescript of the book since having it made, and actually did put the manuscript aside, then it might explain what actually happened in "July 1906" - that is simply that he recovered the manuscript then. From his own account, he must have mislaid it yet again in Boleskine, and didn't recover it again, for the last time, until June 28, 1909 (Kaczynski says something similar on page 190, referring to the discovery of the ms. on June 28, 1909: "Up to that point, he had been working off a typescript to the book.").

But however we resolve the issue of the "July 1906" remark, I see no reason not to believe that what he was discussing with Elaine Simpson in April 1906 was a full copy of Liber Legis.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
16/01/2013 9:57 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
But however we resolve the issue of the "July 1906" remark, I see no reason not to believe that what he was discussing with Elaine Simpson in April 1906 was a full copy of Liber Legis.

I might have a "smart" answer, or at least a commonsense one, for what he meant by the remark on the title page of Liber L that "MS (which came into my possession in July 1906)".

Kaczynski's account (p. 158) has him in a nursing home for an operation and its recovery from July 8 to July 25, 1906. That is practically the whole month. On July 26, Kaczynski notes, he went to live with GC Jones. He doesn't say where that was, but I presume it was in London.

Before that, he had arrived back in the UK at Liverpool, on June 2, and went to Plymouth, where Rose was living, on June 7. Kaczynski says that CG Jones "arrived" on June 23, and reinvigorated his magical ambitions. He doesn't say where this "arrival" was, but I assume it was Plymouth.

If he were in Plymouth, with Rose, from June 7 to July 8, when he entered hospital, then it could be that Rose had kept the manuscript (the actual, handwritten, original one), and it "came into [his] possession" during his stay in Plymouth, early in July before he entered the hospital.

This scenario would imply that he was indeed using a typescript with Simpson in April in Shanghai, but, that his explicatory parenthetical remark that "I meant I could be its master from that date a c. oct. '09" is just bluster. The fact of Jones' presence and Crowley's own renewed committment to magic in July 1906 (when, in hospital on July 11, Kaczynski notes, Crowley resumed "the Augoeides invocation" since stopping it on June 7 (p. 154)), at least gives a context to the idea of "mastery" during this month. 


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/01/2013 10:14 am  
"selfseeker" wrote:
If we're going to seriously put the Thelemic system forward, publicly, as a method for attaining one's full potential, and arriving at a true (as in 'accurate') knowledge of ones will, and a practical guide the execution thereof - then yes, it's absolutely necessary to make it abundantly clear that the method has zero, zilch, nada, to do with spooky supernatural tomfoolery. Clearing up the absurd story of the 'reception' of the Book of the Law is an excellent place to start.

93!

Too bad that the Thelemic system was developed by one of the most notorious and spooky occultists of all time who claimed to have dabbled with the supernatural quite often. Good luck putting the Thelemic system publicly forward by telling people that Aleister Crowley's system has nothing to do with Aleister Crowley, it's just a curious by-product of his occult workings. You should once and for all grasp that your childish constant rejection of anything that seems vaguely "supernatural" or "occult" to you has nothing (zero, zilch, nada,) to do with Thelema. The belief or the non-belief in, as well as the existence or non-existence of the supernatural (so-called) is totally irrelevant to the practice of Thelema. You can be fooled by a lot of things, but the error is not in the thing, it is in being fooled.

Anyway, to really think that a book that might cast reasonable doubt on the reception legend of the Book of the Law (or will once and for all disprove its authenticity, so I somehow don't count on that) will have any measurable effect on people's beliefs about the supernatural and Thelema is quite strange for someone who claims to be so rational. It's even quite silly. And desperate. But your fancy picture of how occultists/supernaturalists allegedly are really seems to obscure your view quite a lot.

The day you present a more reasonable definition of the terms KNOWLEDGE, TRUE and WILL - maybe even a method to measure them - than that spooky occultist, I (personally) might reconsider your claims.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
16/01/2013 1:50 pm  
"R.T.Cole" wrote:
Leaving aside subtleties, and focussing on broad strokes.  Can any member of this site offer a plausible explanation of the conspicuous entries relating to the five key events (i.e. 18 March cross-examination of Rose, 21 March visit to the Boulak and 08, 09 & 10 April chats with Aiwass) Crowley recorded in both his personal diary and its occult counterpart, The Book of Results?

I suppose "conspicuous entries" is meant sarcastically, since there aren't any.

For March 18, the diary (EG, p. 68) and Book of Results (EG, p. 70) don't mention the "cross-examination" of Rose; Crowley only says that it is "probably on this day" that he did it (EG, p. 71).
For March 21, the entries of neither book (EG, pp. 68 and 77) mention a visit to the Boulak museum, and Crowley only says that the visit "must have occurred before the 23rd of March, as the entry on that date refers to Ankh-f-n-khonsu" (EG, p. 73). Since neither the diary nor the Book of Results, as Crowley edits them for that date (EG, pp. 69 and 77) mentions Ankh-f-n-khonsu, I would assume that his name is contained in the "long and futile Tarot divination" that he omits.
For April 8, 9 and 10, there is no diary or Book of Results entry at all reproduced in The Equinox of the Gods.

I'm not sure what your point is, or what conclusion we must draw from the way Crowley edits his records for these days for publication in The Temple of Solomon the King (The Equinox, I, vii, pp. 363-364, 376) and The Equinox of the Gods.

His diary for this period is sparse and cryptic. These are not the fulsome outpourings of the Cefalù or Tunisia diaries. "Why would he write 'in code' in his own private diary?" you ask in the excerpt from Liber L vel Bogus on your prospectus page. The most commonsense answer I can give is that he didn't want his wife knowing what he was up to some of the time, and other times just being Crowley, living in a world of magical symbols, numbers and codes, most of which he himself couldn't figure out later.

The meetings with the "AA Brother" and the Arabic name might imply real or imaginary people, homosexual trysts, or whatever, but I don't see that we should assume they have any bearing on the writing of Liber Legis. There is nothing demanding that they do.

Why didn't he make more of a fuss of it in his diary? I don't know - presumably he didn't see the importance of it, and he wasn't writing for himself yet, as he would in the Cefalù diaries. We might as well ask, if he were faking his diaries years later in order to emphasize the importance of the reception of the Book, why he didn't write MORE about it in the record when he fabricated it later.

I'm satisfied that Crowley is sincere in his presentation of this information, although I am not in accord with his beliefs about the origin and meaning of the Book. I think it DID come from his "unconscious", an idea he sometimes toyed with.

By the time he "received" Liber VII, three and a half years later, he was much more mature and psychologically integrated, and could write an equally poetic, majestic and inspired, philosophically suggestive "book", while remaining completely calm and detached about it. This was part of his genius. Liber Legis comes from an earlier time, but, I would argue, in much the same way. An overwhelming impulse to write, a sense that the words are already there and he had only to write them down. It happens to some poets this way - we are all familiar with Coleridge's inspiration for Kublai Khan (although Coleridge, to my knowledge, never tried to develop a method to replicate the experience).

Hear how the artist Tom Waits describes his sometime method of inspiration -

"You put yourself into some kind of a trance in order to receive certain songs. You know, it's like setting a trap for a song. It's like fishing or anything else. You have to be real quiet to catch the big ones."

Tom Waits, during an interview, on the tribute video for his Induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, 2011
http://youtu.be/9laF_joukQs
3:51-4:03

To me Crowley epitomizes the "inspired" poet (I include more than just what we consider poetry in that definition).

Los – “I’m just wildly guessing here, so…*shrugs*” Wild guessing will get you nowhere. As previously mentioned, a thorough study of OS23 and OS27 will negate any requirement for guesswork. 

Well, since most of us don't live near London or know the right people to get access to those documents, we rely on sincere scholars to tell us what they contain. This role of gatekeeper to knowledge is why it's important for the scholar to maintain a good reputation for honest and balanced reporting. The stonger the bias one way or the other, the less trust we have in what that scholar reports. Since you are trying to destroy Crowley's reputation and convince us he was nothing more than an "obsessive psychopath", your bias is clear, and I have to read what you report with a good dose of suspicion that the information you present, and the interpretations you make of it, are designed to do little more than prove this thesis. Rather, I would like a full presentation of all of the facts, with as little editorializing as possible, so that I can make up my own mind.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
16/01/2013 3:25 pm  

Hi Los,

"Los" wrote:
So what does that mean, then? Crowley borrowed it in 1906 to use with Simpson?

I’m just wildly guessing here, so…*shrugs*

I hope I've come up with a satisfying answer in post #78 below.

With Elaine Simpson, I think he was using one of the original typescripts he made.

Rose brought the original manuscript with her to Plymouth, where Crowley got it back in July 1906. So "came into my possession" means "recovered" in this context.

The only difficulty with this interpretation is his 1909 attempt to explain his 1906 remark, as "I would be its master from that date". This is hardly a convincing interpretation, so I put it down to arrogance ("bluster") and bad memory of a bad time.


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
16/01/2013 4:13 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

"Rather, I would like a full presentation of all of the facts, with as little editorializing as possible, so that I can make up my own mind." This comment by belmuru, is to me, the most poignant of the entire thread. With all the pertinent first hand information locked away in archives or strangled by copy write or otherwise unavailable to most of us, we as in the individual, are at the mercy of others interpretations of the facts. The funny thing about most of these conversations is that they tend to run in circles, at least for me anyway. Like the dog gone mad chasing its own tail, round and round we go always finding that the same old burr under the saddle causing the same old problem. Lay all the cards out on the table for all to see.
The Tom Waits quote,"You put yourself into some kind of a trance in order to receive certain songs", I can fully understand as a paint dauber. My best work always occurs when I sit down in front of blank canvas, get into that state and awake from it ten, twelve hours or even days later with barely a recollection as to what just took place. So now, as I start to wander off track into other realms I will close.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/01/2013 4:56 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
The only difficulty with this interpretation is his 1909 attempt to explain his 1906 remark, as "I would be its master from that date". This is hardly a convincing interpretation, so I put it down to arrogance ("bluster") and bad memory of a bad time.

Going with your hypothesis, the "I would be its master from that date", could simply be a way of Crowley saying he never lost sight of it after that, never let anyone borrow it, had sole use or control of use of it, etc. You know, like a pet, or a prized possession.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
16/01/2013 5:04 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
The only difficulty with this interpretation is his 1909 attempt to explain his 1906 remark, as "I would be its master from that date". This is hardly a convincing interpretation, so I put it down to arrogance ("bluster") and bad memory of a bad time.

Going with your hypothesis, the "I would be its master from that date", could simply be a way of Crowley saying he never lost sight of it after that, never let anyone borrow it, had sole use or control of use of it, etc. You know, like a pet, or a prized possession.

Interesting... so he could have said "I (rather than Rose or chance) would be its master from that date."

I hadn't thought of that. It does tend to make it seem less ridiculous than my initial reading of it. I had taken "master" to mean that he was wrestling with the text itself, determining to master it. But your interpretation (if I have understood correctly) simply makes "master" into what you say, the keeper.

Very nice. This neatly solves all of the interpretative difficulties.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/01/2013 5:17 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
The only difficulty with this interpretation is his 1909 attempt to explain his 1906 remark, as "I would be its master from that date". This is hardly a convincing interpretation, so I put it down to arrogance ("bluster") and bad memory of a bad time.

Going with your hypothesis, the "I would be its master from that date", could simply be a way of Crowley saying he never lost sight of it after that, never let anyone borrow it, had sole use or control of use of it, etc. You know, like a pet, or a prized possession.

Interesting... so he could have said "I (rather than Rose or chance) would be its master from that date."

I hadn't thought of that. It does tend to make it seem less ridiculous than my initial reading of it. I had taken "master" to mean that he was wrestling with the text itself, determining to master it. But your interpretation (if I have understood correctly) simply makes "master" into what you say, the keeper.

Very nice. This neatly solves all of the interpretative difficulties.

That is if we are to assume he would have used the term in the proposed context.

I don't know British English.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
16/01/2013 5:45 pm  

I would interpret Crowley saying "I would be its master from that date" to mean that he would wholeheartedly live by and promote its message from then onwards.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/01/2013 6:46 pm  
"morphon" wrote:
I would interpret Crowley saying "I would be its master from that date" to mean that he would wholeheartedly live by and promote its message from then onwards.

Wouldn't that make it his master, instead of him being its master?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5322
17/01/2013 12:15 am  
"morphon" wrote:
Where can we read the contents of OS23 & OS27?

Both are listed in the index to the Yorke Collection microfilms released by the OTO, but OS23 is missing from the microfilms themselves.

The omission of OS23 from the microfilms was an error outside the control of OTO or the Warburg Institute and arrangements have been made to include it in a "miscellaneous" supplemental reel. It will be sent to all purchasers and will also include the two AC scrapbooks assembled by Yorke.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/01/2013 1:16 am  

Don't you think this is rather, shall we say, "convenient" that OS23 (that good ol' mystical Burroughsian number) is "missing"?
It couldn't have been any other book or document, could it?
Nope!


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 445
17/01/2013 3:26 am  
"belmurru" wrote:
Thank you for the clarification, in any case. You are of course right, he doesn't say "the manuscript" - but I don't claim he wrote those words (the phrase is not placed between quotation marks). The "fact" is a reasonable inference on my part that it was the manuscript they discussed, but there is room for some doubt there (see below). I am not sure it is really anything more than a pedantic distinction, though (unpublished books, whether typed or (nowadays) printed from computers to various kinds of small printing devices, are still often casually referred to as "manuscripts", even if not technically handwritten).

As I clearly point out in my post, I'm relying on Kaczynski's account, which in turn relies on Motta's publication of the diaries. I note that Kaczynski on page 155 indeed also does not say "the manuscript", but "The Book of the Law".

Note also that I don't put the phrase "the manuscript" in quotes, because I am not quoting the actual diary, since I don't have Motta's version, so I cannot be accused of misleading anyone. That and the fact that I clearly indicate my source for the information.

It does seem to be a "pedantic distinction", as you say, since it is a reasonable assumption that by "Liber Legis" on April 18, Crowley means the manuscript of Liber Legis, rather than a printed version of the text. Crowley does, however, claim that he made a typescript of the book soon after he wrote it (Confessions, p. 403), and sent it to various people, including Mathers (this is Kaczynski's inference, anyway, p. 130). So it could be that he was carrying about one of these typescripts in 1906, and the April 18 entry refers to that rather than to the manuscript per se.

Beyond that, I see no reason to speculate further. What he was discussing with Elaine Simpson was either the manuscript or a typescript of Liber Legis. So what particular "devil" is in that detail?

Actually, I suppose I AM willing to speculate further, based on the "typescript theory". That "devil" may actually help Crowley's case (the one we are arguing, in any case) - that is, if he were relying on a typescript of the book since having it made, and actually did put the manuscript aside, then it might explain what actually happened in "July 1906" - that is simply that he recovered the manuscript then. From his own account, he must have mislaid it yet again in Boleskine, and didn't recover it again, for the last time, until June 28, 1909 (Kaczynski says something similar on page 190, referring to the discovery of the ms. on June 28, 1909: "Up to that point, he had been working off a typescript to the book.").

But however we resolve the issue of the "July 1906" remark, I see no reason not to believe that what he was discussing with Elaine Simpson in April 1906 was a full copy of Liber Legis.

By cross-referencing The Confessions against Crowley's 1906 diaries, your questions are answered. According to The Confessions (Arkana, P. 521), as soon as Crowley told Elaine Simpson about the Cairo Working, which occurs more or less at the start of the 1906 diaries, she suggested they study the Book of the Law together, which he states was possible due to having his copy of the book with him, an indication he was not in possession of the holograph at that moment.

On page 595 of The Confessions, and in Magick Without Tears, Crowley recounts finding the holograph among skis and other things in the loft at Boleskine after the manuscript had been lost for years; it was found on June 28th, presumably 1909, though it's hard to tell the way he jumps around from year to year.

I'm curious where the idea comes from that Rose brought Crowley the manuscript in 1906?

Also, are there extant diaries for April 1904 that are not part of The Equinox of the Gods, meaning never published?


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
17/01/2013 8:29 am  
"herupakraath" wrote:
By cross-referencing The Confessions against Crowley's 1906 diaries, your questions are answered. According to The Confessions (Arkana, P. 521), as soon as Crowley told Elaine Simpson about the Cairo Working, which occurs more or less at the start of the 1906 diaries, she suggested they study the Book of the Law together, which he states was possible due to having his copy of the book with him, an indication he was not in possession of the holograph at that moment.

Thanks Herupakraath. As I have said, I don't have the 1906 diary, so it's nice when someone who does have it posts the relevant contextual information, and not just a scrap to prove a polemical point.

I'm curious where the idea comes from that Rose brought Crowley the manuscript in 1906?

The date "July 1906" comes from Crowley's own annotation on the title page of the manuscript: "MS (which came into my possession in July 1906)"
http://lib.oto-usa.org/libri/liber0031.html?num=0

He later added another remark, explaining this one, apparently in 1909 (after discovering it in Boleskine): "[illegible] I meant that I would be its master from that date a c oct. '09"

("would" might also be read "could", and the note "a c. oct. '09" is how I read it, I don't know if anyone sees a better reading)

The idea that Rose had brought the manuscript with her to Plymouth, so that it was there when Crowley arrived back in the UK in June 1906, is my own theory to explain what he meant by the first annotation, that the manuscript "came into [his] possession" in July 1906. He apparently spent the whole month of June with Rose in Plymouth, and went into hospital on 8 July. so if we take what he says at face value, on this theory, he did not find, or Rose did not give him, the manuscript until early July. 

Also, are there extant diaries for April 1904 that are not part of The Equinox of the Gods, meaning never published?

I believe there are for the rest of 1904, but I don't think the diary has ever been edited and properly published as such. My impression is that there are no further entries for April, at least the important days themselves.


ReplyQuote
Anonymous
 Anonymous
(@Anonymous)
Joined: 1 second ago
Posts: 0
17/01/2013 12:23 pm  

Herupakraath asked - "Also, are there extant diaries for April 1904 that are not part of The Equinox of the Gods, meaning never published?"

I noticed that 5 pages are missing from item 'C' in OS27. These are dated 1904. Yorke makes a note that it pertains to Crowley's summer 1904 work at Boleskine with Beelzebub. 
Could there be any sensitive info in those "missing" pages? Especially due to that fact that it is dated just shortly after the reception of AL (summer 1904).
More so-called "missing" pieces of this intriguing puzzle.....


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
17/01/2013 12:30 pm  
"herupakraath" wrote:
On page 595 of The Confessions, and in Magick Without Tears, Crowley recounts finding the holograph among skis and other things in the loft at Boleskine after the manuscript had been lost for years; it was found on June 28th, presumably 1909

93!

This searching-for-skis-and-Enochian-tablets-finding-LiberAL-manuscript legend is another of the inconsistencies and curiosities regarding the Book of the Law. Crowley says he found them on June 28, while Kenneth Ward and Victor Neuburg were staying at Boleskine. Ward wanted to borrow a pair of skis and Neuburg underwent a Magical Retirement and was conferred the Neophyte degree of the A.A. In his diary Crowley wrote:

"Glory be to Nuit, Hadit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit in the highest!
A little before midday I was impelled mysteriously (though exhausted by playing fives, billiards, etc. till nearly six this morning) to make a final search for the Elemental
Tablets. And lo! when I had at last abandoned the search, I cast mine eyes upon a hole in the loft where were ski, etc., and there, O Holy, Holy, Holy! were not only all that I sought, but the manuscript of Liber Legis!
The ground was completely cut away from under my feet. I remained for two whole days meditating on the situation --- in performing, in fact, a sort of supplementary Sammasati to that of 1905."

It seems to have been quite an event for him. But now it happens that we have Neuburg's very detailed Record of his Magical Retirement which lasted until June 27. This record was studied and then commented on by Crowley and then to be rewritten by Neuburg "in a neat and legible handwriting", appended with "a fragment of biography" and finished on June 30 when they left together for London. Neuburg's entries record every little detail of his retirement and of his surroundings in the house, the mood-swings in his "Most Holy Guru", the tea he was served by his "Guru's slave" (Ward), reading and playing and meal times with Crowley, everything. It seems highly unlikely that Neuburg wouldn't mention this event, which must have changed the atmosphere at Boleskine considerably. It is even more unlikely that he did not draw any highly meaningful connections between his Initiation and the finding of the manuscript. What's even more puzzling is that it seems that the manuscript of Neuburg's Record housed at the Harry Ransom Center appears to be written in Crowley's hand (this is a private conclusion, maybe both men had quite similar handwritings, but Neuburg's signature on his Probationer Oath suggest a tottaly different style) which - if true - would mean that Crowley himself left out the event while rewriting the Record (for whatever reasons).

Well, it's just another discrepancy. It won't change a thing what Liber AL is. It won't change a thing of Crowley's thoughts on the supernatural. It won't change a thing for any Thelemite. It's just quite interesting historical playtime, and the speculations why Crowley left us with these discrepancies (the amateurishness and lack of any systematics surrounding the alleged fake make - in my opinion - a deliberate fraud which he hold on to for 43 years pretty unlikely) will remain just that: speculations. My guess is that what happened was more or less what he told us: a dictation in Cairo ... after an improvised ritual with Rose ... the presence of a praeterhuman entity ... and so. He later just added some entries in his diaries to spice things up or make them more plausible or believable. This would make 1906 a good candidate for the edits, he made up the A.A. then, was ready to destroy the G.D., had mastered the Augeoides operation, maybe he knew that a publication or at least an in-order-study of his diaries would become neccessary one day. Also one should not forget that he was quite "on the road" between 1904 and 1906, climbing K2, travelling through Asia and what not. Anyway, I doubt the deliberate fraud theory for the above reasons. Let's see what Richard's going to bring up in his book.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Bedazzled
(@bedazzled)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 38
17/01/2013 5:16 pm  
"belmurru" wrote:
He later added another remark, explaining this one, apparently in 1909 (after discovering it in Boleskine): "[illegible] I meant that I would be its master from that date a c oct. '09"

The [illegible] looks like "i.e." to me.


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
17/01/2013 5:23 pm  
"Bedazzled" wrote:
"belmurru" wrote:
He later added another remark, explaining this one, apparently in 1909 (after discovering it in Boleskine): "[illegible] I meant that I would be its master from that date a c oct. '09"

The [illegible] looks like "i.e." to me.

That makes sense, yes. Thanks very much!

Funny how you can miss the simplest things sometimes. I think the "e" threw me; it is atypical, like a backwards "3" rather than the normal lowercase "e" he uses in the rest of the sentence.


ReplyQuote
jamie barter
(@jamie-barter)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 1688
17/01/2013 5:51 pm  

In the matter of blind faith v. certainty in the ‘evidence’ here, aren’t there some parallels with the Turin Shroud phenomenon?  Wasn’t there an extensive forensic testing done about less than a decade back when it was unequivocally ‘proven’ that it was put together in the mediaeval period & was not from the alleged cruci-fiction resurrection after all?  Those findings did not seem to alter Xian believer’s perceptions particularly much either, despite their having invested a lot of weight in the ballast/ baggage - bless/ curse ’em!

It will be such fun seeing what Richard Cole comes up with in the end, won’t it?  I’m not quite sure I’ll be able to manage containing myself in the meantime!

Piss on a brick with excitement!
N. Joy


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/01/2013 6:11 pm  
"jamie barter" wrote:
In the matter of blind faith v. certainty in the ‘evidence’ here, aren’t there some parallels with the Turin Shroud phenomenon?  Wasn’t there an extensive forensic testing done about less than a decade back when it was unequivocally ‘proven’ that it was put together in the mediaeval period & was not from the alleged cruci-fiction resurrection after all?  Those findings did not seem to alter Xian believer’s perceptions particularly much either, despite their having invested a lot of weight in the ballast/ baggage - bless/ curse ’em!

It will be such fun seeing what Richard Cole comes up with in the end, won’t it?  I’m not quite sure I’ll be able to manage containing myself in the meantime!

Piss on a brick with excitement!
N. Joy

Better example might be H.P Blavatsky.
Books like "Modern Priestess of Isis", "The Sources of Madame Blavatsky's Writings" may give much more wholesome picture of her rather than some defensive accounts of some quite fanatical supporters of her & theosophical society in general. There is still something that even all of her enemies did admit: she was something extraordinary and unique.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
17/01/2013 6:27 pm  

93!

I have a question for Richard (or anyone who knows the answer, of course): Just out of curiousity, the watermark which might be a 1906 watermark or not, this case applies only to the title page, doesn't it? I mean, it doesn't have any importance to the original manuscript? Just because I thought it was established that the title page is of a later date and the inscription on it seems to be the layout for the Liber AL version AC wanted to append to the third volume of his Collected Works of 1907 which only came to proof stage (copy in the Harry Ransom Collection) and had the exact introduction (the part with automatic writing and why he collects it under his works though not his work at all). Then why again was that ever considered to disprove the 1904 dictation?

Thanks in advance for clearing things up for me.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1021
17/01/2013 6:45 pm  

Hi Lutz,

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93!

I have a question for Richard (or anyone who knows the answer, of course): Just out of curiousity, the watermark which might be a 1906 watermark or not, this case applies only to the title page, doesn't it? I mean, it doesn't have any importance to the original manuscript? Just because I thought it was established that the title page is of a later date and the inscription on it seems to be the layout for the Liber AL version AC wanted to append to the third volume of his Collected Works of 1907 which only came to proof stage (copy in the Harry Ransom Collection) and had the exact introduction (the part with automatic writing and why he collects it under his works though not his work at all). Then why again was that ever considered to disprove the 1904 dictation?

Thanks in advance for clearing things up for me.

Love=Law
Lutz

Actually it's the other way around (in Cole's theory, I mean). He believes that the title page is from the Cairo Hotel in 1904, and that the pages of the manuscript itself are from 1906.

"The Title Page is a large sheet of complimentary paper stamped "Cairo Hotel" in Arabic (top left), and folded in two to make a crude, wrap-around cover. Crowley almost certainly abstructed this from the Cairo Hotel during his Egyptian honeymoon with Rose, in April 1904. Conversely, the 65 manuscript leaves are all examples of Alexander Pirie & Sons (not 'Pipie', as incorrectly stated in the big blue brick) standard 1906 watermarked typewriting paper, manufactured especially for sale in London. As such, Crowley could not have obtained these from the Cairo Hotel, or anywhere else in Egypt, during his honeymoon."
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29.msg59887#msg59887

Now he holds that the 1906 paper claim is "incidental" -

"To prevent further, perhaps misdirected speculation, I'll mention that the 'watermark' issue is entirely incidental to material presented in Liber L. vel Bogus."
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=74352#p74352

I take this to mean that he realizes the claim to be able to date the watermark to 1906 is baseless, and so has dropped it as irrelevant to his argument.

It seems that his argumentation will be based on an "absence of evidence" approach, that is, that Crowley's failure to mention the reception of the book or the existence of the book itself at times where Cole believes he could have or should have, is proof that he created it all at a later date.

Given his insistence on what the documents OS23 and OS27 contain, he may also present some positive evidence that supports his argument. But the presentation so far fails to inspire confidence.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 5
Share: