Evidence in Richard...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Evidence in Richard T. Cole's Liber L. vel Bogus.

Page 3 / 10

lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

I'm sorry you feel that way, @sandyboy, although I fully understand. It's not a matter of privacy per se; it just wouldn't be right for me to comment on it after removing an ex-member's opportunity to reply here by closing his account.

Now, back to the topic...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

"Obviously, if the matter is not going to be discussed there’s little point in anyone harping on it."

Then "anyone" goes on to harp on it, even to the point of agreeing to disagree.

There are two factors in Cole's book: (1) Liber AL is described (by it's title) as "Bogus." Yet the book stands on its own merits, and is not "Bogus" in its content.

(2) The "Bogus" point is in the alleged fabrication of the Cairo Working ... plus a bit of character assasination ... for which little or no proof is supplied (for Cairo).


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

As you mention, I agreed to disagree, which I think the moderator accepted as an end to others discussing Jamie's silencing.

hNobody can categorically prove or disprove that AC talked to an entity called Aiwass,and the book doesn't really attempt to do so.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Sorry for the stray h at the start of line four on my last post. There ought to be a final sentence: Cole is using research to show how unlikely it is that what AC says about the whole matter can be trusted. Apologies - I'm writing posts on a phone and for some reason cannot see all the post while writing it. Am an aged technophobe.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

I suspect Cole started out with his conclusion in mind and simply went about carefully selecting evidence to support it. Upon realizing he was unable to build a conclusive argument he then resorted to "hand-waving" about AC being a vewy, vewy bad boy...


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

William, you "suspect" what might have been in Cole's mind...isn't that a bit of an odd thing to say, given that he has been lambasted for not providing enough proof? If Cole said he 'suspected' AC did this or that you'd be on him in a second. The useless psychics in his Crystal Clear book who failed to spot cheap plastic skull was not an ancient crystal one used the he-had-an-agenda mantra too.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

In my posting marked #94487, posted January 3, 2016 at 12:04 am, in the first page of this thread, I wrote the following concerning Cole's answer to why Crowley discarded an Appendix reproducing Liber L (The Book Of The Law) together with supporting material in, which he originally planned to publish as a part of his third volume of Collected Works, published in 1907:

"... the said answer is in short that Crowley until he in March 1912 in Equinox I, 7, publicly premiered his reception story for The Book of The Law, had touted the latter book “… as the work of another (albeit with his stele versification).” Because “Even someone with Crowley’s impressive powers of persuation will have the Devil’s own job convincing sceptics and believers alike that ‘the Chosen One’ blundered into incontestable proof of his own divinely-sanctioned mandate, as written by none other than himself!” And because “Otherwise, Crowley has to defend a ludicrous claim that he wrote a text that he later revealed as the Foundation Document of a New Aeon, of which he was supreme leader.” But later on “… Crowley modifies his scheme and assumes responsibility for the authorship of Liber L. [= The Book of the Law] (albeit in the inert capacity of Channeller) [Cole page 177].” (Second Corrected Edition of Cole’s said book page 129, 155, 177 and 178)."

In the above quote, Cole claims Crowley modified his scheme, and eventually assumed responsibility for the authorship of Liber Legis. But Crowley did actually already in verse 29 and 30, of a text written in 1907, titled Liber LXI vel Causae - referring to himself as V.V.V.V.V. (an abbreviation for Crowley's motto ""Vi Veri Vniersum Vivus Vici" (meaning "By the force of truth, I, while living, have conquereded the universe") (Cole page 178) in A.'.A.'., the order he founded together with George Cecil Jones) - assume responsibility for the authorship of Liber L. (= Liber Legis or the Book of the Law) with the following words:

"29. Also one V.V.V.V.V. arose, an exalted adept of the rank of Master of the Temple (or this much He disclosed to the Exempt Adepts) and His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings.

30. Such are Liber Legis, Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, Liber Liberi vel Lapidis Lazuli and such others whose existence may one day be divulged unto you. Beware lest you interpret them either in the Light or in the darkness, for only in L.V.X. may they be understood."

On page 178, Cole states the following: "At this time, as evidenced by the September 1907 Appendix and October 1909 cover sheet note, Crowley was still touting Liber L as the work of another This means that Jones [= George Cecil Jones] awareness of it [= The Book of the Law] originates in the period between Crowley withdrawing his Appendix (September 1907), and cutting prefacing material from the version published in Holy Books Vol. III (1910). Had Jones seen this earlier prototype (including "Given from the mouth of ..."), Crowley could not subsequently transfer authorship, backdate ownership and morph "automatic" to "inspired" (as reproduced in Holy Books)."

Given that Crowley in 1907 wrote Liber LXI vel Causae, which is a text that covers his cooperation with George Cecil Jones in founding the order A.'. A.'., and a text which referring to himself, states that; "His utterance is enshrined in the Sacred Writings. [...] Such are Liber Legis [= the Book of The Law], Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente, ..." etc., it does somehow not entirely make sense that Crowley should be touting to George Cecil Jones that the author of Liber Legis or the Book of the Law, was some other person than himself.

Neither does the following stated by Cole on page 154, entirely makes sense: "Crowley grafted the three-day reception component onto his evolving fable. The meeting with Aiwass he facricated solely as an audacious and emphatic means of telling Jones: "Sorry, mate. I know you 'should' get to chat with ET. It's so unfair, and all, but for whatever reasons they picked me. Life's a bitch!" Crowley's fateful decision to initiate his New Equinox scheme by proxy (i.e. steer Jones into realisation of Liber L. vel Legis' supreme imporatnce) utterly transforms the significance of his [...] Collected Works Appendix. ..."

Because George Cecil Jones does not need to be steered into a realisation of Liber L. vel Legis supreme importance, as this book was already referred to as the "utterance" of his co-partner in founding the order A.'. A.'., which "is enshrined i the Sacred Writings." such as "Liber Legis", within Liber LXI vel Causae written in 1907.

And neither does the following stated by Cole on page 156 entirely make sense: "... It is interesting to note that Liber L. vel Legis made it debut public appearance three years later, in the third volume of THELEMA - The Holy Books. In this, Crowley presented Liber L. without introduction or explanation, as merely one of a sequence of "inspired writings" churned out in 1907. Given the supreme importance of this work to Crowley's new order and Mankind in general, it is inexplicable that Crowley did not splash both it and the reception story as a preface to the first volume, rather than a bare skeleton tucked quietly in the third. The reason for Crowley's questionable presentation of Liber L. in the Holy Books is simple. When published [in volume three in 1910], Crowley had shifted responsiblilty for the 'great reveal' from his shoulders an onto those of Jones. As such, he can't extol the virtues of Liber L. until after Jones has pointed them out, and Jones can't do that until after Crowley slips it discretely into one of his books."

Because Liber Legis is introduced in the beginning of the first volume of THELEMA - The Holy Books, where it is listed as the first among "Sacred Writings", where in is enshrined Crowley's "utterance", within the text of Liber LXI vel Causae. And because Crowley after he had published all the three volumes of THELEMA - The Holy Books in 1910, already had revealed the

And because Cole's claim concerning that Crowley's presentation of Liber Legis [the Book of the Law] in the Holy Books is questionable, is wrong, as the virtues of the Book of the Law are extoled already in the in 1909 published first volume of THELEMA - The Holy Books, in Liber LXI vel Causae, which is located at the beginning of the said volume.

I just do not understand why Cole on page 181 listed next to "1907 November", states that "Crowley and Jones reformulate A.'. A.'., citing Aiwass", and on page 233 next to "Nov. 1907", states "… Crowley and Jones’ (as senior officer) reformulation of the A.’.A.’., citing Aiwass, but no mention of the Book of the Law.", as Liber LXI vel Causae which is the text Crowley wrote in 1907 concerning his and George Cecil Jones' formulation of the order A.'. A.'., does not cite Aiwass by name, but does refer to the Book of the Law, which in the said text is called Liber Legis.

Aleister Crowley, with respect to the Book of the Law, (Cole page 70) "... distancing himself from any suspicion of authorship, "except the translations of the Stele inscription," ...", is an important issue in Cole's book. But my conclusion is that Cole does not have much of a basis for emphasising the said issue, because Crowley already in Liber LXI vel Causae written by him in 1907, claims authorship for the Book of the Law. And because Crowley later introduced his in 1909 published first volume of THELEMA - The Holy Books, with Liber LXI vel Causae (Source: https://100thmonkeypress.com/biblio/acrowley/books/holy_books_1_1909/holy_books_1_1909.htm).


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Correction. The "expanded" part of the following section of text, are words supposed to be part of the said section of text, as posted in my post just before this one in this thread:

"Because Liber Legis is introduced in the beginning of the first volume of THELEMA – The Holy Books, where it is listed as the first among “Sacred Writings”, where in is enshrined Crowley’s “utterance”, within the text of Liber LXI vel Causae. And because Crowley after he had published all the three volumes of THELEMA – The Holy Books in 1910, already had revealed the supreme importance of Liber Legis (= the Book of the Law), by mentioning it first among the "Sacred Writings" listed in Liber LXI vel Causae.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

On page 191 in the second, corrected edition, of Cole's book, Cole's suggested solution to the "riddle" of how Crowley's wife within a handwritten manuscript for the Book of the Law, could "'fill in the gaps?'", given that she according to Crowley's official story couldn't hear Aiwass dictating the Book of the Law to Crowley, is the following:

"... Whilst replicating the recepeption conditions, Rose dictated (from a typescript) to Crowley, who scribbled furiously. On completion, Rose compared her typescript against Crowley's manuscript. She corrected two omissions, ..."

According to my understanding, a simpler solution to the said "riddle", is that Crowley simply just instructed his wife to add two notes in her handwriting, to a manuscript for the Book of the Law, handwritten by him.

As for the date at which Crowley became aware of the Stele, Cole does on page 198 state the following: "The story begins in late 1902, when Crowley first came into posession of stele material. He recorded its hieroglyphs in a notebook dated "1902," and subsequently altered this to "1904" as means of concealing prior knowledge of an artefact his evolving fable subsequently demanded was initially encountered some eighteen months later."

On the same page Cole has provided a facsimile of the just mentioned notebook, illustrating how the date 1902 has been altered to 1904. With respect to the said notebook, it have not found it to be specifically listed on page 228 in Cole's book, containing "Bibliography of works referenced". But it is mentioned again on page 232, at the very beginning of "Table 03 A brief chronology of modifications Crowley incorporated into his New Equionox scheme between November 1902 and September 1936.", with the following words:

"Nov. 1902 Crowley does not visit Boulak Museum on his first vacation to Cairo, though records stele hieroglyphics (from unknown source) in a notebook - Subsequently re-dated from '1902' to '1904.'"


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

William, you “suspect” what might have been in Cole’s mind…isn’t that a bit of an odd thing to say, given that he has been lambasted for not providing enough proof? If Cole said he ‘suspected’ AC did this or that you’d be on him in a second.

@sandyboy it isn't odd - it's a simple statement of fact. I suspect it. I don't claim that it must be the case and I certainly don't try to marshal a panel of psychological 'experts' to analyze Cole's character in order to lend an air of authority to my suspicions.

To your second point, if Cole stated simply "I suspect x, y, & z and here is why" it would have been quite acceptable. He chose to write his book differently, his right of course, but in his alterations of documents and abuse of his fellows he has revealed enough about himself that I consider him an unreliable narrator.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Paul has literally made me a moderate offer that I can't refuse: that in return for allowing me back to roam free on the forums, I hereby acknowledge that I made a suggestion in a now deleted post regarding the integrity of a moderating decision made by him and that, while I disapprove of that decision, I withdraw that suggestion. Which I hereby do.

Yours herebyingly,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

Welcome back Jamie, we kept your room just the way you left it.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

"Abuse of his fellows...alterations of documents...unreliable narrator"? All things that sound more like an accurate description of AC than Cole. It's another agree-to-disagree case but even if you stand by that view of Cole I feel you should "suspect" that it applies to Crowley as well. I perhaps ought to make clear my own position that none of the ideas about AC in RTC's book make me less interested in AC's genius - in fact it only adds to my admiration.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 1096
 

@sandyboy

perhaps you haven't been exposed to Cole's behaviour for the past few years.

All that aside, the questions surrounding the Cairo Working are indeed fascinating and I look forward to an honest examination of them whenever that may become available.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Agree. As for Cole's behaviour, I've seen accusations. Some seem a wee bit pot-kettle-black when I see the abuse heaped on him! I perhaps ought to make it plain that though I contributed to his excellent compilation of old AC-related magazine pieces I've never actually met the gentleman.


ReplyQuote
SPHINX
(@sphinx)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 64
 

THOTH DAMN IT JAMIE J. !

THERE GOES MY COMMEMORATIVE POST OUT THE WINDOW !

"VALE : JAMIE J BARTER - EX(tinguished) MEMBER."

OH WELL ... I'LL KEEP IT ON FILE ... UNTIL NEXT TIME.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Perhaps I might have preferred "DIS(tinguished) MEMBER" there, Sphinx! Extinguished sounds like I've been put out - like the cat, or a candle!

... UNTIL NEXT TIME.

That's fatalistic talkin'! What makes you think there's going to be a next time!?
Thanks for your commemmoration, though!

Welcome back Jamie, we kept your room just the way you left it.

Why, thank you, William, this makes me feel just like I've been on holiday!
Yep, the furniture's all there! And the room has improved significantly with the introduction of a little bit of nice refreshing cool air let into it...

But, to return to topic -

{Er, actually I haven't got anything prepared at the moment. I will have something further to add next time. But I thought I'd better type that to show I wasn't trying to divert the thread away even if done non-intentionally! I mainly just wanted to express my gratitude here.}

Slipping away and quietly withdrawing now...
N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

frater_anubis "I have always belived that on matters of historical accuracy, one should always consult the primary sources and there is nothing that I have read in Cole’s tome that refers to a primary source to support his argument. So I’m going to set out the facts as I understand them – that the Book of the Law was received by AC on the 8th 9th & 10th April 1904, as described by him in considerable detail in The Equinox vol III no III, ..." ([Posted on the third page of this thread:] January 10, 2016 at 7:58 pm #94600)

---

This is not so, frater_anubis. Cole does for example on page 67, in questioning "Crowley’s official story" (= the version of Crowley's reception story which involves his wife in 1904 (Cole page 191)), refer to what Crowley wrote on the following primary source; a handwritten cover page to the Book of the Law, that was never published during Crowley's lifetime, now stored in the Harry Ransom Center in Texas.

An example of another primary source used by Cole in questioning "Crowley’s official story" (Cole page 191), is Cole on page 25, 26, 27 and 29, discussing Crowley's version of the said story, contained in a document that was never published during Crowley's lifetime, an Appendix Crowley originally intended to publish as a part of his publication in 1907 of the third volume of The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley.

I have derived the following from the evidence in Richard T. Cole’s Liber L. vel Bogus, in respect of Crowley claiming authorship for the Book of the Law:

Cole is wrong in claiming that Liber LXI vel Causæ “neglects mention of […] the Book of the Law, …”, (Cole page 233). Cole is also wrong in giving the impression that Crowley did not publicly assume responsibility for the authorship of the Book of the Law, before he did this (albeit in the inert capacity of channeller) in Equinox I, 7, published in March 1912, publicly premiering his reception story for The Book of The Law (Cole page 129, 155, 177, 178 , 183 and 189).

In 1907, Crowley wrote a text titled Liber LXI vel Causae, where he with absolutely no mention of any version of his reception story about the Book of the Law, claims authorship of the Book of the Law, which he in the said text refers to as Liber Legis, and referring to himself as V.V.V.V.V., describes as "His utterance". And he publicly assumed responsibility for the authorship of the Book of the Law, by publishing the said text at the beginning of his first volume of THELEMA – The Holy Books, that he published in 1909.

My point is that Crowley had already in 1909, with absolutely no mention of any version of his reception story about the Book of the Law, publicly claimed authorship of the Book of the Law, by publishing his first volume of THELEMA – The Holy Books, before he in 1912, by publishing Equinox I, 7, publicly premiered his reception story about the Book of the Law, again publicly claiming authorship of the Book of the Law, albeit in the inert capacity of channeller.

Cole's Liber L. vel Bogus has helped me to find out more about the Book of the law in typescript form and handwritten manuscript form, about Liber LXI vel Causae, about a handwritten cover page to the Book of the Law, that was never published during Crowley's lifetime, about an intended Appendix to the Collected Works of Aleister Crowley published in 1907, prepared but subsequently discarded by Aleister Crowley and never published during his lifetime, intended to reproduce Liber L (= the Book Of The Law) together with supporting material, about the first volume of Crowley's THELEMA – The Holy Books, published in 1909, and about the Equinox I, 7, published in 1912.

And from what I have found out in the context of the said sources, I conclude the following:

Crowley's reception story about the Book of the Law, was developed over time through various significantly different versions, and he required no use at all of any version of the said story, when he claimed authorship of the Book of the Law as "His utterance", in a text titled Liber LXI vel Causae, which he wrote in 1907. And it was with no use of any version of his reception story for it, that he in 1909 publicly premiered his claim of authorship of the Book of the Law, as "His utterance", by publishing Liber LXI vel Causae as a part of the first volume of Crowley's THELEMA – The Holy Books, at the beginning of the said volume. The body text of a surviving manuscript for the Book of the Law, (mostly) in Crowley's handwriting, does also contain nothing like Crowley's various reception stories about it, going into details about background information concerning its creation. Source: The Holograph Manuscript of Liber AL vel Legis


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 242
 

Wellreadwellbred - many thanks for your erudite reply to my earlier page 3 post

"This is not so, frater_anubis. Cole does for example on page 67, in questioning “Crowley’s official story” (= the version of Crowley’s reception story which involves his wife in 1904 (Cole page 191)), refer to what Crowley wrote on the following primary source; a handwritten cover page to the Book of the Law, that was never published during Crowley’s lifetime, now stored in the Harry Ransom Center in Texas."

I have a facsimile of a typescript copy of Liber Al in a leather case, at the back is a copy of the original handwritten manuscript including the front page (the one complete with doodles etc.) with which everyone is familiar. Which of them was the original front cover, this one or the annotated but unpublished Harry Ransom version?

"In 1907, Crowley wrote a text titled Liber LXI vel Causae, where he with absolutely no mention of any version of his reception story about the Book of the Law, claims authorship of the Book of the Law, which he in the said text refers to as Liber Legis, and referring to himself as V.V.V.V.V., describes as “His utterance”. And he publicly assumed responsibility for the authorship of the Book of the Law, by publishing the said text at the beginning of his first volume of THELEMA – The Holy Books, that he published in 1909."

The fact that Crowley failed to mention the reception story in Liber LXI vel Causae does not prove the Cairo Working didn't happen, only that he didn't mention it in Liber LXI vel Causae. Claiming authorship later in 1907 or 1909, whether as a channelled documment or not, in my mind merely confirms Crowleys involvement.

If the reception story is a fabrication (or an embellishment) Crowley, having published the Cairo Working reception story, would have been effectively challenged on it before he went to America. For the rest of his life, he stuck by it, which is sorta convincing in itself.

Actually, I have always thought that Rose played an unacknowledged and important part in the reception of the Book of the Law, one that she has never been given credit for. Crowley allowed her to make changes to the original, primary handwritten document (force of Coph Nia etc.) which is convincing evidence that she was there, if not in the room at the time.

I enjoy reading your well researched posts on this thread. What do you think really happened during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

"Crowley, having published the Cairo Working reception story, would have been effectively challenged on it before he went to America."

By who? It's not as though AC was a well-known entity in those days. Maybe nobody cared enough to even notice details or concern themselves about "automatic writing".

"What do you think really happened during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo?"
.
Here you are asking for speculation. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The thread is about "evidence," not belief.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

The fact that Crowley failed to mention the reception story in Liber LXI vel Causae does not prove the Cairo Working didn’t happen, only that he didn’t mention it in Liber LXI vel Causae. Claiming authorship later in 1907 or 1909, whether as a channelled document or not, in my mind merely confirms Crowley's involvement.

His actual involvement (with the channelled-or-not document) has never been in doubt; the question is, what type of & to what extent did his involvement ('authorship') one way or another consist at that time

Actually, I have always thought that Rose played an unacknowledged and important part in the reception of the Book of the Law, one that she has never been given credit for. Crowley allowed her to make changes to the original, primary handwritten document (force of Coph Nia etc.) which is convincing evidence that she was there, if not in the room at the time.

If "not in the room", do you mean within earshot? But where else would she have been - hiding out on the balcony, perhaps, or maybe in the ensuite bathroom (assuming there was such an anteroom in those days)? Why would Crowley's "allowing" her to make changes to the original document be dependent on her having been physically present "there" within eavesdropping distance (as opposed to because of the more 'supernatural' clairvoyant abilities with which he celebrated "Ouarda the Seer"?)

“Crowley, having published the Cairo Working reception story, would have been effectively challenged on it before he went to America.”

By who? It’s not as though AC was a well-known entity in those days. Maybe nobody cared enough to even notice details or concern themselves about “automatic writing”.

By George Cecil Jones for one, perhaps? Also by that time G.C.J. would probably have been less inclined to 'back Crowley up' following the rebuff he received from him for not coming to his assistance during the travails of the 'Looking-Glass Trial'.

“What do you think really happened during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo?”

Here you are asking for speculation. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. The thread is about “evidence,” not belief

Rather hard to ask for prima-facie 'absolute' evidence about what really happened "during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo", as everyone present and involved died years ago and nobody else (Rose, the waiter...) recorded any other (contradictory or not) points-of-view which have been left behind. Although "it doesn't matter what anyone thinks" - in the sense that none of us will now ever know for certain what occurred - like it or not, and for better or worse, informed speculation and supposition are all we are left with. And therefore, so far, all the evidence is relative and circumstantial up to a point & all suppositions made therefrom equally valid for discussion purposes... So why not?

Speculatively yours,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

"So why not?"

As stated, the thread is titled "Evidence ..."

Not "Think" or Derail."


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

"As stated, the thread is title "Evidence ..."

As sated, prima-facie 'absolute' evidence is not available.

Relative, circumstantial is. Ergo, supplemental speculative thought is permissible.

Derailment optional, but not especially advised being contrary to Guidelines.
N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

"As sated, prima-facie ‘absolute’ evidence is not available."

Then the thread is finished, isn't it?

Oh, some people may want to exercise what they feel is their right to free speech, and run on and on. But if there's no evidence, then the trial is over, the case dismissed, and who gives a toot (tut?) about what somebody "thinks?"

Bailiff, please clear the courtroom!


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

"What they feel is their right to free speech"? Feel? Not a very Thelemic attitude, when post wot thou wilt ought to be the whole of the law.

If absolute definite evidence was the test then lots of historical matters would be off limits. There's a difference tween absolute evidence and no evidence at all.


ReplyQuote
Mazus
(@mazus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 100
 

Could I be a complete pain here and request a link to Cole's facebook page and his site? I did have them at one point but a couple of computer reformats didn't see me commit these links to any document for future reference. I'd like to follow things as he writes them for myself.

Any help here is muchly appreciated.


ReplyQuote
devl93
(@devl93)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 11
 

93
“The issues aired in this publication are of immense significance to all with an interest in Edward Alexander Crowley, be this Magickal, mundane or monetary. If correct, they fall into the category of proper ‘shit hits the fan’ stuff! To my mind, it appears almost certain that there was no ‘cross-examination’ of Rose, no Boulak visit, no reception, no Aiwass, no Book of the Law, no lost manuscript and no Thelema. All were fantasies conjured from the mind of an obsessive psychopath, in furtherance of his grand delusion of ‘I, Crowley, the Chosen One.'”

Forgive my interruption, but i was under the impression that vel bogus was going to dis-prove the Book of the Law once and for all.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Not sure what you mean by "disprove". Do you mean disprove that it was ever written? Disprove the meaning of the words, whatever they may be? Obviously those things are impossible. What I mean is, divorced from any meaning of a reilgio-mystical-philosophical kind one chooses to accept or see within it, it's basically a piece of poetical writing. Disproving it is moot. You'll need to define your terms.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

devl93: "“The issues aired in this publication are of immense significance to all with an interest in Edward Alexander Crowley, be this Magickal, mundane or monetary. If correct, they fall into the category of proper ‘shit hits the fan’ stuff! To my mind, it appears almost certain that there was no ‘cross-examination’ of Rose, no Boulak visit, no reception, no Aiwass, no Book of the Law, no lost manuscript and no Thelema. All were fantasies conjured from the mind of an obsessive psychopath, in furtherance of his grand delusion of ‘I, Crowley, the Chosen One.’”

Forgive my interruption, but i was under the impression that vel bogus was going to dis-prove the Book of the Law once and for all."

devl93, what you point out in the quote from you above, seems to be more or less directly contradicted by the following, quoted from page 62 in Richard T. Cole’s book Liber L. vel Bogus (second, corrected edition), and already posted by me in the post marked "January 12, 2016 at 6:33 am #94622 Reply", at the bottom of page three in this thread:

"Richard T. Cole’s book Liber L. vel Bogus (second, corrected edition), seems to be written to promote the following (Cole page 62):

“Given the damning portrait of Crolwey’s character painted in this publication, and with reference to the evident ‘failure to lanch’ of his New World Religion, Thelema , odds are that Crowley was almost certainly a false prophet. However the gods move in mysterious ways. Over the next few chapters, I outline a mechanism capable of reconciling many inconsitencies in Crowley’s claims, and one suggestive of a scenario by which Crowley simultaneousley fulfils the role of seer and [and is underlined in the original text] psycho. As will shortly become clear, I believe that Aleister Crowley:

* Was a dangerous psychopath, though uniquely assisted by mental illness that would have fatally handicapped any other individual.

* Did form a Magickal Link with the gods of a new epoch, but misunderstood the nature of this communication.

* ‘May’ have received Liber L. vel Legis from a supernatural source, but could not have done so on 08, 09 & 10 April 1904.

* Correctly identified Thelema as the Word of a New Aeon, but failed to grasp its essential message, or simplicity.

* Was not merely the prophet of the New Aeon, but actually precipiated it!

Far from dawdling in the starting block, Thelema is taking the world by storm in a coert revolution overlooked by almost everyone. Today, millions of ordianary people blindly ride Crowlety’s ‘Magical Current’ with no comprehension or even awareness of the forces reshaping every facet of their lives. Somewhat paradoxically, a few thousand individuals ideally positioned to understand the root causes of colossal changes sweeping across the globe, ‘Thelemites’, have completely failed to equate these with the eventualities their guru spent his life attempting to define."


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

"If the reception story is a fabrication (or an embellishment) Crowley, having published the Cairo Working reception story, would have been effectively challenged on it before he went to America. For the rest of his life, he stuck by it, which is sorta convincing in itself. [...] I enjoy reading your well researched posts on this thread. What do you think really happened during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo?"

Thank you for your appreciation.

It is to me irrelevant what I or anyone else "... think really happened during those crucial three days in early April 1904 in Cairo?", in respect of Crowley in verse 29 and 30 of his Liber LXI vel Causae, written by him in 1907, claiming authorship of the Book of the Law, there referred to as Liber Legis (verse 30), and as “His utterance” (verse 29), and the first among "the Sacred Writings" (verse 29 and verse 30).

In contrast to it being the first among "the Sacred Writings", as referred to by him in Liber LXI vel Causae which he wrote in 1907, Crowley does in The Equinox of the Gods, which he first published in 1936, in chapter 7, state the following concerning the Book of the Law, if it is not fully that what he states it is in his reception story for it since 1912: "If It be not wholly that, it is a worthless curiosity of literature; ..."

For new readers, I will again point out that Cole is wrong in the second corrected edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus, in claiming that Liber LXI vel Causæ “neglects mention of […] the Book of the Law, …”, (Cole page 233).


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 4209
 

Quote by sandyboy:

Not sure what you mean by “disprove”. Do you mean disprove that it was ever written? Disprove the meaning of the words, whatever they may be? Obviously those things are impossible. What I mean is, divorced from any meaning of a reilgio-mystical-philosophical kind one chooses to accept or see within it, it’s basically a piece of poetical writing. Disproving it is moot. You’ll need to define your terms.

It's fairly evident what devi93 meant by his or her remark. There was a thread running on this website for a couple of years with lots of hype by Cole and his acolytes/ sock about how this book was going to shake Thelema to its foundations by proving that Aleister Crowley fabricated The Book of the Law and the surrounding reception of it.

Apparently it doesn't do that. The wearisome and flatulent hype was ... well ... just wearisome and flatulent hype.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

" " “What they feel is their right to free speech”? Feel? Not a very Thelemic attitude, when post wot thou wilt ought to be the whole of the law."

Yeah. Its a real problem when dominant 2nd neurocircuit people want to break the rules and guidelines of society.

Look. It's really simple. Either you conform to the title of a thread ... or you go off and start your own thread about what you feel or think. It's all illusion anyway.

Now, can we get back to the evidence?


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Breaking the rules and guidelines of society? Yes, I'm certain AC would have thought that terrible - not. It's all illusion? Maya. Yes,everything may be illusion, but how does that affect the subject - do we give up because everything's illusion? Not sure why you threw that in. You say get back to the evidence, after previously insisting there isn't any. As I said, if absolute evidence were required there'd be a dearth of historical books. I'm not sure about Michael Staley's talk of Cole "acolytes". I wish we could debate in a friendly way without anger. I have a friend who was interested in Bogus as he's a longtime AC fan, who tells me he gave up posting as he was accused of 'promotion' - I think that was the word.He's never met Cole, same as me, and felt there was no point in trying to contribute if he was wrongly going to be assumed to be a 'sock puppet' (I hate that term) or similar.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5349
 

'Accused of promotion'? Strange way of putting it. There's nothing wrong with someone enjoying a book and 'promoting' it to others so it's not clear to me why someone would 'give up posting' as a result of that 'accusation.'

But, as for 'sock-puppetry' - well, that's a different thing altogether. 'Sock-puppetry' is the deliberate assumption of a false identity, seemingly unaffiliated with the puppeteer, with the intention of manipulating opinion, circumventing legitimate moderating decisions or, in the case that we're speaking of here, deliberately courting controversy and feigning distress when challenged. Cole's friends or admirers 'promoting' his book because they believe it worthy of promotion? Nothing wrong with that. An author pretending to be someone else to try to whip up some interest and sales? Something very wrong with that.

(By the way, for those visitors unfamiliar with the events, the context here isn't of someone being 'wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet' - it's of an author admitting to the creation and use of a sock-puppet when called to account, and 'quoting' that sock-puppet's alleged distress at the way it was treated by membership of this site in the proof copy of the book being hyped...)

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 242
 

"Now, can we get back to the evidence?"

There isn't any evidence. Its all circumstantial supposition, extrapolation, inference, un-accredited medical opinion etc flavoured with spite, very poor photoshopping and hyperbole.

What Cole does seem to have achieved though, is huge sales for his book (how many reprints is it now?), numerous valued members of this website bickering with each other and in at least one instance, a member's account being (temporarily) closed.

As sandyboy requests, lets get back to reasoned debate about this matter. As I've said before, I accept Crowley's Liber Al reception story and will continue to do so until I'm persuaded otherwise by convincing evidence, which is not to be found in Cole's book, not on my reading of it anyway.

93 93/93
Johnny


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2184
 

I tend to agree with @frater_anubis and his comments.
I felt also, that it proved zero evidence, just cul-de-sacs of enquiry and opinions.
Also awaiting the second release, too see if there is a smoking gun in relation to the watermark. As that's all there may or may not be as evidence.
I do like the way it made me question Liber L vel Legis reception and timeline though.

As to his Facebook page for @Mazus.
Here they are.

https://www.facebook.com/RichardTCole?fref=ts

his website has been offline for quite some time.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Elderly American druggie
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3724
 

What Cole does seem to have achieved though, is huge sales for his book (how many reprints is it now?)[...]

"Huge"? Probably literally dozens of copies.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Alas, the fellow who told me of the 'promotion' thing says it was on the now lost earlier threads and he has no copy of the posts. At least one other person tells me he distinctly remembers the incident and whatever the precise wording it involved a suggestion that the poster was using the thread to push Cole's book in a way that was disingenuous or somehow not honest or upfront. As a result of an atmosphere he felt was pointlessly poisonous the guy stopped posting at all. A great shame as I've read some of his writing and he's an insightful chap.

Just to avoid going totally off topic and dragging this out to no good purpose, let me say I accept the webmaster's statement that promotion is okay and that it's not akin to socking it too 'em.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

I believe 93 of the hardcover edition, several hundred softcovers, now a p.o.d. version available.


ReplyQuote
Mazus
(@mazus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 100
 

Thank you @ptoner for supplying the facebook link. Always good to have a look at the source of some of this stuff.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

"(how many reprints is it now?)"

Oh, for Horus' sake! It's a print-on-demand book! The author can change one word and, wallah, a new re-print is created. It's not as though he had 10,000 copies printed and then had to print another few thousand because the first run ran out.

Print-on-Demand. You know what that means? It does not necessarily mean tremendously huge sales.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

It's NOT simply a print on demand book. As I already stated: there was 93-copy hardcover. Then there was a paperback edition of several hundred copies. When those sold out, the book was made available on print on demand via Lulu so people could still get a copy if they had missed the earlier printings. I think there may be another paperback printing at some point.


ReplyQuote
herupakraath
(@herupakraath)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 479
 

If the patent date of the watermark on the paper used to pen Liber L Vel Legis can be found anywhere, more than likely it will be found at the University of Aberdeen, as they appear to be in possession of the extant records of the Alex Pirie & Sons paper company. Here is a link to the page that describes the contents of an archive that includes files on patents and trademarks:

Pirie & Sons records.


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

Update: I made an error - I see the hardcover was limited to 111 copies and sold out in advance. There were 555 softcovers which sold out very quickly. There have been requests to the publisher for a reprint, so in the meantime they did a p.o.d. I'm told that total sales of all versions are over 16,000. And please, nobody demand that I produce 'evidence' - if you can accept AC's Cairo story you should take my word too!


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6334
 

Haha.
Prince of Darkness.
King of Night.
He wants us to "believe"
He is Right.

Sixteen Thousand
No way, I say.
Prove it or lose it
in a stack of Hay.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1825
 

Hehe - The King of Oblivion
Wants Absolute Truth
yet says that's A Con
& Denies all such Proof...

Rhymes which mean crap
will rarely linger, mayhap
tho' may exist longer
if they are "Evidence", say,
of Something
(of which this 'Hay'
betokens Nothing - hey! -
but a Straw
dog)

N Joy


ReplyQuote
SPHINX
(@sphinx)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 64
 

Hey all,
No intent here to inveigle Thread off-topic but must report this curious 'lecture' I received in a dream last night (probably after too much old tawny port and spicy chilli tofu) delivered by that queer skeletal spectre who appears in "Liber L. vel Bogus" on page 93.
But unlike RTC's insistent brief message, it seems to be more than 5 WORDS :

"Scholarly cogitate and deliberate...?
The ALternative ?...
Why even try to employ rational thinking to tackle a subject that is ultimately anti-rational?
The very concept of 'CCXX' is a resolute anti-logical mysticism.
Times, places, dates, faces, entities, boats, trains, marks on paper,
'facts' for or against - all deliberate confusion.
Remember that advice given by another daemonic prophet and Crowley contemporary :
"Our philosophy need not be coherent." - A Hitler.

So dismiss all supposed evidence.
Belief and Will-to-be are all that matter.
Intellect is an obstacle, a barrier.
A dis-ease of the body.
Belief and action make thinking redundant.
The solid labourer outranks the insipid lawyer.
If belief was rational, religion wouldn't exist.
Crowleyanity doesn't need evidence, either way.
Only reasonless glory supreme.
Belief and Will-to-be are all you'll ever need...

What do we give to those who would use reason to dispute us?
The back of our skeletal hand."


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 109
 

I bow to thy glory

I am so sorry

My cortex was disabled

It's 16 thousandth

In Amazon sales table

Not the amount of books

Oops!

But nay don't be sad

Ranking 16 thousandth

Ain't too bad


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

Among the evidence (for how Crowley developed his presentation of the Book of the Law over time) covered in Cole's book (Cole page 25, 26, 27, 29, 66, and 67), is a cover page to the Book of the Law, a cover page that Crowley wrote but never published during his lifetime, and the original galley proofs for an Appendix consisting of a typescript of the text in the Book of the Law, and some additional text, that Crowley originally planned in the third volume of The Collected Works of Aleister Crowley, published in 1907, but never published during his lifetime. Thelema Volume Three (Holy Books), published in 1910, is also among the evidence (for how Crowley developed his presentation of the Book of the Law over time) covered in Cole's book (Cole page 67, 77 and 78).

On the two first of the above mentioned three documents, the two documents that were never published during Crowley's lifetime, are written the following words: “Liber L. vel Legis. Given from the Mouth of Aiwass to the Ear of the Beast on April 8, 9, and 10, 1904.”

Within the last of the above mentioned three documents, Thelema Volume Three (Holy Books), published in 1910, which is the document where Crowley for the first time published the text of the Book of the Law, (Cole page 77:) "... reproduced without introduction, explanation or notes."

The words “Liber L. vel Legis. Given from the Mouth of Aiwass to the Ear of the Beast on April 8, 9, and 10, 1904.”, are also missing from the said document where Crowley for the first time published the Book of the Law.

But the authorship of the Book of the Law is on Thelema Volume Three's title page - in accordance with how Crowley in Liber LXI vel Causae written by him in 1907, referring to himself using his magical motto V.V.V.V.V. (verse 29), claims authorship of the Book of the Law (there referred to as Liber Legis (verse 30)) as “His utterance” (verse 29), and the first among “the Sacred Writings” (verse 29 and verse 30). - presented in the following way:

"PUBLICATION IN CLASS A. IMPRIMATUR. V. V. V. V. V. Pro Coll. Summ.
D. D. S.[,] O.M.[:] Pro Coll. Int.
V. N.[,] P.[,] P. A.[:] Pro Coll. Ext.
O. S. V. Imp."

V. V. V. V. V. is a magical motto for Aleister Crowley. "Pro Coll. Summ.", is latin for "Pro Collegium Summum", meaning "on behalf of the company of the top", or "on behalf of the company of the summit", or "on behalf of the company of the mountaintop", or "on behalf of the company of the highest".


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1163
Topic starter  

I respect of the larger context of all the three volumes of Thelema (Holy Books), they all contain an identical title page, where Crowley, referring to himself with his magical motto V. V. V. V. V., presents himself as acting “Pro Collegium Summum”, (this is Latin for “on behalf of the company of the summit”).

This is of course also the case in the first volume of the said Holy Books, containing Liber LXI vel Causae that Crowley wrote in 1907, and where he referring to himself with his magical motto V. V. V. V. V., claims authorship of the Book of the Law (called Liber Legis in the said source), and some other “Sacred Writings”, by stating that “His utterance is enshrined in” them.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 10
Share: