Evidence in Richard T. Cole's Liber L. vel Bogus.
RTC: "@wellreadwellbred – Who is the daddy, here, and when?"
According to the following written on page 205 in the Second, Corrected Edition of Liber L. vel Bogus - The Real Confession of Aleister Crowley, D.D.S, is the daddy here, before Crowley out-flanked him:
"Rather bizarrely, Holy Books fails to note Liber L. vel Legis' espescial significanse, Inexplicably, the introductory section titled Liber LXI vel Causæ, omits any mention of The Book of the Law, Thelema and all components we recognise today as the Cairo myth. Indeed short piece is essentially an apology for the order's previous flawed incarnation, with a promise to do better this 'to do better' this time. It is interesting to note that Crowley has not yet out-flanked Jones, as is evident by Line 25 of a section entitled The History Lection, which reads:
"Now when P. had thus with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S.""
So it appears - against what one would have thought from the puff job A.C. gave the A.'. A.'. and his connection with it afterwards - that when the order was originally formulated at the end of 1906, it ws actually Jones who was the senior in rank, with Crowley as his junior and Fuller as the silent third party to the establishing Triad. This goes against the impression A.C. liked to give later in almost every other instance that he was the top dog or 'daddy' instead.
May I extend on behalf of lashtalians everywhere a warm hello again to the resurrected Mr Cole & extend to him the warm well-wishes of all the community for a long & fruitful presence. I'm sure that, quite apart from myself, other people must have a lot of pertinent points to put to him!?
May I extend on behalf of lashtalians everywhere a warm hello again to the resurrected Mr Cole & extend to him the warm well-wishes of all the community for a long & fruitful presence. I’m sure that, quite apart from myself, other people must have a lot of pertinent points to put to him!?
Yes, good to see him back here. As for pertinent points? Just to kick things off, how about #94983 above (the 'working on Liber Legis' misquote)?
Owner and Editor
93, Jamie and Richard (welcome back!)
Though I am not really interested in who was the top dog and cannot even see the connection to the Cairo Working, I am also not a little surprised that he could play (or thought he had to play) the humble low dog, also I think I sense a little tongue-in-cheek in the quotes Richard provided. But again, it's even recognized in his diaries that Jones was a master.
I was never under the impression that the A.'.A.'. foundation was an idea he got from Liber L, but from his Augeoides Operation in 1906. Liber L seems to be more of a philosophy than a means to Attainment.
Anyway, I would very much like to read about "almost every other instance" he claimed to have been the top dog, and what you think is the connection to the Cairo Working. That he eventually became top dog is probably undisputed.
I was never under the impression that the A.’.A.’. foundation was an idea he got from Liber L, but from his Augeoides Operation in 1906. Liber L seems to be more of a philosophy than a means to Attainment.
I didn't get the impression he got the idea for the foundation of the A.'. A.'. from Liber L either. But I don't quite see where it was suggested that he did do so, either?
Anyway, I would very much like to read about “almost every other instance” he claimed to have been the top dog, and what you think is the connection to the Cairo Working. That he eventually became top dog is probably undisputed.
Likewise I wasn't making any connection of claims to be the top dog within the A.'. A.'. to the Cairo Working - if Richard was though, he could doubtless tell us in due course.
If you want to read about other instances when A.C. claimed to have been top dog, how about starting off with the Confessions? Plenty of tub-thumping, narcissistic self-publicing and self-glorification there, if you have a look! And certainly, I agree - it would be hard for anyone to dispute that he 'eventually' became top dog, and he surely wouldn't ever have disputed it himself!
Well, I did not remember where and when and how this "who was the first top dog?" discussion started, so I thought it might have to do with the Cairo Working, or else why would it be discussed here? Seems it was (or became) just another case of "exposing" AC's bad character (maybe even clinical insanity).
Well, I did not remember where and when and how this “who was the first top dog?” discussion started, so I thought it might have to do with the Cairo Working, or else why would it be discussed here?
Hi Lutz: as far as I can tell, the discussion started with wellredwellbred in Post #94919 on page 11 and was first answered by me in #94941 on page 12. I don't know why so much is apparently being made of this either (and by the way, "top dog" was a later manifestation; it originally started off as "who's the daddy") - can this really now be the most important aspect of the book we are supposed to be discussing?
Seems it was (or became) just another case of “exposing” AC’s bad character (maybe even clinical insanity).
Please would lashtalians bear in mind that just because I think RTC has made some interesting and significant points and that relevant aspects of his book bear further investigation and discussion - and without necessarily having to commit myself to declaring my wholesale agreement with his conclusions one way or the other - it doesn't mean I'm some sort of spokesman for him & especially now since he is here to answer for his work directly himself...
Please would lashtalians bear in mind that just because I think RTC has made some interesting and significant points and that relevant aspects of his book bear further investigation and discussion
Please would lashtalians bear in mind that just because I think RTC has made some interesting and significant points and that relevant aspects of his book bear further investigation and discussion
... "and without necessarily having to commit myself to declaring my wholesale agreement with his conclusions one way or the other – it doesn’t mean I’m some sort of spokesman for him & especially now since he is here to answer for his work directly himself…"
P.S. In addition, please read my review of the book on this website (q.v.)
Jamie, I didn't assume you're Richard's spokesman, I was simply trying to find the significance of this top dog thingie. And since Crowley's insanity is another important claim of the book, it seemed a good enough reason.
#95006 Reply (thread page 13) wellreadwellbred: "... according to the following quoted from page 172 in Richard Kaczynski’s 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, “Liber VII” was “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”
Does anyone know the earliest source, where Crowley claims that the said “Liber VII” was dictated by Aiwass, or where Crowley claims that the said “Holy Book” were dictated by Aiwass?"
#95008 Reply (thread page 13) Jamie J Barter: "I don’t have Kaczynski’s tome to hand to check but if accurate this seems an odd statement to make given his wide ranging knowledge of matters Crowleian. Did he (Crowley) actually claim that Liber VII and the rest of the Class A “Holy Books series” was dictated by Aiwass? I was always under the impression that although A.C. certainly maintained he was ‘inspired’ by the highest he claimed authorship himself (as with all of the other ‘Holy Books’ with the one exception). Liber L. vel Legis or “The Book of the Law” remains the only one out of all of them which he ever claimed was directly dictated by Aiwass and far beyond his own powers to compose."
A "source" where it is claimed that the “Holy Books” of Thelema were dictated to Crowley by Aiwass, is The Holy Books Preface by Hymenaeus Alpha, This is the Preface written by Maj. Grady Louis McMurtry X○ for the 1983 edition of “ΘΕΛΗΜΑ: The Holy Books of Thelema.” This document © O.T.O., which contains the following statement. Source: http://hermetic.com/eidolons/The_Holy_Books_Preface_by_Hymenaeus_Alpha:
"Crowley’s communion with his Angel, Aiwass, reached tangible expression in these Holy Books, and he strove mightily to help others attain to this spiritual experience."
The current wikipedia article about Aleister Crowley, contains the following statement:
"He also claimed to have been contacted once again by Aiwass in late October and November 1907, adding that Aiwass dictated two further texts to him, "Liber VII" and "Liber Cordis Cincti Serpente", both of which were later classified in the corpus of Holy Books of Thelema." (The references given for this statement is Booth 2000, pp. 251–252; Sutin 2000, p. 181; Kaczynski 2010, p. 172.)
The said wikipedia article about Aleister Crowley, does also contain the following statement:
"Crowley wrote down more Thelemic Holy Books during the last two months of the year, including "Liber LXVI", "Liber Arcanorum", "Liber Porta Lucis, Sub Figura X", "Liber Tau", "Liber Trigrammaton" and "Liber DCCCXIII vel Ararita", which he again claimed to have received from a preternatural source." (The reference given for this statement is Kaczynski 2010, p. 173-175.)
In the reference pertaining to his statement about “Liber VII” being “… the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass.”, Kaczynski provides the following date: 7 October 1907 [Crowley’s Diary for 1907].
Crowley, according to Kaczynski, on 7 October 1907, stating that "Liber VII" was dictated to him by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass, is close in time to (Cole, Second Corrected Edition, page 181): “1907 November Crowley and Jones reformulate A.'. A.'. citing Aiwass”, and (Cole, Second Corrected Edition, page 233:) “… Crowley and Jones’ (as senior officer) reformulation of the A.’.A.’., citing Aiwass, but no mention of the Book of the Law.”
Richard Kaczynski on page 172 in his 2010 published book Perdurabo, The Life of Aleister Crowley, Revised and Expanded Edition, and Tobias Churton on page 137 in his 2011 published book Aleister Crowley: The Biography : Spiritual Revolutionary, Romantic Explorer, are seemingly contradictory, in how they refer to a statement made by Crowley about him being able to "get into touch with Adonai at will". Kaczynski (page 172) describes the said statement as predating the writing of Liber VII on October 30 in 1907, while Churton (page 137) dates the said statement to have been made on November 16th in 1907.
Cole does on page 185 in the Second, Corrected Edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus, make a point out of that when Crowley in John St. John ((Cole page 184:) a document about a twelve day "magical retirement" beginning on 01 October 1908, first published in Equinox I, 1 March 1909) says "My Holy Guardian Angel," he is speaking specifically of Adonai, with no reference being made to Aiwass.
Sorry if I may have seemed a bit abrupt earlier, but as I have said throughout this whole thread I wouldn't want to appear to speak in RTC's place as spokesperson and/or answer here regarding the precise significance of e.g. the 'top dog thingie' in case he might be able to provide a better one. After all, he did write the book, and the thesis is his.
Also, herupakraath, I didn't know whether your question was actually intended to be a serious & genuine one, or a bit more of a rhetorical flourish. As can be seen, I had previously gone to the trouble of answering [see Post #94610 on page 3, dated 11th Jan] a very similar request asking me to give just "one single piece of evidence" up for discussion [see Post #94584 on page 3, dated 9th Jan], only to then have matters abruptly stop short once I'd done so. If your own query is genuine, you could perhaps use that as your starting point.
... So, will you be "seeing" me back on that one there - or might you "fold" as well?
Dealing with the options,
Also, herupakraath, I didn’t know whether your question was actually intended to be a serious & genuine one, or a bit more of a rhetorical flourish.
My question is sincere; you stated there are more points made by Cole in need of discussion, I thought you might toss one or more out. So far, I fail to see why Cole's book merits any attention at all, let alone the purchase price.
So, will you be “seeing” me back on that one there – or might you “fold” as well?
On the contrary, I have all but completed my own analysis of the Cairo Working and intend to present it shortly, and would be willing to discuss any aspect of Cole's book provided I'm not required to purchase it in order to participate.
On the contrary, I have all but completed my own analysis of the Cairo Working and intend to present it shortly, and would be willing to discuss any aspect of Cole’s book provided I’m not required to purchase it in order to participate.
I look forward to reading your analysis - will you be making it generally available?
Owner and Editor
"I have all but completed my own analysis of the Cairo Working and intend to present it shortly, and would be willing to discuss any aspect of Cole’s book provided I’m not required to purchase it in order to participate."
@herupakraath - I too look forward to reading your analysis – will you be making it generally available?
BTW - Old Thelemic proverb suggests: Be careful what you wish for!
I look forward to reading your analysis – will you be making it generally available?
My question is sincere; you stated there are more points made by Cole in need of discussion, I thought you might toss one or more out.
Well, I've told you where to look. Oh, hell, I'll even copy-and-paste it for you as you don't seem to want to go to the trouble of paging back & checking:
I wrote, maybe we could discuss the following if anyone is interested:
A comparison of [the] B2 material with [A.C.’s] published description of stele imagery in Equinox of the Gods (page 74) leaves no doubt that when Crowley wrote the B2 ritual, on Saturday 19 or SundaY 20 March, he had seen the Stele of Revealing – Impossible according to his own published accounts. The similarities between certain lines are incontestable. […] The B2 material utilises stele imagery he does not see for twenty-four hours. It also celebrates the onsedt of a new “Equinox of the Gods” (a once every two thousand years event marking the sun’s entry into a new astrological sign – in this instance to Aquarius from Pisces) a month before Aiwass informs him of the terrific news, on 08 [,09] and 10 April 1904. In March 1904, Crowley cannot possibly have any inkling as to the gods’ intention of initiating a major cabinet reshuffle and must be equally oblivious to the imminent promotion of specific deities. Yet, the B2 material graphically depicts a contrary scenario and again, one deeply problematic to Crowley’s reception story. (pp. 120-1)
In B2, and elsewhere, Crowley employes imagery, terminology and knowledge of which, according to published accounts, he is allegedly ignorant of until days and weeks later. (p. 124)
Cole also reports that “whilst in Paris, Crowley collected newly-printed copies of Why Jesus Wept – a poem written in January 1904. The dedication, to his unborn child, reads:
“Arm! Arm and out; for the young warrior of a new religion is upon thee; and his number is the number of a man.”
Penned three months before his alleged revelation in Cairo, this is surely one of the most accurate prophecies ever uttered. Crowley’s foresight borders on miraculous!” pp. 126-7)
in “Ascension Day”, A.C. wrote:
” […] Either the Beast or False Prophet;
And by all sort of monkey tricks
Adds up my name to Six Six Six […]
Ho! I adopt the number. look
At the quaint cipher of this book!
I will deserve it if I can
It is the number of a Man”
regarding which Cole further comments:
“From these references alone, it is evident that Crowley has adapted the mantle of the ‘Great Beast 666’ and is intent on bringing his new religion to the wrld long before Aiwass appeared on the scene. ” (p. 127)
There are also further similar ‘premonitions’ made in Carmen Saeculare, his “Great Invocation” of Horus and in one or two other places which I do not have time to type out.
As a side issue, there is a further anomaly Cole points out relasting to the figures given by Crowley relating to his Commentary to Liber (A)L III:39 which specify a period between 22 August and 22 September 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon) at which point he has “slaved at the riddles in this book for nigh on seven years”, then “his thraldom began approximately in September 1902. In other words, Crowley admits to working on a commentary eighteen months before receiving the text on which he’s commenting!” (p. 173)
Cole further enquires why there should be unmatching accounts of the “rediscovery” of the ms. to Liber (A)L in June 1909, with no mention of it by Neuburg who was present at the time, nor was it annlounced in The Equinox until some considerable while later.
As I said, I trust this will be enough to be going on with?
On the contrary, I have all but completed my own analysis of the Cairo Working and intend to present it shortly,
Bring it on down. The more, the merrier!
and would be willing to discuss any aspect of Cole’s book provided I’m not required to purchase it in order to participate.
In which case you're going to be missing out of particpating in the whole Bogus debate unless RTC's going to be kind enough to upload it as a pdf version, as was once previously intimated.
I am surprised that you have come back to join the discussion which you started RTC! Very much welcome... I lost respect for you when you faked your death...No, the problem was how you seemed to not stand behind your own work. The ACS has never been one of complete agreement as to the origins of Liber AL, & it was irritating to me & others that you seemed to not credit us with any intelligence as to this. My own opinion about the origins is that it was the work of a Genius- beyond that we can speculate as to how AC came up with it, accept his recollection, it doesn't matter. He was an exceptional individual with a supreme gift for words, & this was enhanced through his spiritual disciplines. He was also cunning when he had to be, & a trickster. A Magician. I take issue with your conclusion that he was a psychopath- the British government would not employ him as an agent for decades if that was the case. The fact that he was an intelligence agent should be enough to clue us in.
Correction to my post marked February 5, 2016 at 7:39 pm #95048, on page 15 in this thread:
In that post I wrote that Crowley, according to Kaczynski, on 7 October 1907, stated that “Liber VII” was dictated to him by his holy guardian angel. This does not make sense as “Liber VII” was written on October 30 in 1907.
To clarify, Kaczynski does on page 172 of the said edition of Perdurabo write:
"Crowley's results with magic began to resemble those he obtained in Cairo in 1904. Crossing the Abyss required that he release everything dear to him: his wife daughter, and that one item for which he had fought so hard—his holy guardian angel. The lesson, he learned, was not to lose these things but to be able to release them and act without attachment; for, that fall, Crowley realized his holy guardian was still with him. “I can, I know, get into touch with Adonai at will,” he recorded in his diary.50 Adonai was the Hebrew word for “lord,” and was used as a title of the holy guardian angel.
On October 30, Crowley got it in writing. That evening, the automatic writing “Liber VII” was penned, the first of a series of “Holy Books” that Crowley claimed were dictated by his holy guardian angel, Aiwass."
7 October 1907., is the only data provided in the endnote numberered 50 in the above quote.
Crowley's following statement made on 7 October 1907, “I can, I know, get into touch with Adonai [Adonai was used as a title of the holy guardian angel] at will”, is close in time, and just about predates Crowley's and George Cecil Jones', citing Aiwass [Aiwass is described by Crowley as his guardian angel later in his life], in 1907 November reformulating the A.’. A.’. (Cole, Second Corrected Edition, page 181 and 233). The said statement can also be close in time to when Crowley after 19 Oct 1907 penned the fictious cross examination, titled "How the Scarlet Woman knew R.H.K." in OS23 (Cole page 171).
Jamie: thanks for providing a talking point.
A comparison of [the] B2 material with [A.C.’s] published description of stele imagery in Equinox of the Gods (page 74) leaves no doubt that when Crowley wrote the B2 ritual, on Saturday 19 or SundaY 20 March, he had seen the Stele of Revealing – Impossible according to his own published accounts.
Perhaps RTC will explain why he thinks ritual B2 was written in March of 1904: there is no date provided in Invocation of Hoor that states as much. I would also like to know why RTC thinks ritual B2 was used to invoke Horus initially and not ritual B1, and why Crowley wrote two rituals instead of one: if the whole business is a hoax, only one ritual would have been necessary.
It should obvious to anyone with access to Invocation of Hoor that ritual B1 is a generic ritual that was used to invoke Horus initially, and that B2 is a ritual that incorporates the ideology of Liber Legis, and that the latter was written after April 10th 1904. The evidence suggests B1 was written before B2, and B2 was written after Liber Legis was written, as it utilizes the words Bahlasti and Ompehda, both which are unique to Liber Legis.
Cole also reports that “whilst in Paris, Crowley collected newly-printed copies of Why Jesus Wept – a poem written in January 1904.
Either RTC failed to read Why Jesus Wept thoroughly, or his book is nothing more than a deliberate attempt at disinformation: I suspect the latter. At the beginning of WJW, Crowley includes a satirical letter from his mother to himself; the letter begins with the date April 25th, 1904, which serves as formidable evidence that WJW could not have been published in January 1904.
The version of Why Jesus Wept referenced above is a PDF file found online published by 100th Monkey Press; in cross checking the online version with the version found in The Collected Works, the letter from Emily Crowley is missing from the original version found in TCW; however, in TCW, the date 1905 is provided as the date WJW was written, and the publication date is 1907: both dates contradict Cole's claim that WJW was published in January 1904.
Oh, I don't know...given some of the things we know intelligence agents get up to, possibly being a psychopath might be a definite asset! I'm thinking of assassination by umbrella, poison by radioactive material and so on. Of course, I realise those bounders I'm alluding to worked for the other side, and our chaps would never stoop so low...would they?!?!
Horemakhet - February 6, 2016 at 7:02 pm#95064: "... He was also cunning when he had to be, & a trickster. A Magician. I take issue with your conclusion that he was a psychopath- the British government would not employ him as an agent for decades if that was the case. The fact that he was an intelligence agent should be enough to clue us in."
"The main conclusion of Max Hastings’s tour d’horizon of Allied and Axis spies in the Second World War is that most of what they gleaned was utterly marginal to the war efforts of the belligerents. Open-source material analysed by smart people was far more useful than supposed secrets riskily acquired from agents in smoky bars.
It was also amateur hour. In the democracies, dullard career spies were supplemented by donnish volunteers, leading one expert in this field to remark: “You wouldn’t want to suppose, would you, that in peacetime the best brains of our society wasted their time in intelligence?”
[...] The Secret War is vintage Hastings: a vivid cast of characters, social observation and opinions forcefully expressed, some of them whimsical, such as the thought that spying requires a lot of Jews. For every Richard Sorge, arguably the most effective spy (Soviet) of the war, flitting about the German embassy in Tokyo as an apparently loyal Nazi journalist, there were hundreds of low-grade conmen and fantasists for whom the life of deception was the key draw.
Given the national fixation with spies and special forces, Hastings’s book is a very necessary corrective, though one doubts whether his astringent medicine will cure the patient." Source: The Secret War: Spies, Codes and Guerrillas 1939-1945 by Max Hastings - review - http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/the-secret-war-spies-codes-and-guerrillas-1939-1945-by-max-hastings-review-a2950041.html
"... it utilizes the words Bahlasti and Ompehda, both which are unique to Liber Legis."
Both of these words appear in Liber Israfel (The Invocation of Thoth), which was written by Allan Bennett ... unless AC added them longer after the initial Tahuti rite was penned?
"... he was a psychopath- the British government would not employ him as an agent for decades if that was the case."
And what qualifies said gov to actually know who is a psychopath?
Richard T Cole has decided to make a digital download of the book available in full through LAShTAL.COM.
This download is available to members with immediate effect. And it's FREE.
The author is to be commended for his generosity. He is making it freely available through this site in the hope that doing so results in informed discussion and debate.
To download the book in PDF format (6.5mb), visit the Downloads page through the Contents menu.
NB: The download is available only to Registered Members - further circulation is forbidden without written permission from the author: © 2016 Richard T Cole
Owner and Editor
Good of him, especially as many of us forked out a few quid to read one of the earlier revisions! I think Mr Cole has had a nice little earner out of Bogus, but i'll grant he has stimulated thought and debate. Perhaps he might consider it appropriate to make a meaningfull contribution to the running costs and upgrades of Lashtal?
Although it's done okay for a small press book, I can tell you only top authors make anything like a "nice little earner" out of their writing. My AC Scrapbook has been in print for over 25 years and I've probably made not much more than a grand or two out of it overall. A nicer gesture than RTC donating to LAShTAL might be if those that download the free pdf make a donation.
I've been following this thread since it began with great interest as an offline lurker. I have my own feelings and assessment of Liber AL (both its content and origins) which have certainly undergone change since I first signed onto Lashtal some years back now. However, I've felt that adding my two cents to the mix without having read the full text of RTC's book would hardly be productive, esp. as this thread is meant to address evidence in the matter.
That being said, I did wish to jump in for a brief moment to thank RTC for (at last) making his book available to us all-and to Paul for hosting it.
I'm looking forward to reading this work and perhaps joining in afterwards.
I agree with sandyboy. I think it's a very generous and magnanimous gesture, considering all of the flak RTC has received in the past from some Lashtalians. And simply churlish to suggest anything otherwise in this instance.
I concur, Mr. Cole has not made very much at all on this, or any of his other past Thelemic Ventures for that matter, but he has continued from his Black Flag/Naughty Nun productions to the present day release to provide invaluable material and information to Thelemic researchers and students alike. Whatever your personal opinion of him may be, he did that, and people are still benefiting from his efforts.
Yes, his book/disc set on Cefalu, Thelema Revisited, and his anthology of pulp AC articles The Unmagickal Record are invaluable. It's only with Bogus that he seems to have become a bete noire for many, something he predicted would happen.
Having read enough of Liber L Vel Bogus to make some key observations, I'll start the ball rolling.
First off, it's a tough read for someone who would rather get to the facts without having to endure nonstop vitriol, conjecture, and speculation: for those reasons alone the book fails as an objective examination of the Cairo Working; that complaint aside, I offer my initial thoughts on some of Cole's arguments.
The main argument made by Cole centers around the document he refers to as OS27, a notebook that is actually two books in one. The first book is called The Book of Results, and was started by Crowley in Cairo on March 16th 1904, beginning with the invocation that led to his wife making statements on the behalf of the god Horus. Two days later on the 18th, Crowley receives the instruction from his wife to invoke Horus, with a ritual revealed in skeleton form by Rose. In order to write the ritual down, Crowley very cleverly turned the notebook upside down and started the ritual on the last blank page, which is how the second book, named Invocation of Hoor, was started. The reason for turning the notebook upside down is obvious: Crowley wanted to leave room for more journal entries in the Book of Results.
Following the entries in the notebook, the ritual is recorded on the 19th, and performed successfully on the 20th, upon which Crowley learns of the Equinox of the Gods. On the 23rd, Crowley performs a Tarot divination that he describes as long and futile and which he admittedly omits from his account of the events, considering it irrelevant.
On the same day Crowley writes: "But 666 explains all of this and more"; the statement suggests Crowley had visited the Cairo Museum with his wife by then and she had shown him the Stele of Ankh-f-n-khonsu, exhibit number 666. The next journal entry is on the same day, and based on the previous entry, Crowley returned to the museum with the notebook so he could record the imagery on the stele, stating that he was in the Cairo Museum while doing so. The last significant entry in the Book of Results consists of Crowley expressing the need for a translation of the stele.
The notebook would eventually be named Invocation of Hoor by Crowley, based on the two rituals written in it that are designed to invoke Horus. The original ritual used to invoke Horus on the 18th is recorded in Invocation of Hoor first, followed by ritual B2, another version that was written after the reception of Liber Legis, as evidenced by the elements of Liber Legis incorporated into it. After the second ritual, there are a few other things written in the remaining pages of the book, some of which are dated to the summer of 1904 at Boleskine. The last pages consist of Crowley's effort at redefining the meaning of 36 of the numbered cards of the lesser arcana of the Tarot using religious symbolism.
Sounds pretty simple, huh? But not according to Cole. The first issue he invents relates to the index created by Gerald Yorke of the OS27 file. The contents are listed as follows, in my own words:
Invocation of Hoor
1904 work at Boleskine
The Book of Results 1904
Cole claims that due to the Book of results appearing last in the notebook, that it had to have been written after ritual B2, and as the ritual includes elements of the Book of the Law and the Stele of Revealing, the Book of Results had to have been written after the Book of the Law, during the summer of 1904 at Boleskine. In making his bizarre claims, Cole pretends that the act of turning the notebook upside down was inexplicable behavior on the part of Crowley, and that it has no bearing on why the Book of Results appears after Invocation of Hoor in the notebook. The situation is one of twisting the facts around to in order to paint a twisted picture of what actually happened.
Cole also makes an issue of the Tarot definitions that occupy the last pages of Invocation of Hoor by claiming they consist of the Tarot divination Crowley states he performed on the 23rd of March; by placing the divination at the end of the notebook, it allows Cole to claim the divination occurred during the summer of 1904, thus dating the Book of Results to the same time period.
Cole got the idea of the Tarot definitions consisting of the divination performed on March 23rd from a statement made by Marcus Katz in his publication of Invocation of Hoor: Katz was wrong and so is Cole. The divination Crowley performed is in the Book of Results, recorded on March 23rd, and is indeed omitted by Crowley in his account of events. The remarkable thing about conflating the two references to the Tarot, is the Tarot definitions appear at the end of Invocation of Hoor; if they were aspects of the divination referred to on March 23rd, they would be written upside down along with the rest of the entries in the Book of Results.
In weighing which book was written first, the book that contains the earliest dates should prevail, and justifies concluding the Book of Results was started before Invocation of Hoor: that fact alone casts aspersions on Cole's entire mode of logic.
It’s only with Bogus that he seems to have become a bete noire for many, something he predicted would happen
I'm sure that Richard would love to have become the bete noire of the Thelemic community for his bogus book. As it is, Denis Healey's remark about being savaged by a dead sheep is nearer the mark.
Michael, I've always respected your work in keeping Kenneth Grant's oeuvre in print and on the occasions I've met you found you a pleasant man. I can't understand, however, why you have to be so nasty towards someone like Cole who has issued some good books for anyone who, like himself, has a lifelong interest in AC, especially when you've made it clear you haven't the time nor the inclination to read Bogus anyway. I wish this forum could engender amiable-but-robust discussion without reference to dead sheep.
The graciously received free d/l digital v3.0 of Richard Cole's Liber Bogus is as difficult to follow as the previous hardcopy versions....but once I got into it, I realised that his whole project involved much hard work, deep thought and possibly travel, as he's sought out and accessed Crowley primary evidence from several libraries and other sources. One might say that he - obsessively sought out the evidence - to the extent that he admitted to being unable to sleep, waking up in the middle of the night to check apparently obscure points etc. When reading about Crowley's alleged psychopathology, the thought struck me that this was the kettle calling the pot black, as has been mentioned elsewhere!
I think Richard draws far to many inferences from negative evidence to realy support his hypothesis, its not just his detailed analysis of the OS27 vellum notebook. He was dilligently searching Crowley's 1904 private diaries and other contemporaneus records written in the Beast's hand for a description of the reception story and finding none for April 1904, deduced that Crowley must have made the whole story up. Richard then needed a motive for this alleged attempt to decieve everyone and weaves in tedious analysis of what Crowley's occult circle (Mathers, the GD, Jones etc) were doing in the years up to the first publishing of Liber Legis.
However, I am perplexed about the statement that there are rumours that more than one handwritten MS of Liber Legis was in the boxes of Germer documents unearthed in Tom Whitmore's basement. I've not heard that one before, anywhere. Its not mentioned in this authoritive webpage
Is there any truth in this statement?
@frater_anubis - "Is there any truth in this statement?" There is little truth in the fiction published under Mr. Whitmore's name. As discussed in a forthcoming Appendix to Liber Bogus.
93, Thanks, I'll look out for that.
Its not a bad book btw - i'm wondering if you are actually going to produce some killer piece of evidence about the watermark, or possibly Rose Kelly's personal diary to prove your case though!
@frater_anubis - Yes... and not a personal diary, but something along those lines.
Hard to imagine why, if you actually have such primary evidence, RTC, you would withhold it from publication?
Also, how would you respond to what belmurru has presented here, that there can't be any evidence that the watermark is post-1904, since the manufacturer can't say? It seems odd to leave the actual proof for an as-yet-unpublished appendix. Why isn't it in the book?
Are you familiar with the old fairy tale about the boy who cried wolf?
Michael, I’ve always respected your work in keeping Kenneth Grant’s oeuvre in print and on the occasions I’ve met you found you a pleasant man. I can’t understand, however, why you have to be so nasty towards someone like Cole who has issued some good books for anyone who, like himself, has a lifelong interest in AC, especially when you’ve made it clear you haven’t the time nor the inclination to read Bogus anyway. I wish this forum could engender amiable-but-robust discussion without reference to dead sheep.
There's nothing "nasty" about my post. I just don't understand why you feel the need to paint Richard Cole as a "bete noire". He's not.
More to the point, why do you assume that my post is "nasty"? I wasn't feeling angry or venemous when I wrote it, and nor do I think that it comes over as such. Why do you colour other people's posts with emotion that isn't there?
Get a grip, as the bishop said to the actress.
Bete noire is defined as a person or thing particularly disliked. You don't think that's how your posts (and some others) indicate the perception of Cole? You think there's nothing nasty or venomous about the dead sheep reference, and for me to see any anger in your posts is my imagining emotions that aren't there? Others reading this thread must make up their own minds as to which of us is right.
Ewe get a grip, as the farmer said to the dead-sheep shagger.
herupakraath is correct about the "long and futile tarot divination" done by AC on March 23, 1904. It is quite obviously there in the Book of Results, and quite obviously missing in AC's account of events in The Equinox of the Gods. The reason for its omission there is also obvious: AC didn't want to go public with his references to sexual magick.
"Cole got the idea of the Tarot definitions consisting of the divination performed on March 23rd from a statement made by Marcus Katz in his publication of Invocation of Hoor: Katz was wrong and so is Cole. The divination Crowley performed is in the Book of Results, recorded on March 23rd, and is indeed omitted by Crowley in his account of events."
Speaking of where Cole got ideas for parts of his book, I would be very curious to know where he got the idea found on page 104 of the first edition. At the left of this page is the title “Liber L vel Legis” transliterated to Hebrew letters, with values that total 666. Next to this is his explanation under the title “Something doesn’t quite add-up!”:
“When correlated with their Hebrew equivalents the numeric values of letters comprising Crowley’s original title of Liber L vel Legis, total...666! This does not hold true following his addition of an ‘A’, which brings the sum to 667.
Crowley never mentioned this synchronicity and, given its significance, it is possible that he never noticed it. If so, he would have perhaps thought twice about changing the title (from ‘L’ to ‘AL’) and so spoiling an otherwise elegant Qabalistic ‘proof’. With a sense of irony, I’ll note that Aiwass did warn Crowley against changing so much as the style of a letter...”
compare this with the post below, which I made on March 10, 2014 in the Reception of Liber AL inconsistencies forum of Lashtal, on page 11, reply #11698:
Upon further reflection on the original title of the Book, I noticed a very interesting ‘name coincidence of the qabalah’ in regard to it.
Liber L vel Legis = 666
This is accomplished with traditional Hebrew transliteration, with no ‘tweaking’:
Lamed – Yod – Bet – He – Resh / LAMED / Vav – He – Lamed / Lamed – He – Gimel – Yod – Shin
30 + 10 + 2 + 5 + 200 / + 30 / + 6 + 5 + 30 / + 30 + 5 + 3 + 10 + 300 = 666
Although it is possible Crowley was aware of this, it seems unlikely, since he would have shouted it from the rooftops. Furthermore, he would not have been likely to change the title to Liber AL vel Legis, although in doing so, the title becomes 667, thus equating with the Greek term H KOKKINH GYNE – ‘The Scarlet Woman’, thereby acknowledging Rose’s contribution to the Cairo Working.”
Since I have never seen this nugget of gematria published anywhere before I posted it (in a forum thread regarding material germane to Cole’s upcoming book at the time), it would be great if Cole could explain where it came from, since there is no reference in his book, leaving the reader to assume that he discovered this himself.
@MichaelStaley - In recent memory, you reacted quite emotionally to the word "dotage." Incidentally, I, personally, considered its usage with reference to the photograph in question as accurate, apt and affectionate. Conversely, you feel perfectly entitled to savage me with a dead sheep. Is this not the behaviour of a bully?
I wrote Bogus in hope of nudging a long-overdue evolution of Crowley's legacy. Your continued opposition to a work you have not even read suggests, to me, that your ongoing 'issues' are projections of a consuming fear of anything resembling change.
"Get a grip, as the bishop said to the actress." Your finale, a regurgitated relic of an embarrassingly prejudiced and misogynistic generation, defines your mindset with more elegance than any response I could offer... and "bete noire..." C’est sa bête noire?
[... Cue the Benny Hill Show theme tune...]
There is a distinct pattern in Cole's treatment of the evidence in which he ignores elements that support Crowley's account of the events, or interprets them to support his agenda, which is to damage Crowley every way possible. One of the Tarot definitions at the end of Invocation of Hoor is for the two of cups: the definition includes the name Babalon, which according to Crowley was only learned of in 1909. In 1911 during The Abuldiz Working, the inventory of items Crowley carried at the time shows he had Invocation of Hoor with him, which suggests he valued the notebook highly, and would have had ample opportunity to add the Tarot definitions after 1909, a factor that contradicts Cole's theory that the Tarot definitions and Tarot divination performed on March 23rd 1904 are one in the same.
The same criticism of Cole applies to his treatment of the title page of Liber L. I suspect Cole read your findings regarding the enumeration of the title, and on realizing that it could be used to argue Crowley's position favorably, went ahead and included it in his book in in order to make it appear as though nothing had been missed on his part.
Cole points out one element of the title page that support the reception story, but fails to draw the obvious connection, while missing another entirely. There is a column of Hebrew gematria values that are written upside down on the title page, the presence of which proves Crowley was performing Hebrew gematria calculations at the time. As pointed out by Cole, the title actually reads Liber + L. vel Legis; the plus sign in the title suggests that the mind responsible for writing the title created it as a gematria construct, and draws attention to the fact by including a plus sign with it. With no evidence existing that Crowley knew the significance of the title as it pertains to gematria, it can be concluded that Aiwass also guided Crowley's hand when the title page was created, and prevented Crowley from recognizing the significance of the title.
Your discovery of the enumeration of the holograph title is tremendous in my opinion.
In recent memory, you reacted quite emotionally to the word “dotage.” Incidentally, I, personally, considered its usage with reference to the photograph in question as accurate, apt and affectionate. Conversely, you feel perfectly entitled to savage me with a dead sheep. Is this not the behaviour of a bully?
No, it's not; seems you can't see a top without going over it. I didn't react "emotionally" to the word "dotage" as you allege; neither did I savage you with a dead sheep or, indeed, anything else. Your powers of misrepresentation are admirably impressive.
I wrote Bogus in hope of nudging a long-overdue evolution of Crowley’s legacy.
That seems to me somewhat arrogant of you. Crowley's legacy is founded on a solid body of work. I don't think that legacy needs a nudge in a specific direction from you or anyone else.
Your continued opposition to a work you have not even read . . .
No, I've not read your book. On the other hand, I was extremely familiar with the long-running thread on LAShTAL with its endless hype, tasters, etc. I'm familiar with the holes in the reception of The Book of the Law, and open to any evidence that proves that Crowley fabricated the book. From perusing this and other threads it seems clear that your book does not provide such evidence, your hype to the contrary.
JB on February 2nd:
“Did he (Crowley) actually claim that Liber VII and the rest of the Class A “Holy Books series” was dictated by Aiwass?”
To which I replied
"Well, if you have not yet figured it out buddy boy, Crowley was all over the map!"
JB in response
I had had a couple vodka cranberries at the time, and as can be the case ( thankfully rarely these days ) when alcohol passes through the writer's brain/blood barrier I can become a bit of a mocker - "Wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging" - although I wrote it in good humor, and no insult was intended. Let it be a lesson to the children, not only in regards to the absolute probity of the great Master Therion, ( may his soul rest in peace and the blessings of ... be upon him ), but also in regards to his praeterhuman temperance, for did he not write in the Equinox of the Gods, as a light in our dark time, and for the right guidance of the childen, and for an example forever, that he was "Strictly temperate as to drink, had never once been even near intoxication. Light wine my only form of alcohol." If only we had been so wise!
Anyway, back to the subject of the praeterhuman intelligence of the Beast. We know by his own word about his other praeterhuman abilities. In the Confessions he writes in response to criticism of his first published work ( the pseudonymous prefaces of that work are germane and prophetic to the subject at hand, and the life of that literary character of Saint John himself )
"My essential spirituality is made manifest by yet another publication, which stands as a testimony of my praeterhuman innocence. The book is called White Stains and is commonly quoted by my admirers as evidence of my addiction to every kind of unmentionable vice. Asses!"
Now if AC confessed to his praeterhuman innocence, is it inconceivable that he was also praeterhumanly intelligent? Certainly his published writings including Liber AL do not lead one to think so. I suggest as a map to help understand the apparent multiple identity disorder of Aleister Crowley, матрёшка ( matryoshka ) dolls. We all know Crowley's love of Russia, and his learning of that language to join the Diplomatic corps. These mysterious dolls who direct the destiny of the Earth sprang again into existence - this time in Russia, as they do periodically, four years after Crowley's father died of tongue cancer, to help prepare Europe for the great conflagrations which it had decided was necessary to enlighten itself, and to help the young Alex deal with the psychological complexes which they knew would arise when he began to destroy the Plymouth Brother within - this in direct disobedience of the command of Abramelin not to go apostate in the Knowledge and Conversation. The матрёшка are also called babushka "grandmother" "elderly woman" - they are the Brothers of the AA "who are women".
According to Wikipedia the inventors of these dolls "Zvyozdochkin and Malyutin were inspired by a doll from Honshu, the main island of Japan. Sources differ in descriptions of the doll, describing it as either a round, hollow daruma doll, portraying a bald old Buddhist monk or a Seven Lucky Gods nesting doll". The "bald old Buddhist monk" drawn with a smile rubbing his belly in joy, on the cover page of AL along with the comment "Buddha ... = 0" may be a clue. How will we ever know!? the meaning of the question and exclamation mark of the ear of AL drawn on that "cover" page?!
"The inner dolls were girls and a boy, and the innermost a baby" fitting well the appearance of the child Horus - the dancing baby of the heart of the Hierophant - in the first ( innermost ) Aethyr, LIL, summarizing the Paths. Somehow this child of Crowley transformed into a ( misshapen ? ) Dwarf in the Commentaries of AL - it also appears that during the compartmentalization process of Crowley's being and consciousness his various identities had problems communicating with each other until he even lost contact with Aiwass himself his truest of true self! This may have something to do with the mescaline of the time, the heroin later, or his memory, as notes in the Prelude of his Confessions
"A further difficulty is introduced by the nature of the mind, and especially of the memory, of the man himself. We shall come to incidents which show that he is doubtful about clearly remembered circumstances, whether they belong to ‘real life’ or to dreams, and even that he has utterly forgotten things which no normal man could forget. He has, moreover, so completely overcome the illusion of time (in the sense used by the philosophers, from Lao Tzu and Plotinus to Kant and Whitehead) that he often finds it impossible to disentangle events as a sequence."
Now I acknowledge that if all the world is a stage and Crowley was on it - it is necessary to treat every statement as the statement of a man on a stage uttering them for whatever dramatic or literary purposes he proposed his life to signify to the ages. For such a man truth and falsehood are identical and serve whatever end he happens to have at the time or for his project - in the philosophical existential sense. See the "666 as Artist" verse 6 comment of Djeridensis. ( For as easy as it is to argue that Crowley was a functioning schizophrenic, always talking about himself in the third person through his "magical names" "Frater P. forgets ... " we ought never to lose fact of the sight that it is equally probable if not more so, that Crowley lied for whatever literary device life purpose or drama at hand.
Liber B! was written to explain the highest professed identity of Crowley and details his falsehood, glamour, and unrighteousness - ( his Ipsissimus Aiwass identity is not suppose to profess it - although AC does hint in Ararita and elsewhere his attainment of it ).
Of course like any cryptologist through the ages, the purposes of encrypting a work is to communicate something or other in cipher, and have someone else figure it out. It is a puzzle for the ages. Whether the cipher of II 76 is a cipher along the more traditional lines of the courts of Europe at the time, or not - and even I will probably take a look at it in that sense in the future when I have some supercomputer time - it is a purported cipher - and explicitly stated to be a Qabalistic cipher, "along the regular pattern" - which actually implies not only Crowley's knowledge of it - but also reveals its type - Table I Column II - Hebrew Names of Numbers and Letters of the Key Scale of Liber 777 - which in the writer's judgment is also its finest solution - since the finals sum of II 76 using the Key of B, 12915, equals the finals sum of the Hebrew Names of the Numbers and Letters of the 32 Paths of Wisdom of Table I Column II. Crowley professed his knowledge of the cipher of his own work in multiple places in his corpus, he just never revealed his architectonic key, except in the most oblique and obvious ways. But more of all this anon. ( I too want to jump on the Year 111 bandwagon, especially, in the sign of Aquarius, luckily the names of the letters AL III 1 equals 111 times 112, so I also have the leisure to publish this spring! )
The fact is the only real map to Crowley's work ( outside of reading it, learning it, and genuine scholarship upon it - although I do not think anyone can make much headway with Crowley from a critical point of view without a knowledge of the essential history of thought and a good knowledge of history in general - so as to understand his roots and place his originality in that history ) is the literal Qabalah he embodied in AL - as it is upon this that he laid the burden of the proof "that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man"
"In order that the ethical and philosophical comment should be "understanded of the common people", without interruption, I have decided to transfer to an Appendix all considerations drawn from the numerical system of cipher which is interspersed with the more straightforward matter of this Book. In that Appendix will be found an account of the character of this cipher, called "Qabalah", and the mysteries thus indicated; because of the impracticability of communicating them in verbal form, and of the necessity of proving to the student that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man."
In other words, Crowley understood that the simple literary, philosophical, Qabalistic, and ethical content of AL would in no way convince anyone "that the Author of the Book is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man" ( except perhaps children and true believers ) -- the numerical system of cipher is the work horse to flog for that piece of pie in the Sky. In the above comment he does not say "praeterhuman" only that its Author "is possessed of knowledge beyond any yet acquired by man." The statement is curiously phrased, for the knowledge is characterized as beyond human knowledge at the time, and by implication, a kind of perpetual prophecy springing from the literal Qabalah embodied in it ...
So back to your map question Jamie, I propose a map of the multiple identities of Crowley as follows ( Grade equals Crowley name for that grade ) - taken from the end of the Introduction to Liber ABA Part III
ΤΟ ΜΕΓΑ ΘΗΡΙΟΝ : The Beast 666; MAGUS 9° = 2 A∴A∴ who is The Word of the Æon THELEMA;
whose name is called V.V.V.V.V. 8° = 3 A∴A∴ in the City of the Pyramids;
ΟΥ ΜΗ 7° = 4;
OL SONUF VAORESAGI 6°=5.
and ..... ..... 5° = 6 A∴A∴ in the Mountain of Abiegnus:
but FRATER PERDURABO in the Outer Order of the A∴A∴
and in the World of men upon the Earth, Aleister Crowley of Trinity College, Cambridge.
The final grade ( beyond the word and the fool ? )
Aiwass 10° = 1
That is the best map I can draw on this specific subject Jamie.
Of course I do not really know, but Crowley himself for all his "assertionism" recognized that the proof of the truth of his outrageous and extraordinary claims lay with himself, although he himself never proved them, and laid the burden of proof upon anyone so inclined to explore the matter, with the terrible restriction, that it is necessary to discover and apply the numerical system of cipher to discover that special knowledge "not yet acquired" by any man.
A final note to Timothy, since the "cover" page is on the Hotel stationary and not the Scottish stationary Crowley brought to Cairo to write or type on, ( that is if the work actually was written in Cairo, because in truth, given the known veracity of Crowley, we do not know - but playing along with the game - like Crowley "played" at Yoga ) it does not make sense that he wrote the "cover" page ( 0 or 66 as the case may be ) at the time he "heard" Aiwass or Nuit, say, in that wonderful voice heard by all,
in other words, Crowley mistook his own name, for the title of the work. I do not know how common it is to greet someone by name before you launch into a conversation with them, all we know is that Crowley heard the sound either L or AL ( although the fact that he put a period after it in the 1909 title page of the work indicates L. signifies not L alone but another word ) he does not say he heard "Liber L vel Legis" but only the sound "L". Go figura.
Leo in regards to Crowley not shouting to the mountaintops, there are an abundance of indications, explicit, and otherwise where Crowley hints at a literal Qabalah "mystery" and does not reveal it, outside of the so called 4th power of the Sphinx. The purpose of hiding a "mystery" is so someone other than the person who hid it can discover it, and go wow, and in Crowley's case, he wants you to go wow and think there really is an intelligence at work here, there really is a literal Qabalah at work here. The question of course is the degree of intelligence of the ciphering intelligence, and the question why the ciphering intelligence can only reveal its praeterhuman nature through cipher, and not explicitly, through its thought, judgment, and concepts. Did Crowley think that only mathematics can indicate intelligence beyond the human?
Sorry for the delay Jamie, I had to get along the ocean shore before I wrote, as it is where I prefer to write.
Thank you Richard for the free upload, I have read a number of sections of it and have enjoyed your argumentative relish. Criticism begins with criticism. Crowley was such a farceur, or at least that was how he was known to his literary contemporaries at large, notwithstanding how those who he sought to butter his bread with after his money ran out thought of him, or the popular press, and its readers.
If I have the time, I will make a few critical comments. The "seven years" slave labor on the "riddles" dated in year V Anno Crowley, is suggestive. I never did keep up with Crowley's dating system. Is March 1904 to March 1905 Year 0? In which case Year V Virgo is about 5 and a half years which is not nigh seven. It is nigh nigh seven!
I see him not as trying to solve or comment the riddles of the Book at that time but struggling to perfect their creation. It fits the general historical evolution of his Jew-Greek cryptologic. The first mention of the phrase Double Word of Power is when Tannhauser utters the word signified by it in 1901. In 1902 in Ambrosii Magi Hortus Rosarum equates Abracadabra equal 418, in other words he had already designed the key word of the Book of the Law by changing the spelling of Abracadabra to Abrahadabra. I think Crowley spent alot of time conceiving, ciphering, composing, and executing Liber AL - and he may have first conceived it as far back as 1895! In other words, it is a work that was over a decade in the making.
Nonetheless I do not deny the possiblity that ...
herupakraath February 8, 2016 at 6:12 am #95090, on page 16 in this thread:
"The main argument made by Cole centers around the document he refers to as OS27, a notebook that is actually two books in one. [...] In weighing which book was written first, the book that contains the earliest dates should prevail, and justifies concluding the Book of Results was started before Invocation of Hoor: that fact alone casts aspersions on Cole’s entire mode of logic."
herupakraath, what do you make of the following, quoted from page 102 and 103 in the free-to-download third digital pdf edition of Richard T. Cole's book The Real Confession of Aleister Crowley?:
"Without seeming to state the obvious, everything written in OS27 after the section titled "3. summer. 1904" recounts incidents that occurred after leaving Egypt. This means that The Tarot divination, plus whatever was written on the five missing pages (perhaps Crowley's stele versification), plus three inverted sections (including the Book of Results, which Crowley misleadingly described as "unspoiled and authoritative") are not contemporary with Cairo!Unpalatable as this may be to some, large chunks of the purportedly dated evidence used to support his Master of the Universe fantasy, Crowley actually wrote at Boleskine. [...] Summation [...] Whatever information the five missing pages did contain, it presented such a conflict to the version Crowley was then touting as to require not just an editioral crossing-out, but complete annihilation - As discussed further in subsequent chapters."
herupakraath, what do you make of the following, quoted from page 102 and 103....
I covered all this in a previous post, but here's a recap:
1. The 'Tarot divination' Cole refers to is not a divination at all, and certainly not the divination of March 23rd: the facts disqualify the 'Tarot divination' as evidence supporting Cole's claims.
2. The location of the five missing pages were part of Invocation of Hoor. The pages were positioned in the notebook after the work recorded at Boleskine in the summer of 1904, which means the pages have no bearing on the events of the Cairo Working, torn out or not.
3. The Book of Results does appear in the notebook after Invocation of Hoor, but only when the notebook is oriented in such a way that Invocation of Hoor can be read; when the notebook is turned upside down, the Book of Results can be read, and places Invocation of Hoor at the end of the notebook; to defeat Cole's argument, the only action required is to orient the notebook correctly, with the Book of Results at the beginning.
herupakraath: "... when the notebook is turned upside down, the Book of Results can be read, and places Invocation of Hoor at the end of the notebook; to defeat Cole’s argument, the only action required is to orient the notebook correctly, with the Book of Results at the beginning."
herupakraath, is the Book of Results written within a notebook that obviously appears to be turned upside down, documenting or demonstrating that the said notebook was already turned upside down when Crowley did at first start writing in it? So that the Book of Results can only appear at the beginning of the said notebook, when the said notebook does obviously appear to be turned upside down?
My point is, can it be detected from the original design of the said notebook, when it is, and when it is not, turned upside down, meaning, does it appear from its design which side of it that is the top side intended to point upwards, and which side of it that is the bottom side intended to point downwards?