I think you are in for a disappointment, if you are thinking there are somewhere something resembling mathematical theorems or formal proofs of these matters, or even if you read this as AC claiming such a thing.

Pretty sure that if you were to have asked him "But where are these theorems in your Magical Record?", his response would have been on the lines of "In every entry! And, furthermore, i published each of these dozens of times, again and again!" Because he did.

Posted by: @ignant666

I think you are in for a disappointment, if you are thinking there are somewhere something resembling mathematical theorems or formal proofs of these matters, or even if you read this as AC claiming such a thing.

Pretty sure that if you were to have asked him "But where are these theorems in your Magical Record?", his response would have been on the lines of "In every entry! And, furthermore, i published each of these dozens of times, again and again!" Because he did.

Nope, don't worry! No dreams of mathematical theorems (Russell/Whitehead), formal proofs (Godel, FLT) etc. were harmed in the making of this question!

I'm fine with the idea AC said it loads of times in different places, but I'm interested specifically in those 'theorems' described in the quoted paragraph from the Confessions and if they are reflected in the Magical Record in a single location - I'm assuming it was a singular event from his MR that he was summarizing in the Hag and therefore, there was a particular diary entry? Which period diary would it have come from and has it been published?

many thanks:-)

G.

Posted by: @gravunity

I'm assuming it was a singular event from his MR that he was summarizing in the Hag and therefore, there was a particular diary entry? Which period diary would it have come from and has it been published?

Again, i think this is a mistaken assumption that any of the three ("resolution", "identification", "proof") refer to specific MR entries.

Someone cleverer than i can probably say which initiations these things refer to, and there will certainly be MR entries corresponding to these initiations, but i doubt that even these entries will explicitly reference these matters in these terms.

Posted by: @ignant666

Posted by: @gravunity

I'm assuming it was a singular event from his MR that he was summarizing in the Hag and therefore, there was a particular diary entry? Which period diary would it have come from and has it been published?

Again, i think this is a mistaken assumption that any of the three ("resolution", "identification", "proof") refer to specific MR entries.

Someone cleverer than i can probably say which initiations these things refer to, and there will certainly be MR entries corresponding to these initiations, but i doubt that even these entries will explicitly reference these matters in these terms.

Very interrresting Meester Bond! 🙂

thanks for that,

best G.

The Hag is basically done in 1929 when the first two volumes are published, and he has Ipsiss-ed by then (it was in 1924). But here are my ideas as to what he may mean:

• Resolving "being, not-being, and becoming into a unity": this sounds Magus-y, or Ipsissimus-y. Not really sure what is meant here, but sounds "deep", and beyond my pay-grade, or like a hippie babbling.
• "I identified free will with destiny": i think this refers to the "Star-Sponge" Vision in New Hampshire in June 1916 (maybe the 12th?, Kaczynski, p. 307; see Hag, pp. 810-11 (i have it book-marked)). AC says this was the climactic part of his Magus initiation that began Nov. 3, 1914.
• "I proved that action was impotent and non-action omnipotent": this very Taoist statement about wu-wei is i think Ipsissimus-y, or Magus and post-"Star-Sponge" Vision (so just read all the MRs from 1916-24; easy-peasy!). Or it could refer, sort of on a lower octave, to the Magister Templi annihilation of the ego/desire/self of the Adept, leaving that notorious pile of ashes for Nuit to clean up (typical man!)

Posted by: @ignant666

• Resolving "being, not-being, and becoming into a unity": this sounds Magus-y, or Ipsissimus-y. Not really sure what is meant here, but sounds "deep", and beyond my pay-grade, or like a hippie babbling.

Agreed 100%. I suspected this was indeed a Magus 9'=2' reference as per the dialectic mentioned in AC's marginalia in Liber B vel Magi.

Posted by: @ignant666

"...but i doubt that even these entries will explicitly reference these matters in these terms."

That was indeed the basis of my question 🙂

The Star-Sponge reference does make sense though.

Slightly related, talking of diaries, am I right in saying we are we still expecting HB to drop an 'unexpurgated/new material' version of the Hag sometime 'fore the next Aeon?

@ignant666 Appreciate the effort,

best G.

Posted by: @gravunity

I resolved such triads as being, not-being, and becoming into a unity.

Here, AC is reminding us that he made the 10=1 grade, which is forbidden to be disclosed, but repeatedly hinting, pointing, and quoting are permissible.

Posted by: @gravunity

I identified free will with destiny.

Ooh!  I like this one. I don't remember reading this one (but I did). I have never claimed a photographic mem or a total recall capacity. Ming (destiny) in Chinese Medical Anatomy is a component of the Kidney (Water element) energy, whose spirit is Zhi (Will). This is all encoded in one's DNA.

Posted by: @ignant666

I think you are in for a disappointment, if you are thinking there are somewhere something resembling mathematical theorems or formal proofs of these matters

This is the AC we love so well. His Magical Record(s) are all over the place and the planes. One has to read everything and see that he has solved everything ... or fault, discrepancy, or the exception to every rule, can be found in anything written.

Crowley is using language (in the quote from the penultimate page) that specifically flags the supernal triad, which is always paradoxical ... if it's true.

Posted by: @gravunity

I'm interested specifically in those 'theorems' described in the quoted paragraph from the Confessions and if they are reflected in the Magical Record in a single location

I don't think so. I think Crowley is gesturing toward the Grand Record. Although I was the custodian of a rather large collection of his original diaries, and read them several times, I have not read all his diaries, so I am merely expressing an opinion, and not a hard fact. "They" say it is impossible to prove a negative.

Posted by: @ignant666

and there will certainly be MR entries corresponding to these initiations

One of the books I held was the Cefalu Diary, bound in light blue leather with a gold-stamped border on the front cover. About 6x8"; about 5/8" thick. There were no records of initiations, specifically 10=1. There may have been other Records, though.

Posted by: @ignant666

he has Ipsiss-ed by then (it was in 1924).

This brings up an interesting concept that I have been promoting, over and over, in various places in my magical records, my books, and my supernal (paradoxical) videos.

The core point is that in ceremonial works designed to alter external reality, and likewise in ceremonial self-initiation, there is a time lag of 2-3 years between the rite and the obvious result.

Symonds reports, based on info from Leah (the required witness who is not bound unto silence), Therion gave it up, dropping his opium pipe, and walked into the Cefalu Temple to take the Oath of a 10=1.

Yet is was of '24 that the wrote, "To put it simply, I died."

I can attest to the veracity of this premise, mainly because it is my experience.

Also, it is my understanding that he started writing, while dictating under the influence of heroin and cocaine, at Cefalu. I have no idea when he stopped dictating or penning.

Posted by: @gravunity

Slightly related, talking of diaries, am I right in saying we are we still expecting HB to drop an 'unexpurgated/new material' version of the Hag sometime 'fore the next Aeon?

That was in my custody as well. Two bound volumes, four bound (like a script or screenplay) volumes. Six vols total. Do not hold your breathe in pranayama while waiting for anything that has been pre-announced or pre-suggested (long ago). The press is dead. It gets harder to resuscitate/resurrect anything - the longer it lays dormant.

Posted by: @gravunity

So, could anyone point me to the Magical Record (ms. or location) containing these theorems as described above as part of AC's Magical Record?

I don't suppose by any chance gravunity (welcome btw) you might possibly have had in mind the twenty-eight actual Theorems AC lays down as part of the Introduction to Magick In Theory and Practice (which can be found in The Big Blue Breezeblock aka Book 4, pp. 127-33)?

Posted by: @shiva

Here, AC is reminding us that he made the 10=1 grade, which is forbidden to be disclosed

But who made this stipulation (=that it is forbidden to disclose) in the first place?  Was it Samuel "MacGregor" Mathers? Christian Rosenkreutz??  Abramelin the Mage??? No-o-o, I rather think unless very much mistaken that it was AC (The Master Therion) himself! 

Who exactly is he trying to fool here with his 10=1, 10=1, 10=1?  Or is it all simply because he didn't want Achad some upstart anyone else (able to be) claiming to be top dog magus in his place?

Posted by: @shiva

I don't think [the theorems are reflected in the Magical Record in a single location] so. I think Crowley is gesturing toward the Grand Record.

Yes I think he's gesturing that way too.  Not quite semaphore perhaps, but maybe waving in that approximate general wordless direction...

Posted by: @shiva

Crowley is using language ... that specifically flags the supernal triad

So flag the Record-ed reference down then, somebody!?

Posted by: @shiva

Although I was the custodian of a rather large collection of his original diaries, and read them several times

Did they all manage to go up in flames stemming from your custodial care, though?  Do you have any idea of how many of them survived?

Posted by: @shiva

There were no records of initiations, specifically 10=1.

That's because NONE NUN MUM's the Word

Posted by: @shiva

Yet is was of '24 that the wrote, "To put it simply, I died."

I can attest to the veracity of this premise, mainly because it is my experience.

Is that therefore because you're (implicitly) claiming a 10=1 yourself?

Posted by: @shiva

The [HB/ (c)OTO] press is dead.

So much for all the stipulated so-called "promulgation."  

Apparently lost in action down the rabbit hole in the second full decade of the 21st century.

Norma N Joy Conquest

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

I rather think unless very much mistaken that it was AC (The Master Therion) himself! 

Correct! You are NOT mistooked. You get a leafy cigar, the girl or boy (over 18), and a free ride to the next pylon.

The Transhimalayan White Brotherhood (HPB/Bailey/Isis) has no such restrictions. The equivalent of a 10=1 is known as a Chohan (Ray Lord, in English). This is their 6th initiation (grade/degree). The Chohans were identified by HPB under code-names such as Morya, Koot Hoomi, et al.

But these guys were all real people: her mentors in India. I, et al, have published their real names. They can each be found in Wikipedia. "Gulab Singh" is one - I can't remember the others. They died of course, and their essence remains to allow "channels" to deliver the most wonderful inspirational messages ... all real enough on the causal plane (Tiph-Geb-Ches), but rather illusionary up supernal way.

All this stuff is usually based on real occurrences in the dense world. Then an astral, or an abstract, or an archetypal story is MADE UP to superimpose over the real deal.

Frater O.M. MADE UP the "No 10=1 Disclosure Rule." His sig appears below the Manifesto.

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

Did they all manage to go up in flames stemming from your custodial care, though?  Do you have any idea of how many of them survived?

No. They were removed from my custody and stored securely in the middle of the blazing hot desert. "Securely"{ means locked in a steel cabinet (but not fireproofed). Alas. Abaddon - The Opening of the Eye!

The Hebrew term "Abaddon" meaning "doom", and its Greek equivalent "Apollyon"  appear in the Bible as both a place of destruction and an angel of the abyss.

I have one, perfectly clear "idea" of what was left over, based on visual and manual exploration of a pile of ashes: You may quote me >  "Nothing survived." See OTO P.I. (Perfect Initiate) degree papers.

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

Is that therefore because you're (implicitly) claiming a 10=1 yourself?

I have done no such thing.

Posted by: @shiva ... these guys were all real people: her mentors in India. I, et al, have published their real names. They can each be found in Wikipedia. "Gulab Singh" is one - I can't remember the others. They died of course, and their essence remains to allow "channels" to deliver the most wonderful inspirational messages ... all real enough on the causal plane (Tiph-Geb-Ches), but rather illusionary up supernal way.

All this stuff is usually based on real occurrences in the dense world. Then an astral, or an abstract, or an archetypal story is MADE UP to superimpose over the real deal.

Frater O.M. MADE UP the "No 10=1 Disclosure Rule." His sig appears below the Manifesto.

 

This is basically what Crowley did with Samuel Aiwaz Jacobs, if I'm not wrong. I remember reading somewhere he started putting the 10=1 signature in AA publications with a 93 in it after he meet SAJ, his disclosure of the Aiwass numeration, etc. (I'm not even sure this is what you're talking about regarding some kind of manifesto as I'm reading quite loosely, though.)

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

Posted by: @gravunity

So, could anyone point me to the Magical Record (ms. or location) containing these theorems as described above as part of AC's Magical Record?

I don't suppose by any chance gravunity (welcome btw) you might possibly have had in mind the twenty-eight actual Theorems AC lays down as part of the Introduction to Magick In Theory and Practice (which can be found in The Big Blue Breezeblock aka Book 4, pp. 127-33)?

Hi Jamie, great to be here thanks 🙂

I certainly didn't have in mind the Big Blue Breezeblock, as I don't possess a copy(!). However, You are 100% correct that I hadn't considered at all the 28 "theorems" in MITP (pp. 132-138, RKP 73). But these don't seem to tie up specifically against the "resolution", "identification", "proof" statements (as noted by @ignant666) in the Confessions p.922 quote? I suppose a direct reference to the 10'=1' initiation that early in MITP isn't very likely.

Also, I was (perhaps foolishly...) hoping for references directly to a Magical Record (or diary entries where his notes for this may have originated) as was indicated by AC himself (or even quotations on this subject which may have made it to any of the biographies). I aalso dmit to being intrigued by "theorems" and "formulae", but I wasn't entertaining hopes of magickal equations (Berashith, 0=2 or some Qabalah) rather some further psychological / epistemological/ mystical exposition similar to the Hag quote itself (i.e. using "these terms" 🙂

Although, I'm down with "Magical Record" = "Grand Record" (in general).

Posted by: @shiva

This is the AC we love so well. His Magical Record(s) are all over the place and the planes. One has to read everything and see that he has solved everything ... or fault, discrepancy, or the exception to every rule, can be found in anything written.

Crowley is using language (in the quote from the penultimate page) that specifically flags the supernal triad, which is always paradoxical ... if it's true.

Nice. So, If an exception to every rule can be found in anything written, what's the exception to the rule that the supernal triad is always paradoxical?! Aha! (#include "JainModalLogic.h")

Thanks for the help folks,

93'z et al,

best, G.

Posted by: @apuleius

some kind of manifesto

One Star in Sight is where it is written, and that Liber is loosely considered The Manifesto of the A.'.A.'..

Posted by: @gravunity

what's the exception to the rule that the supernal triad is always paradoxical?!

The exception is ... "... unless one is operating in the realm of the supernal triad - where paradoxes do not appear."

Posted by: @gravunity

Aha!

Aha! what?

Posted by: @shiva

Posted by: @gravunity

what's the exception to the rule that the supernal triad is always paradoxical?!

The exception is ... "... unless one is operating in the realm of the supernal triad - where paradoxes do not appear."

Posted by: @gravunity

Aha!

Aha! what?

No-thing serious, having a Discordian moment... :-0

"Greater Poop: Is Eris true?

Malaclypse-2: Everything is true.

Greater Poop: Even false things?

Malaclypse-2: Even false things are true.

Greater-Poop: How can that be?

Malaclypse-2: I don't know man, I didn't do it."

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -- SRI SYADASTI, Apostle of Eris.

best fnords, G.

Posted by: @gravunity

All affirmations are true in some sense

Absolutely. "On their own plane."

Posted by: @shiva

Posted by: @gravunity

All affirmations are true in some sense

Absolutely. "On their own plane."

Roger that. G.

Posted by: @gravunity

But these [theorems] don't seem to tie up specifically against the "resolution", "identification", "proof" statements (as noted by @ignant666) in the Confessions p.922 quote? I suppose a direct reference to the 10'=1' initiation that early in MITP isn't very likely.

"Aha!", I didn't realize the theorems as such had to link up with their being connected to 10=1 etc in some way.  I was just thinking that the final version in MTP (published 1929) might have originally been first drafted out in a preceeding magical Record, to which was the reference A.C. made in the quote given at the end of the Confessions (written c. 1923-4).

Posted by: @gravunity

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -- SRI SYADASTI, Apostle of Eris.

But how about that also consisting of the following oppositions as well:

"All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, meaningful in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, true and meaningful in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningful in some sense, true and false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningful in some sense."

Paradoxically yours,

N Joy

Posted by: @jamiejbarter

Paradoxically yours,

N Joy

Oh yeah. Any time any one performs a resolution, or a synthesis, of 2 or 3 contradictory concepts, they have transcended a certain aspect of duality (or triplicity). Then, when they try to explain it, in words of the previous duality (or triplicity), it always comes out as a paradox.

This can be unsettling for those who have not made (at least a temporary) resolution of their own, and terrible arguments may ensue.

The philosophical theory of being, non being, coming into being has been deb asted since 400bc.

Parmanides..i think. Certainly Hera c litus.

Shakespear even made comment. Heidegger really put it out there.  I personally dont think his theory broke much new ground. But obviously the NAZI(as he did they the dipstick) thought he did, as many others.

But then AC finished the whole phenomenology formula by putting zero into the equation after the museum moment.

Anyway, they all talk about Heidegger. Seems to me you might study the from a philosophical standpoint. I 100% asure you that you will get a better perspective .