@RTC
I personally find it disappointing that you dismiss the chance to have your discovery of the solution (with enormous consequences you claim) discussed and tested here. Not only because you found it here on the discussion boards but because it would suit your claim for "seeking the historical truth" way better. After the watermark debacle I guess you know that only a tiny bit of doubt or some obvious fumbling with facts would be disastrous to your efforts. Presenting your solution here and having it discussed and tested would surely not endanger the sales of your pamphlet, probably the opposite would be true. This way it unfortunately really feels like a "game" you are playing. So, instead of working this thing out once and for all, we all have to wait until April Fools Day, which is also not exactly sounding like "real" historical truth, please consider publishing it a week later. Remember, "obvious", "self-evident" and stuff like this is not really scientific work. So I hope this time the wait will be worth, because if this is not as earth-shattering as claimed in views of "historical truth", I am afraid that the "academia" might not take you too seriously afterwards . The OTO and Breeze haters you already have in your pockets, they will buy anything you print, but "historical truth" really is a big word. Well, I hoped you would cherish the group mind to have your theories tested, I was wrong.
Love=Law
Lutz
I agree with almost all @the_real_simon_iff says, except i think he is giving RTC too much credit in thinking anything will actually appear, on April Fool's Day, or ever.
RTC's total inability to respond with a straight answer to any question whatever, his self-indulgent, rambling and repetitive writing style (most manifest in his constant coy "clever" "humor" (that is neither very clever, or very funny)), and his inability to ever actually come up with the goods, mean he will never be taken seriously by "the 'academia'", or any other serious person. Which is a pity, because it means his few good points get lost amidst all the hype and hot air.
As some one who is deeply skeptical of the claims of the Caliphate "OTO", its OHO, and "duplex" "A.'. A.'.", i am very far from being in Mr Cole's pocket. His inability to persuade a person like me might cause him to re-calibrate his approach, but he is either prey to self-delusion and thinks he is currently doing a good job of Crowley de-bunking, or is engaged in some mysterious bad-faith campaign.
One might almost think he is a provocateur in the pay of the (c)OTO trying to make their critics look like crackpots. [NB: for the benefit of any unusually unintelligent persons reading this, that last sentence was sarcasm.]
RTC's total inability to respond with a straight answer to any question whatever
Oh, you noticed that, did you?
for the benefit of any unusually unintelligent persons reading this
There is no need to flagrantly expose my qualities.
@the_real_simon_iff - Not so long ago I attempted to rouse members into a mutual cipher-solv-athon. What makes you believe they will be any more inclined to rational discussion from this angle? I intend to publish my solution on 01 April (24 March was a contender. Alas, wrong year). At that point it will be open to endless, enthusiastic silence. As a matter of interest, which disappointed you the most - My decision to offer hints useful to others tackling the riddle, prior to releasing a solution, or the head-in-the-sand, Fifth Amendment alternate stance? Is your disappointment selective?
@ignant666 – “... except i think he is giving RTC too much credit in thinking anything will actually appear, on April Fool's Day, or ever.” – I extend to you the same wagerational offer as that suggested to @michael-staley. If you would like to put your money where your mouth is, I am happy to upgrade my room to one with an en suite Goblin Teasmade™ The model with ‘auto-froth’ and ‘cream dispensing’ accessories.
@jamiejbarter, @ptoner @newneubergouch2 and @wellreadwellbred... I’m not hearing any solvey-noises emanating your orifices. C’mon, who’s gonna press the big red Thelemic self destruct button?
If you would like to put your money where your mouth is ...
Why do you imagine anyone would believe you would in fact pay up?
Your track record does not inspire confidence, to say the least. As my old grandma used to say "A man who can't come up with watermarks in more than three years is a man who welshes on bets."
@ignant666 - Your response transliterates into a 'fold,' then. Surely my subsequent welshing on the bet would only sweeten your victory? Thinking about this, why believe anything I say? Draw your conclusions from the abject silence of one exposed to the solution, or get off your arse and solve it you your own satisfaction. Failing that, 01 April. 😎
Thinking about this, why believe anything I say?
Um, i don't?
I think of you as "Young Fakey" (though you are likely middle-aged or an elderly crock like myself). Unless and until you come up with straight answers on
- the (two different) GPS codes you say you decrypted from AL, and
- the evidence you say you have to back up your claim that "thelema" is Arabic for "ass/arse", and of course
- that evidence you say you have had for more than three years now (but haven't gotten around to publishing) about what watermarks of typing paper A. Pirie sold in 1904 (you know, that evidence Pirie says doesn't exist in their corporate archives?)
that is.
It is difficult to read the numbers around the red button even with full zoom...if those have specific bearing upon the 24 & 89 complex then perhaps your kill switch marks compass points that might add to the plot....or find the plot where something or someone is buried...Aceldama!
Frankly as regards the grid placed upon page 16 of the sheets from the Third Chapter and the offering of the old map of Cairo, it can be equally be argued that if one takes that sheet, places it on a globe, then one gets a line running approximately from Boleskine to the Cairo!
This is not to say that I agree with the thesis that the grid page is a map, but oh well why not! Eh
Nicholas of Cusa dealt with the philosophical issue in I believe "On Learned Ignorance" that a circle can not be squared, a fact that has bearing upon the issue of spherics and where it was Eratosthenes who measured the earth back in Egypt 240 BC...thus we know that placing a sphere upon a page makes for irregularities as concerns longitude and latitude,,,
Well I am sure that someone somewhere has pasted the sheets or at least the grid page, and sent darts a flying, whereby the oracle is so consulted...
"It must have been the First of April that W ordered P...."
HG
RTC(@therealrtc): "Failing that, 01 April. 
"
Or to prolong the joy, you can release it in Three Instalments, "beginning at noon, on 8 April, 9 April, and 10 April in Cairo, Egypt, in the year" 2020.
Sure there is a CIC (= Cairo Internet Café) via which this can occure.
Hellraiser Puzzle Box Scene - - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ4dnBrtrWc
And I hope the Horus toy (™) that you are about to unleash, is nothing like the Hellraiser Puzzle Box.
@wellreadwellbred – “Three Instalments [...] And I hope the Horus toy (™) that you are about to unleash, is nothing like the Hellraiser Puzzle Box” - Now, there’s a thought, and let’s not forget the inevitable ‘seized at customs’ thing... Oh, will the solution ever crawl into the light? Well, the Hellraiser cube comes in a better box, but my Horus Toy™ works before inserting into a DVD player...
@hadgigegenraum – Can’t see the numbers! C’mon, can you count how many there are? Boy, do they have a bearing! Forget the grid. Put Cusa back in his wonky box. Solve, solve solve, then do the coagula bit (use this as glue).
Don’t make me get my big red Thelemic self-destruct button out, again...
As a matter of interest, which disappointed you the most - My decision to offer hints useful to others tackling the riddle, prior to releasing a solution, or the head-in-the-sand, Fifth Amendment alternate stance? Is your disappointment selective?
93!
Well, I can only speak for myself. I haven't got any solution, never had one, never could follow Faustian and Paul to the end. Your hints were appreciated but either your start wasn't quite convincing (the missing letters, the GPS (?) coordinates thing) or it was all too tongue-in-cheek for me, I am as clever as before. So no, I couldn't have started a thread for "your" solution. As far as I can see (or so I assume) most of the very active members here are not really interested in solving the riddle, one can hardly blame them. Others have presented their solutions. Most of these were not to my satsifaction. But this is hardly something I can be disappointed with. You on the other hand claim to have it - this time for real and with earth-shattering consequences. So, yes, I am disappointed that you chose not to open up a new thread and present what you have and then see what the hive makes of it, but instead promise to sink Crowley's boat on April 1st. By the way: should it not go down, even if your solution is somewhat convincing, this will be another disappointment.
Anyway, I urge any member who has the solution to have it copyrighted today, publish it here on March 28 and then sue the hell out of Richard's book!
Love=Law
Lutz
Working here.
Not sure if i am making any headway.
But making use of the various hints littered in two threads.
’gonna need a bigger boat!’
But making use of the various hints littered in two threads.
Said hints are mostly the product of disordered imaginations.
’gonna need a bigger boat!’
As far as I can see (or so I assume) most of the very active members here are not really interested in solving the riddle, one can hardly blame them.
Yep!
Discussions about RPSTOVAL etc probably the least significant posts ever on this forum or any other involving Thelema/AL.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Discussions about RPSTOVAL etc probably the least significant posts ever on this forum or any other involving Thelema/AL.
Ouch! You shouldn't tell Richard. In his view the solution of the riddle will sink Crowley's ship, so it must be important to us (the Aleister Crowley Society).
But I agree, I never was much into it when I looked at it simply from the "one to follow" view. But if it really will make clear "historically true" aspects of Crowley in Egypt I am interested. But that's about it. Richard's belief that if the solution shows that the reception story is a lie and the book was written much later is naive, I guess. In fact, nothing will happen.
Love=Law
Lutz
P.S. and of course: riddles are fun!
Discussions about RPSTOVAL etc [are] probably the least significant posts ever on this forum or any other involving Thelema/AL.
Yes. I will certainly admit i am curious to hear a solution that is not clear evidence the "solver" is nuts.
But if @therealrtc proves in a couple months that the cypher decrypts to "I FABRICATED THIS IN 1906- ALL THAT CAIRO 1904 STUFF IS TEH BUSHWA!1!!1!!", or whatever, i'm not sure why i would care.
It would certainly be interesting as heck, but it wouldn't change my opinion of the rest of AL an iota (since i've never believed AC's story anyway).
I suppose if i considered AL to have the "authority" some fundamentalist Xians grant the Bible, or thought it was "a manuscript dictated by a praeternatural intelligence" to a "Prophet", i might be miffed.
But i don't. I consider a text- a collection of words, that is very different from anything else AC ever produced, that stands or falls as a text.
93!
And not to forget: a solution that would proof "supernatural powers" would also be kinda cool...
Love=Law
Lutz
I find Dom's comment's to be quite silly. Of course, this cryptic passage in Liber AL is a fascinating aspect of who and what Crowley is. I sense a general sentiment here expressing “Who cares if this is all bullshit...we suspected such long ago...let's get on with more important things.”
Really?
How do you think OTO, Inc will like it when their “Prophet” is proved to be a con who contrived his Holy Revelation?
I find it amazing that Paul, of all people, bows out on this discussion, stating that he will not comment on why he won't comment.
I have seen and read enough to suspect that RTC is on to something here.
Ignant, you are clearly not a “Thelemic Fundie” but AC as Prophet is clearly a critical and foundational aspect of OTO, Inc. There IS something to lose here for some people.
I remember when members of this organization (OTO) frequented the site and engaged in all sorts of debate. It seems that card-carrying members of OTO, Inc have long since abandoned Lashtal.com. What we have here now is a raggle-taggle group of intelligent outsiders.
We are heretics and free-thinkers. We love the colorful and crazy genius life of one Aleister Crowley and we enjoy our discourse as surly brothers.
But RTC's suggestions ARE threatening. And sorry, Dom. Blowing off the “cipher/riddle” wins you no brownie points. It is a critical aspect of this unique text, especially when we take into regard Crowley's own account of matters.
It is a critical aspect of Crowley's religion (which is, as I understand, a tax-deductible organization).
I will await RTC's April 1st booklet. I am disappointed that our webmaster won't comment. If I were to ask when AC first had a bout of diarrhea in 1921, I am sure there would plenty of obliging answers. If I were to ask what the “Khabs” are or what Crowley meant when he talked of sacrificing children in MTP, I am sure I'd receive intelligent reply.
But when it comes to these cryptic characters....nope. Even though our Webmaster has stated that he KNOWS the solution.
I can't argue with Shiva who says it doesn't matter, it's all a matter of stopping the mind etc etc.
In which case, there is a LOT of Crowley which is irrelevant.
But Crowley doesn't get off Scot-free with his “riddle” and no one to answer it. Crowley stated that Achad SOLVED IT. No one here seems to know about and buy this. I've read Achad's solution. I have my own opinion of it. But I can say that I don't think it answers Crowley's requirement of “sublime simplicity.”
No, this is not a boring topic at all.
Did Crowley contrive the “riddle” as RTC suggests? Does Paul know this? Does this impact OTO and its agenda as a religious organization?
I am asking these questions most sincerely as a devoted member of this site and as one who owes a good deal to AC along the Path Divine.
And not to forget: a solution that would proof "supernatural powers" would also be kinda cool...
Lutz-has there been any evidence since AL appeared that its "author" manifests supernatural power per Crowley's opening comment?
Lutz-has there been any evidence since AL appeared that its "author" manifests supernatural power per Crowley's opening comment?
"I am the warrior lord of the 40s " ~ 1904 not enough for you? Even R.A.W. seemed to accept that. I mean imagine if it was 'the 90s' or 'the 70s' it just wouldn't have had the same effect.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
Lutz-has there been any evidence since AL appeared that its "author" manifests supernatural power per Crowley's opening comment?
93, Kyle!
Not that I know of. The prophecies of the book are too vague to give real evidence. IIRC Crowley wrote of mathematical or scientific breakthroughs hidden in the book? And for a short moment it seemed that Liber L gave the GPS coordinates of the location of the stele in 1904(06), which would have been impossible to do then and the format used was not known then. But this seems to have been put to sleep.
I am also eagerly awaiting Richard's book, though I have expressed my disappointment to not work it out together here or at least have his solution defended here before it is printed.
I am also quite astonished about the silence and absence of the copyright holders in this matter. They probably follow the same party line as with Bogus a few years back: keep quiet until we cannot keep quiet any more. I mean, would Richard really have proven that the paper of Liber AL wasn't available before 1906, there would have been scientific (!) proof which cannot be denied (maybe time travel? Some folks probably would have tried that), but it never came and the rest of Richard's book were simply speculations. If the riddle book won't present undeniable, preferrably scientific proof for Crowley being a con, but maybe only "obvious" or "self-evident" clues, I am afraid that nothing will happen again.
But of course The Aleister Crowley Society will take notice and the growing Crowley "Academia" also.
I also find Paul's silence disturbing, or better: the speculating WHY he thinks "there is more important stuff" to discuss. Cairo was his field of expertise and I can't think of more important stuff about AC at the moment. Well, hopefully all will be resolved in time.
I still believe if anybody knows Richard's solution (i.e. could follow his hints and work it out) he should publish it here and have it examined before April 01.
Love=Law
Lutz
I also find Paul's silence disturbing, or better: the speculating WHY he thinks "there is more important stuff" to discuss. Cairo was his field of expertise and I can't think of more important stuff about AC at the moment.
Given that members I regard as highly as @the_real_simon_iff and @kidneyhawk have expressed their disappointment in my continuing 'silence' - well, it's clearly time to step in to 'lay out my stall,' even though I have nothing to sell! So...
I did not discover the complete solution and have never claimed credit for having done so. It was explained to me shortly before I first mentioned it in these forums and I was able to provide some supplemental information relating to Crowley's time in Egypt (and the known facts about Ankhefenkhons I) that may or may not have been useful. I made repeated promises to the 'discoverer' not to reveal it, most recently just before he passed away in 2018, as he explained that he was working with others (at least one of whom remains a regular visitor to this site) with a view to publication. I will not break my promise.
As an aside, @therealRTC has referred obliquely to certain matters that indicate he may be on the right lines but it's difficult to tell, given that he has seemingly contradicted himself several times. Time will tell, but if he does get to be the first to publish the solution then that is a lasting legacy of which he can be proud. I'm not at all clear why he thinks the solution is in any way a smoking bullet for Thelema or even for Crowley's account, particularly - but it's always possible that he has explored its implications more deeply than I. I mention this because I, too, am suspicious about AC's account of the Cairo Working and I have lectured several times on the subject (at Treadwells and at the Atlantis Bookshop). My PowerPoint presentation was freely available as a download from this site for several years. We do differ in the details, though. For example, RTC claims to have watermark evidence proving that the manuscript couldn't have been written until 1906, while I have referred numerous times - here and elsewhere, in forum posts and at lectures - to the distinct possibility that he saw the stele and wrote Liber L vel Legis in 1902 and 1903.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
93, Paul!
And sorry to have compelled you to talk so openly about stuff that is of no concern for us. But also thanks for ending once and for all that paranoid nonsense that you were silent because you "knew" what Richard claims to "know". I rather liked my Feazey/Churton "theory" and I am not at all surprised that it is something of that kind indeed. And I am extremely relieved - though we know each other "only" online - that you are in fact exactly what I supposed you are - a true gentleman. And nothing of the kind of what Richard tried to make us believe (while surely with best intentions, surely also because of the "suspense" element).
Thanks a lot
Love=Law
Lutz
I have spent most of my adult life studying Liber Legis and its puzzles, with a large portion of the analysis utilizing computers. The first question that had to be answered, and one that took a long time, is if it were possible to encrypt the puzzle of verse II:76 with information that can prove the metaphysical authorship of the text. I eventually concluded that it is possible, but requires results that are truly extraordinary, and manifest as as a convergence of improbable coincidences that are fortified by equally impressive circumstantial evidence: none of the published solutions to date meet those criteria.
I find it remarkable that the use of gematria as a tool for analyzing Liber Legis is met with such scorn and skepticism, when it is one of the few tools that can accomplish the task. But in all fairness to such skeptics, most gematria equations do indeed prove very little except luck on the part of the users, but that does not change the fact that at their core, gematria systems are mathematical systems, and as physical science has shown, mathematics can be used to prove almost anything.
Knowing what it takes to demonstrate proof of an actual solution to the puzzle of verse II:76 and the other challenges posed in Liber Legis, I'm baffled by the suggestion that a solution to the puzzle could somehow expose Aleister Crowley as a fraud: the suggestion is preposterous. Longitude, latitude, GPS coordinates, are all numbers that are just as subject to the possibility of appearing at random within the puzzle as any gematria result, so I suggest that anyone chasing such concepts are wasting their time.
I will be posting a document shortly that provides the evidence theorized. I have endeavored to demonstrate the significance of the results by comparing them to those produced by others in their attempts to solve the puzzle of verse II:76, and am confident that an honest appraisal of the work will result in a unanimous confirmation of the findings produced.
I will be posting a document shortly ...
Um, this sounds like more revelations that will be posted in the future.. There's a prize waiting for anybody who manages to get their insights posted in the eternal here-and-now ... assuming their post is relevant and true.
[I} ... am confident that an honest appraisal of the work will result in a unanimous confirmation of the findings produced.
we're waiting [... time drags ooonnnnn ...]. Be sure to wear protective gears. You know, for when the incredulous folk throw stones.
I follow the line that, even though I may call myself a Thelemite, I don't need to believe everything as a gospel truth out of AC's mouth. We are all fallible.
I can merely use his techniques, follow his useful instructions for magick and meditation, to better myself, and use things Outside and Inside myself for my personal evolution.
I view it much the same way as Carlos Castaneda, he may never have met anyone named Don Juan, or he may have made up the character, or based him on someone else, but I still find his ideas and techniques of dreaming and the energy body for example, to be practically useful to me.
That said if it turns out that AC 'made up' the Transmission story out of whole cloth, it doesn't change the fact that he was in touch with his HGA/higher self and produced what to me is still a holy book.
PS to say, whether you call him a Prophet of a new Aeon, or someone of good prediction and who was ahead of his time, you cannot deny he foresaw a lot of what society would become.
Also whether to you a God is inside or outside, a concept, or a being, it's all the same thing in the end.
I can merely use his techniques, follow his useful instructions for magick and meditation, to better myself, and use things Outside and Inside myself for my personal evolution.
This statement falls under the "Fair enough" clause of the Self-realization and Self-verification Rule Book (Liber LA). "LA" does not stand for Los Angeles, the city of. But it might include some Angels.
I view it much the same way as Carlos Castaneda, he may never have met anyone named Don Juan, or he may have made up the character, or based him on someone else, but I still find his ideas and techniques of dreaming and the energy body for example, to be practically useful to me.
Yeah, it's sort of like those folks who say the Cairo Working was all made up, but other people still find Liber AL useful in understanding the universe. Except in Carlos' case (case number 999), the fearless investigators found evidence (Library Log-in Rosters) that Carlos was logged in to the UCLA Library Computer System at the exact same time/date that he portrayed (in his Liberii) himself as being South of the Border, Down Mexico way, meeting with Don Juan Matus.
It then becomes fairly obvious that Carlos' "Cairo Workings" are fictitious as portrayed, but Don juan was a historically-researched composite figure, and most or all of his "wisdom" and "magic" is based on facts, suppositions, and myths that were previously reported by other researchers.
There is this difference (in two parts, of course) ...
1. Crowley specifically said, "Don't believe me - do your own investigations." That's fair enough, as well as your own manifesto of self-inquiry.
2. Carlos continued to pretend Don Juan was real, and he (Carlos) visited with him (Juan) frequently. Talk about "Old Fakey, the Makey-upper."
There is this similarity (in two parts, naturally) ...
A. Crowley's techniques and practices work. Maybe all of them don't work for everyone, all the time ... but some of them will work for almost anyone who does the work. So, any accounts, myths, or legends spun by Crowley are of no meaningful account.
B. carlos may have spun his own settings (inserting himself first as a student, then as a Magister (nagual), but it has been my experience that when consuming legal power plants deep in the desert, various scenarios and concepts of his take on a rather realistic description of validity.
Interestingly, it was only in desert venues that this phenomenon took place. To do the same thing in a city never revealed diddly about Carlos' ideas.
I recommend the following: Do all practices. Hold fastly to that which works.
That said if it turns out that AC 'made up' the Transmission story out of whole cloth, it doesn't change the fact that he was in touch with his HGA/higher self and produced what to me is still a holy book.
Agreed. In this case, holy means holistic or whole. That is, it touches bases with the whole spectrum.
Carlos was such a smooth scheisster he would probably have said something like 'My physical body may have been in the library, but my true self, my deepest energy body was manifest separately and performing as a separate consciousness south of the border'
😋
"LA" does not stand for Los Angeles
True, but it can bring a fun new meaning to The Doors' L.A. Woman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnLt6b7YHk
"City of Light... City of Night". I guess that's not what the song was written about, but I find it fun to listen to while thinking of our "LA" Woman. 😉 Jim was a "magician" of sorts, but one trained in a different tradition.
it's sort of like those folks who say the Cairo Working was all made up, but other people still find Liber AL useful in understanding the universe.
Another one of these "cranks" who "made it all up" would be Idries Shah. I think of him as doing for Sufism what Crowley did for the "Hermetic" tradition and Castaneda for "Shamanism".
Yet another "crank who made it all up", and was much more successful with AC's material than the man himself was, was Gerald Brousseau Gardner, who actually started a major new world religion (.3% of Americans identified as "Pagan or Wiccan" in the latest Pew survey- about as many as identify as Unitarian or Quaker).
Jim was a "magician" of sorts, but one trained in a different tradition.
Both music and the secret societies are governed by the 7th ray ... not so different.
Both AC and JM indulged in strange drugs. Same not so different.
Yet another "crank who made it all up", and was much more successful with AC's material than the man himself was, was Gerald Brousseau Gardner ...
Yeah, we gotta give him his credit. A lot of folks bought into his system. it's as mainstream occultism as McDonalds is for fast food.
In a U.G. video interview that I couldn't understand due to my internal defective audio resolution, I asked my wife to give me the summary. She said he said ...
Don't Make stuff Up!
Now we're getting somewhere.
On the other foot, AC told us outright that the Magus uses both truth and illusion in his work. This is an example of the end justifies the means.
AC after discussing the bizarre coincidences involved in Rose Kelly's mutterings addresses the claim of praeter human intelligence in Chapter 49 of The Confessions where he mentions/uses prophecy as proof as follows;
It is impertinent to answer that the Koran is so sublime, so musical, so true, so full of prophecies which time has fulfilled and confirmed by so many miraculous events that Mohammed could not have written it himself.
The author of The Book of the Law foresaw and provided against all such difficulties by inserting in the text discoveries which I did not merely not make for years afterwards, but did not even possess the machinery for making. Some, in fact, depend upon events which I had no part in bringing about.
….. We are forced to conclude that the author of The Book of the Law is an intelligence both alien and superior to myself, yet acquainted with my inmost secrets; and, most important point of all, that this intelligence is discarnate.
He goes on using the example of 'invisible forces' which are a valid factor for forming scientific theory;
there is no a priori reason for doubting the existence of such beings. We have long been acquainted with many discarnate forces. Especially in the last few years science has been chiefly occupied with the reactions, not merely of things which cannot be directly perceived by sense, but of forces which do not possess being at all in the old sense of the word.
Yet the average man of science still denies the existence of the elementals of the Rosicrucian, the angels of the Cabbalist, the Nats, Pisachas and Devas of southern Asia, and the Jinn of Islam, with the same blind misosophy as in Victorian days. It has apparently not occurred to him that his position in doubting the existence of consciousness except in connection with certain types of anatomical structure is really identical with that of the narrowest geocentric and anthropocentric Evangelicals.
Our actions may be unintelligible to plants, they might plausibly argue that we are unconscious. Our real reason for attributing consciousness to our fellow-men is that the similarity of our structure enables us to communicate by means of language, and as soon as we invent a language in which we can talk to anything soever, we begin to find evidence of consciousness.
The was is therefore clear for me to come forward and assert positively that I have opened up communication with one such intelligence; or, rather, that I have been selected by him to receive the first message from a new order of beings.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
AC says in the same chapter 49;
The author claims....to have overcome the difficulty of expressing such (transcendental) truth in human language by what really amounts to the invention of a new method of communicating thought, not merely a new language, but a new type of language; a literal and numerical cipher involving the Greek and Hebrew Cabbalas, the highest mathematics etc.
The RPSTOVAL passage is not directly referred to here but there is an allusion to the methods by which the Hebrew Cabbalists played number games with certain words in their scriptures e.g.
The Hagaddah read at the Passover Seder discusses the Four Sons ? the Wise Son, the Wicked Son, the Simple Son, and the Son Who Doesn't Know How to Ask. In response to the Wicked Son who sits at our Seder table and mocks everything that we are doing, we are instructed to "blunt his teeth".
A wicked person is called a rasha in Hebrew, which has a numerical value of 570 (rasha is spelled resh, shin, ayin; resh = 200, shin = 300, ayin = 70, totaling 570). The word for a pure, righteous person is tzaddik, which equals 204 (tzaddik is spelled tzaddik, daleth, yod, kuf; tzaddik = 90, daleth = 4, yod = 10, kuf = 100, totaling 204). The difference between them is 366. Beneath every rasha is a hidden tzaddik. We just need to remove the layers of evil and we will find his goodness. Numerically, we have to remove 366 to get 204 from 570. So we must blunt his teeth. "His teeth" in Hebrew is sheenav, which has a numerical value of 366 (sheenav is spelled shin, nun, yod, vav; shin = 300, nun = 50, yod = 10, vav = 6, totaling 366). De-fang the rasha, and you will find his inner tzaddik.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
@newneubergouch2 – Why use a boat, when there’s a perfectly good bridge, or two...
@kidneyhawk and @the_real_simon_iff – My hearty congratulations on a brace of truly exceptional posts. The calibre of which compelled a mountain to come to... well, to us.
@ignant666 – “...proves in a couple months that the cypher decrypts to "I FABRICATED THIS IN 1906- ALL THAT CAIRO 1904 STUFF IS TEH BUSHWA!1!!1!!” – My compliments to your ball-polisher (crystal). In a few months you will marvel at the literal, non-oblique, truth of your prophesy, which, I’ll add, also gives a month and date (one Crowley himself references in his diaries, in connection with... well,,,) All with absolutely no qabalistic faffing or other mystical sleight-of-hand. It’s right there! You just have to look.
@dom – “Well, ‘e wud seh that, wunni, guv.” (with apologies to Ms Keeler’s larynx). Perhaps you could feed your theory into @herupakraath’s computer?
@herupakraath – I wasn’t aware of any definitive proof of “Metaphysical” activity, so am unsure how this as-yet unresolved concept can be coded into hardware or software, especially that designed to detect third-party metaphysical activity. On the positive side, multiple organisations offer substantial cash prizes for an invention of the type you describe. On a theme – Had the riddle’s solution been revealed, as originally visualised by Crowley, it does indeed appear to contain ‘praeter-human’ wonders. However, access to the stage-manager’s notes exposes the apparent miracle as precisely that which its engineer intended, a... a... now, what’s that old word meaning to deceive or flatter by illusion... Dang, it’s right there, on the tip of my red button.
C'mon, all wannabe cipher-solvers. A third-party just confirmed there is a simple solution and that I may, in some oblique fashion, be stumbling in more-or-less the right direction. It really isn’t that difficult. Once in possession of it you can then make an informed, bespoke decision as to its sinkiness. Solve, solve, solve... Don’t make me get-out the bigger, redder, numberatory-adjustificating dial. We don’t need to go there...
it's as mainstream occultism as McDonalds is for fast food.
Or even, as Peter Koenig quite wittily puts it: "The McDonaldisation of Occuture"
She said he said ...
Don't Make stuff Up!
As opposed to the Carrollian Chaos Magicians, who not only have the 180-degree completely opposite turnabout position that you have to make stuff up, but that you also have to "fake it 'til you make it!"
On the other foot, AC told us outright that the Magus uses both truth and illusion in his work.
Well he was just lying to us then ...
AC after discussing the bizarre coincidences involved in Rose Kelly's mutterings addresses the claim of praeter human intelligence in Chapter 49 of The Confessions where he mentions/uses prophecy as proof as follows;
AC estimated the odds on her being able too have correctly hit on all the attributes of Horus as approximately 21 million to one against. That's about half as much again as those of winning the UK lottery - quite long, but not at all impossible odds by any stretch
He goes on using the example of 'invisible forces' which are a valid factor for forming scientific theory;
Would you personally regard so-called "Secret Chiefs" as being examples of such "invisible forces" or (possibly praeterhuman/ discarnate) intelligences? And if not, what?
N Joy
@kidneyhawk: "... has there been any evidence since AL appeared that its "author" manifests supernatural power per Crowley's opening comment?"
Atom comes from a Greek word (atomos) that means "undivided" - it was applied to submolecular components basic to each element on the theory that they could not be divided any further, that there could be nothing smaller, consistent with the context, and atoms (as the components of molecules) were understood in 1904.
"Date: June 5, 2012
Source: Universität Bonn
Summary: Researchers have just shown how a single atom can be split into its two halves, pulled apart and put back together again. While the word "atom" literally means "indivisible," the laws of quantum mechanics allow dividing atoms -- similarly to light rays -- and reuniting them. The researchers want to build quantum mechanics bridges by letting the atom touch adjacent atoms while it is being pulled apart so that it works like a bridge span between two pillars." ( Source: ScienceDaily Your source for the latest research news [...] Splitting the unsplittable: Physicists split an atom using quantum mechanics precision - - - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605102807.htm )
[The Book of the Law/]"AL I,26: "...........The omnipresence of my body." This apparently originally read "The unfragmentary non-atomic fact of my universality". So according to Crowley, Aiwass gave him permission, telepathically, to change the last five words as Crowley believed people would not understand the meaning. But then later on Aiwass instructs Crowley to not change as much as the style of a letter." (Source: Liber Legis Contradiction? - - - http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13456 )
Said apparently original Aiwass uttering in 1904 (= "... non-atomic fact of my universality."), is evidence that its "author"-Aiwass in 1904 had supernatural knowledge with respect to the nature of the atom, already then supernaturally knowing that our species would be splitting the unsplittable, when revelating that the nature of Nuit's universality is non-atomic, that is, unsplittable, as contrary to the nature of the atom, which is in fact splittable.
@jamiebarter
Would you personally regard so-called "Secret Chiefs" as being examples of such "invisible forces" or (possibly praeterhuman/ discarnate) intelligences?
Well yes that is was AC says in Chapter 49 either directly or indirectly. Me? I'm open to that as I'm open to the possibility that Geller moved physical objects with his...'will power' (see Chapter 3 'In search of Faculty X' in Mysteries by Colin Wilson).
I'm still looking for some sort of non wacky possible proof of the Koran's fulfilment of prophecies which apparently impressed AC but he never gave solid examples . Most of the 'evidence' is vague and metaphorical much like Nostramadus. Like AC, Nostradamus was also a Cabbalist who apparently summoned Angels to teach him about the future. Some of his prophetic writings seem to be impressive.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
So according to Crowley, Aiwass gave him permission, telepathically, to change the last five words as Crowley believed people would not understand the meaning.
It was very obliging and considerate of Aiwass there, wasn't it, considering this is maybe one of the slightly less obscure passages in the Book which simple "people" - the folk folly and all - would(n't) be able to understand and the fact that there are plenty of others where this "generosity" would have come in a lot more useful (e.g., for the elucidation of the winners of the Ordeal x, etc).
By doing so and allowing this, it would not only alter all the numeration & gematria within that particular verse but affect that of the whole Book as well and potentially upset any delicate number-theory which would have been based in it.
N Joy
@lashtal - I, for one, am utterly delighted that you and your specialist knowledge have re-entered the fray. Assuming you weren’t merely coming up for air, and at risk of sounding goady... Did you actually refute my heresy regarding the solution’s berg-esque quality, or merely suggest that it may hold some water? I would be most grateful if you are able to clarify my confusion on this, and the following points:
“I made repeated promises to the 'discoverer' not to reveal it..” That’s it! Why on Earth not just say that at the outset and spare everyone an agonisingly protracted pantomime? I’m also struggling with (Dec. 2014):
“... last time before I commit the evidence to print in my 'AC and Egypt' book...There is a solution to the 'cipher'. The solution is simple...” versus “repeated promises” not to reveal it? Did you mean that you could be its master from that date? Also:
“I'm not at all clear why he thinks the solution is in any way a smoking bullet for Thelema or even for Crowley's...” and “...distinct possibility that he saw the stele and wrote Liber L vel Legis in 1902.” That the riddle has a rational solution (as was demonstrably engineered by a human hand) is, in itself, suggestive that the riddle from which it derives is of identical origin and manufacture. This point, in its own right, is adequate to discount praeter-human intervention in favour of common ol’ snake-oil vendory, of whatever date. The riddle is part of Liber L and both are part of a grand deception Crowley probably started the day he joined the Golden Dawn. Surely these matters are interlinked and of pivotal significance? On an eminently constructive note:
“We do differ in the details, though. RTC claims to have watermark evidence proving that the manuscript couldn't have been written until 1906, while I have referred numerous times - here and elsewhere - to the distinct possibility that he saw the stele and wrote Liber L vel Legis in 1902.” Could not agree more and establishing exactly what happened and when it happened is where I am heading.
“... working with others...” I am unaware of this clique of clandestine cipher-crackers, though wonder if one may deem it constructive to contact me...
P.S. Don't you mean a 'smoking gun?' Was that a Crowlean slip?
Did you actually refute my heresy regarding the solution’s berg-esque quality, or merely suggest that it may hold some water?
Sorry, not sure I understand the question. I'm not 'refuting' anything.
“I made repeated promises to the 'discoverer' not to reveal it..” That’s it! Why on Earth not just say that at the outset and spare everyone an agonisingly protracted pantomime?
Huh? If there was a 'pantomime', surely it was one of your own production? 'Why on Earth did I not just say it?' Because, to be frank, it was none of your business. It only became an appropriate course of action for me when @the_real_simon_iff and @kidneyhawk - both of whom I respect - became involved.
“... last time before I commit the evidence to print in my 'AC and Egypt' book...There is a solution to the 'cipher'. The solution is simple...” versus “repeated promises” not to reveal it?
I had intended to publish the 'evidence', with the approval, participation and co-authorship of the person who showed it to me. As you very well know, personal circumstances meant we didn't progress to publication.
I am unaware of this clique of clandestine cipher-crackers
I wonder why that could possibly be?
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
AC estimated the odds on her being able too have correctly hit on all the attributes of Horus as approximately 21 million to one against. That's about half as much again as those of winning the UK lottery - quite long, but not at all impossible odds by any stretch
Spoken like a true skeptic, but it's not the impossibility of odds that are of concern, it's the improbability of them. If we are forced to rely on impossible odds as proof of something, then they become worthless as a tool for measuring chance, since there is no agreed upon odds figure that can be said to be impossible, at least in theory. Realistically, a billion to one is a mighty mountain to climb.
The Hagaddah read at the Passover Seder discusses the Four Sons
I don't really know anything on this subject but with the 366 and the 4 sons it looks like there's a connection to the leap year.
@HGA of a duck
I don't know I was just showing an example of how and why Hebrew Cabbalists use their system.
Posted by: @jamiejbarter
AC estimated the odds on her being able too have correctly hit on all the attributes of Horus as approximately 21 million to one against. That's about half as much again as those of winning the UK lottery - quite long, but not at all impossible odds by any stretch
Who is to say that Rose Kelly didn't read his notes and /or was tutored on Horus etc by AC beforehand in some way? We don't know what her view on all this was because there were no publication of The Rose Kelly diaries or the like.
https://www.lashtal.com/wiki/Aleister_Crowley_Timeline
A third-party just confirmed there is a simple solution and that I may, in some oblique fashion, be stumbling in more-or-less the right direction.
So you don't as yet have the solution?
@lashtal – “Huh? If there was a 'pantomime', surely it was one of your own production? 'Why on Earth did I not just say it?' Because, to be frank, it was none of your business. It only became an appropriate course of action for me when @the_real_simon_iffand @kidneyhawk - both of whom I respect - became involved.” – That is one of the most offensive posts I have ever read on this site. That you penned it is doubly-tragic. Moreover, your previous ‘it speaks!’ damage-limitation post read like a well-fitted party dress – It revealed and concealed in equal measure, whilst projecting an illusion of the former. It sounded like something Crowley would have written in defence of Liber L.
“I had intended to publish the 'evidence', with the approval, participation and co-authorship of the person who showed it to me. As you very well know, personal circumstances meant we didn't progress to publication.” – So, you “repeatedly promised” not to divulge the solution, with the same person you were also working with to publish a co-authored solution? First, the complete solution was “described” to you, to which you “filled in a few supplemental comments” that “may or may not have helped.” Now, you’re the co-author? Are we talking about your Egypt book, here, or a stand-alone cipher solution, or both? A book containing a complete solution would be hugely impactful. Yet, as I recall, your final word on the subject was that of suggesting you’d scrapped the Egypt book because it was “not impactful enough.” What, despite its inclusion of the solution?
I understand that a change in circumstances compelled a major revision of your plans, but...
“... not to reveal it, most recently just before he passed away in 2018, as he explained that he was working with others (at least one of whom remains a regular visitor to this site) with a view to publication. I will not break my promise.”
If, as you noted, “we didn't progress to publication.” Why were you compelled to re-re-re-affirm your vow of silence, some five years after the Egypt and/or solution book(s) ceased, and despite the fact that the person who gave you the solution, and who demanded your silence, was working with others to publish it, without your name under the title? You said this group had a solution, back in December 2014. Five years later and they’ve still not got around to publishing it?
“I wonder why that could possibly be?” - Well, on 01 April a complete solution will appear (@michael-staley). After that, the collective and laboriously protracted efforts of this elite clique, and your own supplemental contribution, become chip-wrappings. I still hold some hope that prior to that date a few members may yet join a few elementary dots and learn for themselves that which you declared as incidental and minor interest.
P.S. Did you mean ‘smoking gun?’ Was that a Crowlean slip?
one of the most offensive posts I have ever read on this site.
Pot-kettle issues here? You have a lot of nerve calling out others for failing to publish.
@ignant666 – Once again, you evaded my point with the skill of a mountain goat. On 01 April I will unleash a ‘complete’ solution. For the possible interest of anyone, with whatever interest, the solution I derived conveys precisely (and I mean precisely) the same information in four different formats. If these are ‘stacked,’ a precise (and I mean precise – down to the date, month and (Aaaagghhh) year) summation of the whole appears on the ‘back.’ For good measure, on the inner-lip of his Thelemic Grail, Crowley could not resist scrawling what I thought is a most inappropriate... final ‘glad’ word. Whilst I concede that further levels still await discovery, my solution is fairly convincing. Though, I suspect, nothing short of a signed confession, notarised by Aiwass, and captured on film, would make any headway towards convincing a certain element.
P.S. On consideration, my "Aaagghhh" refers equally to the day and month.
Once again, you evaded my point ...
Again with the pot-kettle issues?
Evasive? You can't give a straight answer to any question, and have a history of putting up big ballyhooed bluffs, and then quietly folding your hand (see the still-not-published watermark evidence you claim you have had for years, and claim you will publish at the end of another year).
@ignant666 - "Evasive? You can't give a straight answer to any question," - Erm... 01 April... Complete solution. Would it help if I added big, flashing arrows and a team of special needs aware interpreters?
Well, on 01 April a complete solution will appear
I doubt it.