I am happy to say I was able to meet my self-imposed deadline on my birthday today of 4/7 and release the first draft of Part I of my book offering solutions to the major ciphers of the Book of Law. I have created this new thread for discussion thereupon, free of the more general discourse elsewhere, which I will check up on periodically. This is the not a prelude but rather Part I of my book: everything is explained in the introduction and first chapter.
I thank @hadgigegenraum for prodding me to begin writing this on 3/22, which I worked full time on up to today, being laid off due to the Corona virus. Enjoy everyone!
[Attachment deleted 2022-02-14 at @Wizardiaoan's request.]
It's a very interesting read, and while I cannot respect your claim I do respect your audacity in making it. If I have any criticism it's for your rundown beginning "The AL III:47 4774 Solution," which I found ontologically unsound.
93! @wizardiaoan
I second @djedi here. It is an interesting read and perfectly shows the powers of gematria. It has really quite elegant stuff in it, but after II:76 it becomes less and less convincing, maybe makes too much connections to your birthday (for me personally). Of course I haven't finished it completely yet. I also don't think it is THE solution intended by Liber L. But many thanks for making it avalable.
Love=Law
Lutz
Happy Birthday! & Congratulations on getting your work out....Thanks!
I am glad that my 'prodding' has been appreciated. Helping to nudge this considerable work with its own magnetism and gravity field into a public orbit is an honor, for obviously this is a record of many years of dedicated work, punctuated by gleanings that have kept the fount flowing for you, that however it may be received by others, under no uncertain terms- you have worked and can not be deemed a professional soldier who has not fought!
93
HG
I tried to make it an enjoyable read full of thought stimulating material. It's hard to do when you must convey a lot of correspondences and so forth. I'll eventually turn to more of the art side of things drawing on my material which will be pleasurable for me as well.
Thanks for this, I am about half way through it now, its been quite entertaining. I'll try and give it a review when I've finished. 🙂
Thanks. Making this my next read and will try to give thoughts.
Lots of work there
i got a decent way in, but will have to revisit it again
I tried to make it an enjoyable read full of thought stimulating material.
Yes, nice reading. But where are the stories on sex n drugs n rock n roll?
Lots of work there
I'm glad people are finding it a decent read since it's pretty dense with knowledge. It is what it is guys, a timeline of my magickal research and how my understanding progressed—the views I have. I realize the Tarot extension past 22 is a tough sell, but my axiom is still that "the trumps cannot be doubly attributed." Right now you have The Fool as Air and Spirit, and The Universe as Saturn and Earth. I look at the Tarot the same as an alphabet: instead of ABCD you have Air, Mercury, Moon, Venus. Just as you don't have two letters in the same place value, you shouldn't have two Tarot essences there either. I don't expect anyone to really love the English Tarot names I came up with or accept them outright. This work is more just an initial mind expander for people. I do love both of my solutions to AL II:76 and III:47, and how they reverberate off each other.
My AL III:47 as the 4774 sigil (my avatar) is dense with meaning. For instance it may be the true Mark of the Beast, and that is a cool solution. It's correlated to the phoenix wand per Liber VII I:18-19 so the phoenix wand of initiation is tied to the Mark of the Beast.
Here is is my game plan moving forward. I'm going to write Part II of this work but I think I'll do a lot research on Lucifer and Satan and come out with some clear views I have on it since Satan pops out of my work. It's basically just Spirit in matter. When Spirit becomes physical like we all are in this universe of purple pleasure its nature becomes Satyrean naturally. It's just a sliding scale. You don't need a "Christeos Lucifitas" persona per say when the name Satan itself can mean the Ain Soph Aur on one hand and Malkuth on the other: the Spirit-matter scale is implicit. After that my next book will be on the structure and process of initiation and enlightenment, called The Nu Abrahadabra. It will be a big comparative work of how I think all the symbolism fits together, which I enjoy contemplating.
What do you think of my new versing for the Book of Law, and do you agree Crowley made some provable versing errors?
What do you think of my new versing for the Book of Law, and do you agree Crowley made some provable versing errors?
I'll try to give an in depth review later, I'll answer this bit for now.
Personally I think we should just keep the versing AC did, even if some of it may be wrong. And even if its wrong, this "wrongness" may give it some Qabalistic significance that it wouldn't have otherwise.
I thought you gave a fairly good case for some of the earlier verses of Ch. 1 being wrong and the way you described them made me notice them in a way I hadn't before. I also liked your pointing out of "Had!" being "tacked on" to the first line, I hadn't really noticed this before and it does seem convincing. You started to change the versing later on in an arbitrary way to fit in with your interpretations, which I wasn't so keen on.
The bit that stuck out for me was your versing of II:12-13. A case could be made for combining them but I didn't like your reading of it and suggest you re-think this.
In your version:
"Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not for why? ..."
For me this is not a proper sentence and suggests your understanding of "Bible-speak" could do with some improvement (I may be wrong but that's just the impression i get here). You also say:
"Thus a more modern way to write the above sentence is “Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not why?” which makes perfect sense."
It doesn't make "perfect sense" as it appears to be a statement but ends with a question mark. 🤨
In the original:
"Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not. for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me."
I agree the full stop (period) is rather odd but I believe there needs to be a "pause" there, the "for why?" is a separate part of the sentence and a question. Remember: "The stops as thou wilt", AC already chose the "stops", I think we should just keep them even if they are peculiar in places.
I don't want to sound too harsh as I appreciate new developments in Thelemic research and it was generous of you to provide this pdf. 🙂
I guess my first thoughts are that the solutions should be simple, obvious/clear, and universal. These seem very complex and vague, and tied very specifically to you as an individual.
Remember: "The stops as thou wilt", AC already chose the "stops", I think we should just keep them even if they are peculiar in places.
Correct.
I guess my first thoughts are that the solutions should be simple, obvious/clear, and universal. These seem very complex and vague, and tied very specifically to you as an individual.
Exactly the points I've been bothered with.
I know how writing on Magick can be tricky. Please, think not any critic by me has been written out of malice. Your Great Work is your own trip, and, as you know
There is division hither homeward (...) Spelling is defunct; all is not aught. (AL III:2)
Keep the Great Work.
Love=Lutz
I guess my first thoughts are that the solutions should be simple, obvious/clear, and universal. These seem very complex and vague, and tied very specifically to you as an individual.
Exactly the points I've been bothered with.
I don't think that is true, it's not really fair criticism, so let me try to come back at that.
My solution to AL II:76 is the Mars magic square with the palindrome SATOR AREPO TEXET OPERA ROTAS. That is a universal magic square used in talismanic magick, and is arrived at very clearly from the cipher.
My solution to AL III:47 is that the verse's sum in Serial English is 4,898. You subtract the letters the "line drawn" touches from it and add the three strokes it took to make the "circle squared." This gets you to 4774, which when symmetrized is the glyph shown in my avatar. The equation is:
4,898 - 127 (“a, f, yas, I, t, eB, t, s”) + 3 (⊕) = 4,774
but the real solution is simply the glyph of my avatar, which also conceals my birthdate of 4/7/1974 (as 4774). I think you would expect a bit of individual correlation of the cipher to the person claiming to be the magickal child, or at least that wouldn't be a detriment as you make the case for.
Anyway, my final result is not "complex and vague," but actually about the simplest I've seen:
II:76: SATOR AREPO TEXET OPERA ROTAS
III:47: The sigil of my avatar, being the 4774 sigil.
That's simple stuff in my opinion. You may not get much meaning out of these personally, but that doesn't mean they are not themselves simple final solutions.
I think I get the general critique above now: you think the 4774 sigil is "all about me" and I would agree merely a solution that states something like "It's Walt DeLong guys, he's the best" or something similar would smack of a quite low, egocentric solution. The only way for you to see more in the 4774 sigil is to study it more, which I do in the AL III:47 chapter. I can't stop people from making this assertion about my solution because it actually takes a bit of self study to see it's more than that. Perhaps when my Part II comes out there will be enough fleshing out of things for people to bite their teeth into my solutions more.
You subtract the letters the "line drawn" touches from it and add the three strokes it took to make the "circle squared."
That's where you think things are simple, because once you start substracting this and adding this, it's over.
Sorry, Lutz
Love=Lutz
Well, of course!
You subtract the letters the "line drawn" touches from it and add the three strokes it took to make the "circle squared."
That's where you think things are simple, because once you start substracting this and adding this, it's over.
Sorry, Lutz
Perhaps to your flippant mind, but there is rhythm and logic to the pattern that the "line drawn" subtracts and the "circle squared" adds. Also, it is quite clear those are the exact letters the "line drawn" touches.
Perhaps when my Part II comes out there will be enough fleshing out of things for people to bite their teeth into my solutions more.
Hopefully, because as you say yourself, some parts of the riddle that just doesn't fit seem to be a "blind" (okay) and the 4774 is reached by very dubious methods and if you think "it actually takes a bit of self study to see it" then it just missed the "obvious without a doubt" part. Sorry. I only can quote the Serpent: "Please, think not any critic by me has been written out of malice. Your Great Work is your own trip"
But - in my view - this is surely not the solution either - you are not alone with this!
Love=Law
Lutz
but there is rhythm
Can't feel it (I am a drummer). Listen, I don't mean no harm, but to me that's simply not the solution - AT ALL! Great if you find something for yourself - but really: a magical square - can it get any more old aeon - is the solution? Please think about that (really) and have fun finding yourself glued to it, that's what gematria is all about! And the grid solution just sucks...
Love=Law
Lutz
P.S. And I don't have a flippant mind - quite the contrary...
Yea, that's the spirit! (But, really, sorry, I couldn't resist.)
@wizardiaoan .'.
All right, I'll wait Part II. You're working on yourself - that's the most important thing, in my opinion.
50. Then I sought a Word for Myself; nay, for myself.
51. And the Word came: O Thou! it is well. Heed naught! I love Thee! I love Thee!
52. Therefore had I faith unto the end of all; yea, unto the end of all.
(Liber VII, VII: 50-52.)
(That's the Venus chapter, thus green.)
Don't get me wrong, please: may you write two numbers which, in your opinion, shows your current degree - that's the simplest (sic) way used in Magick.
All the best in the Great Work
93s
but there is rhythm
And the grid solution just sucks...
My solution isn't based on the grid at all, what are you smoking? Your disdain and lack of true insight is of no concern to me, there's nothing "real" about your critique. Go back to bashing things.
My solution isn't based on the grid at all, what are you smoking? Your disdain and lack of true insight is of no concern to me, there's nothing "real" about your critique. Go back to bashing things.
I guess your answer says it all. The grid solution is not based on the grid at all. If I am no concern to you, okay. Bye, bye. Live with your solution. In a few weeks nobody will think of it again. Sorry. Maybe I'll await part 2 which clears this up ... hahaha ...
So what do we have: A stolen II:76 solution (VERY old aeon, but okay), a grid solution not based on the grid but stretched into some birth dates, and .. I have to confess, I haven't read so far.
So I am going back bashing things and you go back being the one who cometh after ... right?
Bye, bye
Love=Law
Lutz
When will the "unquestionable, most sublime simple, and convincing" solution appear?
Personally I think we should just keep the versing AC did, even if some of it may be wrong. And even if its wrong, this "wrongness" may give it some Qabalistic significance that it wouldn't have otherwise.
That sounds silly to me, to keep something we know is wrong, and Crowley was not as intelligent as the authors of AL, so their intended versing schema will be superior.
"Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not for why? ..."
In the original:
"Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not. for why? Because thou wast the knower, and me."
I agree the full stop (period) is rather odd but I believe there needs to be a "pause" there, the "for why?" is a separate part of the sentence and a question. Remember: "The stops as thou wilt", AC already chose the "stops", I think we should just keep them even if they are peculiar in places.
I don't want to sound too harsh as I appreciate new developments in Thelemic research and it was generous of you to provide this pdf. 🙂
Did you read my reasoning?
"Since for is not capitalized I think it is the same verse. The period after not is likely in pencil added later, and moreover we have the lowercase 'f' of 'for' to go by. Additionally, the phrasing makes more sense this way. The etymology of “for why” is Middle English forwhy, forwhi, from Old English 'forwhī, forwȳ' meaning “why, wherefore.” Thus a more modern way to write the above sentence is “Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not why?” which makes perfect sense."
Maybe plugging in the Old English forwhī, forwȳ meaning “why, wherefore” will help:
"Because of me in Thee which thou knewest not forwȳ? Because thou wast the knower, and me."
My solution isn't based on the grid at all, what are you smoking? Your disdain and lack of true insight is of no concern to me, there's nothing "real" about your critique. Go back to bashing things.
I guess your answer says it all. The grid solution is not based on the grid at all. If I am no concern to you, okay. Bye,
With logic like that you surely aren't. AL III:47 has nothing to do with the grid as it was constructed by Crowley as late as 1925.
With logic like that you surely aren't. AL III:47 has nothing to do with the grid as it was constructed by Crowley as late as 1925.
That's what you think...
And by the way, the "grid" puzzle is not about the grid... sorry, if this might be unclear, it is about III:47. Doesen't make your solution better...
My solution isn't based on the grid at all, what are you smoking?
Iff, this is both a statement and a question. Do not become confused and run around in public places. Look, you have to wiggle out of the grid thrust by pleading jokery or citing grid-talk.
Then you must decide to confess to inhalation, resort to jokery (again), blow him off with sarcasm, or ignore the question as rhetorical disdain.
It sure is a lucky thing you have me to explain the rules and the moves. Otherwise ...
Your disdain and lack of true insight is of no concern to me
Oh well, in that case forget everything I wrote.
Go back to bashing things.
Get back! Get back! Get back to where you aught'a belong ...
That sounds silly to me, to keep something we know is wrong, and Crowley was not as intelligent as the authors of AL, so their intended versing schema will be superior.
Yes there may be some mistakes but Crowley is regarded as the Prophet and these mistakes may themselves contain some hidden meaning in the same way "the chance shape of the letters" supposedly do. I agree with you that there are probably some mistakes there. For example in I:60 the second sentence begins "The Five Pointed Star, with a Circle in the Middle..." whereas when we look at the manuscript the sentence should probably be "The shape of my star is Five Pointed, with a Circle in the Middle...". To me that sounds better but I'd rather just leave it as it is, it may be for numerological reasons that it was left "wrong" like that.
Did you read my reasoning?
Yes I read it, I just don't agree with it here. My disagreement here is not with combining the verses but with your reading of the sentence. You are changing the sentence so that it is a statement yet it ends with a question mark. This doesn't add up and I'm suggesting you re-think this part. An alternative to the seemingly out-of-place full stop would be a comma. We all live and learn and have to re-think things, I don't mean this in mean-spirited way.
Did you read my reasoning?
Yes I read it, I just don't agree with it here. My disagreement here is not with combining the verses but with your reading of the sentence. You are changing the sentence so that it is a statement yet it ends with a question mark. This doesn't add up and I'm suggesting you re-think this part. An alternative to the seemingly out-of-place full stop would be a comma. We all live and learn and have to re-think things, I don't mean this in mean-spirited way.
Oh ok, you want a period after that instead of a question mark. That's fine, because in the Book of Law it says "the stops as thou wilt," which means you can play around with punctuation.
Oh ok, you want a period after that instead of a question mark.
Well, almost. If you are going to change something I'd rather you kept the question mark and changed the full stop into a comma. The "for why?" is a question and its answer is "Because thou wast..."
Ideally you could keep the full stop and capitalize the "f" but this clashes with "change them not in style or value" which could be read as a "commandment" not to change the cases of letters.
edit: a semicolon might also work instead of a comma. A.C. seemed to be quite fond of them.
the Book of Law it says "the stops as thou wilt," which means you can play around with punctuation.
The "thou" was Bible-speak-writ for the Scribe, The Priest of the Princes.I guess a "follower" could play mix-or-match with "stops."
If you are going to change something I'd rather you kept the question mark and changed the full stop into a comma.
It's like Musical Chairs with "stops" and "poofs."
I guess a "follower" could play mix-or-match with "stops."
I guess but I wouldn't recommend it, a stop here or there can change the whole meaning and like I tried to point out, the understanding of "Bible-speak" is fragile enough as it is without messing around with it even more. You could go crazy and add a whole load of stops or commas, a quick and silly example separated into lines for absurd emphasis:
I am the secret.
Serpent coiled about.
To spring in my coiling.
There is joy If I lift up my head.
I and my Nuit are one if I droop.
Down mine head and shoot forth.
Venom then is rapture of the earth and I and the earth are one.
With our new member @wizardiaoan, it seems we are now having our own Filioque/Johannine Comma Incident. 😆
I guess a "follower" could play mix-or-match with "stops."
I guess but I wouldn't recommend it, a stop here or there can change the whole meaning and like I tried to point out, the understanding of "Bible-speak" is fragile enough as it is without messing around with it even more. You could go crazy and add a whole load of stops or commas, a quick and silly example separated into lines for absurd emphasis:
I am the secret.
Serpent coiled about.
To spring in my coiling.
There is joy If I lift up my head.
I and my Nuit are one if I droop.
Down mine head and shoot forth.
Venom then is rapture of the earth and I and the earth are one.
With our new member @wizardiaoan, it seems we are now having our own Filioque/Johannine Comma Incident. 😆
You could do that, but no one would read it because its BS. The points I am talking about are ambiguities. The Corneliuses Red Flame #8 is a good place to start coupled with my new versing material in my pdf I shared. Quack quack...
Yes very good. I gave some feedback on the versing as asked for. I don't have a problem with you changing the versing if that's what you want to do, it was just that one particular line sounded "off" the way you changed it. Can you give a link to where I could read Red Flame no. 8 or could you provide a quote from it on AL II:12-13 so I can see where they are coming from?
Thanks
Red Flame #8 is so rare now I could barely find a picture of it. It was reprinted for most part in this book here. They were allowed to scrutinize the original manuscript and wrote a very detailed analysis of all the punctuation, whether it was in pencil or not, etc. This together with my new versing material (from whence you could form your own opinion) would allow you to arrive at a pretty good typeset version of the Book of Law.
Thanks for the info on that book, I read a review of it and I'll add it to my reading list. The source material of the manuscript that's available on the web is too low quality to really tell if some things were written in pen or pencil so it would be interesting to find this out.
I'm making my way through your pdf and don't get me wrong, there's a lot of it I like. We're not all going to agree on everything, I hope you take it as "constructive criticism".
@duck Do you have this thick book? https://www.amazon.com/Magick-Liber-ABA-Book-4/dp/0877289190
That is the best reproduction of the original manuscript I know of where you can see for the most part whether something is in pencil or not.
the Book of Law it says "the stops as thou wilt," which means you can play around with punctuation.
The "thou" was Bible-speak-writ for the Scribe, The Priest of the Princes.I guess a "follower" could play mix-or-match with "stops."
And an 'orthodox follower' following their orthodoxy doesn't have to 'mix-or-match' and can play priestly authority using reductive language while appearing magnanimous in allowing 'play'. "I guess"
'"thou" was Bible-speak-writ'. 🙄 Incredible.
'thou' is known to have other meanings and apply to more than the scribe.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
O lover, if thou wilt, depart!
There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.
The stops as thou wilt.