Evidence in Richard...
 
Notifications

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

Page 1 / 10
  RSS

wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
03/01/2016 12:04 am  

Any text written inside [], is added to any text quoted from Richard T. Cole's "Second Corrected Edition" of his book "The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley".

Richard T. Cole's "Second Corrected Edition" of his book "The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley", contains the following: "... Crowley repeatedly demands that he ignored Liber L. vel Legis between 1904 and 1909. A passage in Confessions (page 541) encapsulate his alleged position:

"Here was the Book which I hated and feared, the Book from which I was desperately trying to escape ..."

In fact, nothing could be more divored from reality. Far from a 'desperate escape attempt,' Crowley's diary records extensive work with both Liber Legis and its accompanying comment throughout 1906. He spends considerable time in 1907 editing it in readiness for inclusion [as an Appendix] in the third volume of Collected Works, and handing out copies for comment. His Magickal notebooks between 1904 and 1907 comprise little else other than material revolving around Liber L. vel Legis, and he undertakes further editing in preparation for its debut appearance in Holy Books Vol. III [Cole page 186]."

"The Appendix was going to reproduce Liber L (The Book Of The Law) together with supporting material. It is a curious document that raises as many questions as it answers!" (----> Quoted from the following source: http://www.lashtal.com/significant-sources-2-galleys-of-the-collected-works-1907/ which leads to: "Significant Sources 2: Galleys of the Collected Works (1907) [...] In this, the second of an occasional series of ‘Significant Sources’, I am pleased to draw your attention to a download I first made available in April 2013: In keeping with the title, this free download is of a highly significant piece by Aleister Crowley, often spoken of but rarely seen. The document is reproduced here with full permission of the copyright holder. The PDF file comprises the September 1907 galley proofs of an intended Appendix to the Collected Works, prepared but subsequently discarded by Aleister Crowley. The Appendix was going to reproduce Liber L (The Book Of The Law) together with supporting material. It is a curious document that raises as many questions as it answers! [...]")

Richard T. Cole's "Second Corrected Edition" of his book "The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley", provides the answer to why the said Appendix with its supporting material containing the words "Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful.", was written, and why it was discarded.

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

Cole's said book does also provide the answer to why Crowley waited until the March 1912 puclication of Equinox I, 7, to premiere his reception story. (Second Corrected Edition of Cole's said book page 183 and 189).

And "By 1912, Crowley is a Messiah preaching to a global audience [...]." (Second Corrected Edition of Cole's said book page 194). And also by 1912, Crowley's erstwhile partners, like George Cecil Jones, John Frederick Charles Fuller, and Victor Benjamin Neuburg, had already distanced themselves from Crowley. (Second Corrected Edition of Cole's said book page 176, 177 and 193)

As for answers derived from the said Appendix, this Appendix is in Richard T. Cole's said book, explained in the context of "Crowley's fateful decision to initiate his New Equinox scheme by proxy (i.e steer Jones [= George Cecil Jones] into realisation of Liber L. vel Legis' supreme importance) ... [Cole page 154]." A fateful decision which "... also sheds much light on the baffling notes made on the handwritten cover sheet [Cole page 154]."

The said notes introduces the said Appendix with the following words: "[This MS. (which came into my possession July 1906) is a highly interesting example of genuine automatic writing.* Though I am in no way responsible for any of these documents, except the translations of the stele inscription, I publish them among my works because I believe that their intelligent study may be interesting & helpful. AC.]" The September 1907 galley proofs of an intended Appendix, "If taken at face value, insists that Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book of the Law] was not written by Crowley, and only came into his posession in July 1906 - [Cole page 70]."

Cole points out the discrepancy between the "original" manuscript of The Book of the Law's surviving handwritten cover sheet --- ((consisting of paper originating from the Grand Continental Hotel, Cairo, the only paper in the "original" manuscript of The Book of the Law which does not originate from the Scottish paper makers Alex pirie & Sons, in the form of sixty-five leaves of "Standard Typewriting paper [Cole page 69]". "... manufactured by Scottish papermaker Alex Pirie & Sons, especially for the booming London market ...[Cole page 206]" "According to its archives, the 'London' brand of Pirie & Sons' "Standard Typewriting" paper was not commercially available untill late in 1905 - ... [Cole page 209]"), now stored at the Harry Ransom Institute in Texas), which "If taken at face value, insists that Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book of the Law] was not written by Crowley, and only came into his posession in July 1906 - [Cole page 70]", and) --- which "... refers specifically to "stele translations" (i.e. the literal French translation of the stele hieroglyphs prepared for Crowley between 23 March and 07 or 08 April by staff at the Boulak museum) [Cole page 97]. "Yet, the ["original"] manuscript [of the Book of the Law] refers and the typescript [of the Book of the Law] reproduces, Crowley's versified paraphrasing and not the translation itself. Interestigly the typeset version of the handwritten cover page (as prefaces the Appendix droppet from Colletcted Works) resolves this discrepancy by use of an extra word "verse. [Cole page 97]"

Cole also points out the discrepancy between Crowley's Cairo myth about The Book of the Law being written during three days in April in 1904 in the capital of Egypt, and Crowley in a handwritten comment by him to The Book of the Law, a handwritten comment dated by Crowley as written between 22 August 22 September (Virgo) 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon)." [Cole page 173], writing the following: "This being done; but quickly? No. I have slaved at the riddles in this book for night on seven years; and all is not yet clear. [Crowley's comment to the 39th verse of The Book of the Law's third chapter, as quoted on page 173 in Richard T. Cole's "Second Corrected Edition" of his book "The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley"]"

"Only after Jones [= George Cecil Jones, Crowley's co-founder in creating the new order A.'. A.'. to replace the magical order The Golden Dawn, of which both were former members], (nudged by Crowley) realises that Liber L. is the skeleton of a methodology facilitating communication with the Secret Chiefs does his extra occult 'stripe' become problematic. When this happens, Crowley is compelled to rewrite the record, again, and usurp Jones by fabricating the reception event. Of course, this major revision evoked multiple discrepancies, anomalies, contradictions and the general ambience of 'fuzziness' Crowley imparted on his account out of sheer necessity [Cole page 156]."

Crowley first publication of The Book of The Law in 1910 in Holy Books Vol. III, does not contain any mention of the reception story, but Crowley's erstwhile partners, like George Cecil Jones, (whose authority Crowley at first presented himself as subordinate to in the said new order, in Liber LXI vel Causae ("Liber LXI vel Causae, omits any mention of The book of the Law, Thelema, and all components we recognise today as the Cairo myth [Cole page 194]."):"Now when P. [= Aleister Crowley] had thus with bitter toil prepared all things under the guidance of D.D.S. [= George Cecil Jones] [Cole page 205]") John Frederick Charles Fuller, and Victor Benjamin Neuburg, had already distanced themselves from Aleister Crowley, before he publicly premiered his reception story for The Book of The Law, in the March 1912 puclication of Equinox I, 7. And "By 1912, Crowley is a Messiah preaching to a global audience ... [Cole page 194]."

"III, 47. This book shall be translated into all tongues: but always with the original in the writing of the Beast; for in the chance shape of the letters and their position to one another: in these are mysteries that no Beast shall divine." [47th verse of The Book of the Law's third chapter, as quoted on page 206 in Richard T. Cole's "Second Corrected Edition" of his book "The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley".]

Crowley did not "... obey Aiwass' explicit command and accompany all printed editions with a manuscript facsimile. This material is absent from both 1907 Collected Works Appendix and in 1910 Holy Books. The absurd and miniscule reproduction in 1912 Equinox I, 7 is rationalised with a distinctly questionable explanation ("The reproduction of Liber Legis has been done thus minutely in order to prevent the casual reader from wasting his valuable time over it"). Equinox I, 10 [publihed in 1913] includes a revised typescript, but no manuscript facsimile [Cole page 208]."

Not untill 1936 (Equinox of the Gods), [...] thirty-one years after his alleged reception of Liber L. vel Legis [= The Book Of The Law], does Crowley finally release a full account, accompanied by a typescript and decent sized facsimile of the rebacked manuscript. ["... Crowley "rebacked" each of the sixty-five manuscript leaves with a sheet of linen, probably whilst in residence at Cefalu [Cole page 208]." Into each sheet is embossed a watermark from the Scottish papermaker Alex Pirie & Sons [Cole page 206].] By this time, Jones [George Cecil Jones], Jones [Charles Stansfeld Jones] and Fuller [John Frederick Charles Fuller] have vanished into the mist, Rose has passed away (she dies in 1932) and Crowley is finally confident enough to open his literary closet [Cole page 208]."


Quote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
03/01/2016 9:36 am  

Correction:
The following quote is actually from page 205 in Richard T. Cole’s "Second Corrected Edition" of his book Liber L. vel Bogus The Real Confessions of Aleister Crowley Sub Figura LXXX: "... Liber LXI vel Causæ, omits any mention of The Book of the Law, Thelema, and all components we recognise today as the Cairo myth [Cole page 194]."

Clarification:
Richard T. Cole’s said book, does on page 173, contain a facsimile of Crowley's already mentioned handwritten comment by him to The Book of the Law, a handwritten comment dated by Crowley as written "... between 22 August 22 September (Virgo) 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon)." [Cole page 173]

On page 93 in the said book, Richard T. Cole states the following: "At this point, I pause to offer a note of ... caution. Liber L. vel Bogus is not an easy book to read. It was not an easy book to write. In fact, in places it is comprehensively heavy going! [...] 'Sustained Attention' is a mandatory requirement of participation in this convoluted paper-trail."


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
07/01/2016 6:43 pm  

All very well, well, but what I am finding most puzzling at present is the continued silence & total absence of any sort of "official" comment by the "O.T.O.", ostensibly the guardians and perpetuators of Crowley's legacy, now after more than six months since publication.

Whether one agrees with Richard Cole's conclusions or dismisses them entirely is quite incidental to this glaring omission. Is the order hoping that by their usual policy of saying & doing nothing they can somehow manage to get any actual "evidence" in these most important issues at stake to miraculously go away?

Norma N Joy Conquest


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2134
07/01/2016 10:10 pm  

Just my opinion but perhaps the OTO is silent on this matter because they realise that it's immaterial whether the reception myth ocurred as stated, because what matters is that Crowley's method of attainment via the A.:.A.:. and OTO curriculum really works to better the people that choose to "walk the path."

Just my two pesos.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
07/01/2016 11:09 pm  

But even if it "really works", the matter can hardly be called immaterial if the entire reception "myth" IS basically a crock with all that that entails for A.C.'s overall credibility and the whole raison d'etre of the O.T.O. he left behind, the very real possibility of which can now no longer be discounted out of hand by anyone.

Which is ultimately the more incredible - the Aiwass dictation account or else that A.C. might have been pulling one of the biggest confidence tricks in the last two thousand years from the comfort of his armchair in the study of ole Boleskine House? The Book Of Lies (appropriately) has some things to say on that very subject - we can all bury our hands in the sand about it, I suppose, but I wonder just who will succeed in having the last laugh over all of this? Or is it no laughing matter?!

Meanwhile scrutinising any & all bricks which apparently glitter,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
08/01/2016 10:10 am  

Post by Richard Cole on Facebook dated 7 January 2016:

You can't keep a good heresy down!
Curiously 'Bogus-Free' since the perfect storm of deletion-without-back-up responsible for obliterating two significant branches, a green shoot of heresy recently re-sprouted on the hallowed cyber-pages of ultra-conservative bastion of Crowlean orthodoxy, LAShTAL. Member "Jamie J. Barter" aired a question I am hearing with increasing frequency, of late. He asked: [As above...]
Answers on a postcard, please...

I suppose that I should share Cole's surprise that there's so little interest in his book, despite its several reprints. This lack of interest isn't restricted to LAShTAL, of course, with his work having generated almost no discussion on any Thelemic sites and only a couple of reviews, but it's worth reminding members here that any user submissions regarding the book are welcome, be they News items or Forum posts, even on this 'ultra-conservative bastion of Crowlean orthodoxy'!

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
08/01/2016 11:01 am  

93 Paul

Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject, which hopefully will correct the numerous errors and omissions and the selective use of evidence found in Cole's tome.

Regards

Johnny


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
08/01/2016 11:06 am  

Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject, which hopefully will correct the numerous errors and omissions and the selective use of evidence found in Cole’s tome.

I no longer have any intention to publish on this subject.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1098
08/01/2016 12:38 pm  

little interest in his book, despite its several reprints.

Perhaps due to his behaviour on this site and elsewhere.


ReplyQuote
chuck
(@chuck)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 48
08/01/2016 1:32 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

There is an often repeated request around here to separate the message from the messenger...

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
08/01/2016 1:52 pm  

I feel it is important that the issue does not get clouded by personalities - or personality, in this case (unless one counts old Carroty to be two).

Yes, sure RTC's earlier "Lazarus" type antics and sock-puppetry may have got up a lot of Lashtalians' noses - indeed I admit I found them myself to be particularly exasperating at one stage. But all the same in the course of his research he has managed to unearth at least certain information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally 'toxic' to the integrity of the Aiwass account or "reception myth", as called. I would have thought this necesitates a full thorough informed and constructive debate of the most valid facts & issues, and not least some sort of an official comment by the organization charged with the perpetuating of A.C.'s legacy as it stands, and which most significantly includes The Book of the Law itself.

chuck - we must have been on the same frequency at the same time just now, you & I!

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3779
08/01/2016 2:56 pm  

"... what matters is that Crowley’s method of attainment via the A.:.A.:. and OTO curriculum really works to better the people that choose to “walk the path.”

"Better the people" is an obscure phrase, but I agree that said methodology does indeed assist folks to see a bit more deeply (or more expandedly) and to gain control over parts of their being.

Unfortunately, said methodology has often been marketed as leading to "enlightenment" or "attainment" or "universal brotherhood," and there is no evidence that anyone has so benefited.

Of course, the same can be said of Buddhism, Christianity, and all forms of New Age trickery. There is no known technique, or series of techniques, that one can perform that will lead to a permanent state of oneness with primordial consciousness.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 3779
08/01/2016 3:22 pm  

"Maybe we are all waiting for the publication of your book on the subject"

Maybe not "all" of us. LAShTAL Paul has already given the lecture and provided the written version ... and it was rather interesting. He has apparently decided not to add to his preliminary exposition.

Aside from the fact that The Book stands or falls on its own merits (read: "contents"), the big question has always been whether it was dictated by the independent entity Aiwass, or "dictated" by an archetypal projection of AC's own "higher" or "spiritual" consciousness.

Based on my own experience, and not on the ravings and beliefs of other folks, I can attest that one can indeed receive messages, even prognostications, from what appears to be an independent entity ... yet, in the end, it turns out to merely be me talking to myself, under cover of duality.

It is entirely possible, maybe probable, that AC was convinced that he was singled out and selected for visitation and a chat from Angelic Aiwass, when he was just listening to a hidden (occult!) part of his own mind.

Of course, Mr Cole seems to be taking the position that AC consciously and purposely "invented Aiwass (and even the whole Cairo worling legend) in order to gain supremacy in the hierarchy of secret societies of his day.

Alas! It's a good ting we ALL have learned to credit only that which lies within our own realm of experience, and to trust no one else as a matter of blind faith or mistaken belief ... otherwise we'd be in a fine kettle of Christian fish.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1098
08/01/2016 3:43 pm  

I would have thought this necesitates a full thorough informed and constructive debate of the most valid facts & issues

I believe there was a thread here already which proposed to do just that. Feel free to continue there if you will. Or begin another - or are you not as generous with your own time and attention as you are with that of others?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1098
08/01/2016 3:44 pm  

oops - blockquotes reversed!


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
08/01/2016 7:28 pm  

I believe there was a thread here already which proposed to do just that. Feel free to continue there if you will. Or begin another – or are you not as generous with your own time and attention as you are with that of others?

I'm not sure whether I was especially intending to be "generous" here, William - just responding to this thread already begun by wellreadwellbred, & I've already contributed plenty to all the Bogus-oriented posts now somewhere in that great cyber-booth in the sky.

I only thought the point was worth making that I felt I was not alone in wondering when the O.T.O./ Hymenaeus Beta in particular were going to offer up the "official" two pesos worth - for what they may be worth - and that they've so far been noticeable by their absence.

That was all!
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
08/01/2016 8:55 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

Yes, sure RTC’s earlier “Lazarus” type antics and sock-puppetry may have got up a lot of Lashtalians’ noses – indeed I admit I found them myself to be particularly exasperating at one stage. But all the same in the course of his research he has managed to unearth at least certain information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally ‘toxic’ to the integrity of the Aiwass account or “reception myth”, as called.

The question surely is what there is to respond to, exactly? What do we actually have in Cole's book? Some frankly bizarre accusations based on utterly spurious sources ('Real Action For Men', anyone?), some clumsily photoshopped fake images, a promise of 'killer' evidence in the future (damning watermark evidence, anyone?), all promoted using a combination of hyperbole and admitted fraudulent sock-puppet accounts.

The author bemoans the loss of a discussion thread on this site - see my apology for that en passim - implying that evidence was presented and discussed there, but all who read the thread know that nothing could be further from the truth: there was nothing substantial once you got past the posts by Cole in his Carrot_Childe guise, at least!

There is some interesting evidence that Crowley's account of the Cairo Working was at least embellished. But it's not in Cole's book.

Having said all that, why don't you just present here the 'information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally ‘toxic’ to the integrity of the Aiwass account'? We can then subject it to reasonable peer review, away from hyperbole, Facebook promotion and sock-puppetry.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
08/01/2016 9:41 pm  

Having said all that, why don't you just present here the information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally 'toxic' to the integrity of the Aiwass account? We can then subject it to reasonable peer review, away from hyperbole, Facebook promotion and sock-puppetry.

It's very flattering but I don't feel it's down to me to deliver a defence/ prosecution on behalf of RTC, and neither am I speaking for him by proxy in any way in absentia.

I have already penned an exclusive review for Lashtal (q.v.) which fully set out my position with regard to Liber Bogus at the time of writing it. And besides which, as the review itself stated, it doesn't seem as if all the evoidence is yet in - there is still some sort oflengthy 'Appendix' with more revelations promised to follow.

In the meantime RTC has listed a precis of the main issues as he sees them in the 'Toxic Top 20' on pages 235-8. If anyone wants to, maybe we could (all) make a start threre. Or how about getting Hymenaeus Beta to agree to subjecting the ms. of The Book of the Law to independent forensic examination, to lay to rest once and for all (or otherwise) the charge of "inappropriate paper", at least?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
08/01/2016 11:18 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

It doesn’t seem as if all the evoidence is yet in – there is still some sort of lengthy ‘Appendix’ with more revelations promised to follow.

One of these 'revelations' will apparently appear in 'Part 2(B), Appendix I'. Cole states unequivocally (page 206) that 'Crowley wrote Liber L Legis (sic.) on "Standard Typewriting" paper, as manufactured by Scottish papermaker Alex Pirie & Sons ... as is testified by a watermark embossed into each sheet.' He adds that 'the 'London' brand of Pirie & Sons' "Standard Typewriting" paper was not commercially available until late in 1905 - an issue discussed at length' in the aforementioned Appendix. I've said it before and I'll say it again here, as clearly as I can: If Cole has evidence for this claim then all else is irrelevant. If the paper on which the manuscript was written was not yet available then Crowley's account is fraudulent. So why not produce the evidence which was trailed on this very site by Cole many months before publication of his book?

By the way, Jamie: Take a look at page 204 where Cole reproduces a scan of Liber AL II:76 and its famous RPSTOVAL cipher. Now look at it again and observe the deliberate photoshop manipulation and ask yourself what's really going on here.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
08/01/2016 11:32 pm  

There is some interesting evidence that Crowley's account of the Cairo Working was at least embellished. But it's not in Cole's book.

I've been thinking: this sounds engagingly mysterious in its own right, Paul. Are you setting out to deliberately tease here (akin maybe to previous references made to your own one-time book, mapped out districts of Cairo, waiter's names, et al) or is there something on a comparable (or greater) level to Cole more to it? And if the latter, wouldn't you consider it a more helpful and informative act if you could yourself set down exactly what these "embellishments" were, for the knowledge & benefit of all your fellow Aleister Crowley Society members?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
08/01/2016 11:50 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

Are you setting out to deliberately tease here (akin maybe to previous references made to your own one-time book, mapped out districts of Cairo, waiter’s names, et al) or is there something on a comparable (or greater) level to Cole more to it?

No teasing here, deliberate or otherwise. I merely pointed out what anyone who has studied the source material will have noticed and what the better AC biographers have already published.

However, let's stick with Cole's book here: I wouldn't want to be accused of derailing this thread from the discussion of 'evidence' that he presents. Again, Jamie, I urge you to consider what is evidenced by Cole's deliberate vandalism to the II:76 scan.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
09/01/2016 4:17 am  

By the way, Jamie: take a look at page 204 where Cole reproduces a scan of Liber AL II:76 and its famous RPSTOVAL cipher. Now look at it again and observe the deliberate photoshop manipulation and ask yourself what's really going on here.
[...] Again, Jamie, I urge you to consider what is evidenced by Cole's deliberate vandalism to the II:76 scan.

I've considered the matter, and what appears to be evidenced and "really going on" is the contextually somewhat unnecessary addition of what you have correctly described as a photoshopped fake image. It might have helped had RTC attributed or explained its presence there as such, but since there is no way any serious reader would be taken in by it, to therefore label it as "deliberate vandalism" seems a little OTT and hyperbolic in itself. Perhaps unless there is a useful purpose served, it might profitably be removed from future corrected editions?...

Again, though, I ask what would actually be the difficulty stopping Hymenaeus Beta from agreeing to subject the manuscript of Liber [A]L to stringent independent forensic scrutiny in order to establish its credentials one way or the other, and concerning which, as you also correctly comment, "all else" in the whole Bogus argument is "irrelevant". To potentially be able to resolve so much uncertainty would therefore seem on the face of it to be a fairly straightforward undertaking?...

N Joy

N Joy


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
09/01/2016 10:02 am  

lashtal Keymaster: "... take a look at page 204 where Cole reproduces a scan of Liber AL II:76 and its famous RPSTOVAL cipher. Now look at it again and observe the deliberate photoshop manipulation and ask yourself what’s really going on here.
[…] Again, [...] I urge you to consider what is evidenced by Cole’s deliberate vandalism to the II:76 scan."

Jamie J Barter: "I’ve considered the matter, and what appears to be evidenced and “really going on” is the contextually somewhat unnecessary addition of what you have correctly described as a photoshopped fake image. It might have helped had RTC attributed or explained its presence there as such, but since there is no way any serious reader would be taken in by it, to therefore label it as “deliberate vandalism” seems a little OTT and hyperbolic in itself. Perhaps unless there is a useful purpose served, it might profitably be removed from future corrected editions?…"

My impression is that "Cole reproduces a scan of Liber AL II:76 and its famous RPSTOVAL cipher", without providing the reader with any information about that the said scan consists of two separate pages from the handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law.

But what can in the context of the said scan, be evidenced by Cole’s following statement provided by him on page 12 in the Second Corrected Edition of his book, containing the said scan?:

"I am confident to suggest that any material uncovered following the publication of this book will support, and not refute my hypothesis. Conversely, I am happy to incorporate new information into subsequent editions of Liber L. vel Bogus, even if this highlights erroneous deductions on my part. I would not see this as 'a defeat,' and quite the reverse. My desire is solely that of definitively resolving an elephant in the room that has dogged Crowley's footsteps for over a century. My stance with respect to this matter remains unequivocally one of full and forthright disclosure - Release everything, now!"


ReplyQuote
belmurru
(@belmurru)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1004
09/01/2016 10:47 am  

Jamie, you characterize Cole’s claim to be a “charge”, which is at least a quasi-legalistic use of the term that implies that an evidentiary basis has been established. But, in fact, Cole has presented no evidence for his assertion that the paper dates from this or that period, so in keeping with the legalistic use of terms, Cole’s claim is merely an allegation, not rising to the level of a charge. In such cases the target of the baseless allegation should feel no obligation to dignify it with a response. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – “What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” That is the common-sense response to empty allegations.

I have said before that I find no reason not to believe that the dates Crowley gives for the writing are not true. Nevertheless, I came up with two ways to find evidence for Alex. Pirie and Sons (London) Standard Typewriting paper in the year concerned. The first was to ask archivists for the companies concerned, the second to look in archives in places that might have used such paper and just sift through it. Off-hand, places that came to mind that would have used a lot of typists would be newspapers, law-courts, legal firms, and publishing houses, all in and around London. This is obviously a needle-in-a-haystack approach, but I would do it if I ever got the opportunity and I wish the greatest of luck to anyone who manages to find such an archive.

The first set of goals is at least achievable to those not in London with good connections and a lot of time.

So, last May I wrote to three places I thought might offer insight if not a conclusive response.
1) Pirie and Sons became part of Wiggins, Teape and Co. in about 1920, and over the course of the last century this company has evolved into ArjoWiggins, headquarted in Paris (ArjoWiggins is itself a division of Worms & Cie.). I wrote a letter of general inquiry to them.
2) The Pirie and Sons archives housed in Aberdeen. I wrote a similar letter to them, asking if the watermark can be found on paper between 1903-1906.
3) A friend of mine who is an auction expert, in the technical sense; i.e. he is called upon by Christies et al. to provide the documentation for items for sale in the area of his speciality, with includes paper. I asked him how precisely he could ascertain the date of an undated watermark of the early 20th century.

My friend responded first (my emphasis):

“…as we know, watermark dating is a very uncertain method: papermakers and industrial firms have used the same watermarks for longer than it would be necessary (e.g., as you point out, a certain company, although changing names, may use the same watermark for decades, because it is a mark of quality and it sells well).
Also because we cannot be sure the person who writes something on a piece of paper is using it in the very year of its manufacture.
So, unfortunately, the present watermark can tell us nothing but a vague range of dates, like "early 20th century"…

Unless you find an archive that tells you on which day Wiggins stopped using that watermark, I am afraid we will never know.
Big companies with a long history of merging rarely keep the older archives, particularly if their headquarters changed countries.
I fear ArjoWiggins will never reply to you, or will reply they have no records for such a long time ago!

So, to answer your last question, as an auction expert, I would be extremely cautious and would just describe the watermark, and add "Alex. Pirie & Sons" was in business until 1920 or so, that it was taken over by Wiggins …
Assigning a precise date to Crowley's manuscript just on the basis of a watermark seems very unwise.

If I was asked to authenticate the date of the manuscript for sale at auction, I would simply say: "forget it, it is impossible to give a precise year".”

He was right – ArjoWiggins has never responded to me.

But Aberdeen did. First in late May promising to look through their archives, then in August with the confirmation that they had done so. The result of this was that the archivist could find no examples at all of a watermark for “standard typewriting” paper, from any year covered by their archives.

It would seem that the paper had limited circulation, perhaps only for the London market. Pirie and Sons had offices and no doubt their own sources of paper in London and New York already in the 1890s. So perhaps none ever was used in Scotland.

This negative net result makes “Plan B” – looking in old London-area archives - the only option remaining for a determined search. A secondary plan might be to look at Crowley letters or other loose documents from 1903-1904-1905 and see if he used the same paper to write other things on.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 11:09 am  

Thanks @belmurru for your detailed response. Your attempts to investigate the watermark accusation make it perhaps a little surprising that Cole feels so confident in his own accusation. Of course, it's entirely possible that he will publish his second volume and its associated appendix and that it will include a detailed and absolutely definitive account of his 'compelling' evidence. I doubt it, but am hoping to be proved wrong.

Jamie J Barter wrote:

I’ve considered the matter, and what appears to be evidenced and “really going on” is the contextually somewhat unnecessary addition of what you have correctly described as a photoshopped fake image. It might have helped had RTC attributed or explained its presence there as such, but since there is no way any serious reader would be taken in by it, to therefore label it as “deliberate vandalism” seems a little OTT and hyperbolic in itself. Perhaps unless there is a useful purpose served, it might profitably be removed from future corrected editions?…

You're being extraordinarily forgiving to Cole on this matter but I'll leave it to others to make up their own minds when they see what Cole has certainly done with the scan while complaining about what AC and others may have done elsewhere with the reproduction of source documents.

As regards 'forensic analysis' of the MSS paper and its watermarks? @belmurru is of course absolutely right: 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' Also, this site isn't the place to make such a suggestion: even if I agreed with you, and I don't, I'm not a member of the OTO and am not in a position to make such a thing happen.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 11:20 am  

@wellreadwellbred wrote:

My impression is that “Cole reproduces a scan of Liber AL II:76 and its famous RPSTOVAL cipher”, without providing the reader with any information about that the said scan consists of two separate pages from the handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law.

No, you misunderstand - it's not about anything as innocent as the scan 'consisting of two separate pages.'

What has happened is that Cole has taken II:76, scanned it in and then manipulated his scan before reproducing it in his book without mentioning the edit. The nature of his edit is the deliberate rearranging of the letters comprising the cipher.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 1:13 pm  

Okay, Richard Cole has taken to repeating extracts from posts here, out-of-context of course, on Facebook as part of his attempt to generate sales for the book. For obvious reasons, I won't be responding to his Facebook posts in future - they're increasingly paranoid, in any case, and seem intent on presenting LAShTAL as both an enemy of his work and a front for some 'global conspiracy' (I think he means OTO).

So, just to bring things up to date, I append his most recent post from one hour ago and my response. Both are unedited, of course, and represent the last conversation I will have on this subject with Cole via Facebook...

---

Richard Cole's post

Curiouser and curiouser...
On 8 January LAShTAL webmaster, Paul Feazey, posted an extraordinary statement:
"There is some interesting evidence that Crowley’s account of the Cairo Working was at least embellished. But it’s not in Cole’s book."
In response to a request that he name this material, Mr. Feazey replied:
"No teasing here, deliberate or otherwise. I merely pointed out what anyone who has studied the source material will have noticed and what the better AC biographers have already published."
Were Mr. Feazey withholding this material for inclusion in his own work on the subject, his reticence could be understood. However, this is not the case. ("I no longer have any intention to publish on this subject.") Seems to me that anyone withholding potential "evidence" is, at best, failing the community they allegedly serve and, at worst, perpetuating a global deception.

My response

Oh dear, oh dear. If you absolutely must quote my posts from LAShTAL out of context here on Facebook, at least do me the courtesy of reading them properly, Richard Cole! As I clearly said, 'the better AC biographers have already published' those aspects of Crowley's account that were 'embellished.' Nothing is being withheld and I'm certainly not 'failing the community I allegedly serve'! wink emoticon The accusation that this is all part of a 'global deception' is frankly paranoid and massively overstates the importance of your 'discoveries' (not to mention overlooking your own deceptions - see the scan you've faked on page 204 of your book). Your personal contempt for me and your antipathy towards the site I run are obviously clouding your critical faculties even further.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
09/01/2016 2:39 pm  

Thanks for your customary assiduous research there belmurru. It's quite true that Hymenaeus Beta may well be under no legal obligation. But in the interests of helping to resolve an area of doubt which has arisen and clearing up mutterings from within the ranks of Thelemites etc., it shouldn't be too difficult to do what I suggested which might lay that particular matter to rest. If Richard is reading this (which he presumably is) the time would appear to be right to "Release evrything, now!" regarding his charge/ allegation concerning the watermarks and to in effect 'put up or shut up' on this matter

Paul, it's not a case of being 'extraordinarily forgiving' but an attempt to keep things in context. It's not RTC's finest work in the book and as I said could profitably be removed from future corrected editions to avoid any possible confusion even though he will likely justify it by saying it was a test to see if people were paying proper attention or something like that. From the amount of space you have afforded it in your replies, can this actually constitute your main grievance or complaint about Liber Bogus?

However I would also highlight the folowing passage from page 12 which immediately preceeds wellreadwellbread's refernce above (with my boldness):

I sincerely believe it is the responsibility and duty of each individual to obtain copies of, then study the relevant documents, and form conclusions based on first-hand research. Accept nothing I or anyone else says at face value. Check everything with your own eyes. With reference to questions raised by this publication, and others, I feel that the legal guardians of Crowley's legacy are encumbered with a duty to make public all documentation and information knowingly in its possession. Moreover, that they should routinely oblige all reasonable requests for access to material that may assist in the clarification of a mystery central to all with an interest in the life and legacy of Alesister Crowley.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 3:00 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

Paul, it’s not a case of being ‘extraordinarily forgiving’ but an attempt to keep things in context. It’s not RTC’s finest work in the book and as I said could profitably be removed from future corrected editions to avoid any possible confusion even though he will likely justify it by saying it was a test to see if people were paying proper attention or something like that... [RTC says] 'accept nothing I or anyone else says at face value. Check everything with your own eyes'.

Okay, Jamie. Ignore his deliberate deception; excuse it on the basis that the author warned us not to trust him; take on trust his unevidenced accusations but insist that others subject documents they own to 'forensic examination'; ignore the author's deliberate misattributions of handwriting; etc. etc.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
09/01/2016 3:45 pm  

Okay, Jamie. ignore his deliberate deception; excuse it on the basis that the author warned us not to trust him; take on trust his unevidenced accusations

I can't understand the (extraordinary in itself) emphasis you're giving and have given to this photoshop shuffle by RTC - it seems quite peripheral and is not central by any means to his presentation. As I've said, let's try to keep everything in context & due proportion, but going by the relative prominence you've given it can this really constitute the main gripe which you have towards Liber Bogus?

but insist that others subject documents they own to 'forensic examination'; ignore the author's deliberate misattributions of handwriting: etc. etc.

There being no need for continued secrecy which breeds and fosters paranoia, and mystery being the enemy of truth, I have indirectly requested both the author and Hymeaneus Beta equally to "release everything" pertinent into the public domain on this matter in the interests of clarification for "neutral bystanders". Then maybe we can all of us move on?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 4:50 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

I can’t understand the (extraordinary in itself) emphasis you’re giving and have given to this photoshop shuffle by RTC – it seems quite peripheral and is not central by any means to his presentation. As I’ve said, let’s try to keep everything in context & due proportion, but going by the relative prominence you’ve given it can this really constitute the main gripe which you have towards Liber Bogus?

While it can obviously be dismissed as 'peripheral to his presentation', it does at the same time go to the heart of Cole's integrity, given that much of his 'evidence' comprises allegations of documentary dishonesty by Crowley, incompetence (at best) by the publisher of the microfilm and, incidentally, remarks in promotion of the book that suggest that this site is itself part of some 'grand deception.' Of course, we do not know why Cole included the scan in the book - it isn't directly referred to in the text, for example - and now it has been exposed I think we can assume it won't be referred to as supporting source material in the promised future volume(s)!

Then maybe we can all of us move on?

That would be nice! In that case, please, Jamie, would you do me a favour? Identify one single piece of 'evidence' from the book that we can discuss here and subject to peer review. Any accusation in the book that supports his thesis and that is itself supported by evidence we can actually address. Over to you! (And I promise to shut up about the II:76 scan in exchange! 😉 ).

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
09/01/2016 5:39 pm  

... Identify one single piece of 'evidence' from the book that we can discuss here subject to peer review. Any accusation in the book that supports his thesis and that is itself suppported by evidence we can actually address. Over to you!

In spite of the fact that I still don't know or underdtand why the emphasis appears to have shifted so that I somehow find myself in the position of being some sort of spokesperson on behalf of & in defence for RTC's allegations - when I have personally attempted to remain in a neutral position throughout - without giving any promises, I will nonetheless give the matter some thought although hereby give notice I'm going to be busy for the rest of this weekend and possibly Monday.

So, in the meantime, if anyone else feels like doing so by proxy, feel free to jump in...

(Please form an orderly queue),
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
09/01/2016 5:45 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

In spite of the fact that I still don’t know or underdtand why the emphasis appears to have shifted so that I somehow find myself in the position of being some sort of spokesperson on behalf of & in defence for RTC’s allegations.

If I'm honest it's because I'm beginning to suspect that you, me and @belmurru are the only people who've actually read the thing! 😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2047
09/01/2016 6:25 pm  

Well, the reviews and reactions thus far have not been such as to lead me to rush out and pick up a copy, i will admit. This is especially so because Cole has apparently held back all the actual evidence he claims to have for the not-yet-published appendices. Of course, the endless pre-publication hype about this evidence being in the book may lead some to the cynical view that these appendices, if ever published, will defer presentation of the evidence to appendices-to-the-appendices, in a recursive process.

As to what's been said here: How can Cole be so certain that the watermarked paper was not yet available in 1904 if the manufacturer has no idea, and there is apparently no source whatever saying so? I'm confident that belmurru would have turned up something if such sources existed. Am i missing something?

Paul, I do wish you would do your book after all, or at least more clearly explain your thesis re Hamid, maps of Cairo solving RPSTOVAL etc. You are the only person i've ever heard offer (hints about) a purported cipher solution where this did not seem to be a symptom of mental illness.


ReplyQuote
ignant666
(@ignant666)
Tangin
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2047
09/01/2016 6:37 pm  

Not really related and i've probably mentioned this before, but back in the dim distant days of my mis-spent youth when the NYPD would not automatically "put you in the system" if you had no ID to back up your claimed name, I more than once convinced cops to give me summonses under names including Oliver Haddo and Roger P. Stoval.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2134
10/01/2016 1:50 am  

That's true Paul I haven't read it yet because if my intuition and your review are correct it's a bunch of unsubstantiated claims which I don't have time to waste for.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
10/01/2016 2:42 am  

Lashtal, Keymaster: "What has happened is that Cole has taken II:76, scanned it in and then manipulated his scan before reproducing it in his book without mentioning the edit. The nature of his edit is the deliberate rearranging of the letters comprising the cipher."

Thanks a lot for pointing this out on this your site Lashtal. The difference between the letters comprising the cipher, is RSVPTOAL as presented on page 204 in Cole's second, corrected edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus, and RPSTOVAL as found in a scan on the internet of the handwritten manuscript of The Book of the Law.

belmurru: "This negative net result makes “Plan B” – looking in old London-area archives – the only option remaining for a determined search. A secondary plan might be to look at Crowley letters or other loose documents from 1903-1904-1905 and see if he used the same paper to write other things on."

Cole's second, corrected edition of his book Liber L. vel Bogus, contains nothing which directly refers to him "looking in old London-area archives".

Lashtal, Keymaster: "There is some interesting evidence that Crowley’s account of the Cairo Working was at least embellished. But it’s not in Cole’s book."

Cole does on page 198 refer to "an exceedingly curious photographic oddity that has perplexed viewers for decades.", a "photographic oddity" involving a photograph of of Crowley and a replica of the stele, which Cole on page 200 and 201 describes as if Crowley wanting to commemorate and immortalise his publishing of the Goetia. With respect to this "photographic oddity" involving Crowley and a replica of the Stele, which Cole on page 202 refers to as "first published [...] in Book 4 (1911) ...", Cole does on the same page ask "So, what event does it celebrate? What message was he trying to convet?", and ends this page with these words: "... , we have a seemingly absurd notion of a photo taken in the summer of 1904, originally with a copy of the Goetia - as was (by some feat of airbrushing) subsequently replaced with a Holy Books."

According to postings by Lashtal, Keymaster, on page four of the thread The simplest The Book of the Law II:76 Chiper solution? - http://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/the-simplest-the-book-of-the-law-ii76-chiper-solution/page/4/ - only "... a photograph of the stele and a ,1904 map of Cairo ..." and "... a scan of the original manuscript of Liber Legis ...", are required or needed to uncover "a solution to the ‘cipher’" which "is self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass."

Lashtal, is the photographic depiction of Crowley and a replica of the stele, referred to in Cole's book Liber L. vel Bogus, together with a 1904 map of Cairo, and a scan of the original manuscript of Liber Legis, all that is required to uncover what you refer to as "a solution to the ‘cipher’" which "is self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass."? (That is, is a photograph of Crowley's replica of the stele enough to uncover the said "solution", or is a photograph of the original stele required?)

In this thread you ask why Cole does not produce the evidence, if he has evidence for that the paper on which the manuscript of The Book of the Law was written was not yet available in April 1904 when Crowley claims to have written it? This is, outside of speculation to which many persons can contribute, a question to which only the said Cole can provide the answer to why he does this. As only you can provide the answer to why you have on this site hinted at what ignant666 in this thread refers to as "your thesis re Hamid, maps of Cairo solving RPSTOVAL etc.", without more clearly explaining the said "thesis". And as only you can provide the answer to why you have on this site hinted at "a solution to the ‘cipher’" which "is self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass.", without pointing out this "solution".

Also, In this thread you ask Jamie J Barter to "... just present here the ‘information which unless properly dismissed remains fundamentally ‘toxic’ to the integrity of the Aiwass account’? We can then subject it to reasonable peer review, away from hyperbole, Facebook promotion and sock-puppetry."

That is in respect of Cole's book Liber L. vel Bogus, a somewhat moot question, as an underlying premise in the said book (Cole page 155:) is that it for a long time was important for Crowley "... to emphasis that he is not the author of Liber. L. vel Legis. Otherwise, Crowley has to defend a ludicrous claim that he wrote a text that he later revealed as the Foundation Document of a New Aeon, of which he was supreme leader."

According to the said book's underlying premise, Crowley's use of "the Aiwass account", according to which he (alebeit in the inert capacity of Channeller of Aiwass), wrote a text that he later revealed as the Foundation Document of a New Aeon, of which he was supreme leader, is a change from Crowley's earlier emphasis that he was not the author of Liber. L. vel Legis, and an obviously "ludicrous claim" (Cole page 155), which he did not publish before March 1912 in Equinox I, 7.

Also, according to the said book, Crowley published the said "ludicrous claim" (Cole page 155), when he was (Cole page 194:) "... safe in the knowledge that the only person able to contradict his fable is drying out in a private institution. At Crowley's behest, his ex-wife, Rose (they divorced on 24 November 1909), was 'treated' during the autumn of 1911." And according to the said book (Cole page 176, 177 and 193), erstwhile partners, like George Cecil Jones, John Frederick Charles Fuller, and Victor Benjamin Neuburg, had already distanced themselves from him, before this "ludicrous claim" (Cole page 155), or "the Aiwass account", was publihed by Crowley in 1912.

In short, according to the second, corrected edition of Cole's book Liber L. vel Bogus, "the Aiwass account" - understood as Aleister Crowley in the inert capacity of Channeller of Aiwass writing The Book of the Law ((Cole page 155:) "... a text that he later revealed as the Foundation Document of a New Aeon, of which he was supreme leader.") - has no more integrity than (Cole page 155:) "a ludicrous claim".


ReplyQuote
frater_anubis
(@frater_anubis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 199
10/01/2016 7:58 pm  

I followed the May 2015 thread with interest, but I wanted to read a copy before entering into a discusson on this, my favourite ultra-conservative website - the home of the Aleister Crowley Society.

I'm reading a second hand copy of Cole's first (uncorrected) edition at the moment. I do not find it an easy read, as you need to overcome the powerful impression that Cole despises AC and that the main aim of the book seems to be focussed on drawing the reader's attention to the Beast's weaknesses. I've also read Paul's and a couple of other good reviews and my overwhelming impression is that Cole has few pieces of actual evidence to support his denial that Liber Al was not received during the Cairo Working.

I have always belived that on matters of historical accuracy, one should always consult the primary sources and there is nothing that I have read in Cole's tome that refers to a primary source to support his argument. So I'm going to set out the facts as I understand them - that the Book of the Law was received by AC on the 8th 9th & 10th April 1904, as described by him in considerable detail in The Equinox vol III no III, "in a voice of deep timbre, musical and expressive, its tones solemn, voluptuous, tender, fierce, or ought else as suited the moods of the message"

I wrote someting like this, nine years ago, on a thread started by Michael Staley entitled "The provenance of The Book of the Law"

"AC gave a detailed, careful description of the reception of Liber Al in the Equinox. I have never accepted the theory that he left Cairo on the 6th April, because I have never seen the original or even copies of the passenger lists allegedly found in the mormon genealogical centre (they remain unpublished) and as far as i’m aware they are not available on the web. Neither have I seen any hotel records proving that AC & RK checked out of their hotel on the 5th. Until these alleged primary sources are available, it will remain my view that the reception of Liber Al is genuine.

So it follows that if Cole wants to convince me that Crowley did not receive Liber Al as he descibed during the successfull 3 day Cairo Working, witnessed by Rose and possibly a manservant, then ante-up some primary sources such as the hotel records or the passenger list details for the cognoscenti on these fora to peer review. Bear in mind that the Beast himself listed several inconsistencies in his account in “The Equinox of the Gods”, such as the fact that Rose made changes in the manuscript, even though she was not in the room at the time.

Lastly, Cole says that watermarks prove that the original, handwritten document could not have been produced when he says it was. Having worked in the paper industry, I think this is a red herring. It's worth noting that Edwardian hand made writing paper was produced using a fine mesh screen, the screen is embossed with the watermark. Screens are very expensive items to make and were only replaced when it was absolutely necessary. They were repaired over and over until they literally fell apart. Cole needs more than an alleged watermark date discrepancy to prove his case as it may be that the paper used came from a repaired screen.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
10/01/2016 11:04 pm  

On the last two pages (Cole page 212, and 213) of Part Two - Of Liber L. vel Legis (Part A), of his book Liber L. vel Bogus, Richard T. Cole points out that (Cole page 212:) "... the miracolous, universal and unprecedented benefits Crowley claimed on behalf of his New World Religion have utterly failed to realise any of their alleged potential. [...] In Equinox of the Gods (page 104), Crowley wrote: "I, Aleister Crowley, declare upon my honour as a gentleman that I hold this revelation [= the revelation of The Book of the Law] a million times more important than the discovery of the Wheel, or even of the Laws of Physics or Mathematics."" .

Here Richard T. Cole does also write about why adherents to Crowley's Thelema and his The Book of the Law, (Cole page 212:) "... made no ground towards a realistion of their Master's Thelemic vision of humanity.":

(Cole page 212:) "The Book of the Law is not a new rulebook and contemporary Bible for Mankind. It is an encrypted occult code-book unintelligible to all but its author. It is the circuit diagram of a theoretical hotline to the "Secret Chiefs," the construction of which can only be attempted by individuals with a deep knowledge of Golden Dawn mysticism. [...] It was an attempt to provide his pedantic A.'.A.'. buddy, Jones, with the Founding Document his old school sensibilities demanded, before launching a new, improved Golden Dawn ... "

(Cole page 213: (Last page of Part Two - Of Liber L. vel Legis (Part A)) "At its heart, Liber L. vel Legis is a clumsy attempt to emulate the Golden Dawn's own creation myth, in which 'manuscripts found on a bookstall led to a mysterious German high adept who authorised the finders to work occult rituals encoded within.' Crowley substituted 'Collected Works Vol. III' for 'bookstall,' 'Egyptian' for 'German' and... TADA! [...] If Crowley intended to cultivate an improved brand of the Golden Dawn, then history has certainly obliged his wishes. [...] Today there is [...] the elitist clique pedantically preserving the fossilised remains of a Victorian relic, ... ."


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
11/01/2016 6:58 pm  

Wellreadwellbread wrote:

Lashtal, is the photographic depiction of Crowley and a replica of the stele, referred to in Cole’s book Liber L. vel Bogus, together with a 1904 map of Cairo, and a scan of the original manuscript of Liber Legis, all that is required to uncover what you refer to as “a solution to the ‘cipher’” which “is self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass.”? (That is, is a photograph of Crowley's replica of the stele enught to uncover the "said solution", or is a photograph of the original stele required?

Although Paul has not answered well here, I have the recollecton that (rather surprisingly) this was indeed the case: that it was enough. I am sure to be corrected if I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I think it was contained in one of those posts which were lost. (Please note that, beinng of a peaceable disposition, I didn't put 'lost' in qutation marks there.:) )

With regard to the already memntioned issue of the allegedly watermarked paper, a lot depends on the evoidentiary actual proof RTC comes up with to support his initial claim/accusation - evidence which he has suggested will eventually appear in his sequel, the 'Appendix' to Liber Bogus, in due course. Therefore for the time being, it seems necessary to give Cole a certain benefit of the doubt/ 'degree of latitude' (also similar to that which one accords A.C.'s own word with on the reception account) whilst awaiting the presentation of all relevant information that he has accumulated within the Appendix {perhaps with the hope it doesn't turn septic in the meantime!}

However pending this, in the meantime I do find it somewhat curious why A.C. would go to all the trouble to do the following, as Cole asserts on page 208:

In a despairing attempt to obliterate the tell-tale evidence, Crowley "rebacked" each of the sicty-five manuscript leaves (of Liber [A]L with a sheet of linen, probably whilst in Cefalu.

Unless this is a lie or he is completely mistaken, one has to wonder about the motivation behind this and agree with Cole's inference that at least one explanation would be that A.C. wished to eradicate any visible watermark (apparently forgetting to surmise that forwenasic techniques of the 21st century would probably be able to nullify any such manoeuvre on his part). Of course it might have a totally innocent explanation. But then <the cynic whispers> on the other hand.

N Joy


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
11/01/2016 8:16 pm  

In that case, please, Jamie, would you do me a favour? Identify one single piece of ‘evidence’ from the book that we can discuss here and subject to peer review. Any accusation in the book that supports his thesis and that is itself supported by evidence we can actually address. Over to you!

This problem and how to respond to it has kept me awake and thinking for the last forty-eight hours. (I'm kidding of course! No - really, it's true!)

Despite seemingly being 'bounced' into giving an answer, I don't think there is any one singled piece of "evidence" exclusively in itself which can be regarded as conclusive proof to support the Cole thesis, but added up together then if not a final resolution the total data he has managed to gather together comes at least to more than the sum of its separate parts.

Maybe we could discuss the following, if anyone is interested:

A comparison of [the] B2 material with [A.C.'s] published description of stele imagery in Equinox of the Gods (page 74) leaves no doubt that when Crowley wrote the B2 ritual, on Saturday 19 or SundaY 20 March, he had seen the Stele of Revealing - Impossible according to his own published accounts. The similarities between certain lines are incontestable. [...] The B2 material utilises stele imagery he does not see for twenty-four hours. It also celebrates the onsedt of a new "Equinox of the Gods" (a once every two thousand years event marking the sun's entry into a new astrological sign - in this instance to Aquarius from Pisces) a month before Aiwass informs him of the terrific news, on 08 [,09] and 10 April 1904. In March 1904, Crowley cannot possibly have any inkling as to the gods' intention of initiating a major cabinet reshuffle and must be equally oblivious to the imminent promotion of specific deities. Yet, the B2 material graphically depicts a contrary scenario and again, one deeply problematic to Crowley's reception story. (pp. 120-1)

In B2, and elsewhere, Crowley employes imagery, terminology and knowledge of which, according to published accounts, he is allegedly ignorant of until days and weeks later. (p. 124)

Cole also reports that "whilst in Paris, Crowley collected newly-printed copies of Why Jesus Wept - a poem written in January 1904. The dedication, to his unborn child, reads:
"Arm! Arm and out; for the young warrior of a new religion is upon thee; and his number is the number of a man."
Penned three months before his alleged revelation in Cairo, this is sujrely one of the most accurate prophecies ever uttered. Crowley's foresight borders on miraculous!" pp. 126-7)

in "Ascension Day", A.C. wrote:
" [...] Either the Beast or False Prophet;
And by all sort of monkey tricks
Adds up my name to Six Six Six [...]
Ho! I adopt the number. look
At the quaint cipher of this book!
I will deserve it if I can
It is the number of a Man"

regarding which Cole further comments:
"From these references alone, it is evident that Crowley has adapted the mantle of the 'Great Beast 666' and is intent on bringing his new religion to the wrld long before Aiwass appeared on the scene. " (p. 127)

There are also further similar 'premonitions' made in Carmen Saeculare, his "Great Invocation" of Horus and in one or two other places which I do not have time to type out.

As a side issue, there is a further anomaly Cole points out relasting to the figures given by Crowley relating to his Commentary to Liber (A)L III:39 which specify a period between 22 August and 22 September 1909 (the fifth year of his New Aeon) at which point he has "slaved at the riddles in this book for nigh on seven years", then "his thraldom began approximately in September 1902. In other words, Crowley admits to working on a commentary eighteen months before receiving the text on which he's commenting!" (p. 173)

Cole further enquires why there should be unmatching accounts of the "rediscovery" of the ms. to Liber (A)L in June 1909, with no mention of it by Neuburg who was present at the time, nor was it annlounced in The Equinox until some considerable while later.

I trust this will be enough to be going on with?
N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
11/01/2016 8:25 pm  

So, despite whinging at extraordinary length in his book about alleged manipulation of source material by AC and the OTO, Cole has responded today to the revelation that he deliberately used digital techniques to fraudulently alter the sequence of letters in a scan purportedly from Liber AL on page 204:

I shuffled the letters specifically as a means of establishing if anyone had actually switched off 'auto-pilot' and were paying attention.

Yeah, right. Of course.

Jamie J Barter wrote:

it seems necessary to give Cole a certain benefit of the doubt/ ‘degree of latitude’

I feel no such obligation.

RTC has taken today to repeating on Facebook a private email he sent me in response to an olive branch I extended and he has in the past used photoshopped images of me, all to assist in his clumsy self-promotional activities. For that and other reasons that I choose not to mention, I will not be responding to Cole's nonsense again in the future, here or elsewhere.

Obviously I'll leave the thread open but will not be participating in it.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
11/01/2016 8:42 pm  

But didn't ole chuck say a little while back:

There is an often repeated request around here to separate the message from the messenger

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this sort of thing known in poker-playing parlance as "folding"?

N Joy


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 5314
11/01/2016 8:49 pm  

Jamie J Barter wrote:

But didn’t ole chuck say a little while back:

There is an often repeated request around here to separate the message from the messenger

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this sort of thing known in poker-playing parlance as “folding”?

'To withdraw (one's hand) in defeat, as by laying cards face down on a table...'

In Cole's book there is no message ... only a messenger.

LAShTAL wrote:

For that and other reasons that I choose not to mention, I will not be responding to Cole’s nonsense again in the future, here or elsewhere.

Obviously I’ll leave the thread open but will not be participating in it.

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 891
12/01/2016 6:33 am  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1098
12/01/2016 7:21 am  

yawn...


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1714
12/01/2016 8:21 am  

93!

This book easily could have been a highly fascinating piece of work collecting and dealing with all those strange inconsistencies that were discussed here and elsewhere for years. It is not and I think this is because Cole's agenda to "destroy" Crowley's and the OTO's reputation (?) overshadows what he purports to be: "primarily a researcher" (p.11). It also doesn't help that Cole writes the whole book tongue-in-cheek or falls for many poor jokes (imho).

The research in this book - what in fact should be his primary goal - meets by no means the standards of research today. Sources are not identified, images are faked, claims are not backed up.

The main - and only - proof that could once and for all settle the question, the "watermark proof", has to wait for the next volume in this series on the "governing dynamics of Thelema". But to tease us he depicts the watermark on page 207. But this is by no means the watermark that can be seen on the pages of the manuscript. It's the author's fabrication. Check out the watermark for yourselves (it's very visible in the Blue Brick): there are numerous pages where it is clearly visible that there is no such thing as a 1906 date beneath the crown. The fact that Cole puts it there is disappointing to me (also the meddling with the riddle mentioned above) and it is very hard therefore to believe in many of the claims he makes throughout the book. Because that's all they are so far - simple claims, not research - just as belmurru points out above.

Some doctor specialised in mental health issues claims that Crowley meets nine out of nine criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder after "investigating the copious material Crowley bequeathed to posterity". Hello? Did she read it all? The Confessions only? Symonds only? The diaries written under drugs only? Or what Regardie claimed Maria Teresa de Miramar (a woman admitted to a mental hospital) "used to say"?

Why another photoshop mash-up on page 201 with Crowley's "magus photograph from Book 4" even if it's unimportant? There clearly is only one version of it, the (drum-roll) superimposition of the different publications of the photo shows - nothing, just a slight distortion which is quite common with photographic or printed copies. Or did the stele and his wand also "breathe in" between two shots? He looks "too young"? Okay...

All in all the silence about the book is in my opinion due to this "strange kind of research". I am researching for myself as best as I can his claims, I also contacted the very nice and helpful people from Aberdeen Special Collections with the same results as belmurru and the advice that it would be probably better to research the matter there in person. I am looking for watermarks wherever I can in Crowley's and other works. But before I can properly comment on the book I think I will have to wait for part 2. At this moment I am quite unconvinced.

Sorry to hear of Paul's decision about his own publishing plans.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3838
13/01/2016 10:55 pm  

All very well, well, but what I am finding most puzzling at present is the continued silence & total absence of any sort of “official” comment by the “O.T.O.”, ostensibly the guardians and perpetuators of Crowley’s legacy, now after more than six months since publication.

Whether one agrees with Richard Cole’s conclusions or dismisses them entirely is quite incidental to this glaring omission. Is the order hoping that by their usual policy of saying & doing nothing they can somehow manage to get any actual “evidence” in these most important issues at stake to miraculously go away?

I don't understand, Jamie, why you think that the O.T.O. should make any comment on this book, official or otherwise. Although I have not bought the book, let alone sat down and read it, I did wade through the thread which seemed to run for centuries on LAShTAL, read the hyperbolic extracts, pdfs, vicious cartoons, etc., and got thoroughly sick of the whole thing. The final icing on the cake for me was the collection of relentlessly-moronic posts under the name Carrot_Childe.

Someone approached me a couple of weeks ago to enquire if there was a review of the book appearing in the forthcoming issue of Starfire. I said that there were no plans, so my correspondent will be submitting a review to be considered for inclusion in the issue. I have a lot less time for reading than I would like, and there are many books which have a greater attraction for me.

The Book of the Law was written through Crowley. Whatever its provenance, however it came into being, it is the substance of the book which is surely of more interest. Even if it turns out to have been created by Crowley, the text is still there - by turns beautiful, disturbing and enigmatic.

It's clear from your review of the book here on LAShTAL that you found it of interest, and doubtless many other people find it interesting too, but some don't. End of.


ReplyQuote
Jamie J Barter
(@jamiejbarter)
Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1225
14/01/2016 8:04 pm  

I don’t understand, Jamie, why you think that the O.T.O. should make any comment on this book, official or otherwise.

Well, you just quoted the reason for it above – because they are (ostensibly at least, and would have everyone believe they are) the official guardians and perpetuators of A.C.’s legacy (which includes the matter of his copyrights and “trademarks”). And because A.C. regarded promulgation of The Book of the Law as the main reason for its existence – why, if it turned out to have been calculatedly manufactured rather than divinely transmitted, the O.T.O.’s whole sanction for being would float straight out of the window! One would have thought, then, surely: if anyone was going to give a comment on it (or was entitled to), it would be them - or Hymeaneus Beta specifically, as the order's caliph or figurehead.
Do you think anyone else might be qualified to give an opinion, Mick, since Kenneth Grant has gone now?

“Vicious cartoons” – I think you are engaging in a little bit of hyperbole yourself there! I’ve seen a lot worse. If you want to see a much more vicious cartoon, have a look at the works of William Hogarth or James Gillray! (or if you want to be more up to date, try Charlie Hebdo or Private Eye for example. Or even Steve Bell, maybe.) They might all be disrespectful – but that’s a different kettle of poison and give me one good reason why cartoons don’t have a right to be so.

The final icing on the cake for me was the collection of relentlessly-moronic posts under the name Carrot_Childe.

When I first saw that, I thought ‘what a terrible avatar name for a poster!’ until we were suddenly informed it was an anagram! Then I must confess I rather chuckled…

Someone approached me a couple of weeks ago to enquire if there was a review of the book appearing in the forthcoming issue of Starfire. I said that there were no plans, so my correspondent will be submitting a review to be considered for inclusion in the issue.

I’ve never actually had anything in Starfire yet, so you can stick my review in (as well) if you like - I won’t charge, and I’m sure Paul wouldn’t mind and come the lashtal-copyright-heavy either!

The Book of the Law was written through Crowley.

Congratulations, you manage to cover all the options there!

Whatever its provenance, however it came into being, it is the substance of the book which is surely of more interest.

I like that “whatever its provenance” now, when less than two years ago you were posting that you wished to be counted into the “august company” of those few who admitted that they “accepted the [reception] story as conveyed by Crowley”!

Even if it turns out to have been created by Crowley, the text is still there – by turns beautiful, disturbing and enigmatic.

Agreed!

It’s clear from your review of the book here on LAShTAL that you found it of interest, and doubtless many other people find it interesting too, but some don’t. End of.

End of what? Surely not the message of your post - that goes without saying!?

Stating the obvious,
N Joy


ReplyQuote
sandyboy
(@sandyboy)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 106
14/01/2016 10:04 pm  

I've never read anything so daft - you assume RTC despises AC when he's spent most of his adult life celebrating him, albeit 'with all faults'. You and others demand 'proof', yet you accept AC's description of how he allegedly received transmission from Aiwass as if that were, excuse the term, gospel in itself!?!

Far from Cole having an agenda, it's his detractors who seem to lack honesty. I have always admired M.Staley, but for him to dismiss Bogus because he can't be arsed to read it and say there's no reason for the OTO to respond either beggars belief. Can you imagine if someone wrote a book saying JFK was never assassinated a situation where one of the known experts on the subject would say, 'why on earth would I care?'!?!


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 10
Share: