The Book We Were All Waiting For (or Not)
amahan9393
I heard about this bogus . . . this book just the other night on another site and it seems to me that people are pretty much willing to wait before judgement (which is logical, right?), while others aren't really surprised and seem to think that Crowley originally "made the whole thing up," anyway.
The author of the bogus . . . the book obviously has an agenda. Personally, I'll be reading the book. Some day.
The author of the bogus . . . the book obviously has an agenda. Personally, I'll be reading the book. Some day.
Aeon418
Personally I'm looking forward to reading Mr Cole's book. Although it does appear to be an agenda driven piece and not a work of unbiased scholarship.
The notebooks that he refers to aren't new or unknown. What he sees in these books that others have missed is a mystery.
BTW I thought Cole's 'hobby horse' was the watermark on the original manuscript. He has previously claimed that the mark dates the original manuscript of Liber Legis to 1906 and not 1904. He seems to have gone quiet on this point and distanced himself from it. Clutching at straws?
On the subject of the dictation and it's importance (or lack of), didn't if get covered in a thread somewhere? I have a vague memory of one being started. It may have been a BoL thread.
I really can't see how Cole can make some of these claims.
The notebooks that he refers to aren't new or unknown. What he sees in these books that others have missed is a mystery.BTW I thought Cole's 'hobby horse' was the watermark on the original manuscript. He has previously claimed that the mark dates the original manuscript of Liber Legis to 1906 and not 1904. He seems to have gone quiet on this point and distanced himself from it. Clutching at straws?
On the subject of the dictation and it's importance (or lack of), didn't if get covered in a thread somewhere? I have a vague memory of one being started. It may have been a BoL thread.
rachelcat
I haven't done anything but glance at the link, but I have to say:
This reminds me of the time that my husband's cousin burst in all excited to say, "it has been PROVEN that the Bible is not true!"
What is proven? By whom? For what purpose? (And to return to the Bible briefly,) What is truth?
This reminds me of the time that my husband's cousin burst in all excited to say, "it has been PROVEN that the Bible is not true!"
What is proven? By whom? For what purpose? (And to return to the Bible briefly,) What is truth?
Aeon418
R. T. Cole on Aleister Crowley.
R.T. Cole said:
The above quote comes from this article. http://www.lashtal.com/downloads/ATM_Messiah.pdf
[Note to Grigori: This is not a link to the Lashtal forum. I know the rules.
]This attitude is currently fashionable in some 'theoretical' Thelemic circles. Anything that smacks of supernaturalism, occultism, or non-materialism is frowned upon or openly ridiculed under the umbrella term 'superstition'. By it's very nature the Liber Legis dictation/reception story that Crowley gives is not very popular with some people. To them Crowley and Thelema need to be rescued from such 'superstitious nonsense' and placed in a new context more in line with their own views.
ravenest
Welllll .... probably ? Makes more sense than all that preaternormal mumbo-jumbo.
But what difference does that make? The whole idea (if one can percieve the common 'demoninator' in all this is that mumbo jumbo is exactly what is required to get beyond the logical rigid mental ego structures, and the more complex and 'real seeming; the mumbo jumbo is the better it works.
Hey, but thats just my approach - The best success I ever had with a magical operation (aside from the powers of coincidence was using a system from the necronomicon ... I know, I know!
One could say the same thing about mathers or Blavatsky .... but it doesnt wipe out their brilliant contribution
But what difference does that make? The whole idea (if one can percieve the common 'demoninator' in all this is that mumbo jumbo is exactly what is required to get beyond the logical rigid mental ego structures, and the more complex and 'real seeming; the mumbo jumbo is the better it works.
Hey, but thats just my approach
- The best success I ever had with a magical operation (aside from the powers of coincidence was using a system from the necronomicon ... I know, I know!One could say the same thing about mathers or Blavatsky .... but it doesnt wipe out their brilliant contribution
Zephyros
I find it kind of laughable, actually. I mean, obviously, I don't know what happened there, but it is immaterial. Do What Thou Wilt is all about personal freedoms, and quitting the addiction of slavery. Whether Crowley was insane or lying or not is beside the point. Would any book discrediting him cause anyone to think "Wow, it's all a lie! Personal choice and freedom must be bad things!"? I sincerely hope not, and if so, it does come from the same grasping at straws Thelema seeks to do away with.
The notion that removing the head of a pyramid destroys all of it is... such Osirian-Age thinking and bears little upon the ideas put forth. It is amusing in its own way, but ultimately childish. This quote by Crowley from De Lege Libellum says it all succinctly:
And there you have it. In contrast to the prophets of the Dying Gods, Crowley freely admits his successes and failures merely mean we can all do better.
The notion that removing the head of a pyramid destroys all of it is... such Osirian-Age thinking and bears little upon the ideas put forth. It is amusing in its own way, but ultimately childish. This quote by Crowley from De Lege Libellum says it all succinctly:
Aleister Crowley said:
And there you have it. In contrast to the prophets of the Dying Gods, Crowley freely admits his successes and failures merely mean we can all do better.
Saker
To me, this is just some crackpot trying to make a buck sensationalizing a controversial subject, hoping that he's going to get attention. I agree with the assessment that it's not going to be the blockbuster expose that he thinks it will. I'm a Thelemite and I don't think it matters whether or not Crowley "received" Liber Al Vel Legis or if he made it up in a drug-induced stupor. Thelema stands on its own, Liber Al is what it is, no matter its origins. I won't be bothering to read this new book; if it doesn't further me in doing my true will, it's a waste of time and a distraction.
Ross G Caldwell
You're right, it won't be. At the other forum's thread where we discussed - dissected - it, or rather the prospectus and the basis of its bombastic assertions, pretty much nothing of what he said added up to anything. He asserted that the paper of Liber Legis was from 1906, but has withdrawn that assertion because it isn't true. Actually, he said it is now a side-issue - which to me is just weasling out of saying "I was wrong".
Richard Cole has a pass in general for some people because of his good work in debunking the Crystal Skulls nonsense, and, more importantly for most, his association with Led Zeppelin. Even asserting that Crowley was an "obsessive psychopath" gets a pass with that kind of mojo. I don't think "psychopath" is in the DSM IV manual, but hey, the term sells.
Aeon418
If I had a penny for every time I've been asked if I like Led Zeppelin...
Q: Hey your into that Crowley guy, right?
A: Yeah, you could say that.
Q: So do like Led Zeppelin?
A: Er...no.
Q: But Jimmy Page was seriously into Crowley.
A: So f***ing what?!
