Caroline Tully
Sure i agree it maybe doesn't matter to some -
but, counting myself as one of those "later practitioners of his method" -
it matters to me some
ie if magick can reach new insights into the "song line" that were
corroborated in otherways -
our own "propaganda" sometimes proposes that GD type gematria is used as
a way of corroborating
astral visions (not always convincingly i admit) but magicians often
claim that magick works in some concrete way.
Others too have looked to this kind of thing -
say the archeologist Bligh Bond who discovered a new chapel at glastonbury
- or maybe Omm Sety - probably other examples.
BB/93
mogg
Re Tzaddi - that's Crows argument - Tzaddi, the star, Nuit seems fine as
it is - and ACs "divine revelation, (if thats what it is) just doesn't
work for me.
>
>
> I thought the "Tzaddi is not the star" thing was becuase he wanted to
> attribute the Star card to Heh, because Nuit was the first Heh in
> Crowley's version of Tetragrammaton? I mean I thought it was just
> about thinking that Heh was more "Nuit-like" and Tzaddi more
> "Emperor-like" (as in Tzar, etc)?
>
> ~Caroline.
>
>
>> Caroline Tully
>>
>> I suppose what i mean is - do you think there are good examples of
>> where his personal
>> revelation let to some new knowledge
>> that was at the time unknown but was later corroborated by say
>> archaeology etc??
>> BTW I think Crowley lived in a golden age for Egyptology -
>> the language was revealing its secrets.
>>
>> His own example was "Tzaddi not the star" - but personally i can't
>> really understand what he's getting at -
>> unless its the double blind "Tzaddi is Nuit the star". But its not a
>> great example.
>>
>> BB/93
>>
>> Mogg
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>>>> does the fact that Crowley was dependent on literary sources
>>>>> rather than any new insights - mean anything do you think?<<
>>>
>>> You mean new insights that he himself had? Like an UPG?
>>> (unsubstantiated personal gnosis)?
>>>
>>> ~caroline.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|