Greetings,
Having just recently read your Walk Like an Egyptian paper and this
thread I'd like to suggest that perhaps the reason that the GD
privileged Egyptian gods and that AC's take on Egypt was different from
the archaeological work was that they had a source of information that
was different from the archeological. That is, that both the GD and AC
had made contact with the Egyptian gods and had first hand info that
wasn't bound to the same motivations as the Egyptology of the time.
Regards,
Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of Sociology and Social Work
University of Tasmania
On 27/03/2011 11:59 AM, Caroline Tully wrote:
> Hi Mogg,
>
>
>>> You mean hung out in the British Library which was them part of the BM?<<
>
> Yes, well actually I mean the Reading Room of the BM.
>
>>> Not sure that's the same a direct work with the Egyptologists there -
> surely there would be something more concrete - rather than the same vague
> rumours and chinese whispers.<<
>
> That's right, it's not the same. I'm just saying its likely, or at least
> possible.
>
>>> It's a bit like the statement that Mathers worked as a curator or whatever
> at the Horniman - if you ask them they have no record of that although they
> are aware of his friendship with the founder?<<
>
> That's interesting,. I've only heard of that in Mary Greer, so whatever her
> source is for that, I guess that's the source.
>
>>> Its funny how something so recent has so little documentation - makes you
> wonder about the relationship between older research and its evidence base :
> )<<
>
> Well, if documentation does exist (about the GD and BM), I'm sure someone
> diligent could go find it - if it was findable.
>
>>> I agree with your article about the authority of Egypt for GD/AC etc - but
> does it ever go further - and why is there such a discrepency between the
> Egyptological knowledge of the time and some of the Crowleyian liturgy?<<
>
> You mean why is Crowley's take different to scholarly Egyptology (admitting
> that some of that scholarly Egyptology wasn't that great)? I think Crowley
> would have felt free to adapt Egyptian material to his purposes and also, I
> think he used a Kabbalistic structure as his base, his 'map', and fitted
> things into that, for example, the "Four-ness" of say Liber Resh fitting
> into the Tetragrammaton. He would have favoured 4's (Tetragrammaton), 7s
> (planets, excluding the later-discovered ones, even though he included
> Neptune in his Astrology book), 12s - the Zodiac etc...
>
>>> I suspect that Crowley thought the Egyptians meant it to be a nice even
> four and rectified the rite as he did for Liber Samech.<<
>
> Big YEP there.
>
> ~Caroline.
--
|