THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.divination,alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.thelema
From: hara 
Subject: Re: Crowley's 777 and Tarot
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:02:58 GMT

50030627 viii om Pisces-Age-Y2006

shalom alechem, my kin.
 
hara regarding 777 as a source on Kabbalah:
#>#> slim pickings where Kabbalah is concerned,
 
farid al-qahar :
#># howso? ...

hara: 
#> single-system, minimalistic, von Rosenroth-derived, Hermeticism....

farid al-qahar :
# hmmm. this above sounds like different conclusions are being 
# made than before?

no, better pickings come from multi-system analyses, extensive
modelling and description, derivation from traditional sources,
and are usually Jewish in character/origin. the alt.magick 
Kabbalah FAQ has more.

re Crowley's lack of spiritual adeptship:
#>#> reflecting his mystical results as demonstrably 
#>#> fabricated and phoney

#> spiritual adeptship is demonstrated in behaviour and expression.
#> Crowley's didn't display this adeptship, thus clearly a failure.
#
# his behaviour also led to the re-creation/ propogation of a 
# successful cult (oto), 

so his interests and skills seem to have included the social.
I'm not sure it was his doing that led to the org success.

# and a bunch of successful books (mtp, aleph, thoth, etc.). 

so his interests and skills seem to have included writing.
his amusing style and confusing self-reference probably
are in part responsible for the popularity of his books.

your response to my contention of his spiritual failure 
was that he was a social and literary success. non sequitur.

#>#># ...a cursory look through his book 777 should prove 
#>#># to all that the guy really knew his stuff. 
#>#>
#>#> false. his citations are almost non-extant, his knowledge 
#>#> of Jewish mysticism is atrocious, and his orientalism is
#>#> immoral.
 
#> cursory glance at the document in question demonstrates
#> his sparseness of citation.
#
# true enough.
# i am not sure if this seriously impacts the work as a whole. 

it negates connection with transmission if no citations are
specified, though one might make the case that his expression
sufficiently resembles quality sources as to demonstrate its
inherent value. scholarly analysis of his work indicates that
he was limited in reference to von Rosenroth and nonJewish
sources. he even goes so far as to ridicule and slam Jews.

therefore as a source for Jewish mysticism he is a bad one,
even if his ideas are imaginative and unique (and I'm not
sure that they are).

# for instance, it's not as if he's coming out of left field 
# on everything....

if the issue is where 777 is slim pickings for Kabbalah, then
lack of integrity with respect to the topic and seriously-
debilitating criticism from sources on the subject are
adequate defense of my assertion. sri catyananda reproduced
material that satisfies this quite well. your options are to
demonstrate that sources like Scholem are not to be trusted
on the topic of Crowley's knowledge of Kabbalah (good luck),
or attempt to side-step the issue by claiming that your usage 
of language was awkward, your understanding of the subject of
discussion insufficient to understand the criticism presented
(my guess). thereafter we can discern what you meant or talk
about 777 as an example of an occult tool (my contention).

# ...when does one need to cite in order to still retain not 
# any air of 'scholarliness' ... but rather simple 
# intellectual credibiblity and earnestness?

when one's societal connections do not intersect the 
mystical traditions which it is claimed he understood.
absent such a personal and oral connection (there is
no reason to believe he had or wanted one), it is
rational to conclude that his credibility is lacking
unless he provides substantiation for his authority.

i.e. the guy really DID NOT KNOW the stuff. instead,
he created his own stuff, which may stand on its
own as I have described it, but doesn't constitute
any kind of reliable source on Jewish mysticism. 

#> consult his material on "yoga" (to which he has no
#> authoritative instruction credential) for an example of
#> his orientalism. 
#
# i wasn't aware one needed any such license.

an encyclopaedia entry on the subject of "orientalism" 
will inform you that representing mystical and religious
traditions to which one lacks a connection by virtue of
discipline and arranged, extended studentship, qualifies.
please don't extend my criticism of him beyond endurance.

you originally asked me to substantiate with something
more than an assertion that in Crowley's work on Kabbalah
his citations are almost non-extant, his knowledge of 
Jewish mysticism is atrocious, and his orientalism is
immoral. I think I have adequately complied. in general,
orientalism is immoral, but Crowley doesn't even try to
conceal it much, such as by pretending to lineage-holding.
he is just out to grab attention and hopes his adulators
will overlook his spiritual deceptions.

#>#> anyone can throw an attribution system together.
#>#
#># why then aren't they all as popular as 777?

how popular is it really? with what are you comparing it?
 
#> magic is the domain of the misfit. Crowley promotes as a
#> Bad Boy, drawing attention with his antipathy.
#
# good marketing is the only explanation?

no, his character draws attention because of its resonance
within the topic of occultism. the fact that he *had* such
marketing is certainly important (inherited wealth, *plus*
a penchance for stylistic prose), but I think his Bad Boy
projection serves to gain him a reputation where it counts.

this in no way necessarily reflects on the value of his
attribution system per se, just its presentation and 
the fact that it came from him, rather than someone else.

#> otherwise I haven't noticed many other
#> attribution systems constructed which might compete. can
#> you elaborate as to the "all" which you are comparing?

I didn't see your response to this.
 
# btw, re crowley as a sham (generally, not specifically 
# in regards his qabalah):
# 1) obvious 2) this is a *bad* thing?

I don't know that he was generally a sham. if one is 
looking for Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), then 777 will 
not really constitute a qualifer.

# ...the 'primitive' cultures of africa, america, oceania, 
# etc. are left out. this is an admitted ommission. ....

this is a wonderful criticism of it as a global cultural
lattice. thanks for helping me understand some of its
limitations in terms of occultism, where it can easily
be argued that it deserves the attention that it receives. 

#> Decker and Dummett's "History of Occult Tarot" is filled
#> with them. many of them are related, but they differ in
#> sometimes very important ways (what is included in the
#> attributions, how the Trumps are arranged, etc.).
#
# given the above, how is the tzaddi-heh switch at all 
# notable, let alone 'inelegant, illogical unsustainable.?'

on account of its disruption of the standard against which
almost all (I can see no exceptions) of these are compared
(the sequence of the Hebrew aleph-beth). I would be very
surprised to learn that such a disruption was traditional 
in any culture or subculture, though anomalies within
Kabbalah's (maybe even tarot's) history are probably extant.

#>#> assignment (GD/Crowley? complete with his tzaddi/Star
#>#> nonsense?)?
#>#
#># why is the tzaddi - heh switch/ interchange nonsense?
#> 
#> inelegant. illogical. unsustainable. based on some sort
#> of interior experience of Crowley's rather than any
#> other obvious and comprehendable notion. I'd love to
#> see it defended here as somehow sensible. thanks.
#
# any attribution seems as good as any other, for the individual.

that depends on for what it is going to be used. see my post
in response to Joseph, in which I extend this explanation.

# see the dali tarot? interesting attributions there. 
# certainly not crowleyian.

you know, I have the book containing the Dali tarot, but I've
never seriously considered it as far as its attributions. would
you mind saying more about this and why they are interesting?
I'll be happy to take a closer look at it. does Dali also
try to switch Hebrew letters from their conventional sequence?

peace be with you,

hara
-- 
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired; 
HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street addy to: catalogue@luckymojo.com