Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Johnathon Victor Reese's avatar

This is one of those topics where I get pedantic. “Holy Books,” the numberical order of the texts, which ones are included, the classification system itself (that it even applies outside the A∴A∴ and/or O.T.O., or that Class A is a “scriptural core” of Thelema in the first place when that is categorically untrue in several cases), the insistence of broadening the political Tunis Comment from Liber AL to other Class A texts, the inconsistencies of Crowley’s use of Class A, etc. I could go on because this was such an in-depth dive for me in the canonization study.

But even here, you’ve conflated “Holy Book” with Class A—which still assumes Class A to mean anything outside of A∴A∴/O.T.O.—and then only included 11 of the 13 Class A texts, of which only 5 did Crowley ever consider to be core texts in the first place. (The “Holy Books of Thelema” is entirely a McMurtry (though some say Breeze) verisimilitude.)

That said, when it comes to the actual breakdowns, you have literally written out the format that I’ve always wanted to see someone do for a study version of the Holy Books: Intro—Theme—Style. I love it! It’s brilliant. I remain absolutely convinced that a study/student version of the Holy Books (and then some) would be invaluable. But it would take more than just some additional footnotes. It would take a commission of some sort to get it right. And we still have way too much crap in our community for that to be successful. Until then, breakdowns like this are absolutely invaluable! You continue to do our community such a service with such things.

Expand full comment
Lawrence Malpas's avatar

Thank you for this compendium of knowledge, Marco. It is already propelling me into further study and a resurfaced enthusiasm, after a very dry and very busy period. Extremely helpful.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts