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.
I started writing all of this long ago, and then most of it was excised from my upcoming book for Watkins, as they really want the books they sell to speak to the ABSOLUTE beginner.
It definitely needed editing, and I will make sure to incorporate the feedback you gave here when I produce a printed version of it for the next Field Notes!
That said, thank you for the kind words. Funnily enough, when I write about Thelema is when most readers unsubscribe, but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes!
It’s my pedantic nature. You know that already. LOL! I can tell you that 25-30 years ago, I wouldn’t have known the difference—and didn’t! It was one of the first books I picked up, and I thought it was “the way things were.” When I started my “what would a Thelemic Canon look like” study, it was eye-opening. Things like open vs closed canon, consistency in thought/doctrine (does Tau fit as “Holy Book”? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s not Class A! Aracanum? Same thing!), narrative order, etc. all came to the surface and I was shocked to find that when I started reading in the order that Crowley originally gave them to others, I got so much more out of them—including Liber AL.
But I’m not blowing smoke either. You and I have differences, to be sure, but I believe in the work you’re doing. And I’m fortunate to count you among those that I will cross swords with any day as well as stand back to back with that same sword.
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.
My confession: I know OF Crowley and perhaps I believe to understand some basics. That's all and I am not sure about that, either. But I certainly can't comprehend how a human being can state anything on a theoretical level higher than any Individual can ever reach - without providing proof. Crowley's writings are sublime in regard to language and in that they may expand our thinking - as do those of any other thinker or author, too.
But in my opinion his work is built on the fertile ground of imagination which is a good thing and on observing a world infinitely bigger than us and deducing this or that which may be true or useful or, well, not.
My confession: I know OF Crowley and perhaps I believe to understand some basics. That's all and I am not sure about that, either. But I certainly can't comprehend how a human being can state anything on a theoretical level higher than any Individual can ever reach - without providing proof. Crowley's writings are sublime in regard to language and in that they may expand our thinking - as do those of any other thinker or author, too.
But in my opinion his work is built on the fertile ground of imagination which is a good thing and on observing a world infinitely bigger than us and deducing this or that which may be true or useful or, well, not.
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.
In my defence, I did call this the “Cliff Notes”!
I started writing all of this long ago, and then most of it was excised from my upcoming book for Watkins, as they really want the books they sell to speak to the ABSOLUTE beginner.
It definitely needed editing, and I will make sure to incorporate the feedback you gave here when I produce a printed version of it for the next Field Notes!
That said, thank you for the kind words. Funnily enough, when I write about Thelema is when most readers unsubscribe, but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes!
It’s my pedantic nature. You know that already. LOL! I can tell you that 25-30 years ago, I wouldn’t have known the difference—and didn’t! It was one of the first books I picked up, and I thought it was “the way things were.” When I started my “what would a Thelemic Canon look like” study, it was eye-opening. Things like open vs closed canon, consistency in thought/doctrine (does Tau fit as “Holy Book”? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s not Class A! Aracanum? Same thing!), narrative order, etc. all came to the surface and I was shocked to find that when I started reading in the order that Crowley originally gave them to others, I got so much more out of them—including Liber AL.
But I’m not blowing smoke either. You and I have differences, to be sure, but I believe in the work you’re doing. And I’m fortunate to count you among those that I will cross swords with any day as well as stand back to back with that same sword.
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.
what do you think of "the commentary of AL" by Motta?
They’re interesting to ponder, but I don’t give Motta any particular status.
My confession: I know OF Crowley and perhaps I believe to understand some basics. That's all and I am not sure about that, either. But I certainly can't comprehend how a human being can state anything on a theoretical level higher than any Individual can ever reach - without providing proof. Crowley's writings are sublime in regard to language and in that they may expand our thinking - as do those of any other thinker or author, too.
But in my opinion his work is built on the fertile ground of imagination which is a good thing and on observing a world infinitely bigger than us and deducing this or that which may be true or useful or, well, not.
But of course - I may be totally wrong too.
My confession: I know OF Crowley and perhaps I believe to understand some basics. That's all and I am not sure about that, either. But I certainly can't comprehend how a human being can state anything on a theoretical level higher than any Individual can ever reach - without providing proof. Crowley's writings are sublime in regard to language and in that they may expand our thinking - as do those of any other thinker or author, too.
But in my opinion his work is built on the fertile ground of imagination which is a good thing and on observing a world infinitely bigger than us and deducing this or that which may be true or useful or, well, not.
But of course - I may be totally wrong too.