Why is Fool Aleph instead of Magician

Michael Sternbach

Also, it is important to keep in mind here that as a system sourced in "mysticism".... it is not something "invented"...... Did the GD "invent" by "pasting" the tarot onto the Tree of Life?" If so, then I would consider it quite suspect....and not at all an aspect of mystical wisdom passed down to us through the Ages as were both the Tree of Life and the tarot, as well as the alphabet and the numbers.

All esoteric systems were patched together at an early stage. For instance, our astrology (such a neat, coherent system today!) started out as a fusion of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek elements.
 

Ruby Jewel

All esoteric systems were patched together at an early stage. For instance, our astrology (such a neat, coherent system today!) started out as a fusion of Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek elements.

As were the Tree of Life and the tarot....but, I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order to become eligible to be honored as one of the Perennial Philosophies, it should meet the criteria of standing alone. The tarot is a time-honored philosophy that stood alone until the GD decided to do a "collage" with it that I feel is/was a legitimate experiment. But the tarot is autonomous....ultimately shedding the barnacles that attempt to attach and grow on it. Papus's system simply arranges it in a pattern, but he did not attempt to paste it onto an existing philosophy such as the "Tree of Life" as did the GD.

But, what I'm saying is that having once understood Crowley's method, the accumulated knowledge becomes a stepping stone beyond it.....no knowledge is wasted, just as no knowledge is an end in itself, it continues to evolve...as it must. We humans are putting together a puzzle and every piece of it contributes to the growing picture. I am still curious to understand Crowley's method...there's a reason it is loved by so many....but that doesn't make it the Truth. As we all know, the Truth is in the Sword.....and one's ability to use it.
 

Barleywine

As were the Tree of Life and the tarot....but, I don't advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order to become eligible to be honored as one of the Perennial Philosophies, it should meet the criteria of standing alone. The tarot is a time-honored philosophy that stood alone until the GD decided to do a "collage" with it that I feel is/was a legitimate experiment. But the tarot is autonomous....ultimately shedding the barnacles that attempt to attach and grow on it. Papus's system simply arranges it in a pattern, but he did not attempt to paste it onto an existing philosophy such as the "Tree of Life" as did the GD.

But, what I'm saying is that having once understood Crowley's method, the accumulated knowledge becomes a stepping stone beyond it.....no knowledge is wasted, just as no knowledge is an end in itself, it continues to evolve...as it must. We humans are putting together a puzzle and every piece of it contributes to the growing picture. I am still curious to understand Crowley's method...there's a reason it is loved by so many....but that doesn't make it the Truth. As we all know, the Truth is in the Sword.....and one's ability to use it.

To my way of thinking, the true test with any appreciation of Crowley lies in attempting to come to grips with The Book of the Law. I finally concluded, after living with it and trying to get my head around it for decades, that it's an atmospheric dose of exalted faux-Egyptian window-dressing harboring half-a-dozen nuggets of pure brilliance that form the basis for much of his "system." Don't expect any kind of humanistic enlightenment from it though; it's pretty uncompromising stuff.
 

Zephyros

Don't expect any kind of humanistic enlightenment from it though; it's pretty uncompromising stuff.

That depends on one's definition. It is certainly not New Age lovey-dovey stuff, but it does raise the importance of each person to that of a god. It isn't "nice," is my point. It's as if the God of the Old Testament were talking to himself.
 

Barleywine

That depends on one's definition. It is certainly not New Age lovey-dovey stuff, but it does raise the importance of each person to that of a god. It isn't "nice," is my point. It's as if the God of the Old Testament were talking to himself.

. . . and muttering under His breath as he sharpens up His "terrible swift sword." :)

I found it especially instructive in understanding why Crowley changed Strength to Lust, among other revelations.
 

Ruby Jewel

To my way of thinking, the true test with any appreciation of Crowley lies in attempting to come to grips with The Book of the Law. I finally concluded, after living with it and trying to get my head around it for decades, that it's an atmospheric dose of exalted faux-Egyptian window-dressing harboring half-a-dozen nuggets of pure brilliance that form the basis for much of his "system." Don't expect any kind of humanistic enlightenment from it though; it's pretty uncompromising stuff.

Thanks Barleywine. I have never seen "The Book of the Law", but I do happen to have "The Book of Thoth." I have been reading some of the interesting commentary on this forum...and Crowley's quotes.....and it struck me that Crowley reminds me of a cult leader. I once had an opportunity (working for Ruth Stapleton) to listen to some recordings of Jim Jones of Jonestown, and I remember thinking "Wow...he sounds fantastic. I can see how anyone would follow him into hell and drink his 'Kool Aid'." I was going to tape his talks, but decided I wanted nothing to do with it. He had that charisma and that kind of power over the mind that was frightening. Crowley's system is a religion, which comes across as an "anti-religion." I have often observed brilliant minds caught in that trap....nothing screws up the thinking like religion. I am inclined to wonder if Crowley had a religious upbringing that he was battling his whole life. Hence, I've decided I'm not really interested in Crowley anymore. In my opinion, it is a waste of too much of my precious time. I much prefer the simplistic method...I find it trustworthy.
 

Ruby Jewel

That depends on one's definition. It is certainly not New Age lovey-dovey stuff, but it does raise the importance of each person to that of a god. It isn't "nice," is my point. It's as if the God of the Old Testament were talking to himself.

I agree here Zephyros. He is not a nice man, nor is his "method." If I were going to invest the amount of time it would take to study Crowley in anything at all, it would be Buddhism....a method that teaches compassion and generosity....not grandiosity and self-inflation. IMO...Crowley was pathetic, too weak to make a decision....in the sense that he obviously had a brilliant mind, but couldn't wrestle it from the Devil and harness it for his own good nor for the good of humanity.
 

Ruby Jewel

. . . and muttering under His breath as he sharpens up His "terrible swift sword." :)

I found it especially instructive in understanding why Crowley changed Strength to Lust, among other revelations.

Don't you think that is rather simple to see? Lust was what he understood as Strength...because he had no real strength. He interpreted strength to be power. It takes strength to be "gentle" as in the traditional version of the card.....he couldn't close the lion's mouth....he tried to tame it like a bronco rider....iow...."break" it.
 

Zephyros

To each his own, of course. :)

And with that, I'll be a bit of a stuffy moderator and ask that Crowley-centric discussions take place in the Thoth forum, while here we can concentrate on why the Fool is Aleph. If there is, indeed, anything more to say about the matter.

Thank you :)
 

Barleywine

I agree here Zephyros. He is not a nice man, nor is his "method." If I were going to invest the amount of time it would take to study Crowley in anything at all, it would be Buddhism....a method that teaches compassion and generosity....not grandiosity and self-inflation. IMO...Crowley was pathetic, too weak to make a decision....in the sense that he obviously had a brilliant mind, but couldn't wrestle it from the Devil and harness it for his own good nor for the good of humanity.

Hmm, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" }) As a non-religious person I never took to the Thelemic trappings of his religion; it was his encyclopedic mind and command of language that caught my attention. He once said that he couldn't be a Satanist because you first had to believe in Satan. But I have no quarrel with his slogan "The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion" which I think he made good on with the Thoth deck. Here's the full quote: "We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon; our Method is Science, Our Aim is Religion." (He was obviously referring to the Christian motifs of the Virgin and the Dove.)

ETA: Sorry, I cross-posted this before I saw the admonishment, which I've kinda been expecting.