View Single Post
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Quote:
Originally Posted by venicebard
I was disappointed and frankly baffled by volume 2 of Hulse's book -- the 'Western' tradition -- not including Hebrew. *
Yes, Hebrew is in the "Eastern Mysteries" volume.

Quote:
It is my fault, I guess, for not checking it more closely before ordering.
Caveat emptor (I tried to explain his value without a critique from my own perspective)

Quote:
And I gather he takes Mather as the great figurer-outer of something, though what is not clear (beyond that it involves laying Hebrew and trumps side by side starting with LeMat then reversing VIII and XI).
I think he does - he's an occultist in the western tradition, in addition to being a Thelemite (at least he was when I knew him).

Quote:
Meanwhile he appears entirely ignorant of modern epigraphy (the works of Barry Fell et al), as well as the Libyan and Tifinag alphabets (perhaps Meroitic and Egyptian would be in the 'Eastern' volume as well).
I was *very* clear when I said he wasn't a PhD in linguistics (or anything else) and that you are more advanced than he is. He is an amateur, and additionally gives an overview - whatever your perspective - on a number of number-alphabet systems that most people would never otherwise know about, and gives the bibliography he used. He's not dishonest at all. If his Thelemic perspective somehow corrupted the information, I would have pointed it out, but he kept it clean, and additionally his Llewellyn editors had him re-edit it so that the Thelemic background to his quest for the "Key of It All" was minimized or cut out entirely.

Quote:
Interesting also that he does include the real key to it all (which he evidently rejects in favor of Mathers), on page 116: chart listing bardic numeration of letters -- which he evidently got from Graves, as did I (I wish someone could track down Graves's source for this, though he moved in circles where he might have gotten it first hand from some scholar in the field, such as his grandfather[?] Charles[?] Graves). And I suppose I can justify the expenditure by admitting I had not worked out the sequences that add to 32, as he did, which he (probably correctly) links to Kabbalah. There may be other keys embedded in this approach, which I will now be on the lookout for.
Ah, good! So it was worth it. You might try writing to him. I'm sure he'd share a lot if you ask the right questions.

Quote:
I don't hold a grudge of course
Thanks.

Quote:
(I hope not, since it was mostly my fault anyway), but I must remember from now on that you recommended a book by an author who evidently takes Crowley seriously, though he did do some research into the Golden Dawn's credibility it appears.
But... if you're not going to hold a grudge, why *must* you remember that I recommended a book by a Thelemite? I wouldn't recommend a Thelemic book, that's for sure, but this book is only written by a Thelemite (like a good book can be written by a Catholic), it's not a book about Thelema, or Crowley. The information is sound, enough for a beginning student to begin with, and I will not accept that it tarnishes my reputation to have recommended it for that purpose.

I still stand by the recommendation, and occasionally refer to the book myself.

Neither Crowley nor Hulse are real scholars, if you mean with academic credentials.

Quote:
But so much speculation, in what he documents, and so little GENUINE TRADITION.
I likened it to a preliminary archeological ground survey for a reason - because that is where Hulse's text is at. It's a superficial, introductory text, not a profound investigation. The genuine tradition he is *personally* interested in is the English Alphabet and the Thelemic current (and its roots in the GD), but outside of that chapter (with its discussion of the Waite/Colman-Smith Tarot) you won't find that in the rest of the book.

It's a good book for the level I've said, and I'll still recommend it. Naturally I knew you would (like I do) argue with many points, but that's not what Dave's Angel asked for.

Ross
Top   #35