We Get Necronomicon Posts, Part 2

Warlock Asylum takes me to task for my last post.

To answer him, I do think that the Simon Necronomicon does have some elements that are encoded.  The herb names olierobos and aglaophotis that play such a prominent role in the book, for instance, do have particular meanings.  Further, one could argue that using aglaophotis, or peonies, to call up demons when it traditionally drove them away is another code of sorts.  This does not necessarily mean that everything in the book is a code, nor that a claim of a particular code does not require scrutiny.

Warlock also asserts his superior understanding of the text because he is a magician.  Magicians are inherently better at interpretation than non-magicians, he assures us, because they spent a great deal of time before being initiated in studying mythology, culture, and law.  Thus, what makes magicians superior at examining these texts is the hard work they do before they become magicians, leaving non-magicians at a distinct disadvantage.  It seems indisputable, doesn’t it?

Based on his arguments, I can immediately see the benefits of having a magician’s perspective on these documents.  That the ancient orders have been sitting on the “determine authorship by counting people’s names in the text” argument for millennia is truly a crime against literature.  I had no idea that Lovecraft had been writing whole portions of my books.

Finally, I can certainly understand how merely quoting a similar passage between Crowley and the Necronomicon completely overcomes my objections as to the philosophical and stylistic differences between the texts as a whole.  I am somewhat puzzled by the assertion that “Theodoros Philetas” is a Thelemic reference, as it flies in the face of what we know about Lovecraft and in fact displays a gross distortion of Crowley’s Law of Thelema via both linguistics and Gematria.  I’m sure Warlock will tell us how he was joking about this point, so that’s all right.

That’s all for now.

Published in: on April 23, 2008 at 1:32 pm  Comments (1)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/we-get-necronomicon-posts-part-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. […] Repeatedly I have challenged Warlock to explain why the name “Philetas” from Lovecraft does not correspond to Crowley’s concept of “love” in Thelema. Finally he responds; […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s