We Get Necronomicon Posts, Part 4

I owe Warlock a response to his last post, so let me get into it.

Warlock begins by giving us some information on the herb olieribos from this website. He maintains that it is actually the herb reed canary grass. Oddly enough, his quotation regarding the herb are contradicted by the very source he uses (see the upper right of the page he quotes)!

The trouble here, as I see it, is that the definition of olieribos I have, and which is confirmed by that page, dates back to the thirteenth century.  Now, I’m not saying that I have perfect knowledge of magic, because I don’t.  Yet the question soon becomes whether another source – preferably an older one – can show another meaning to olieribos.  That’s not to say there aren’t some problems with the description of olieribos, as the site admits, but it would be nice to have a more definite source to back up Warlock’s assertions.

We once again return to Crowley’s supposed authorship of the Necronomicon. Warlock once again does not engage with my questions about the book’s theme with regard to Crowley’s work and its superficial adoption of his doctrine. Rather, we turn once again to the number of times Crowley’s name is mentioned in the introduction, which hardly carries the same weight. He goes on to assert that the number of times “Messiah” is mentioned in the Old Testament is equal to the mentions of Crowley in the introduction to the book – thirty-nine – and that this is significant.

Nonetheless, to be fair, we must consider all the material under the heading of “Introduction” in the Simon book – and this, including the bibliography, give us a grand total of forty-one. I’m not certain what the justification could be for taking every section but one under this heading for numerological purposes.  Perhaps this could be explained?

I’d also appreciate Warlock’s explanation as to why the name “Philetos” is not a reflection of Thelemic philosophy – or a justification for why it is – as he has failed to address this three times. If not, I recommend that he might ask for the return of any tuition he paid for his years of magician’s training.

Advertisements
Published in: on May 20, 2008 at 11:25 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/we-get-necronomicon-posts-part-4/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Well I missed part of this discussion when it started so I apologize for responding to this now, but I just went back and read the previous posts. In Warlock’s posting that you responded to in “We Get Necronomicon Posts, Part 2” he quotes a section of the Simonomicon and then offers up a quote from the “Pathworkings of AC” to show similarities. Liber DCCCCLXIII, “Treasure House of Images” from which he quotes, was not written by Aleister Crowley, rather it was written by JFC Fuller. I suppose the “Pathworkings of J.F.C. Fuller” just doesn’t have the marketability as the chosen title, but this is a simple fact that reading the intro to the commonly available “New Falcon” printing will reveal. Hell, you can just read the back cover to discover this 😉

  2. Actually, it was authored by Crowley and Fuller. maybe you should look into the matter a little more.

  3. TIMES UP JOKER!

    http://warlockasylum.wordpress.com/open-letter-to-dan-harms-part-5-return-of-the-dark-knight/


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