We Get Necronomicon Posts (5b)

We resume our discussion with Warlock’s response to my observation that the introduction to the Simon Necronomicon includes Crowley’s name 41 times and not 39:

Grow up Harms! I can’t believe you would actually degrade our discussion by resorting to a cheap trick. We both know that Crowley is mentioned in the Introduction 39 times, the same amount of times that the Hebrew word for Messiah appears in the Old Testament. Since when is the bibliography part of the text? That is such a cheap comment and one that is made to avoid the issue that Crowley’s name in the text must have some significance and to his contribution to the Simon Necronomicon. The bibliography is not a part of the text Harms! You know good and well the significance to Crowley being mention 39 times, and what it truly means. Since when is the bibliography part of the text? Has anyone ever offered a reference to the bibliography of another person’s book? No, because it is not part of the text. Grow up Harms!

I can only confess ignorance on this topic. After all, Warlock’s number includes the header and notes on Simon’s “Chart of Comparisons,” so I naturally concluded that a bibliography was fair game. Clearly the rules on this count-the-number-of-mentions-to-determine-authorship are more complex than I realized. Perhaps Warlock could give us a link, to reassure us he’s not picking and choosing what he uses to suit his thesis.

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;

As far as the comment he makes in regard to Theodorus Philetas, a name that means “gift of god-brother love” I guess Mister Harms cannot see how that definition relates anything to “Love is the law.” So do you think it’s possible that maybe Mister Lovecraft was inspired to write his mythos with Crowley in mind? It’s just to far fetched. Isn’t it Mister Dan Harms? I guess Mister Dan Harms might be better off letting his little brother Paul take over the site. At least, he would be able to post some information that is not inspired resentment, unlike his brother, Mister Dan Harms.

Too bad my brother, who we might refer to as “Mister Paul Harms”, has better things to do than that.

Sadly, Warlock seems unfamiliar with one of the basic tenets of Crowley’s philosophy. In short, the Greek word “Thelema,” or “will,” has the gematria value of 93. This is not equal to the Greek word for “brotherly love,” “phila,” but to that roughly meaning “divine love”, or “agape.” Given the history of the two words, it’s quite likely that Crowley recognized a significant difference between the two. Crowley himself used the number 93 to signify both will and love in his greetings, as do many Thelemites today.

There is simply no evidence that Lovecraft was familiar with Thelema – the Necronomicon Files goes into the Lovecraft Crowley possible connections at some length. Nonetheless, even if he was aware of it, HPL knew enough Greek from an early age and would have used “agape” instead of “philia” to make a coded reference.

Perhaps this is another test of discernment? If so, I am considering wizardry as a career. Clearly my ability to read a web page, to remember what I wrote, and to understand simple points about Thelema makes me highly qualified for such a position. I simply did not realize the bar had been set so low.

Advertisements
Published in: on August 5, 2008 at 10:14 am  Comments (9)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://danharms.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/we-get-necronomicon-posts-5b/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Thank you Mister Dan Harms for the response. i am formulating a reply to this post very shortly. One question though; Who made you an authority on the Necronomicon? I guess i will have to include that in my next post.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2480975/Batman-sequel-to-The-Dark-Knight-Johnny-Depp-to-play-The-Riddler.html

  2. Wait, is Warlock trying to say that Jesus wrote the Old Testament? Or is he saying that Crowley is a messiah prophesied by the Necronomicon?

    I’m not exactly sure what he’s trying to say by comparing those numbers.

  3. Oh, wait, I think I get it now. Warlock is saying that the Old Testament is the Introduction to the New Testament; so because the Introduction to Simon’s Necronomicon mentions Crowley 39 times, that means that the Necronomicon proper is about Crowley and his apostles. Right? Did I get it?

    sorry for the double post

  4. No you didn’t get it! 🙂 What I am saying is that, why is Crowley mention 39 times in the book, if he did not contribute at all to the work? Evidentl;y he must have some contribution. However, in deep respect for Mister Dan Harms, I will formulate a reply to our discussion with another post, shortly. Thanks for your insights Travis! have a great day!

  5. but how does a word used mainly in context with the anointing (meshiah) of kings contribute to your argument?

  6. My point is that the amount of times a word is used in a text has some significance or value. This tradition is mainly held by people from the Middle Eastern part of the world.

    “According to Rabbi Judah and the Ashkenazi Hasidic school in general, there can be nothing accidental in the Bible, not even the forms of letters, the punctuation, the vocalization, and especially-in the numerical structures-the number of certain letters, consonants or vowels in a certain verse; the number of words from the same root; the number and variety of divine names in a certain pericope, the absence of one or more letters from a chapter, and many other elements of the Scriptures besides their content.”

    The same occur with the Qur’an:

    “All the parameters of the Quran-the numbers and sequences of chapters; the number of verses; the numbers assigned to each verse; the number of words; the number of certain specified letters; the number of words from the same root; the number and variety of divine names; the absence of one or more letters from a word, verse or chapter; the unique and often strange spellings of certain crucial words; and many other elements-are all authenticated by its mathematical code.” (http://www.submission.org/miracle/history.html)

    So just maybe the amount of times the term Crowley appears in the introduction may have some significance, if you are thinking in an Eastern mindset, but if you’re looking at a Middle Eastern Grimoire with a western mindset, I understand your confusion. 🙂

    Thanks again Travis!

  7. “So just maybe the amount of times the term Crowley appears in the introduction may have some significance, if you are thinking in an Eastern mindset, but if you’re looking at a Middle Eastern Grimoire with a western mindset, I understand your confusion.

    Thanks again Travis!”

    But the introduction was writen in the western mind set.
    It was the text that was the ME Grimoire.
    Be that as it may Crowley had noting to do with the book.

  8. “Be that as it may Crowley had noting to do with the book.”

    The Introduction was written to help the ‘Western Mindset’ understand some of the concepts of eastern anceint traditions. Or maybe I should just quote a passage from the introduction.

    “the eytomology of both Lovecraft’s and Crowley’s respective literature enables the occultist to discover the ancient Names and Numbers for much of his own, familiar , material.”

    So despite the fact that the name Crowley appears in the Introduction more that the name Simon, or Lovecraft, or even the word Necronomicon, and you still be think that Crowley has nothing to do with the book. Okay, get some rest Nebo. Get some rest.

    Be Well

  9. To answer Warlock’s question: If I am an authority on the Necronomicon, it’s because I read the material, asked questions, and came to conclusions.


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