--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "David R. Jones"
> Evidence not proof---
"evidence" is something one examines. Anything could
be evidence---of something. "proof" on the other hand is
something one determines about the meaning and value of the
evidence. Now, in looking over the threads concerning the events
that took place, or not, in Cairo 100 years ago, many here seem
interested in establishing that something has been proved, or
that something is immune from proof, but few seem much
concerned with figuring out what would constitute pertinent
evidence with respect to their concerns.
What can you honestly say you know, for a fact, about the
Thelemic creation myth?
Do you know, for a fact, that Aleister and Rose were in Cairo,
Egypt on April 8-10, 1904? And if KNOW this, how do you know
it? What is your evidence?
Do you know, for a fact, that Aleister and Rose went to the Cairo
Museum (which is the only one they could have gone to in 1904
in order to see the Stele of Revealing) and that Rose identified
Horus on the Stele and that it was numbered 666?
Do you know, for a fact, that the Stele text was translated into
French, and that the god names translated actually appeared on
the Stele of Revealing?
Do you know, for a fact, that an entity named Aiwass appeared to
Crowley in Cairo on April 8-10, 1904 and dictated LIber AL to
Or, is it instead the case that you believe a lot of things that you
have never seriously questioned because you just figured
people who claimed them wouldn't lie to you?
Further, if you would say that the facts---stupid old things---have
no bearing upon your beliefs, what particularly about the myth, if
anything at all, inspires you in your faith? Or is it simply that you
find Liber AL's text, and presumably Crowley's commentary, so
compelling as a statement of something worthy of your
With respect to the claims of the myth, even ones maintained by
people today in orders such as (C)OTO, do you not question, at
least sometimes, that you are being had?
> In any case Crowley should or would have known
> the distinction.
Crowley would have known, and did know, a great many things.
That doesn't mean he wasn't lazy, arrogant, patronizing (as in
who the hell needs to learn the Egyptian's NEW name for the
museum when the one all Brits know works perfectly well), and
also to a large extent he was monomanical---thus a bit
distracted when it came to reporting what must have seemed to
him extraneous details.
The facts are that Crowley certainly meant the Cairo Museum,
and he certainly meant that he and Rose went to that museum,
whether they did or not. That he repeatedly called it Bulaq is
really not that interesting or pertinent. There are other issues and
other names which are much more troubling, or should be, to