|
Dear Bill,
Before I get down to the business at hand let me thank you personally and the O.T.O. for permitting The Alpha Astrophysical Research Project (TAARP) to include the images of some of Crowley's and Harris' Tarot trumps on our website.
It is with great sadness, disappointment and frustration that I write you this note, so please forgive any comments I make herein that may seem to you unprofessional and/or rude. My interest is only to try to emphasize how seriously I take the issues discussed. Furthermore, I only write this out of a sense of duty to the truth of the wisdom of Aleister Crowley. Also, please understand how grateful I am to you, Hymanaeus Beta, and the O.T.O. in general for the wonderful service all of you are contributing to the future of our species.
The new Crowley/Adams book "The General Principles of Astrology," over which Hymanaeus Beta and others sweated so much blood, is a disaster. It completely misses the main point it sought to, or should have sought to, accomplish, and in the process muddied the waters terribly. The problem is simple in concept, but disastrous in effect. It was absolutely wrong to modify the horoscopes that Crowley originally used and to modify his discussions to fit the new horoscopes.
If the objective of the book was only to enlighten students on the astrological nature of the natives under discussion, then there may have been some justification for the modified and supposedly more accurate horoscopes presented in the new book. However, the single objective of the book should be to teach students Crowley's method of discerning and interpreting astrological complexes. Precisely correct "matching" of any given native to his horoscope is a far secondary issue.
Taking a modified horoscope and trying to modify Crowley's original discussion to fit the modified horoscope is absurd. Change any one piece of a natal horoscope in any significant way and everything about the horoscope changes. For example, take two natal horoscopes that are identical except that one has Aries rising and the other has Sagittarius rising. All of the planetary aspects are the same for both horoscopes, and yet the astrological complexes that comprise the two horoscopes will probably be very different. The primary reason that H.B. and the ignorant astrologers he relied on for advise don't realize this is primarily because they do not understand that "the number and 'tightness' of angular aspects" is only a necessary condition for a set of planets to form an astrological complex, not a sufficient condition.
Page XXXIX of "GPA" says:
"The first method is his theory of 'complexes,' given in chapter 8, 'The Master Key to Astrology,' which has to do with the number and 'tightness' of angular aspects as a measure of what some astrologers term intercommunication among the planets".
As TAARP's research clearly demonstrates (see our website: www.alpha-astrophysics.org) the existence of a set of aspects with tight orbs by no means insures that the planets involved form an astrological complex. There are meaning laden factors that also come into play. (See Block 8: A Challenge for Crowley Scholars and the Ordo Templi Orientis on our website. In addition to this we have numerous examples in our research notes which demonstrate how terribly difficult it is to understand why Crowley designates a particular set of planets as forming an astrological complex.) It is quite clear that a group of planets aspecting together only comprise an astrological complex if there is a coherent, meaningful unity characterizing the group.
Each planet in the group does not have to aspect every other planet in the group, but rather one of the planets in the group has to aspect all of the other planets in the group. We call this planet the "kernel." One thing that is terribly confusing is that there may be a planet that closely aspects the kernel, but Crowley does not include it in the complex.
For two horoscopes that are identical except that one has Aries rising and the other has Sagittarius rising, there is a good probability that in the first case, Mars (the ruler of Aries) will be the kernel of a complex and in the second case Jupiter (the ruler of Sagittarius) will be the kernel of a complex. However, this is not necessarily the case. Also, note that with Aries rising if Jupiter is in the midheaven, then Jupiter will probably be the kernel of a complex. Likewise, with Sagittarius rising, if Mars is in the midheaven, then Mars will probably be the kernel of a complex. The point here is simply that culminating planets are so strong that they usually are the kernal and the "key" of an astrological complex. It is important not to confuse the kernel of a complex and the key of a complex. Often the kernel is not the key. My remarks here have been strictly directed to whether or not a planet forms a kernel.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the meaning laden feature that plays such an important part in the formation of complexes. For example, a set of planets in specific angular relationships with each other may form an astrological complex in a certain natal horoscope, but the same planets with the same angular relationships, but in different signs (or even different houses) in another natal horoscope may not form an astrological complex.
Let's look at the case of Shelley. This is a perfect example of where H.B. has totally destroyed any hope of a serious student trying to use Crowley's example of Shelley to comprehend Crowley's method of delineating astrological complexes.
In the original horoscope, Sagittarius is rising and Mars, Jupiter and Neptune are in close conjunction within about 6° of the midheaven. Also, Sol and Venus are in Leo in close conjunction. On pages 22 and 23 of "CAW" Crowley says:
"Shelly's conjunction of Mars and Jupiter is very differently effective to that aspect in J. Pierpoint Morgan! Why? Because they form parts of complexes of quite opposite natures. The mere fact that one is in Leo and the other in Libra would not account for the difference. And here is where we must emphasize the necessity of looking not only for the complex, but for the key to it. Two men might have identical aspects, and yet be utterly different just because in one case the Lord of the Ascendant was Mars and in the other, Venus. It is not always easy to divine the secret pivot on which a complex swings. The Lord of the Ascendant is usually the cardinal point but if there be several planets or even one very strong planet rising, he may be overwhelmed by them or it and his place in the heaven, as it were, usurped. And it is of the utmost importance that his fundamental planet be detected with accuracy; for it makes all the difference in the world whether we regard the other planets as modifying Saturn or modifying Jupiter. If the native be a Saturnian at heart the trine of Jupiter will favor his selfish plans; if a Jupiterian, the trine of Saturn will restrict and balance his enthusiasims. The conjunction of Sol and Venus which made Shelly so glorious an incarnation of Light and Beauty would hardly have acted in that way had Scorpio, not Sagittarius, been in his Ascendant. It is the Lord, Jupiter, culminating in conjunction with Mars and Jupiter, that determine the disposition and the superiority of Sol in Leo to Venus that made effective the manifestation of that disposition in the heart through art; had those planets been influenced by Pisces, for example, it would have shown itself in some soft shadowy way. Enough has been said for a preliminary account of this matter. In the course of these papers, we shall pile Pelion upon Ossa, and Ossa upon Olympus, in demonstration of this secret of the Astrological Complex."
No statement in all of his astrological writings is more important than this passage. In fact, the only one that rivals it is the business on P – 149 of "CAW" that explains why it is very wrong to assign Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius and Neptune as the ruler of Pisces as most modern astrologers do. This passage on Shelly is so important because more than any other statement in Crowley's writings it demonstrates how and why a synthetic method must be used in chart analysis, and is the best example of his synthetic method of the "Astrological Complex." Everything else Crowley says about Shelley's natal horoscope in his astrological writings is going to have this passage as a basis in Crowley's mind whether or not he explicitly refers to it in his other comments on Shelley.
Now look what H.B. did. Because he thought he had a better indication of Shelley's birth time than that used to calculate the original horoscope which Crowley used, H.B. published in "GPA" a natal horoscope for Shelley that had Taurus rising with Saturn only one degree below the horizon and the important Neptune, Jupiter, Mars triple conjunction just below the descendant. To account for this in the text, H.B. eliminated the most important part of the passage quoted above from "CAW". (See p – 52 of "GPA".) This is terrible!! Of the very few examples that Crowley gives on pages 21 and 22 of "CAW" wherein he tells us how many complexes a native has and how many planets there are in each complex (he gives this information for only 16 of the 193 natives discussed in his astrological writings), H.B. has now destroyed our ability to try to comprehend Crowley's method of delineating astrological complexes using Shelley as an example. Furthermore, anyone who is familiar with astrology on any real depth of understanding and is familiar with Shelley would certainly choose the original horoscope over the modified one.
I have not checked the other statements about Shelley in "GPA" to see how badly they corrupt Crowley's original writings. One day I will, but for now just let me say the following. Even if H.B. did not find it necessary to modify or leave out any of the other statements Crowley made about Shelley, the combination of the modified horoscope and Crowley's original comments are a muddled mess. This is true very simply because no piece of a natal horoscope is independent of any other piece of the horoscope. Also, no piece of a natal horoscope is independent of the totality of the natal horoscope. For example, on P – 377 of "Stars" Crowley says:
"The humanitarianism of Shelley was very strong. Mars is in conjunction with Jupiter, making the poet active in protest; but Neptune, also in conjunction, seriously weakens the effect by making his revolt fantastic and intermittent."
This quote is part of Crowley's discussion of Jupiter in Libra and it involves two other planets because they are aspecting Jupiter. His point here is that the meaning of Jupiter in Libra specifically for Shelley is dependent upon the fact that Jupiter is conjunct Mars and Neptune. What Crowley does not specifically say, but what is clear from the totality of his astrological writings is that this statement is also dependent on the totality of Shelley's horoscope and in particular the fact that Sagittarius is rising and Jupiter rules Sagittarius.
H.B.'s problem is the same problem that is characteristic of so many so-called astrology experts. They have no real appreciation for chart synthesis. They simply do not understand that the various pieces of a natal horoscope act as a synergistic organism. It is obvious that neither H.B. nor the astrologers who advised him have tried to study Crowley's astrological writings on a detailed enough basis.
I seriously question whether H.B. and his astrological advisors have made numerous attempts to try to delineate the astrological complexes in nativities that they are trying to interpret. I am not referring here to the nativities in Crowley's writings, but rather just the nativity of the guy down the street.
Crowley never tells us what he means by a statement like "five within five degrees." It could mean that there is one planet in the complex to which all of the others are in aspect with no orbs bigger than 5°. It could mean that all of the planets in the complex aspect to each other with no orb bigger than five degrees. Neither one these definitions works if you look in detail at all of the astrological complex data given on P-21 and P-22 of "CAW" for the 16 natives Shakespeare, Dante, Michael Angelo,..., Swinburne. It is even more difficult to try to understand what Crowley means when he says that "one complex is 8 degrees away from the other." In Shelley's case I have spent a lot of effort trying to reconcile what Crowley says here and elsewhere about Shelley with Shelley's horoscope as given in "Stars." So far I have been unsuccessful.
Don't get me wrong. Without fake modesty, I honestly say that I know I am not very intelligent and not very creative, but I'm very curious. My problem is that my intellect cannot hold a candle to my curiosity. My partner is the creative and intelligent one, but for all these years that we've been working on trying to understand Crowley's idea of the astrological complex, his duties as a husband and working to support himself have not permitted him to have the time to apply his creative brains directly enough to the details being discussed here. His time has primarily been spent on constructing software for the project including the development of our website.
Can you O.T.O. folks tell us, with justifications, exactly which planets make up the complexes given on P-21 and P-22 of "CAW"? I'll bet the $480.24 in my bank account that you cannot. Take the case of Goethe. On P-22 of "CAW" Crowley says: "Goethe has two distinct complexes, one of six planets within 13°, the other three within 7°." Nowhere in "CAW" or "Sun" or "Stars" does he justify this. After trying every combination of groups of planets that had any mathematical probability whatsoever of satisfying "6 within 13°, 3 within 7°", I failed to find Goethe's two complexes. Now compare the positions of Mercury in the original horoscope and in the modified horoscope. It is 29° of Leo in the original and 26° of Leo in the modified. I don't know it for a fact because I haven't done the tedious work to check it out, but it is very possible that this small change of 3° would radically change the viable options that the student would investigate in attempting to find the two complexes, which satisfy "6 planets within 13°, the other three within 7°".
Without a doubt Crowley's mission in life was to aid mankind in its progress upward to higher and higher levels of complexity. Also, it is without a doubt that he thought that to further this advance his main job was to help people to attain to the Knowledge and Conversation of their Holy Guardian Angel. He makes it clear that the True Magical Will and the Holy Guardian Angel are one and the same. Now comes the important point vis-à-vis natal astrology. On P-121 of "CAW" Crowley says:
"...unless all this is fully understood, it is useless to try to judge mankind for every man has this Uranus in him, strong or weak, subtle or gross, fortunate or unfortunate, and this is the Royal Snake of Egypt, the giver of life and death. If you will not allow him to create, he will devour. And your own snake has his own ambitions; busy yourself with that and do not waste time on criticizing others. The most important thing in the life of any man is to discover the secret purpose of his incarnation and to follow it with wariness as well as compassion. Astrology has no more useful function than this, to discover the inmost nature of a man and to bring it out into his consciousness, that he may fulfill it according to the law of light. The Uranus in us is the Sacred Lance of the Legend."
On P-122 of "CAW" Crowley says:
"Now, this is the doctrine, that every living soul has a purpose in incarnation; and that purpose is simple. Not one in a million, perhaps, is conscious of that purpose. We seem for the most part to be a mass of vacillations. Even the main career of an individual cannot be considered as necessarily an expression of the interior will. Now, Uranus indicates this will..."
So, the planet Uranus in the natal horoscope to some significant degree indicates the nature of the True Magical Will. Hence, every new member of the O.T.O., on the very first day, must be introduced to his/her natal horoscope and must begin a life long study of that natal horoscope vis-à-vis the astrological writings of Aleister Crowley. The O.T.O. itself must become proficient in teaching natal astrology to its members.
First we had the astrological thought of Aleister Crowley muddled by Evangeline Adams and now we have them further muddled by H.B. If H.B. had simply stuck to the original horoscopes and the original text in Crowley's astrological writings, then "GPA" would be a most valuable book.
The most essential things about a natal horoscope are:
- Is there a clear-cut chart ruler? If so, what planet is it? If not, then who are the contenders.
- What exactly are the astrological complexes? In other words, which sets of planets comprise the various complexes?
- What is the rising configuration, which corresponds with the ego/personality? This involves the rising sign and rising planets, and planetary aspects to the planet that rules the rising sign and the rising planets.
- What is the "situation" of Uranus, the True Magical Will?
- How do all of the above relate together, and in particular what is the relationship between the rising configuration and the Uranus "situation"?
Without a doubt the most difficult of all of these is item 2. To delineate the astrological complexes is very difficult, and I claim practically impossible in general for natal horoscopes in general with our current understanding of natal astrology. I predict that if TAARP had one million dollars to focus a very select group of people on the astrological works of Crowley, we could make substantial headway in learning how to specify astrological complexes in natal horoscopes. These individuals would include experts in artificial intelligence and pattern recognition to develop the required software. The TAARP Technical Report on our website gives examples of this kind of software for the case of pattern recognition. We have not yet formulated any examples of more advanced forms of artificial intelligence software that would involve meaning oriented inputs. We would also need individuals steeped in the technical knowledge of Crowley's writings such as "The Book of the Law", "The Book of Thoth", "777", "The Book of Lies", "The Vision and the Voice", and who now want to dedicate themselves to learning astrology as specified in Crowley's original astrological writings. People who consider themselves experts in astrology will only be utilized for specific questions. They are probably so corrupted by their mundane and unscientific understanding of astrology that they would be counterproductive if they were part of the main effort. My involvement with professional astrologers and my study of many astrology books convinces me of this.
It must never be forgotten that when Crowley says Venus square Jupiter and trine Mars and opposite Uranus means so and so in this particular natal horoscope, there is a massive amount of mundane and esoteric facts in his unconscious contributing to the statement.
My detailed study of Crowley's astrological writings in "CAW", "Sun", and "Stars" convinces me that it is impossible to use these works alone to ever hone in on exactly how and why Crowley selects certain groups of planets to comprise astrological complexes. The material I present to you in this letter and the material on our website fully justify this conclusion. In particular see Section 11 below.
As I quickly scan Section IX, NOTES TO ILLUSTRATED CHARTS of the Editorial Notes in "GPA" my heart just sinks. H.B., by modifying the original horoscopes that Crowley used and then editing the text to correspond to the modified horoscopes, has simply made it absolutely impossible for the serious student to ever ascertain the method by which Crowley delineates astrological complexes. It is in reality practically impossible to do it from his original writings in "CAW," "Stars," and "Sun," but now it is hopeless. With about one million dollars for a concerted effort to expand our research, I had hopes that with pattern recognition software and other forms of artificial intelligence software that we would develop we could use Crowley's original writings and the original horoscopes to begin to fathom his method of delineating astrological complexes. I had hoped that we could eventually point the way for future investigators. However, if these future investigators only have the muddle of "GPA" to work with, the situation is hopeless.
H.B. missed the point. It is not critical that Crowley used inaccurate natal horoscopes. He knew how questionable the horoscopes he had were. He isn't a fool. He simply used them to try to show the serious student how to do natal horoscope interpretation. It is unfortunate to some degree, but certainly not essential that he worked with inaccurate horoscopes. What H.B. should have done was to first produce a book just like "GPA" but using only the original nativities and Crowley's original writings. This is what the serious student really needs. Then, second, he could produce a book with the modified and hopefully more accurate horoscopes with whatever emendations he thought would be helpful. What he has done is a disaster. He may have let the opinions of so called astrology experts he relies upon to influence him to do what he did instead of what I am recommending.
I make the following criticisms of H.B.'s "Technical Note" on pages XXXIX through XLIV of "GPA":
On P-XLII H.B. talks about Crowley's use of the term "personality." H.B. leaves the reader with the impression that Crowley fundamentally uses the term "personality" in reference to either the Moon or the rising configuration. In fact, there is only one place in the three astrology books (i.e., "CAW," "Sun," "Stars,") where Crowley says that the Moon defines the personality. H.B. gives this quote. H.B. also quotes from Crowley that "the Personality is imagined in the sign on the ascendant." H.B. then adds, "Other discussions in the text confirm this, also giving emphasis to rising planets and aspects to the ascendant in defining the Personality." What H.B. does not clearly say is that in fact Crowley always uses the rising configuration to indicate the personality in his discussions of the various horoscopes. In these discussions he never uses the Moon in reference to the personality. Also, in these discussions he uses the Moon to refer to the senses.
On P-XLI H.B. discusses Crowley's use of the term "Temperament." H.B. is very wrong when he says that, "Temperament is a synthetic significator, and does not correlate to any single planet." Crowley makes it absolutely clear on pages 118 through 123 of "CAW" that Uranus is the planet that represents the true will (i.e., "the deeply interior purpose of any being") and that he will designate "the Temperament" as "an indication or hieroglyph" of this true will. Repeatedly in his discussion of horoscopes he refers to Uranus as indicating the temperament. The very great problem is that he also uses "temperament" in ways that do not relate to Uranus. In fact, in discussions of the horoscopes at least once he uses "temperament" in referring to the rising configuration notwithstanding the fact that on P-123 of "CAW" he says: "Now we have already assigned the personality to the sign of the Ascendant; and to this must now be added a consideration of the sign in which Uranus may be situated. Where these two factors are harmonious we get a character with unity or moral purpose; where otherwise, a self-tortured waverer." One point Crowley often emphasizes in his discussions of the horoscopes is the measure of harmony between the ego/personality as represented by the rising configuration and the true will. In this context he often uses the term "temperament" to refer to the true will. Again, the problem is that he also uses the term "temperament" to refer to things other than Uranus and the true will. But without a doubt Uranus is always the signifier of the true will no matter what Crowley calls the true will in his discussion of any particular natal horoscope. The primary and very crucial mistake that H.B. makes in his "Technical Note" in "GPA" is that he does not tell the student explicitly to look to Uranus as the indicator of the true will. Crowley's use of the term "temperament" is loose and very contradictory. For example, on P-51 of "CAW" he says, "The first house describes the individuality and temperament of the native." And on P-123 in blatant contradiction he says: "Now, as we have seen the deeply interior purpose of any being is nearly always obscure and undecipherable but there is an indication or hieroglyph of it which is usually very significant. One can hardly call it more than the artistic expression of the purpose; and this appears a very good way to describe it. We call it the Temperament. It does not define the will, but it sets limits to the sphere wherein the will may work. Now we have already assigned the personality to the sign of the Ascendant; and to this must now be added a consideration of the sign in which Uranus may be situated. Where these two factors are harmonious, we get a character with unity or moral purpose; where otherwise, a self-tortured waverer." His use of the terms "personality", "temperament", and "individuality" are in general very confusing within his three astrology books. However, one thing is very clear. In his actual discussions of the horoscopes he always means "true will" when referring to Uranus no matter what he calls the "true will" in any given horoscope, and he always means "personality" or "ego" or both when discussing the rising configuration.
On P-XLIII H.B. discusses Crowley's use of the term "Ego." There are two mistakes in H.B.'s discussion. Somewhere Crowley says the rising configuration corresponds to the ego/personality. Right now, I cannot find the specific reference, but in his discussion of the horoscopes he makes it clear that he associates the ego with the rising configuration. Unfortunately he also sometimes refers to Saturn as the ego. In the later case however it is not clear if Saturn means the ego or the "ego-making faculty." Clearly Crowley states that Saturn refers to the "ego-making faculty", and he also just refers to Saturn as "the ego" in some of his discussions of the horoscopes. However, I do not think "the ego" itself and the "ego-making faculty" are necessarily the same thing. One thing makes the ego, but the ego itself is something else. Men construct a ship, but the ship is an entity unto itself.
Here is a very good example of why it is really very difficult to use Crowley's astrological writings to try to ascertain how to use his ideas in order to learn how to specify astrological complexes in natal horoscopes. (In addition to this example and the others given herein, see my discussion of Crowley's treatment of Cecil Rhodes' natal horoscope in Block 8: A challenge For Crowley Scholars and the Ordo Templi Orientis on our website). This example deals with Crowley's discussion of Sir Humphrey Davy's natal horoscope. Before I go into it let me say the following.
Crowley says on P-23 of "CAW":
"Enough has been said for a preliminary account of this matter. In the course of these papers we shall pile Pelion upon Ossa, and Ossa upon Olympus, in demonstration of this secret of the Astrological Complex."
So, this implies that he will give many, many examples of the astrological complex. Unfortunately, in his discussions of the nativities in "CAW", "STARS", and "SUN" he seldom uses the term "astrological complex" or "complex." Sometimes he uses the term "figure" or "configuration" or similar terms, and often it is difficult to discern if he means a particular group of planets or the entire nativity. At any rate, what I think we have to assume is that for the great majority of cases for which he discusses a group of planets, he means for the group to comprise an astrological complex. Also, it is important to understand that by specifying five planets in six degrees and four planets in nine degrees for Dante's two complexes, seven planets in ten degrees and two planets in four degrees for Bismark's two complexes, etc., on P-21 and 22 of "CAW", Crowley stipulates that a planet can only belong to one complex. So, given this introductory comment let's look at his discussion of Sir Humphrey Davy's natal horoscope to see how confusing Crowley makes it for us.
On P-427 of "STARS," in his discussion of Saturn in Scorpio, Crowley says:
"Sir Humphrey Davy has Saturn in Scorpio, but Jupiter and Neptune are conjoined sextile, Venus is sextile, and the Sun and Mars semi-sextile. Here is much favorable modification of Saturn, who is rising. Thus the self-force, rendered bright and tender by such aspects, is in complete harmony with the personality. Here strength is wedded with gentleness, and we can understand readily how he was able to give his life to its purpose without upsetting his contemporaries by bitterness of controversy."
Certainly this implies a complex comprised of:
- Saturn
- Jupiter
- Neptune
- Venus
- Sun
- Mars
On P-114 of "SUN" in his discussion of Scorpio rising, Crowley says:
"Contrast with this the admirable figure of Sir Humphrey Davy, where Jupiter is in exact conjunction with Neptune in the tenth house, Venus being trine, while Saturn, in Scorpio, usually a sinister figure in this sign, by a sextile both with the noble conjunction in the tenth and the gracious planet in the second, loses all of his bad qualities and greatly strengthens the character. It is easy to divine, from this, a well balanced soul influenced without any internal struggle towards the ideas of altruism yet without any foolish neglect of his own interests."
Certainly this implies a complex comprised of:
- Jupiter
- Neptune
- Venus
- Saturn
There is no mention of Sun and Mars as in the discussion for Saturn in Scorpio. So, do we have a complex made up of just Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, and Saturn, or do we have a complex made of these planets and Sun and Mars?
On P-375 of "STARS" in his discussion of Jupiter in Virgo, Crowley says:
"Sir Humphrey Davy, with Neptune exactly in conjunction with Jupiter, Venus trine and Saturn sextile, is genuinely religious"
Again, we have:
- Jupiter
- Neptune
- Venus
- Saturn
Again, there is no mention of Sun and Mars.
On P-453 of "STARS" in his discussion of Uranus in Gemini, Crowley says:
"One of the greatest chemists that ever lived was Sir Humphrey Davy. He, too, had Scorpio rising, but its Lord Mars in Libra is in exact trine to Uranus, giving him that noble devotion to justice, in Nature, which made him so perfect an observer. Here then is a temperament of ideal balance, and the will worked freely at its gigantic and most honorable ambition. It may be objected that Mars is in his detriment, but the trine of Uranus fully compensates for this weakness. Scorpio gives the inquiring mind, and the position of Uranus in the zodiac could not but operate freely with such assistance. With Neptune and Jupiter in exact conjunction in the House of Fame, the native was assured not only of success, but of recognition."
So here we have the two combinations of:
And
It does not appear that he meant Neptune and Uranus to comprise a complex, but the discussion involving Mars and Uranus looks like he is hinting at a complex. However, Mars clearly belongs to the hypothesized (my hypothesis) complex of Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Sun, and Mars given in the Saturn in Scorpio discussion and Mars cannot belong to two complexes.
So far things are unclear and confusing, but now comes the clincher. In his discussion of Uranus in the eighth house on page 193 of "CAW" Crowley says:
"Davy has Uranus trine to Mars and Mars is the lord of the ascendant, Scorpio, this sign being the natural cusp for the eighth house. He being a man of science, Uranus takes this coloring, and we therefore find that the discovery, which made him famous, is that lamp which insures safety in obscure and secret places. It is true that the lord of the eighth (which is Mercury) is squared by Mars, but Mars being himself so well-dignified by Uranus, the complex is not sufficiently bad to imply violent death"
At last we actually have Crowley undeniably specifying a complex consisting of:
So, what are we to conclude from all of this? Certainly Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Sun and Mars cannot be a complex since Uranus, Mars and Mercury is a complex. Are we to drop Mars from the first list and conclude that Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus and Sun comprise a complex? Or, are we suppose to also drop the Sun from this group and go with only Jupiter, Neptune, Venus and Saturn as a complex as implied in the discussion of Jupiter in Virgo?
There is no doubt that all of my agonizing here is due to the fact that I am convinced Crowley meant for a planet to belong to only one complex. This is very evident from the specifications of a number of planets within a specific number of degrees for a complex as given on P-21 and P-22 of "CAW" as well as in numerous other places such as his discussions for Sir Richard Burton's nativity. This nativity and Crowley's discussions of it is one of the most important in terms of trying to understand how he delineates which planets make up a complex. However, it still is contradictory within itself and the student has to work hard at trying to fully understand it.
Now let's look at what H.B. does in "GPA" on P-560 of Editorial Notes in Note 51, which is for Burton's chart. H.B. uses the original horoscope, but as with all the horoscopes he adds Pluto and the Moon's node. (Both of these additions to all of the original horoscopes are critical mistakes as discussed below in Section 13.) H.B. says:
"In chapter 8, "The Master Key To Astrology," the TS had "five planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) within 5° and the other four (Sun, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune) within 7°. This has been corrected to "five planets within 6° and the other five (including Pluto) within 6°."
I assume that H.B. added the actual planets for the two complexes. They are not given in "CAW", "STARS", or "SUN". Or does H.B. mean there is an original Crowley TS with the planets specified? I am pretty sure this is not the case. Doesn't H.B. say somewhere in "GPA" that his assumption about such and such will have to stand unless an original Crowley TS materializes? At any rate, H.B. gives the following two complexes (ignore Pluto):
- Complex one:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn
- Complex two:
Sun, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune
I most emphatically disagree with this. Let's look at the evidence. In the first place, the evidence is contradictory. Crowley makes the two following pertinent statements:
- "CAW", P-21: "Sir Richard Burton has five planets within five degrees, and the other four within seven degrees."
- "STARS", P-354: "We have already called attention to the horoscope of Sir Richard Burton. Uranus is conjoined with Neptune and four other planets fortify the complex. Mars himself in conjunction with Venus and semi-sextile to Saturn, is lord of the Ascendant, while, without much straining, these two complexes may be unified through the Moon and Mercury. Here, then are the nine planets all more or less related, as in the case of Shakespeare; and truly the mind of Burton was no less than his."
The first statement says the two complexes have five planets and four planets, respectively. The second statement implies the two complexes have 6 planets, and 3 planets, respectively. In the first place why, in Note 51 on P-560 in "GPA", did H.B. go with the first statement and not the second? No mater what H.B.'s justification for this is, his breakdown of the two complexes cannot be correct because "these two complexes may be unified through the Moon and Mercury" clearly means that the Moon and Mercury are in different complexes. My best guess to date is that the two complexes breakdown as:
| Complex 1 | Complex 2 |
| Neptune | Saturn |
| Uranus | Mars |
| Moon | Venus |
| Sun | |
| Jupiter | |
| Mercury | |
If anyone is interested I will provide my reasoning for this. Again, it is very critical to our research to know if H.B. determined the breakdown of the two complexes as given in Note 51 on P-560, or if they were so specified in Crowley's TS. I would tend to agree with H.B. that Pluto should go with the same complex that the Sun belongs to, but I am not absolutely convinced of this. As I have tried to emphasize previously, Crowley clearly uses context and meaning oriented factors and not just aspects and orbs to specify which planets belong to which complex.
When Crowley wrote his three astrology books, Pluto had not yet been discovered. So, Pluto does not appear in the horoscopes in his three astrology books. The nodes of the Moon do not appear in his three astrology books, because he wanted to keep his treatise as simple as possible, and he did not consider the Moon's nodes as critical as the astrological factors he did include.
It is wrong for H.B. to include Pluto and the Moon's nodes in the nativities he presents in "GPA" because they seriously cloud the students ability to try to understand how Crowley delineates astrological complexes. The single greatest difficulty in understanding Crowley's idea about the astrological complex is involved with the ability of the student to execute a difficult visual pattern recognition task as he views a particular nativity that Crowley is discussing. Adding factors to the nativities that are not in Crowley's discussions seriously hampers the students ability to try to see (literally) in the nativity why Crowley has selected a particular set of planets to belong to a particular complex.
I could make comments on H.B.'s Note 163 on page 573 for Shelley and Note 143 on P-571 for Petrarch, but I won't. I'm emotionally and mentally drained due to my bitter disappointment with "GPA". These two cases are very important to us because as with Burton (see Section 12 above), H.B. gives the actual planets belonging to the two complexes for each of these two natives. Again, please tell us if these are H.B.'s invention or did he get them from an original Crowley TS.
I have written this note to you in a heat of passion and prior to giving "GPA" a thorough review. Perhaps once I do so I will change my opinion of it, but I doubt it. Would H.B. and/or the O.T.O. please give the TAARP website a critical review when my partner, Glenn Johnson, finishes constructing it? The completion date is scheduled to be August 1, 2003. Are we way off base? Where are we right? Where are we wrong?
Could you please send me the following? They are vital to our research:
- The "over a dozen" written analyses that Crowley did of the nativities of friends and acquaintances." (See the first paragraph and footnote 3 on P-XXVI of "GPA".) If the original horoscopes themselves are available they would of course be of great help. I need the original material, not material that H.B. or anyone else has edited.
- Any information you can give me about footnote 1 on P-219 of "Commentaries On The Holy Books, and Other Papers".
It should be obvious from everything I have said previously, why we need the original materials of item a). Also, with respect to item a) note that one of the greatest faults with Crowley's writings in "CAW", "STARS", and "SUN" is that no where does he give a full analysis of even one of the horoscopes for the 193 natives discussed in these books. The same problem exists in general for the issue of the astrological complex in that only for Shakespeare and Zola, for both of whom Crowley says all nine planets are in one complex, does Crowley delineate the planets that comprise all of the complexes for a given horoscope. For Sir Richard Burton he comes close, but there are contradictions involved. For example, on P-21 of "CAW" Crowley says:
"Sir Richard Burton has five planets within five degrees, and the other four within seven degrees."
On P-354 of "STARS" he says:
"Uranus is conjoined with Neptune, and four other planets fortify the complex. Mars himself in conjunction with Venus and semi-sextile to Saturn, is lord of the ascendant, while, without much straining, these two complexes may be unified through the Moon and Mercury. Here, then, are the nine planets all more or less related, as in the case of Shakespeare; and truly the mind of Burton was no less than his."
My best judgment to date is that the two complexes are Saturn, Mars, and Venus for one of them and Neptune, Uranus, Moon, Sun, Jupiter, and Mercury for the other one. Whether or not this is correct, it is clear than in Crowley's first statement he says there are five planets in one complex and four in the other, but in the second statement he says the breakdown is six and three. This is a perfect example of the many contradictions in his three astrology books that very much frustrate the serious student.
With respect to item b) above let me begin by saying this whole business about "Tzaddi is not the star" is very confusing. (See the last few pages (hard copy pages, not website pages) of Block 10: Why TAARP is Unique on our website for an introduction to this discussion about "Tzaddi is not the star". The relevant discussion in Block 10 begins with the sentence: "I will conclude this block by giving evidence that TAARP is fully aware of the importance of esoteric matters vis-à-vis the essence of astrology".) Before I proceed with the business at hand let me officially request the O.T.O. to correct the error in "The Book of Thoth" on P-278 in the table presenting the correspondences between the ATU'S and the astrological signs. As it stands the table shows "The Emperor" corresponding to Aquarius, and "The Star" corresponding to Aries. This absolutely contradicts the text and nowhere in any of Crowley's writings does he ever indicate that "The Emperor" corresponds with Aquarius and "The Star" with Aries. "The Emperor" is always Aries and "The Star" is always Aquarius regardless of exactly what "Tzaddi is not the star" really means.
I cannot find it right now, but somewhere in "GPA" H.B. quotes the following from "The Book of Thoth" P-93 and based on it says that since Crowley never studied astronomy, he did not understand the precession of the equinoxes:
"It is necessary here to go a little into the magical doctrine of the succession of the Aeons, which is connected with the precession of the zodiac. Thus, the last Aeon, that of Osiris, is referred to Aries and Libra, as the previous Aeon, that of Isis, was especially connected with the signs of Pisces and Virgo, while the present, that of Horus, is linked with Aquarius and Leo."
In the first place, it is absurd to think that Crowley did not understand the precession of the equinoxes because he never studied astronomy. The concept of the precession of the equinoxes is simple enough that high school physics students can easily understand it. Maybe Crowley simply made a mistake here and would have corrected it if he carefully reviewed what he had written. You once told me that he seldom carefully reviewed anything he wrote. My suspicions however are that he meant exactly what he wrote, and the difficulty in understanding it are two fold:
- Ages, which refer to the signs of the zodiac, and Aeons, which in general refer to longer periods of time, are not identical.
- The whole business about "Tzaddi is not the star" and the revolution of Aries and Aquarius about Pisces to correspond with the revolution of Leo and Libra about Virgo is very poorly understood in terms of how the signs of the zodiac are to be ordered vis-à-vis astrology.
Look also at the following from P-56 of "The Book of Thoth:"
"The Savior Fish is discussed elsewhere in this essay. The precession of the Equinoxes has made spring begin with the entry of the Sun into Aries the Ram, instead of Pisces the Fishes as was the case in the earliest times recorded."
On first glance this makes no sense at all either from the point of view of tropical astrology or from that of sidereal astrology. With respect to tropical astrology, by definition the Sun enters the beginning of Aries at the spring equinox. Tropical astrology has nothing whatsoever to do with actual physical stars or actual constellations made up of physical stars. (See Block 7: The TAARP Sidereal Zodiac and Block 6: One Good Reason Why Science Condemns Natal Astrology for a more detailed discussion of these issues than I am giving herein).
So, one interpretation of Crowley's remark is that "in the earliest of times" by definition the Sun was deemed to be just entering Pisces at the spring equinox. But again, this would be tropical astrology for which no real physical stars define the constellation of Pisces. For standard sidereal astrology (i.e., without taking into account the Aries/Aquarius and Leo/Libra swap postulated by Crowley on pages 8 through 12 of "The Book of Thoth) the order of passage of the Sun through the signs of the zodiac vis-à-vis the spring equinox (and in this case real physical stars define the signs) goes Aries, Pisces, and Aquarius. So, this contradicts Crowley's statement, which puts Pisces before Aries. If we assume that Crowley's "revolution of Aries and Aquarius about Pisces" means to swap the positions of Aries and Aquarius in the sidereal zodiac, then we still have a problem because now the order of passage of the Sun through the signs vis-à-vis the spring equinox is Aquarius, Pisces, Aries. This is O.K. as far as the order of Pisces and Aries goes with respect to the quotes on P-56 of the "The Book of Thoth," however:
- It certainly does not make sense in terms of "in the earliest times recorded" because recorded history is much earlier than the approximately 2,000 years ago when the Age of Pisces would have begun according to the chronology here implied.
- It doesn't accord with many statements of Crowley's in various of his non-astrological writings (i.e., not "CAW", "STAR", or "SUN") that as of the 1904 spring equinox we entered the Age of Aquarius/Leo.
Add to this the confusing material in footnote 1 on P-219 of "Commentaries on the Holy Books, and Other Papers" (see Block 10: Why TAARP is Unique), and we have a real conundrum. Also, in "Magical Diaries of Aleister Crowley, Tunisia 1923", Aleister Crowley, ISBN:0-87728-856-9 on P-116 and P-117 the entry for 6 August and the relevant footnotes, which are 73, 74, 75, and 76, Crowley discusses the evolution of man vis-à-vis astrological signs and sephiroth of the Tree of Life. Someone in the O.T.O. needs to collect together all of the quotes referred to above and other relevant ones in Crowley's writings and try to unravel the mystery of "Tzaddi is not the star" in terms of its implications for astrology. I recommend that this O.T.O. individual start by seriously studying our website and in particular the following:
In conclusion let me say that I am fully aware of the gargantuan editing effort that H.B. put into "GPA". If the main objective of the book is to help astrology students by presenting them a big set of horoscopes of famous people with some ideas by Crowley about the horoscopes, then maybe the book is a success. However, for the serious student of Aleister Crowley who wants to use this book to try to fathom his method of delineating which planets comprise which astrological complexes in a natal horoscope, then the book is a total failure. In this sense, I think H.B.'s book will muddle the picture, not help clarify it. |
TAARP - Correspondence - OTO - Heidrick -
1st Letter to Mr. Heidrick
