Dear Bill,
- Once again I respectively ask for your assistance in procuring information for us from H.B. I claim that our website http://www.alpha-astrophysics.org/ demonstrates that we are working very hard to try to figure out how to identify Crowleyan astrological complexes in natal horoscopes. So far we have not had much luck, and from various things in "The General Principles of Astrology" it looks as if H.B. has been somewhat successful. If H.B. really knows how to do it, then we need to terminate our research project and move on to something else. Therefore, would you please attempt to get precise answers form H.B. to the questions presented herein. As with our last request it will be necessary for you to clearly understand what the questions are. So, please take some time and study this letter. Then let us communicate with each other a few times to insure that you have a good idea of what we need. If you think that I am arrogant and presumptuous in asking you and H.B. to spend some time on helping us, then I ask you the following question. Who else do you know who is challenging the scientific integrity of the editing work that H.B. did on "The General Principles of Astrology"? If H.B. is of the true scientific spirit, then he should be grateful that an organization such as TAARP, with the proper qualifications, is making a careful study of his editing work. Instead, he simply says that he will not enter into a dialogue with us.
- Let's start with H.B.'s Editorial Note 92 on page 564 of "GPA". He has added Pluto to one of the two astrological complexes that Crowley says exist for Goethe. Crowley does not specify which planets belong to which complex. He simply says, "Goethe has two distinct complexes, one of six planets within 13 degrees, the other of three within 7 degrees". H.B. has modified this to, "Goethe has two distinct complexes, one of seven planets (including Pluto) within 14 degrees, the other of three within 6 degrees". Clearly this implies that H.B. is convinced that he knows which planets belong to the two original complexes.
- I will now give you the summary page from my file on Goethe's natal horoscope.
- Crowley does not justify "6 within 13 degrees and 3 within 7 degrees" in his three astrology books.
- The closest I can come is:
- Complex 1: Saturn, Moon, Uranus, Neptune, Jupiter, Mercury. (Saturn as kernal, which gives 6 within 11 degrees.)
- Complex 2: Sun, Mercury, Mars. (Sun or Mercury as kernal, which
gives 3 within 6 degrees.)
- This is in accord with my feeling that if Goethe only has two
complexes, then one is based on Saturn and the other is based on the Sun and/or Mercury.
- Note that because of the orb limits we use on our aspect map, the Saturn complex does not manifest on our aspect map.
- My best guess without reference to any of Crowley's comments, except that Goethe has two complexes, would have been:
- Complex 1: Saturn, Uranus, Moon, Jupiter, Neptune. (Saturn as kernal, which gives 5 within 11 degrees. Note that Jupiter is included here even though Saturn trine Jupiter has an 11 degree orb because it permits a grand watery trine.)
- Complex 2: Mercury, Sun, Mars, Venus. (Mercury as kernal, which gives 4 within 6 degrees.)
- We always use the original natal horoscopes that Crowley used. If we add Pluto to Goethe's nativity and place Him where H.B. does in "GPA" at 29 degrees Scorpio, then my inclination based on 3A and 3B above is to put Pluto with the existing 3 planet complex of Sun, Mercury, Mars and not with the larger complex, primarily because Pluto does not aspect the kernal, Saturn, of the larger complex. (Note that as we explain on our website, the kernal of a complex is the one planet to which the other planets in the complex are in aspect. In general Crowley seems to imply the existence of a kernal for an astrological complex, but he sometimes gives examples, for example with Shakespeare, of what he appears to designate as complexes for which this is not true.)
- We of course do not know which planets H.B. designates as belonging to the original two Crowley complexes and hence do not know which group of six planets he adds Pluto to in order to get his final 7 planet and 3 planet complexes, so we have no firm data to beat our conclusions against. Hence, we respectively request that he provide us the specific planets that he assigns to the two complexes for Goethe and his arguments for doing so.
- Again based on H.B.'s Editorial Notes in "GPA", we respectively request the same information for Petrarch, Burton, Bismarck, Edison, Shelley, Napoleon, Newton, Balzac, Wagner, Baudelaire, Pasteur, and Swinburne.
- I have included a copy of my Goethe file to demonstrate that we are really working hard on the astrological complex business. If H.B. really knows how to specify astrological complexes in natal horoscopes, or simpler, if he is really sure about which planets Crowley meant to assign to the various complexes for the natives mentioned above, then we really need to know this. If H.B. is sure about the latter, but not the former, then his specific data on the latter and his reasons for this data will very much help us to figure how to do the former. If can do the former, then our research project is a waste of time.
- It is not proper from a scientific perspective for H.B. to do what he has done in "GPA" and then not be willing to seriously address the kinds of questions we are asking. One of the great problems with astrology is that, as far as I know, there is no first class, scientifically oriented exchange of charge, defense, countercharge, defense, etc., as one sees for pure science in such journals as "Science".
- I am perfectly willing to admit that we may have over looked something very simple that permits H.B. to succeed where we have only floundered. If so, then let us know so that we can terminate our current research efforts and move on to something else where we can possibly make a contribution. If H.B. thinks that we are ignorant and/or naive, then please ask him to tell us who we can communicate with who is seriously looking into the validity of the work he did in editing "GPA". Who is verifying his conclusions? Who is challenging his conclusions? Who else in the OTO is trying to analyze natal horoscopes by identifying the specific planets that belong to specific astrological complexes?
- To repeat the central theme of our argument about astrological complexes, I say that planets aspecting together with "acceptably" small orbs is only a necessary condition for a group of planets to form an astrological complex. Sufficient conditions include the criterion that the planets form a coherent, meaning laden unity. It is this criterion that makes the business of the astrological complex so difficult. So difficult in fact that I am currently of the opinion that TAARP needs to conduct a one million dollar research project using pattern recognition and other sophisticated forms of adaptive, self-organizing artificial intelligence software that utilizes personality input data in an attempt to provide information that will eventually let some future genius crack the code that Crowley's powerful brain used to specify astrological complexes. If H.B. can already do what I think will require one million dollars and a future genius to do, then please enlighten us.
- I have greatly benefited from the editing jobs that H.B. has done on many of Crowley's works. However, "GPA" is the only such work that I feel qualified to comment on. Can you put me in touch with anyone else who is trying to really dive into Crowley's ideas about the astrological complex? Why aren't you? With your scientific background you could make a real contribution. Where can I find information on H.B.'s background?
- By 1 August 2003 TAARP's website will be finished. We are looking for individuals and organizations to give it a critical, scientific review. Since H.B. is not interested in our work, who else in the OTO is qualified to evaluate it? Please put us in touch with them. No body of scientific work is worth anything until it has been thoroughly scrutinized by many individuals whose expertise is in the area addressed by the work.
- One last issue please, Bill. In Block 7: The TAARP Sidereal Zodiac of our website, I propose the possibility that there should be a comma after the word "not" in "Tzaddi is not the star" from "The Book of the Law". I also give there the implications of what this comma would be. This appears about half way through Block 7. It is the paragraph that begins with, "I will say a few words about this that will only make sense to Crowley scholars..." Also, in Block 10: Why TAARP Is Unique I give some background information relevant to this issue. This material starts about three fourths of the way through Block 10. It is in the paragraph that begins, "I will conclude this block by giving further evidence that TAARP is fully aware of ..." The point to all of this is the following. If you have access to the original MS of "The Book of the Law" would you please take a magnifying glass and see if there is any indication of a comma existing after the word "not" in "Tzaddi is not the star"?
|
TAARP - Correspondence - OTO - Heidrick -
3rd Letter to Mr. Heidrick
