Cladking...Happy Birthday :kisses:

[cladking]

Crowley wrote a piece on the Book of Thoth.

Your interests reminds me of Crowley's, though your conclusions are polar opposites - assuming that I understand either of you properly, which is certainly not a given.

You seem to rage against what you label as "superstition" in seeking answers to ancient mysteries through logic and science. He, according to my understanding, considered the things labeled as "science" to be a product of man's limited thinking and experience and found greater understanding in the superstition, the magick, etc...

My work on the pyramids has just upended everything I thought I knew. Actually this was far less tough on me than it will be on most people because I never did have as many beliefs as most people. Nothing is as it appears. Human beings are not only infinitely adaptable but there are an infinity of ways to understand the world, and our current way is not very close to any of the realities of nature. We misunderstand almost everything. "Religion" is ancient applied science and modern technology is a magic trick made possible by experimentation and language and is not a manifestation of knowledge. "Science" as we understand it doesn't truly exist at all and is mostly an outgrowth of logic and experiment. Intelligence is spread far more equally among God's creatures than we think. It almost would be more accurate to say there's no such thing as intelligence.

Ancient people were keenly aware of the realities of being human. We misapprehend it and have created a sort of frankenstein's monster of an understanding.

Crowley was fascinated with Eyptian text and times. He was also deep into language; the bastardization of it by modern man, the overuse of it to communicate, the interpretation of it by one man of the next - with contextual understanding being wholly dependent on the experience of the the man hearing/reading it and nothing else...

Yes. This very much has lept out at me and is something I'd barely recognized at all. I knew a lot of communication was flawed but never realized it is never very good.

Some of his writings were very interesting and thought-provoking, with a satirical twist that I appreciate.

“To knot a sentence up properly, it has to be thought out carefully, and revised. New phrases have to be put in; sudden changes of subject must be introduced; verbs must be shifted to unsuspected localities; short words must be excised with ruthless hand; archaisms must be sprinkled like sugar-plums upon the concoction; the fatal human tendency to say things straightforwardly must be detected and defeated by adroit reversals; and, if a glimmer of meaning yet remain under close scrutiny, it must be removed by replacing all the principal verbs by paraphrases in some dead language.” - Aleister Crowley, from Moonchild

I do a similar thing but for me I'm trying to discourage the casual reader. I figure if I complicate a thought or sentence that it will force a reader to pay closer attention. Then I'll drop in a few treats to encourage them.

Course, he also wrote this:
Happiness lies within one's self, and the way to dig it out is cocaine. -Aleister Crowley, from Diary of a Drug Fiend

Drugs are a scourge but the solution must be to give everyone alternatives rather than destroy an entire society in the name of keeping a few away from drugs. Most drugs could probably be "reworked" now days to take away their addictive qualities. Coke and Heroin are the only ones that always kills. These need some control.

P.s. Not to trip over it or anything, but I think you're right that, considering the perspective, two right hands makes sense, really. Way more so than two left feet - to me, anyway.

Once you recognize that the style was to draw what was important or central and that these people didn't think like us it starts making sense.