IAO131 has a good start. I don’t agree with all his objections and I think he misses some more obvious major issues in favor of petty arguments, but I have to say that there is some valid points to the three part “start” that he got on it.

But, yes, I will be producing a review once finished. I was under the same impression that everyone else seems to have had: this was an excellent book that can’t be missed, a must-have, best thing since Crowley himself, etc etc. And then I received it. 32 pages down. 198 more to go.
bishop recently posted..Creation and Evolution

I am only 32 pages into the book and I can say, without hesitation and with quite a bit of assurance, that so far this book suffers from a lack of accuracy both historical and theological. Just on these pages alone, the assertion by anyone that this is a scholarly text or anything that should be required reading is fallacious at best. I am highly disappointed so far.

I assure you I am not Gunther under a different name.

See the review I started here:

pt1: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=320815632&blogId=481845996
pt2: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=320815632&blogId=481941407
pt3: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=320815632&blogId=482002483

93 93/93

As someone who has written some (very nice) material covering the same topics as Gunther has in his works, do you consider your comments to be unbiased?

To be honest, some of the material you’ve written on the topic yourself has so much the same tone as what’s in the book that I’ve often wondered if you (IAO131) actually _are_ Gunther using an alias. Apparently not, but I’ve very much enjoyed the writing of both of you.

I would also be very interested in reading some examples of those “explanations of Thelemic mysticism that are blatantly wrong and contradicted by Crowley himself”.

93, 93/93

I found the book boring, poorly written, and incoherent. Gunther is recommended by Wasserman & OHO of OTO because he is their mentor and good, old friend. Very few of the ideas are new or novel in the least, and most have been discussed by Aleister Crowley or by many Thelemites since him. On top of that, the references aren’t ‘scholarly.’ He quotes things like ‘Depth Psychology’ which is one of the most fringe parts of psychology you could pretend supports your vague assertions. If you are into obscure symbolism trying to be explained, explanations of Thelemic mysticism that are blatantly wrong and contradicted by Crowley himself, and throwing down of long quotations without explaining their meaning or context … this book is for you!