Greetings! I would like to welcome all who have taken the time to read this page. In this edition of Papers in the Attic, we will discuss Mister Daniel Harms recent reply to my Open Letter to him and to the writers of the Necronomicon Files. You can find my first letter to Mister Harms at this link:
You can find Mister Harms initial response to my letter at this link here:
I should also state that Mister Harms (The Joker) has taken it upon himself to add another response, with a U-tube video, that can be seen here:
Let us now begin by looking at the initial response made to my Open Letter. Dan Harms wrote:
“Warlock Asylum concludes that the Necronomicon is in fact based on a template created by Aleister Crowley, with additional material coming from a Greek manuscript.
In short, I don’t agree with him. Those who want a longer explanation can look past the cut.”
Later in his response he states:
“First, Warlock’s entire argument is based on questionable assumptions. First, a set of coded assumptions permeate the Necronomicon and other magical documents. I think that’s true, though true in less cases than some magicians like to maintain. Second, these codes are only decipherable by magicians. From my own experience in the occult community, I don’t see that as a safe assumption – though magicians are often more committed to studying their symbolism, non-practitioners can come to understand the same language. “
Well ladies and gentlemen, it looks like The Joker is back again! I find the above quote to be a manipulative way of not dealing with the real issue involved. First Mister Daniel Harms does indeed say that it is “true” that magical documents, such as the Necronomicon are indeed coded. However, Mister Daniel Harms evades the issue of how this pertains to the Simon Necronomicon by making a general discussion of deciphering magical documents. He seems to just overlook my initial argument that the Simon Necronomicon is indeed a coded book and this is no “assumption Mister Daniel Harms. It states in the introductory section of the Simon Necronomicon: “These were the sorcerer’s handbooks, and generally not meant to be textbooks or encyclopedias of ceremonial magick. In other words, the sorcerer or magician is supposed to be in possession of requisite knowledge and training with which to carry out a complex magickal ritual..,The magicians who read these works are expected to be able to select the wheat from the chaff..,” Why would Simon put these words in the Simon Necronomicon if the book was not coded? These words are clear indication that the Simon Necronomicon is indeed coded, and takes diligent effort to understand.
When we look further into Mister Daniel Harms response, we see that he did not observe his own contradiction. Notice his following statement: “though magicians are often more committed to studying their symbolism, non-practitioners can come to understand the same language. Otherwise, I’d never have gotten very far with Kenneth Grant. Third – and this is the most problematic – that this code can never be used to provide false information, which would assume that magicians were virtually infallible and truthful at all times. None of this really stands up.” Mister Daniel Harms contradicts himself by first assuming that non-practitioners of magic can understand the same “coded” language that the serious magician understands. Now in his third point he says that coded references are “problematic” because the code can be used to provide “false information.” Didn’t we just discuss the Simon Necronomicon introduction where it stated that the magician must separate the “wheat from the chaff?” I guess you never heard the expression; ‘Crowley’s laughing at you!’ Especially when the non-practitioner doesn’t get it! See the serious occultist must make himself familiar with ancient mythologies, culture, law, history, the principles of magic, and how all these things relate to each other before, he or she, even begins the process of initiation. These preliminary areas of study serve as check-points so that the initiate then knows what is real or what is false when reading a grimoire. Since we are on the subject, I must state also a warning to those who are unexperienced in working with the Simon Necronomicon. See the trap of the Simon Necronomicon is very simple indeed, but it is the trap that lies in all magickal documents. Many people pick up these magickal texts while being unfamiliar with ancient mythologies, histories, and etc. So they dangerously assume that if the magickal text was just made up in the mind, they can add on and manipulate the workings, and while it is true that some workings can be adjusted to circumstance one should not attempt this until they are familiar with certain magickal principles. What Mister Daniel Harms finds “problematic” is only “problematic” for the non-practitioner. Training usually takes years in these studies to be effective. For example, I am sure that if Mister Daniel Harms had some sort of ailment he might find it “problematic” that a person who reads a lot of books on medicine does not have the remedy for his illness, instead of going to a trained doctor. I think wee see the point. yet again, Mister Daniel Harms has evaded the issue by making a general discussion of the points in my initial posting.
Let us look further into Mister Daniel harms response: “For instance, Lovecraft’s own “History of the Necronomicon” does indeed mention a Greek document. In that case, someone like Simon with a background in the Eastern Orthodox Church would have found it easier to create evidence of a Greek Necronomicon than one in Arabic. It seems questionable that a mere reference to a Greek document must be to Crowley instead of, say, the vast majority of Greek literature that has nothing to do with him.” Looks like the Joker is at it again! First of all Simon discusses all of this in the introductory section of the Simon Necronomicon, where coded or not, Simon pretty much leads the reader to see that he used some of the aesthetics of Lovecraft’s work interwoven in a template that Crowley had left behind. Simon also mentions the Greek document. This can be found in the section, The Mythos and The Magick, which shows that Simon did view Lovecraft’s writings about the Necronomicon fictional, though he interwove it with something that was real-the work of Aleister Crowley. We should also keep in mind that in Lovecraft’s description of the Necronomicon, he wrote that it was translated into Greek by Theodorus Philetas, a name that means “gift of god, brotherly love.” I guess there’s nothing Thelemic about that Mister Daniel Harms.
Mister Harms continues in his reply: “Further, the statement that some work is “Crowley’s own NECRONOMICON” actually seems to refer to Liber Al, instead of the Necronomicon itself, when viewed in context. Though everyone makes mistakes, these do suggest that magical expertise does not necessarily equate to sounder textual judgment.? I never knew that Mister Daniel Harms was such a good comedian. In my initial post, I stated that; “Simon refers to The Book of the Law as the Necronomicon. I made this statement to indicate two distinct things:
First, we learn from this statement that Simon’s definition as to what the “Necronomicon” was-was not limited to, or the same as the definition that Lovecraft had assign to the term. Simon even refer to Lovecraft’s work, as being similar to Crowley’s work, but still held that Lovecraft’s use of the term and story was indeed a mythos.
Secondly, if Simon referred to Liber Al as Crowley’s own Necronomicon, then Simon’s definition of how the term Necronomicon was used as “the formulae necessary to summon the invisible into the visible,” was not something he associated with Lovecraft as far as the broader definition of the term.
Next Mister Daniel Harms states: “What this argument really lacks, however, is any evidentiary ground. Warlock first tosses out the only first-hand account of the manuscript’s origins via Simon – which isn’t such a bad idea in itself – and then concludes, based on a few passages from the introduction, that the work is one by Crowley.”
If Crowley were made mention of in just a few passages, I could agree with Mister Daniel Harms, but we GateWalkers know otherwise. First, the name Crowley appears within the introduction of the Simon Necronomicon 39 times Mister Daniel Harms. This means that the name “Crowley” appears more that even the book’s title. Were you aware of this Mister Daniel Harms? Keep in mind that i am not concluding other references to him such as, Beast, PERDURABO, and etc. What is also interesting is that when you reverse 39, you get 93, which is a very significant number in Thelemic circles Mister Daniel Harms. Wait, there’s more! The Second edition of the Simon Necronomicon included a dedication to Aleister Crowley, his year of birth marking a century. In that edition the term NECRONOMICON is used 33 times. When you add that with 39, you get 72. Aleister Crowley lived for 72 years, but besides all of this Mister Daniel Harms, you are an excellent author. You are a published author. Since when does a published author of any work, whether fiction or fact, mention someone’s name at least 38 times, and that individual is not responsible, or co-author of the writing involved. We know the answer to that, don’t we Mister Daniel Harms?
Finally, before the Joker gets locked away in his own tears, let us look at some of Mister Daniel Harms concluding statements: “As to the language – I’ve read quite a bit of Crowley over the years, and I can’t imagine him coming up with a model so doom-laden and in which humanity plays such an unimportant role. Crowley did see the rise of a new, bloody aeon, but he was an optimist at heart. He saw magic as something accomplished through the Will, with pacts with gods and other beings only serving that force instead of being intrinsically necessary for a magician’s attainment.” I wonder what works has Mister Harms read? Well, I will provide him with a few. This is taken from the Second Testimony of the Mad Arab found in the Simon Necronomicon found on page 218:
“The Stars grow dim in their places, and the Moon pales before me, as though a Veil were blown across its flame. Dog-faces demons approach the circumference of my sanctuary. Strange lines appear carved on my door and walls, and the light from the Windows grows increasing dim.
A wind has risen. The Dark Waters stir. This is the Book of the Servant of the Gods “
Now let us compare this with The Pathworkings of Aleister Crowley page 116:
“Two are the moons of my madness, like the horns on the head of a goat. And between them burneth a pyramid of flame, which consumeth neither but blindeth both, so that the one beholdeth not the other, Notwithstanding, when the one is lost in the water, and the other is burned up in the flame…”
Don’t worry Mister Daniel Harms, I’m staying true to my vows. Let’s see if you stay true to yours!