From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 17:44:10 Subject: RE: Re: What we need is an idle chatter echo... GdC> Being a Thelemite requires the beleif that there is an underlying GdC> principle which effects the universal consciousness of society; GdC> called Thelema, no? TM> No. What qualifies you to lay down the rules of belief for other TM> Thelemites? GdC> Ok Tim. So what constitutes being a Thelemite? It is a word. The OED definition is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who could pass through the door of Rabelais' Abbey is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who works with Crowley's ritual technology is reasonable; your definition is reasonable, except that it claims that it is the only definition (when it says "requires the belief"). GdC> A lover of freedom? Do you know anyone who does not value freedom? I know few people who value freedom, except as a slogan. That includes professed Thelemites. I'd like to know what freedom means to you. GdC> I am not qualified to lay down any rule for belief; I asked it as GdC> a question. You stated it as an assertion (the final "no?" only reinforces that), then proceeded to build on it as a premise. It wasn't a question. GdC> Hey, you wanted to talk about this; if you start attacking the people GdC> who debate with you you'll find yourself typing messages to yourself. I have challenged your attempt to define me and other freethinkers as not Thelemites. I have not attacked your character by so doing. GdC> If so, then how could you say it is hopelessly vague? TM> What is "an underlying principle which effects the universal TM> consciousness of society"? What is the nature and what are the TM> characteristics of this "principle"? GdC> Fine, so you following your logic, anything which cannot be physically GdC> proven cannot exist. We are beating a dead dog here Tim. What's the GdC> point in debating this then? I don't really know what it means to "physically prove that something exists". All I did was ask you to define terms which convey no meaning to my mind. Could you please define them? (more) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 17:46:20 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics (1) GdC> Being a Thelemite requires the beleif that there is an underlying GdC> principle which effects the universal consciousness of society; GdC> called Thelema, no? TM> No. What qualifies you to lay down the rules of belief for other TM> Thelemites? GdC> Ok Tim. So what constitutes being a Thelemite? It is a word. The OED definition is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who could pass through the door of Rabelais' Abbey is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who works with Crowley's ritual technology is reasonable; your definition is reasonable, except that it claims that it is the only definition (when it says "requires the belief"). GdC> A lover of freedom? Do you know anyone who does not value freedom? I know few people who value freedom, except as a slogan. That includes professed Thelemites. I'd like to know what freedom means to you. GdC> I am not qualified to lay down any rule for belief; I asked it as GdC> a question. You stated it as an assertion (the final "no?" only reinforces that), then proceeded to build on it as a premise. It wasn't a question. GdC> Hey, you wanted to talk about this; if you start attacking the people GdC> who debate with you you'll find yourself typing messages to yourself. I have challenged your attempt to define me and other freethinkers as not Thelemites. I have not attacked your character by so doing. GdC> If so, then how could you say it is hopelessly vague? TM> What is "an underlying principle which effects the universal TM> consciousness of society"? What is the nature and what are the TM> characteristics of this "principle"? GdC> Fine, so you following your logic, anything which cannot be physically GdC> proven cannot exist. We are beating a dead dog here Tim. What's the GdC> point in debating this then? I don't really know what it means to "physically prove that something exists". All I did was ask you to define terms which convey no meaning to my mind. Could you please define them? (more) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 17:47:40 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics (2) (continued) GdC> I cannot PROVE to you that such an energy/current exists, or that GdC> even a mass consciousness is possible. TM> You can make no definite statements at all about this unprovable TM> belief, in fact, since none of your statements have an empirical TM> basis or any methodology for resolving them. GdC> Therefore, every theory which cannot be scrutinized in this GdC> way is not valid. How many religions do you know that can be GdC> scrutinized this way? I don't know of any religion that can't be scrutinized in this way. But such scrutiny tends not to create perspectives of absolutist, irrational, or literalistic belief. Instead, it creates the kinds of perspectives associated with philosophical schools of Hindu mysticism, liberal Christianity, Unitarian-Universalism, Joseph Campbell (and other serious students of comparative religion), and so forth. These represent the state of the art of religious philosophy. But instead of learning from this enlightened approach, many professed Thelemites seem determined to become the Plymouth Brethren of the New Age -- as did Crowley. GdC> Historically, much has happened which I think point to this "Law" GdC> I keep talking about. Could you be specific? If Thelema's aeonic model points to underlying principles guiding history, then it should be possible to revolutionize the field of history by applying these principles to analyze the twentieth century and the previous aeons. I am not aware of anyone having created this revolution. I've never heard of a single historical paper, thesis or dissertation on the subject. GdC> why not just throw out Liber AL, and call it one of AC's worse pieces GdC> of poetry? TM> Why not indeed? This thought seems to strike you with horror. Try to TM> consider, rationally, the idea that the Book of the Law is just another TM> book. If you can't, then you have earned the label of "fundamentalist TM> Thelemite". GdC> My belief that Liber AL is a Holy Book makes me a fundamentalist? GdC> I don't think so, and this is where we disagree. Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I did not say that you deserve that label because you think AL is a holy book. I think it is a holy book myself, after all. I said that if you are unable, squarely and without flinching, to face the prospect that the Book of the Law is just another book, then you could rightly be termed a fundamentalist Thelemite. To argue from the premise that we can't possibly throw out the Book of the Law is to argue from a fundamentalist premise. The very idea that it might not be the Sole Rule and Guide of Life and the Inerrant Emanation of Praeterhuman Intelligence seems too awful for you to contemplate. (more) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 17:48:40 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics (3) GdC> Could you explain WHY you think the OTO would have ANYTHING to do GdC> with a world-wide acceptance of Thelema? TM> [describes in what way the O.T.O. is a Thelemic government already, TM> and how it was designed to rule a world which converted to Thelema] TM> TM> How could this _not_ be a suitable test for what a Thelemic government TM> would be like? GdC> because it excludes itself from society. The organization is not GdC> concerned with society as a whole, its main concern is with its GdC> membership. I don't understand this. What government is not primarily concerned with its own citizens, rather than citizens of other governments? Are you saying the problem with the O.T.O. is that it's not expansionist enough? I also think it's odd that, on one hand, you insist that there is nothing at all wrong with the Order, and that it respects all human rights and so forth; while on the other hand, you seem positively desperate to avoid using it as an example of Thelemic government. If it's such an excellent government, then why not use it as an example? Contratriwise, if it's so badly suited to the task, what are its problems? TM> There's no freedom of speech at any level beneath the X, and only TM> arguably there. There's no guarantee of rights of due process. There's TM> no guarantee of any right being held to be more important than the order TM> of a person of superior rank. You did not respond to any of the above three statements. TM> There's no guarantee of the right to peacefully assemble: bodies of TM> the Order may be dissolved at the whim of the hierarchy. GdC> I have seen this process and how it works. The people who make most GdC> of these decisions, the Electoral College do not take this kind of GdC> thing lightly. It is unfair for you to make statements like this GdC> unless you have witnessed the procedures. The proceedings are carried out under a veil of secrecy, instead of under due process. Only persons sympathetic to the process are allowed to witness it. Therefore, you are saying that only someone who is sympathetic to the Electoral College has the right to comment on its proceedings. This is merely than a tactic to quell all outside criticism; I doubt you'd let the IRS or the Vatican get away with it. (more) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Junk 31 May 92 17:49:44 Subject: to be removed (continued) TM> There's no guarantee of freedom of religion: members are required to TM> revere one holy book above all others (or at least to pretend that they TM> do). GdC> There are Buhdists, Jews, Moslims, Christians and Hari Krishna in GdC> the OTO. No one in the OTO has EVER said to me or anyone I know GdC> that they must only accept one Holy Book. In fact, IMHO, only GdC> accepting one book is a form of self-impossed ignorance. THIS is GdC> fundamentalism. Once again, perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't say that members are forbidden to revere other holy books. I said they are required to revere one above all others, or at least to give the appearance of doing so. The Book of the Law, and _only_ the Book of the Law, is present on the altar at all ceremonies. The longstanding Masonic practices, of allowing candidates to swear on their own choice of Volumes of Sacred Law, and of putting several VSLs on the altar to satisfy all members, have been abandoned. The O.T.O. has less religious freedom than Masonry, and less than the United States government, neither of which require that oaths be sworn on any particular holy book. If the USG required oaths to be sworn on the Christian Bible, you'd be howling. But when a government demands your preferred holy book, you defend it. TM> There's no right of freedom of the press; people get in serious trouble TM> for writing and publishing things critical of the government. GdC> I used to draw cartoons for The Baphomet Breeze, and I was quite GdC> critical, at times, of The Caliph. Never caught any shit for it. GdC> Anyway, the O.T.O. is a Fraternal Organization; if you dislike it GdC> so much that you gotta right deragatory shit about it...quit. Then why didn't you quit? You are contradicting yourself. You claim that you wrote criticism, but that anyone who writes criticism should avoid the organization. You remain an active member. This makes no sense. In any case, "love it or leave it" is an intolerant perspective which dismisses the possibility of reform. I care deeply about Thelema and the O.T.O., and I want to see them live up to their potential. (more) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 18:02:04 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics GdC> Being a Thelemite requires the beleif that there is an underlying GdC> principle which effects the universal consciousness of society; GdC> called Thelema, no? TM> No. What qualifies you to lay down the rules of belief for other TM> Thelemites? GdC> Ok Tim. So what constitutes being a Thelemite? It is a word. The OED definition is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who could pass through the door of Rabelais' Abbey is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who works with Crowley's ritual technology is reasonable; your definition is reasonable, except that it claims that it is the only definition (when it says "requires the belief"). GdC> A lover of freedom? Do you know anyone who does not value freedom? I know few people who value freedom, except as a slogan. That includes professed Thelemites. I'd like to know what freedom means to you. GdC> I am not qualified to lay down any rule for belief; I asked it as GdC> a question. You stated it as an assertion (the final "no?" only reinforces that), then proceeded to build on it as a premise. GdC> Hey, you wanted to talk about this; if you start attacking the people GdC> who debate with you you'll find yourself typing messages to yourself. I have challenged your attempt to define me and other freethinkers as not Thelemites. I have not attacked your character by so doing. GdC> If so, then how could you say it is hopelessly vague? TM> What is "an underlying principle which effects the universal TM> consciousness of society"? What is the nature and what are the TM> characteristics of this "principle"? GdC> Fine, so you following your logic, anything which cannot be physically GdC> proven cannot exist. We are beating a dead dog here Tim. What's the GdC> point in debating this then? I don't really know what it means to "physically prove that something exists". All I did was ask you to define terms which convey no meaning to my mind. Could you please define them? GdC> I cannot PROVE to you that such an energy/current exists, or that GdC> even a mass consciousness is possible. TM> You can make no definite statements at all about this unprovable TM> belief, in fact, since none of your statements have an empirical TM> basis or any methodology for resolving them. GdC> Therefore, every theory which cannot be scrutinized in this GdC> way is not valid. How many religions do you know that can be GdC> scrutinized this way? I don't know of any religion that can't be scrutinized in this way. But such scrutiny tends not to create perspectives of absolutist, irrational, or literalistic belief. Instead, it creates the kinds of perspectives associated with philosophical schools of Hindu mysticism, liberal Christianity, Unitarian-Universalism, Joseph Campbell (and other serious students of comparative religion), and so forth. These represent the state of the art of religious philosophy. But instead of learning from this enlightened approach, many professed Thelemites seem determined to become the Plymouth Brethren of the New Age -- as did Crowley. GdC> Historically, much has happened which I think point to this "Law" GdC> I keep talking about. Could you be specific? If Thelema's aeonic model points to underlying principles guiding history, then it should be possible to revolutionize the field of history by applying these principles to analyze the twentieth century and the previous aeons. But I've never heard of a single historical paper, thesis or dissertation on the subject. GdC> why not just throw out Liber AL, and call it one of AC's worse pieces GdC> of poetry? TM> Why not indeed? This thought seems to strike you with horror. Try to TM> consider, rationally, the idea that the Book of the Law is just another TM> book. If you can't, then you have earned the label of "fundamentalist TM> Thelemite". GdC> My belief that Liber AL is a Holy Book makes me a fundamentalist? GdC> I don't think so, and this is where we disagree. Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I did not say that you deserve that label because you think AL is a holy book. I think it is a holy book myself, after all. I said that if you are unable, squarely and without flinching, to face the prospect that the Book of the Law is just another book, then you could rightly be termed a fundamentalist Thelemite. To argue from the premise that we can't possibly throw out the Book of the Law is to argue from a fundamentalist premise. GdC> Could you explain WHY you think the OTO would have ANYTHING to do GdC> with a world-wide acceptance of Thelema? TM> [describes in what way the O.T.O. is a Thelemic government already, TM> and how it was designed to rule a world which converted to Thelema] TM> TM> How could this _not_ be a suitable test for what a Thelemic government TM> would be like? GdC> because it excludes itself from society. The organization is not GdC> concerned with society as a whole, its main concern is with its GdC> membership. I don't understand this. What government is not primarily concerned with its own citizens, rather than citizens of other governments? I also think it's odd that, on one hand, you insist that there is nothing at all wrong with the Order, and that it respects all human rights and so forth; while on the other hand, you seem positively desperate to avoid using it as an example of Thelemic government. If it's such an excellent government, then why not use it as an example? Contratriwise, if it's so badly suited to the task, what are its problems? TM> There's no freedom of speech at any level beneath the X, and only TM> arguably there. There's no guarantee of rights of due process. There's TM> no guarantee of any right being held to be more important than the order TM> of a person of superior rank. You did not respond to any of the above three statements. TM> There's no guarantee of the right to peacefully assemble: bodies of TM> the Order may be dissolved at the whim of the hierarchy. GdC> I have seen this process and how it works. The people who make most GdC> of these decisions, the Electoral College do not take this kind of GdC> thing lightly. It is unfair for you to make statements like this GdC> unless you have witnessed the procedures. The proceedings are carried out under a veil of secrecy, instead of under due process. Only persons sympathetic to the process are allowed to witness it. Therefore, you are saying that only someone who is sympathetic to the Electoral College has the right to comment on its proceedings. I doubt you'd grant the IRS or the Vatican the same plea. TM> There's no guarantee of freedom of religion: members are required to TM> revere one holy book above all others (or at least to pretend that they TM> do). GdC> There are Buhdists, Jews, Moslims, Christians and Hari Krishna in GdC> the OTO. No one in the OTO has EVER said to me or anyone I know GdC> that they must only accept one Holy Book. In fact, IMHO, only GdC> accepting one book is a form of self-impossed ignorance. THIS is GdC> fundamentalism. I didn't say that members are forbidden to revere other holy books. I said they are required to revere one above all others, or at least to give the appearance of doing so. The Book of the Law, and only the Book of the Law, is present on the altar at all ceremonies. The longstanding Masonic practices of allowing candidates to swear on their own choice of Volumes of Sacred Law and of putting several VSLs on the altar to satisfy all members have been abandoned. The O.T.O. has less religious freedom than Masonry, and less than the United States government, neither of which require that oaths be sworn on any particular holy book. If the USG required oaths to be sworn on the Christian Bible, you'd be howling. But when a government demands your preferred holy book, you defend it. TM> There's no right of freedom of the press; people get in serious trouble TM> for writing and publishing things critical of the government. GdC> I used to draw cartoons for The Baphomet Breeze, and I was quite GdC> critical, at times, of The Caliph. Never caught any shit for it. GdC> Anyway, the O.T.O. is a Fraternal Organization; if you dislike it GdC> so much that you gotta right deragatory shit about it...quit. Then why didn't you quit? You are contradicting yourself. You claim that you wrote criticism, but that anyone who writes criticism should avoid the organization. Yet you remain an active member. In any case, "love it or leave it" is an intolerant perspective which dismisses the possibility of reform. I care deeply about Thelema and the O.T.O., and I want to see them live up to their potential. TM> To give another example, in December I was found guilty and sentenced on TM> a charge that I had violated the Order's drug rules, which charge was TM> false. I was not allowed to defend myself, and the entire trial process TM> took place in a one-minute phone conversation. The penalty was TM> permanent banning from Thelema Lodge and [from] membership in the O.T.O. GdC> The drug laws are there to make sure that one individual does not GdC> screw things up for many. For exactly that reason, I agree with the O.T.O. drug rules posted at Thelema Lodge, and kept them. GdC> Unfortunately. drugs are illegal in this country: the SUpreme COurt GdC> decided a couple of years back that a person could not take illegal GdC> substances even if it was part of their sacramental religious GdC> experience. No, it didn't. In the case of those firings, it found that the state had no Constitutional requirement to respect such a right. The laws already on the books covering the use of peyote by the Native American Church were not struck down; it was simply held that they didn't provide a blanket protection which would have required the courts to overturn the firings of the two men involved. GdC> You say that the OTO violates our rights? Tim, our current government GdC> violates our rights. No lie. But it respects them more than the O.T.O. does. GdC> I seriously doubt that the "trial" (sounds more like the Star GdC> Chamber) took place over a one minute telephone conversation; but if GdC> you say it did, it did. I was not there, and I am not familiar with GdC> what happened. And this is why the lack of due process is so convenient to the rulers, and why it took a sword at his throat to make King John clean up the courts. Without public trial, facing one's accuser, standards of evidence and proof, records of testimony and judgment, and a disinterested jury, the judicial power becomes an executive power. The penalties intended to punish and deter malefactors can be applied to anyone who is inconvenient or disfavored, all under the guise of justice. Because of secrecy and the lack of records, no appeal to the public is possible; because of the lack of a jury, impartiality is a joke; because there are no standards of evidence, conviction becomes a matter of personal preference. The O.T.O. is applying a feudal judicial model, not a humanistic or Thelemic one. The drearily predictable consequences are demonstrated by my case. TM> When I protested in a polite letter, the answer came back that my TM> protest would not be considered, and that this was only the latest TM> of my "offenses" against the O.T.O., the others being (as far as TM> anyone is able to figure out) that I had criticized Order policy TM> on computer networks. GdC> When the answer came back: who answered? Jerry Cornelius, the same person who acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, and bailiff. GdC> Also, I criticize OTO policy all the time, and I have never been told GdC> to shut up, or otherwise. But again Tim, if you find so much criticism GdC> in the Order, then why would you have wanted to be a member in the GdC> first place? You are contradicting yourself again. I will also say that whatever your criticism may have been, it has never been evident in the computer network messages that I have read. Instead, you constantly praise and defend the Order. The right to criticize the government is a fundamental human right. TM> The O.T.O. is a petty dictatorship. It is ludicrous to represent it TM> as any kind of defender of human rights. GdC> this is an opinion, and holds as much water as my assumption that GdC> there is such a thing as Universal Law. Your defense of the contention that Thelema represents some "universal law" was neither clear nor precise; it was incoherent and vague. I see no comparison. TM> As for your defense of the government of Saudi Arabia, I think it is TM> a fine demonstration of your political views, and the kind of Thelemic TM> government you would like to impose on us. GdC> If you read my reply, I said that Kuwaities like their government. GdC> That is all. Actually, we were discussing Saudi Arabia. Apparently, you do not know the difference between that and Kuwait, though both were prominently featured in journalism in recent memory. And without wishing to get too personal, Gerald, this kind of thing is one of the biggest problems I have with your mission to wake us all up to the Thelemic implications of modern world politics. Another example is your misrepresentation of the Supreme Court decision above. I'd like to know the size of your history and political collections, compared to your Crowley collection. If you despair because of the lack of converts to your cause, perhaps it's because you're not qualified for the job. You're just not a convincing political commentator. And neither was Crowley. I really don't bear you any personal antipathy, Gerald, though I think your political views are poorly thought out. If I saw you at a party, I'd share a cup or bowl with you, if I had one. And I'll give you a hint on how to conduct yourself in this kind of debate. Whenever you make a statement about Thelema, ask yourself how you would feel if the same statement were made about Christianity. Whenever you make a statement about the Book of the Law, substitute the Christian Bible and see how it flies. Ditto the O.T.O. and the USG. To me, this discussion is a mirror image of debates I had with fundamentalist Christians who wanted to "turn this country to God" years ago. If you could avoid resembling right-wing Christian theocrats so strongly, I'd probably be harder pressed to deconstruct your position. Timbo 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tim Maroney Area: RPSTOVAL To: Gerald Del Campo 31 May 92 18:03:34 Subject: RE: Re: What we need is an idle chatter echo... In a message to Tim Maroney written on Tuesday, May 26, 1992 at 15:42:00, Gerald Del Campo writes: GDC> In a message dated 24 May 92 16:13:07, Tim Maroney wrote: TM> There is no way to disprove a vague and untestable metaphysical TM> statement. I can no more prove your view false than I can prove that TM> there are no invisible people living in your refrigerator, or that Jesus TM> of Nazareth did not rise from the dead sometime around 33 CE. That is TM> why the burden of proof is on the claimant in such cases. GDC> True....now what? Now, either the claimant takes up the burden of proof, or anyone ought to feel entirely justified in saying that what the claimant says is false. Timbo 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 17:08:18 Subject: RE: Re: What we need is an idle chatter echo... In a message dated 31 May 92 17:44:10, Tim Maroney wrote: GdC> Being a Thelemite requires the beleif that there is an underlying GdC> principle which effects the universal consciousness of society; GdC> called Thelema, no? TM> No. What qualifies you to lay down the rules of belief for other TM> Thelemites? GdC> Ok Tim. So what constitutes being a Thelemite? TM> It is a word. The OED definition is reasonable; the definition that TM> a Thelemite is someone who could pass through the door of Rabelais' TM> Abbey is reasonable; the definition that a Thelemite is someone who works TM> with Crowley's ritual technology is reasonable; your definition is TM> reasonable, except that it claims that it is the only definition (when it TM> says "requires the belief"). You say you recognize Campbel as a "state of the art" thinker and philosopher, yet you question me when I say that Thelema is an iunderground current. Myth has the ability to reap its fruits in the development of the consciousness of the race; I see Thelema as being no different. The only difference in our opinions, evidently, is that I believe it is there and you don't. GdC> A lover of freedom? Do you know anyone who does not value freedom? TM> I know few people who value freedom, except as a slogan. That TM> includes professed Thelemites. I'd like to know what freedom means to TM> you. I agree...in a way. Most of the hypocrites that I know demand their own freedom, but are hardly concerned when their brothers or sisters freedom is at stake. My definition of freedom could take many pages. Can you be more specific? GdC> I am not qualified to lay down any rule for belief; I asked it as GdC> a question. TM> You stated it as an assertion (the final "no?" only reinforces TM> that), then proceeded to build on it as a premise. It wasn't a question. "No?" is not a question? I will refrain from wording my question this way in the future. GdC> Hey, you wanted to talk about this; if you start attacking the people GdC> who debate with you you'll find yourself typing messages to yourself. TM> I have challenged your attempt to define me and other freethinkers TM> as not Thelemites. I have not attacked your character by so doing. GdC> If so, then how could you say it is hopelessly vague? TM> What is "an underlying principle which effects the universal TM> consciousness of society"? What is the nature and what are the TM> characteristics of this "principle"? I meant it in the same context as Xtianity, and how it was able to alter the consciousness of the species. Joseph Campbell also believed that a myth could alter the condition of the human race. The characteristics are defined in Liber AL. I see it manifesting itself in the world events and in the way that people are dealing with issues. GdC> Fine, so you following your logic, anything which cannot be physically GdC> proven cannot exist. We are beating a dead dog here Tim. What's the GdC> point in debating this then? Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 17:20:18 Subject: RE: Re: What we need is an idle chatter echo... In a message dated 31 May 92 18:03:35, Tim Maroney wrote: TM> There is no way to disprove a vague and untestable metaphysical TM> statement. I can no more prove your view false than I can prove that TM> there are no invisible people living in your refrigerator, or that Jesus TM> of Nazareth did not rise from the dead sometime around 33 CE. That is TM> why the burden of proof is on the claimant in such cases. GDC> True....now what? TM> Now, either the claimant takes up the burden of proof, or anyone TM> ought to feel entirely justified in saying that what the claimant says is TM> false. TM> Timbo Again, what you are saying is that things which cannot be proven do not exist. COrrect? Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 17:29:18 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics (2) In a message dated 31 May 92 17:47:40, Tim Maroney wrote: TM> (continued) GdC> I cannot PROVE to you that such an energy/current exists, or that GdC> even a mass consciousness is possible. TM> You can make no definite statements at all about this unprovable TM> belief, in fact, since none of your statements have an empirical TM> basis or any methodology for resolving them. Neither can ANY theory. GdC> Therefore, every theory which cannot be scrutinized in this GdC> way is not valid. How many religions do you know that can be GdC> scrutinized this way? TM> I don't know of any religion that can't be scrutinized in this way. Religion does not require "belief"? TM> But such scrutiny tends not to create perspectives of absolutist, TM> irrational, or literalistic belief. Instead, it creates the kinds of TM> perspectives associated with philosophical schools of Hindu mysticism, TM> liberal Christianity, Unitarian-Universalism, Joseph Campbell (and other TM> serious students of comparative religion), and so forth. These represent TM> the state of the art of religious philosophy. But instead of learning TM> from this enlightened approach, many professed Thelemites seem determined TM> to become the Plymouth Brethren of the New Age -- as did Crowley. Some one had to bring it in...to herald it. Crowley did nothing that the prophet of the last aeon did. GdC> Historically, much has happened which I think point to this "Law" GdC> I keep talking about. TM> Could you be specific? The Berlin Wall, Yugoslavia, the USSR, Algeria, environmental awareness, etc. TM> If Thelema's aeonic model points to underlying principles guiding TM> history, then it should be possible to revolutionize the field of history TM> by applying these principles to analyze the twentieth century and the TM> previous aeons. I am not aware of anyone having created this revolution. It should be possible, although I have not done it. I have, however, compared aeons using the three chapter of Liber AL as reference; i.e., Chapter I the aeon of Isis, Chapter II the aeon of Osiris, Chapter III the aeon of Horus. TM> I've never heard of a single historical paper, thesis or dissertation on TM> the subject. So this is an argument to discredit my theories? These are my thoughts. I do not impose my views on anyone; I present opinions and theories. GdC> why not just throw out Liber AL, and call it one of AC's worse pieces GdC> of poetry? TM> Why not indeed? This thought seems to strike you with horror. Try to TM> consider, rationally, the idea that the Book of the Law is just another TM> book. If you can't, then you have earned the label of "fundamentalist TM> Thelemite". What strikes me with horror is your ability to put words in peoples mouths, and twist words to satisfy your desire for argument. I never said I could not do that; but I wont. This does not make me a fundamentalist. GdC> My belief that Liber AL is a Holy Book makes me a fundamentalist? GdC> I don't think so, and this is where we disagree. TM> Perhaps my statement wasn't clear. I did not say that you deserve TM> that label because you think AL is a holy book. I think it is a holy TM> book myself, after all. I said that if you are unable, squarely and TM> without flinching, to face the prospect that the Book of the Law is just TM> another book, then you could rightly be termed a fundamentalist TM> Thelemite. If I accepted ONLY The Book of The Law as a Holy Book, THEN I would fit into this interpretation of "fundamentalist". TM> To argue from the premise that we can't possibly throw out the Book TM> of the Law is to argue from a fundamentalist premise. The very idea TM> that it might not be the Sole Rule and Guide of Life and the Inerrant TM> Emanation of Praeterhuman Intelligence seems too awful for you to TM> contemplate. How did you determine this? When did I say we couldn't possibly do this. You are confusing me for some one you want to punish. Go to the souce Tim; it is much more satisfying. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 17:48:18 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics (3) In a message dated 31 May 92 17:48:40, Tim Maroney wrote: GdC> Could you explain WHY you think the OTO would have ANYTHING to do GdC> with a world-wide acceptance of Thelema? TM> [describes in what way the O.T.O. is a Thelemic government already, TM> and how it was designed to rule a world which converted to Thelema] I know what it is designed to be; but since it is not what it is designed to do it is a poor example. TM> How could this _not_ be a suitable test for what a Thelemic government TM> would be like? GdC> because it excludes itself from society. The organization is not GdC> concerned with society as a whole, its main concern is with its GdC> membership. TM> I don't understand this. What government is not primarily concerned TM> with its own citizens, rather than citizens of other governments? Are TM> you saying the problem with the O.T.O. is that it's not expansionist TM> enough? I am saying that we cannot use the OTO as a representation of a Thelemic government because it only governs a very, very small percentage of people, who do not represent the majority of society. TM> I also think it's odd that, on one hand, you insist that there is TM> nothing at all wrong with the Order, and that it respects all human TM> rights and so forth; while on the other hand, you seem positively TM> desperate to avoid using it as an example of Thelemic government. When did I insist in using the OTO as an example of a Thelemic government? I have been purposely avoiding doing that, as I feel it is a poor model at this time to do so. TM> If it's such an excellent government, then why not use it as an example? TM> Contratriwise, if it's so badly suited to the task, what are its TM> problems? I have already explained this. Its problems are unknown to me, outside of the fact that it is not a proper model for a major ruling Thelemic force. TM> There's no freedom of speech at any level beneath the X, and only TM> arguably there. There is a degree whose specific task is to criticize every move that the Caliph makes. I have certainly done my fair amount of bitching when I disagree with certain policies and have made myself heard. Without any lashback from the powers that be. TM> There's no guarantee of rights of due process. You mean the right to a speedy trial? Please be more specific, as this encompases several rights. TM> There's no guarantee of any right being held to be more important than TM> the order of a person of superior rank. I have not found this to be true in my experience. This occurs in today's "democratic" society. Are you as zealous in your quest to change it as you are about the OTO's? TM> There's no guarantee of the right to peacefully assemble: bodies of TM> the Order may be dissolved at the whim of the hierarchy. GdC> I have seen this process and how it works. The people who make most GdC> of these decisions, the Electoral College do not take this kind of GdC> thing lightly. It is unfair for you to make statements like this GdC> unless you have witnessed the procedures. TM> The proceedings are carried out under a veil of secrecy, instead of TM> under due process. Only persons sympathetic to the process are TM> allowed to witness it. Only person's of the appropiate degree are allowed to witness it. Being sympathetic to its decisions has nothing to do with it. TM> Therefore, you are saying that only someone who is sympathetic to the TM> Electoral College has the right to comment on its proceedings. This is TM> merely than a tactic to quell all outside criticism; I doubt you'd let TM> the IRS or the Vatican get away with it. As I have said before, being sympathetic has nothing to do with it. All I said was that a person who was unfamiliar with the process is not well equipt to argue that it is biased. Believe it or not the IRS and the Vatican already do this; and I can do nothing to keep them from getting away with it. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 18:15:18 Subject: Re: to be removed In a message dated 31 May 92 17:49:44, Tim Maroney wrote: TM> There's no guarantee of freedom of religion: members are required to TM> revere one holy book above all others (or at least to pretend that they TM> do). GdC> There are Buhdists, Jews, Moslims, Christians and Hari Krishna in GdC> the OTO. No one in the OTO has EVER said to me or anyone I know GdC> that they must only accept one Holy Book. In fact, IMHO, only GdC> accepting one book is a form of self-impossed ignorance. THIS is GdC> fundamentalism. TM> Once again, perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't say that members are TM> forbidden to revere other holy books. I said they are required to TM> revere one above all others, or at least to give the appearance of doing TM> so. The Book of the Law, and _only_ the Book of the Law, is present on TM> the altar at all ceremonies. The longstanding Masonic practices, of TM> allowing candidates to swear on their own choice of Volumes of Sacred TM> Law, and of putting several VSLs on the altar to satisfy all members, TM> have been abandoned. The O.T.O. has less religious freedom than Masonry, TM> and less than the United States government, neither of which require that TM> oaths be sworn on any particular holy book. If the USG required oaths to TM> be sworn on the Christian Bible, you'd be howling. But when a government TM> demands your preferred holy book, you defend it. The OTO is a Thelemic organization, and the Book of The Law embodies those principles; therefore it choses to use that book. One should not be surprised for the abscense of the Bible or anyother Holy Book. If you the principles taught by the Bible were close to your heart, you'd be better off joining some other more Christianized organization. I do not view this as religious bigotry. TM> There's no right of freedom of the press; people get in serious trouble TM> for writing and publishing things critical of the government. GdC> I used to draw cartoons for The Baphomet Breeze, and I was quite GdC> critical, at times, of The Caliph. Never caught any shit for it. GdC> Anyway, the O.T.O. is a Fraternal Organization; if you dislike it GdC> so much that you gotta right deragatory shit about it...quit. TM> Then why didn't you quit? You are contradicting yourself. You TM> claim that you wrote criticism, but that anyone who writes criticism TM> should avoid the organization. You remain an active member. This makes TM> no sense. I have never had a problem being heard. I remain an active member because I know that I am able to make a difference and that my ideas (so long as they are sound) are taken into account. I have never encountered any of thesse problems. TM> In any case, "love it or leave it" is an intolerant perspective TM> which dismisses the possibility of reform. You are right. It was a poor argument. TM> I care deeply about Thelema and the O.T.O., and I want to see them live TM> up to their potential. So do I Tim. But maybe this whole political thing could be handled more creatively. I fail to see how fighting intolerance with intolerance can be productive; especially coming from a person as intelligent as yourself. There is always a sympathetic ear out there who is willing to listen to reason. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: RPSTOVAL To: Tim Maroney 2 Jun 92 18:32:18 Subject: Re: Thelema and World Politics In a message dated 31 May 92 18:02:04, Tim Maroney wrote: TM> To give another example, in December I was found guilty and sentenced on TM> a charge that I had violated the Order's drug rules, which charge was TM> false. I was not allowed to defend myself, and the entire trial process TM> took place in a one-minute phone conversation. The penalty was TM> permanent banning from Thelema Lodge and [from] membership in the O.T.O. GdC> The drug laws are there to make sure that one individual does not screw GdC> things up for many. TM> For exactly that reason, I agree with the O.T.O. drug rules posted TM> at Thelema Lodge, and kept them. GdC> Unfortunately. drugs are illegal in this country: the SUpreme COurt GdC> decided a couple of years back that a person could not take illegal GdC> substances even if it was part of their sacramental religious GdC> experience. TM> No, it didn't. In the case of those firings, it found that the state TM> had no Constitutional requirement to respect such a right. The laws TM> already on the books covering the use of peyote by the Native American TM> Church were not struck down; it was simply held that they didn't provide TM> a blanket protection which would have required the courts to overturn TM> the firings of the two men involved. I stand corrected. However, this "war on drugs" has become very popular; and given the choice, the state of California would probably not rule in our favor: and the Supreme Court would not even have to listen to the unConstitutionality of the whole thing. GdC> You say that the OTO violates our rights? Tim, our current government GdC> violates our rights. TM> No lie. But it respects them more than the O.T.O. does. This is an opinion based on experience: one which I have not had. GdC> I seriously doubt that the "trial" (sounds more like the Star Chamber) GdC> took place over a one minute telephone conversation; but if you say it GdC> did, it did. I was not there, and I am not familiar with what happened. TM> And this is why the lack of due process is so convenient to the TM> rulers, and why it took a sword at his throat to make King John clean up TM> the courts. Without public trial, facing one's accuser, standards of TM> evidence and proof, records of testimony and judgment, and a disinterested TM> jury, the judicial power becomes an executive power. The penalties TM> intended to punish and deter malefactors can be applied to anyone who is TM> inconvenient or disfavored, all under the guise of justice. Because of TM> secrecy and the lack of records, no appeal to the public is possible; TM> because of the lack of a jury, impartiality is a joke; because there are TM> no standards of evidence, conviction becomes a matter of personal TM> preference. The secrecy also protects and respects the rights of privacy regarding the individual in question. Some people might not want anyone to know why they were kicked out, or even that they were members of the OTO. TM> The O.T.O. is applying a feudal judicial model, not a humanistic or TM> Thelemic one. The drearily predictable consequences are demonstrated TM> by my case. TM> When I protested in a polite letter, the answer came back that my TM> protest would not be considered, and that this was only the latest TM> of my "offenses" against the O.T.O., the others being (as far as TM> anyone is able to figure out) that I had criticized Order policy TM> on computer networks. Surely I am no more inportant to the organization than you are; I have done this same thing, yet I have not suffered any reprecussions. Why do you think? GdC> When the answer came back: who answered? TM> Jerry Cornelius, the same person who acted as judge, jury, prosecutor, TM> and bailiff. GdC> Also, I criticize OTO policy all the time, and I have never been told GdC> to shut up, or otherwise. But again Tim, if you find so much criticism GdC> in the Order, then why would you have wanted to be a member in the GdC> first place? TM> You are contradicting yourself again. Fair enough. TM> I will also say that whatever your criticism may have been, it has TM> never been evident in the computer network messages that I have TM> read. Maybe you haven't reac far enough back ;) TM> Instead, you constantly praise and defend the Order. People form opinions according to their experience. I do not defend the Order, but rather, echo my experiences. Would it be fair for me to criticeze without having foundation? TM> The right to criticize the government is a fundamental human right. Agreed. TM> The O.T.O. is a petty dictatorship. It is ludicrous to represent it TM> as any kind of defender of human rights. GdC> this is an opinion, and holds as much water as my assumption that GdC> there is such a thing as Universal Law. TM> Your defense of the contention that Thelema represents some universal TM> law" was neither clear nor precise; it was incoherent and vague. I TM> see no comparison. The only comparison is that it was an opinion and a theory based on my experience. TM> As for your defense of the government of Saudi Arabia, I think it is TM> a fine demonstration of your political views, and the kind of Thelemic TM> government you would like to impose on us. GdC> If you read my reply, I said that Kuwaities like their government. GdC> That is all. TM> Actually, we were discussing Saudi Arabia. Apparently, you do not TM> know the difference between that and Kuwait, though both were TM> prominently featured in journalism in recent memory. Now now Timbo. Now your are criticizing and assuming I do not know the difference between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It was a simple error. TM> And without wishing to get too personal, Gerald, this kind of thing TM> is one of the biggest problems I have with your mission to wake us TM> all up to the Thelemic implications of modern world politics. I am not volunteering to implement any such government. Only to get people thinking about the implementation. Vision is the first step of manifestation. TM> Another example is your misrepresentation of the Supreme Court decision TM> above. Another simple mistake. Or perhaps my lazyness. TM> I'd like to know the size of your history and political collections, TM> compared to your Crowley collection. My Crowley collection is MUCH bigger. So? I never said I was a political scientis...nor do I feel it is necessary in order to argue the points this echo was designed to debate. TM> If you despair because of the lack of converts to your cause, TM> perhaps it's because you're not qualified for the job. You're just not a TM> convincing political commentator. And neither was Crowley. Slow down Tim. I never said I was qualified to do anything except provide a forum where people could discuss these things. I am not trying to convert anyone, just trying to get people to voice their interpretation of a sticky subject. TM> I really don't bear you any personal antipathy, Gerald, though I TM> think your political views are poorly thought out. If I saw you at a TM> party, I'd share a cup or bowl with you, if I had one. And so would I with you. And I'd probably would thank you for providing such thought provoking material for this conversation. TM> And I'll give you a hint on how to conduct yourself in this kind of TM> debate. Whenever you make a statement about Thelema, ask yourself how TM> you would feel if the same statement were made about Christianity. TM> Whenever you make a statement about the Book of the Law, substitute the TM> Christian Bible and see how it flies. Ditto the O.T.O. and the USG. To TM> me, this discussion is a mirror image of debates I had with TM> fundamentalist Christians who wanted to "turn this country to God" years TM> ago. If you could avoid resembling right-wing Christian theocrats so TM> strongly, I'd probably be harder pressed to deconstruct your position. While I am not trying to convert anyone, and I don't view the OTO as a proper mirror image for the USG; I DO see what you are getting at. A point well made...and taken Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL Oasis: Badges? We don't need no stinking badges! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718