From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 28 Sep 94 12:15:00 Subject: Re: book of coming forth UpdReq Thus said Joseph Max to Josh Norton concerning Re: book of coming forth: JM> I can only answer for myself, of course, but let me share some of my JM> thinking about what "Chaos" and "Magick" have in common. To me it's JM> more than a trendy buzzword for LHP magick. JM> [much interesting stuff sacrificed to the gods of bandwidth] Hi Joseph! I had a long reply here about the proper and improper use of symbols, with attention to Chaosist use of pseudo-scientific metaphors and their attitude that older symbols are "superstitious", or "useless decorative trappings". But halfway through I decided you probably wouldn't be in the mood for a lecture. For the moment, suffice to say it seems a bit naive to me. Some random and incomplete thoughts to replace that which was excised: The Chaosist insistence on ignoring the initiatory aspects of magick seems terribly strange to me; like having a huge hoard of gold coins, but only using them to pry the lids off paint cans. Or owning a mansion but only using a single room in the basement. Given that in the long run, mundane means are much more effective than magick at accomplishing mundane ends, I don't see much point in using magick for such purposes. ___-- Someone on Internet recently quoted one of my works as epitomizing the Chaosist attitude towards magick. I found this somewhat disconcerting, since I had no such intention when I wrote it. Chalk up a point for the deconstructionists. ___-- The attitude of most initiation-oriented magicians I know isn't terribly religious. Most of them recognize that magick is always the enemy of religion, because it seeks direct knowledge where religions insist there must be a go-between, and even a little bit of such knowledge demonstrates that the priests don't know what they're talking about. Their attitude towards gods is closer to the Eastern view of the matter than to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim view. Gods are not "Big Daddies" sitting up in heaven and controlling events; they are personifications of universally-operating principles whose ultimate origins are beyond our current apprehension. When those origins are understood, the personification usually disappears. Even when a personal relationship develops between a person and some apparently individual and "real" god (as with myself and Set) it is not usually religious in orientation. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgement of similarities in nature between the two, and the flows of energy that result from that similarity. I don't know any serious Discordian -- oops! that's an oxymoron -- any Discordian who seriously believes Eris is a single being who makes things go wrong; she is simply a personification of the gap between reality and our conceptions of reality, and the problems that result from a mismatch between the two. And of the inevitable lack of agreement between the realities perceived by any two people. Similarly, Horus is a personification of what Buddhists call the "worlds of action", and his attributes describe certain important features of events in those worlds. The fun of initiatory magick is not in accepting metaphysical doctrines as unquestionable "givens". It's in acquiring the experience to figure out just what the hell those mysterious symbols represent in the universe, and in figuring out just how, and to what extent, they are applicable in one's personal context. And the fun never ends, because the context keeps changing. ... Insert funny but obscure remark here. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 28 Sep 94 20:43:52 Subject: Fun in Magick UpdReq I have to agree with you that the fun in initiatory magick is watching the symbols become apparent before your eyes. I recently began rereading MTP and have been amazed at the amount of infor that was "hidden" from me. Each time I read it, a new world of possibilities and a new order of instructions is made clear. When viewed with a knowledgable eye, the book appears to be a complete grimoire. now as I read it, I recognize that I am not getting everything that Crowley is putting forth, but I enjoy the new ideas that I can understand and interpret with my advancing mind. Even _The Holy Books of Thelema_ is somewhat comprehendable to me now that i have had a little more experience. It is amazing at how much "hot air" Crowley writes that contain the mysteries of magick. If I had my way, I believe that I would make all serious magickians reread their library of books over each year. The Book of the Law still holds words and mysteries that I begin to fathom with each reading. There are parts that I do not remember ever reading and there are parts that open themselves up to me and guide me in the trials of life. The symbols are everywhere though, in books, faces, and hidden just beyond the reach of vision. Look, interpret then reinterpret daily to fully understand the mysteries that you read. When the millions of dots before your eyes compose themselves into images, use those images to uncover the secrets of the ages Love is the law; Love under Will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Ned 28 Sep 94 20:57:30 Subject: Liber al prophecy UpdReq What is it about that verse "cower..abased..etc." that everyone seems to ponder on it. I have pondered on it quite a bit myself, and I think my response to Josh is still on here. Anyway it is interesting to see that a lot more people than i would have imagined are stuck on the interpretation of it. I myself have tried to move on to the beetles verses. This seems to have more influence on me because when I attempted the Samekh ritual and attempted (successfully?) to call down my HGA, quite a few astral bugs fitting the description appeared in my room. Why? I dont know, but I am pondering it also. As a matter of fact, I think I am pondering most of the book because each verse has so many possible interpretations that it seems unlikely that I'll ever finish enjoying the writing. \Love is the law; Love under will 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: JOSEPH MAX 27 Sep 94 23:16:04 Subject: RTOD#2 UpdReq > GG> I could finger paint with shit but it wouldn't make it art in my > GG> opinion. Similarily, I can use Gilligan's Island characters in my LBRP > GG> but that doesn't make it magic. > It does if it _works_! Results are the only meaningful criteria. Yes but I don't see stupid T.V. rituals as working. > Mapplethorpe used _piss_ in his art! And it sells for _big bucks_! As > McLuhan said, "Art is anything you can get away with..." McLuhan is full of shit. Who cares if it makes money? Wassail, Grendel Grettisson Internet:mimir@io.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 27 Sep 94 23:17:04 Subject: RTOD#2 UpdReq > You seem to oppose a hell of a lot of what I say. What is your idea of > magick? The Art of Changing Consciousness. > I see it as a way to achieve enlightenment and peace while having fun > doing it. Sounds like mental masturbation; a lot of heat and motion and you get happy in the process. Have fun. Wassail, Grendel Grettisson Internet:mimir@io.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Randolph Clayton Area: Thelema To: Michael Aquino 28 Sep 94 00:00:14 Subject: Re: Sekhmet UpdReq -=> Quoting Michael Aquino to Tim Maroney <=- F> Any particular references you could cite that attribute Sekhmet F> to the noonday sun? TM> From Mercatante's "Who's Who In Egyptian Mythology": "Sekhmet: A lion TM> goddess who personified the fierce, destructive heat of the sun." TM> I'm looking in Budge's "Gods of the Egyptians" but I can't find any TM> references to her at all; perhaps he uses a different form of the name. MA> See pages #514-517 in Budge's _Gods of the Egyptians_, Volume 1. Budge MA> spells the name "Sekhet". From this section: MA> "The name 'Sekhet' appears to be derived from or connected with the MA> root _sekhem_, 'to be strong, mighty, violent', and the like, and as MA> she was the personification of the fierce, scorching, and destroying MA> heat of the Sun's rays, these attributes would be very suitable for her MA> character ..." Their is a rather interesting mythology based on Sekhmet. It seems that Ra was displeased that people no longer believed and worshiped his power but instead just ignored him so he sent down Sekhmet to kill the leaders of the resistance.. so great was her love of killing she began to to kill more and more... he told the people to make a wine which was full of mandrake, a poisonus root.. thinking it was blood she drank it eagerly, and when she awoke from her deep sleep.. she was tamed. I have always adored Sekhmet, myself being a High Priest of Bast, and i think, like anything.. she can be used for destructive and powerful purposes.. :) Peace be the Name of Raht who bore Ra... _ __ _ ' ) ) ' ) / / /--' __. , __/> ____ / / / o ____ __/ / \_(_/|_\/ (__/ / < (_(_/ <_/ / <_(_/_ ... She is the air we breath, and the sun we pray to. She is light. Raht. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Randolph Clayton Area: Thelema To: Paul Hume 28 Sep 94 00:00:16 Subject: Re: Thoth UpdReq -=> Quoting Paul Hume to Randolph Clayton <=- PH> Ravenwind - PH> Orthographic snobbery ill becomes you. The use of the Coptic-Greek PH> spellings in English texts is a commonplace even among scholars of PH> Egyptian history. Athame calling the sword sharp i'd say. :) PH> PH> And the "original" spellings are open to variation, as one sees Hathor PH> rendered Het Heru as often as Het Heret. PH> Actually.. the feminine spelling of the word Hawk.. (HERU) is HERET. :) Peace be the sky... Wind to thy Wings. RavenWind of Feather-Wing ... Just My Opinion (But I'm Right!) ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718