From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 1 Oct 94 13:09:00 Subject: Gnosis letter UpdReq Thus said Christeos Pir to Josh Norton concerning Gnosis letter: CP> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. CP> Here's the text of the letter to Gnosis, which was run in the most CP> recent issue. As noted, it was written in response to an article by CP> Tim which was in the previous issue, on how worthless the nets (are in CP> his opinion). Thanks much. I find I agree with you, though judging from the I-net and Compuserve sections that deal with magick, I can see how Tim got his opinion! Not many places have the level of interesting discussions we get here. CP> They edited the letter to make things fit, and unfortunately cut both CP> your and Sallie's names. :-( Such is life. Nice to be in such prestigious company, though. BTW, is Sr. Chen off the nets, or is she just lurking in echos I don't read? And how 'bout her vituperative SO? ... This tagline no verb. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Gnb Area: Thelema To: KEVIN BOLD 2 Oct 94 02:13:00 Subject: Re: Qabalistic Cross UpdReq So Kevin Bold@93:9700/0.0 said: KB> The fact is that the verse from the psalm which you said contained the KB> QC formula doesn't contain it at all. Sorry to butt in, but a clarification is in order. You're right - it doesn't. The line *following* it in the shachrit Torah service is from psalms 99:5 - the "QC" line is from 1 Chronicles 29:11. Regards, Greg Burton +-------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | GNB@ELF MajorNet | ElfOnline! 505-281-6568 | | GNB@1:301/11 FIDO | 9pm-9am, 12noon-6pm Mtn Time | | GNB@93:9000/8 PODS | Earth-centered in Cedar Crest, NM | | GNB@96:320/1 DharmaNet+-----------------------------------+ | gburt@dump.com InterNet | Standard disclaimers apply. | +-------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ... Free your mind, and the rest will follow. October 1 at 09:14:54 ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: JOSH NORTON 29 Sep 94 08:57:00 Subject: Chaos Magick Practices UpdReq -=> Quoting Josh Norton to Joseph Max <=- JN> I had a long reply here about the proper and improper use of symbols, JN> with attention to Chaosist use of pseudo-scientific metaphors and JN> their attitude that older symbols are "superstitious", or "useless JN> decorative trappings". But halfway through I decided you probably JN> wouldn't be in the mood for a lecture. For the moment, suffice to say JN> it seems a bit naive to me. Well, _I_ never said that older symbols are "useless". I use them quite a bit! The only superstitious thing about the use of symbols that I can see being a problem is if one does not recognise the fact that they are _symbols_ and confuse the symbol as being the higher reality itself. When I spoke of stripping away symbolism, I spoke of _useless_ symbolism. For example, I know you do quite a bit of Enochian work. Do you think the outrageously ponderous Golden Dawn system, with it's plethora of (often conflicting) symbology and page after page of excessive verbage is required to work with the Enochian archtypes? The old Golden Dawn certainly thought it was, and repeatedly warned against working with Enochian Magic without it. I've worked with the GD system - I have a properly made and consecrated Lotus Wand, but I also have a Staff that was consecrated with a much(!) shorter ritual I composed myself. As far as I can tell, my Staff is every bit as powerful as a magickal tool as the Lotus Wand is -- perhaps more so, _because_ the ritual of consecration was one of my own devising. Unlike a lot of people working with what goes under the banner of "Chaos Magick", I suppose I went through more "proper" magickal education -- self-taught, but "proper", ala GD, Aurum Solis, Thelema, etc. So I guess I feel that I have followed the old maxim of "learn the rules first, _then_ break them." If one hasn't learned the symbolism, how can one "strip it away"? _Not_ learning it in the first place is NOT stripping away. There is a difference. JN> The Chaosist insistence on ignoring the initiatory aspects of magick JN> seems terribly strange to me; like having a huge hoard of gold coins, JN> but only using them to pry the lids off paint cans. Or owning a JN> mansion but only using a single room in the basement. I'm not sure I follow you here -- why do you think that Chaos Magick ignores the "initiatory" aspects of magick? In the first place, would you agree that the only "true" magickal initiations are those one puts _oneself_ through? Or are you of the opinion that there _must_ be an "initiator" as in another human being involved? I've always felt that that idea is closer to the Eastern mystical school of "guruism" -- that one _must_ have a guru to attain enlightenment. And even Pope Pete devoted an entire chapter in _Psychonaut_ to initiation - titled, strangely enough, "Initiation". His thoughts on the subject closely parallel my own: "Initiation can never be performed according to some set formula. No two people will have the same requirements, abilites, or shortcomings... Existence itself can be seen as a continuous initiation punctuated by periodic death and rebirth, which itself has the greatest initiatory potential. Beyond a certain level, the magician must seek his own initiatory experiences deliberately, or may feel that something inside of himself is pushing him into these experiences. There is no fixed route which one can traverse and become an adept or master by rote. There are too many variables in existence to make a simple equation possible." JN> Given that in JN> the long run, mundane means are much more effective than magick at JN> accomplishing mundane ends, I don't see much point in using magick for JN> such purposes. Well, it goes back to doing the work for the sake of the work, or using "mundane" results as a measure of success and skill. But my idea is to combine both mundane _and_ magickal methods, and yield the best of both worlds. JN> Someone on Internet recently quoted one of my works as epitomizing the JN> Chaosist attitude towards magick. I found this somewhat disconcerting, JN> since I had no such intention when I wrote it. Chalk up a point for JN> the deconstructionists. Aw, don't take it so hard. Some of us aren't so bad... JN> The attitude of most initiation-oriented magicians I know isn't JN> terribly religious. Most of them recognize that magick is always the JN> enemy of religion, because it seeks direct knowledge where religions JN> insist there must be a go-between, and even a little bit of such JN> knowledge demonstrates that the priests don't know what they're JN> talking about. THAT is a very Chaosist attitude right there! JN> Their attitude towards gods is closer to the Eastern view of the JN> matter than to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim view. Gods are not "Big JN> Daddies" sitting up in heaven and controlling events; they are JN> personifications of universally-operating principles whose ultimate JN> origins are beyond our current apprehension. When those origins are JN> understood, the personification usually disappears. Even when a JN> personal relationship develops between a person and some apparently JN> individual and "real" god (as with myself and Set) it is not usually JN> religious in orientation. Rather, it is simply an acknowledgement of JN> similarities in nature between the two, and the flows of energy that JN> result from that similarity. You and I have a lot in common, actually. We've both been through the magickal "mill" and come out the other side, so to speak . Again, a very "Chaosist" attitude, in fact if not in declaration. I can understand your reluctance to be lumped in with a lot of the idiots that call themselves "Chaos Magicians", though. Maybe I see myself as having a "sacred mission" to counter that perception. And I like to tilt at windmills in my spare time...... JN> I don't know any serious Discordian -- oops! that's an oxymoron -- any JN> Discordian who seriously believes Eris is a single being who makes JN> things go wrong; she is simply a personification of the gap between JN> reality and our conceptions of reality, and the problems that result JN> from a mismatch between the two. And of the inevitable lack of JN> agreement between the realities perceived by any two people. But they're kind of stuck with the "erisian" viewpoint, through which they filter everything. The whole Chaosist "ideal" is to not have _any_ single filter to run everything through. JN> The fun of initiatory magick is not in accepting metaphysical JN> doctrines as unquestionable "givens". But you must admit that many, if not most, "traditional" ceremonial magicans (especially those who consider themselves "Pagans"), _do_. JN> It's in acquiring the experience JN> to figure out just what the hell those mysterious symbols represent in JN> the universe, and in figuring out just how, and to what extent, they JN> are applicable in one's personal context. And the fun never ends, JN> because the context keeps changing. And to me the ultimate challange is once having figured out what they mean, to recast them in one's _own_ terms. This is what I mean by "stripping away". The fact that the context _does_ keep changing (becasue existence is but a manifestaiton of the Primal Chaos, of which change is the only constant) is why old symbols must be canstantly re-evaluated and altered to fit the times. This is the challange that modern magicians must come out of the dusty library and meet. ... "What Jesus fails to appreciate is it's the meek who are the problem!" ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: GRENDEL GRETTISSON 29 Sep 94 08:57:00 Subject: Re: RTOD#2 UpdReq -=> Quoting Grendel Grettisson to Joseph Max <=- > 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. GG> Yes but I don't see stupid T.V. rituals as working. So of course, they would _not_ work -- for _you_. But you have no grounds to assert that any given set of symbols might not work for _somebody_, unless you're going to assert that your opinion is omniscient and infallible. > Mapplethorpe used _piss_ in his art! And it sells for _big bucks_! As > McLuhan said, "Art is anything you can get away with..." GG> McLuhan is full of shit. Ah, the studied judgement of the ultimate arbiter of modern philosophical thought. And stated in such lofty terms! Here I was thinking that you had something other than your opinion to back up your assertions. Silly of me... GG> Who cares if it makes money? The artist, for one. What criteria would _you_ care to apply? "Ah knows what Ah like"...? ... I will not eat them in a boat; I will not eat them with a goat... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Tim Maroney 30 Sep 94 07:59:48 Subject: Re: Sekhmet UpdReq Glad to help. FYI I have lost count of the number of times I've seen statues of other Egyptian goddesses labeled "Isis" in [quite respectable] museums - even with their name-hieroglyphs as Hathor, Mut, et al. perched conspicuously atop their heads! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 30 Sep 94 08:21:46 Subject: The [Non]Nature of Set UpdReq MA> I experienced Set as an intelligent entity distinct from myself. MA> Having said this, please note the words "experienced" and "distinct" MA> in the previous sentence. To experience something is not necessarily to MA> know or prove it definitively or objectively, and the apprehension of MA> Set as someone or something distinct from Michael Aquino [or any other MA> Setian] is not quite the same thing as "separate". JM> H.G.A. as defined by Crowley? IOW, was Set as you experienced him _your_ JM> "personal Set", or a being so totally independent of your existence that JM> another person would be capable of recieving a manifestation of exactly JM> the same entity. I do realise that this would be a personal opinion JM> only, and I would say the latter. But I would again append that I understand Set and Michael Aquino not to be two of the same kind of intelligent entities, but two different "orders" of self-conscious intelligence. Set is the _neter_ or "Platonic Form" of SCI; Aquino is a particularization of this. [Similarly Bast is the _neter_ of "catism"; particularizations range from Felix to Morris to Socks to Jaguar automobiles.] So while in the instance of the _Book of Coming Forth by Night_ Set's consciousness and mine might have "polarized" into an objective *distinction* from one another, again "separation" is not a term I would think appropriate. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 30 Sep 94 08:44:30 Subject: Re: book of coming forth UpdReq MA> I experienced Set as an intelligent entity distinct from myself. MA> Having said this, please note the words "experienced" and "distinct" MA> in the previous sentence. To experience something is not MA> necessarily to know or prove MA> it definitively or objectively, and the apprehension of Set as someone MA> or something distinct from Michael Aquino [or any other Setian] is not MA> quite the same thing as "separate". JN> How do you reconcile this statement with certain assertions made by JN> Setians during our discussion earlier this year, and not contradicted by JN> yourself? I.e. that at the core of a human being is a "self" completely JN> separate from, and uninfluenced by, the rest of the universe? JN> Is the Set you experienced simply a part of that "self" which is not JN> under conscious control? It seems to me that, if any part of this JN> experience of Set has its origins in the universe outside that "self", JN> then we must either conclude that the experiencing entity is not that JN> core self, or the core self is not free from outside influence. Which? JN> Or do you offer a third alternative? [See also my response to Joseph Max on this.] Well, I would have to say the "third alternative" in that we are talking about two "orders" or "strata" of isolate self-consciousness - and I grant that this is a complex notion to wrestle with. The Egyptian apprehension of _neters_ is well-discussed in the various de Lubicsz books [nicely conversationally in _Her-Bak_], and it is this system that was re-presented by Pythagoras, and then by Plato as his "Theory of the Forms". It represents an entirely different way of distinguishing phenomena [or entities] than our modern science is accustomed to. [It was no surprise to me that Carl Sagan, or "Old Turtleneck" as I call him, came down hard on Pythagoras, Plato & their ilk in a _Cosmos_ segment.] As an illustration of this "different way of thinking", consider that Crowley's _The Vision and The Voice_ would be seen by an Egyptian [or Pythagorean or Platonist] as a series of progressive exercises in which the most extremely particularized self of Aleister Crowley gradually came to apprehend its _neter_/Form. Indeed one could say that this is one way of looking at the "Great Work" of initiation per se. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Julia Phillips Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 1 Oct 94 12:14:06 Subject: organization UpdReq Hello To Meta Thereon! 26 Sep 94 15:27, To Meta Thereon wrote to Navitae: TMT> thouroughly. That's like the Christians not reading the Bible! TMT> the Muslims w/o the Koran and the Wiccans w/o Gardner or TMT> Buckland! Buckland? Puhlease! B*B Julia 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Julia Phillips Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 1 Oct 94 13:31:46 Subject: Liber al prophecy UpdReq Hello Josh! 28 Sep 94 12:40, Josh Norton wrote to Julia Phillips: JN> Thus said Julia Phillips to Josh Norton concerning Liber al JN> prophecy: JP>> Oz at any rate (and I guess the same would apply to NZ), JP>> things that happen elsewhere in the world (particularly JP>> Europe/USA/Can) seem very remote. It's not that they aren't JN> Heh. You make Oz sound like a Jumbo Economy Size version of my JN> home town, Cincinnati. About which Mark Twain was rumored to have JN> once said: JN> "If the end of the world ever comes, I want to be in Cincinnati. JN> It won't happen there until twenty years later." Well, that would probably make it about 25 years earlier than Sydney :) About 40 years earlier than Melbourne . B*B Julia 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Grendel Grettisson 1 Oct 94 16:53:02 Subject: book of coming forth UpdReq Thus said Grendel Grettisson to Josh Norton concerning book of coming forth: GG> Josh, you and I can both think of religions that don't require a GG> go-between and that seek direct knowledge of deities. I don't know if GG> they're the majority but they're not a shrinking minority GG> in a number of the Neo-Pagan faiths and then I think of GG> groups like the Quakers and the other old antinomials. Excuse me. I should have qualified that by limiting it explicitly to Western Cultures. Consider that over half the population in Europe and the Americas is still Catholic -- at least "officially". I thought my comments in the previous message were sufficient to exempt most religions in Eastern cultures, which (as I implied but did not say) tend not to have the assumed separation between the "earthly" and the "divine" that characterizes the religions here. Shinto is the only one I can think of that _demands_ go-betweens. And maybe the non-monastic side of Nepalese Buddhism, which still contains a lot of the area's pre- Buddhist religion. Of course, on the exoteric level, even Buddhism and Taoism take on some of the qualities of the intermediary religions -- usually at the demand of the common folk. People often pray to the Buddha for help or intercession just as others do to Ghod or Jesus. (I told B. that would happen, but he didn't believe me. ) In Western culture I discount the Pentecostalists and other charismatics (by far the largest group of direct-contact types) because, while they emphasize personal _contact_ with the divine, they appear to have a definite aversion to making _sense_ of those contacts. As far as understanding the divine goes, they still insist on trusting the preacher's interpretation. If you don't toe the preacher's line and recite the right buzzwords, you get prayed over until you wish you had. At least that's true here on the edge of Appalachia. I don't know if the various Voudous are really similar in that respect, but to this unknowledgable outsider's eye, they seem to be -- except for the "toe the line" part. And the situation is even more screwed up in the regions where voudoun gods are identified with Christian saints. Anyone else got an opinion? ... Give Corruption a Chance. vote Libertarian. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 2 Oct 94 11:34:04 Subject: Re: peter carroll UpdReq Thus said Joseph Max to Josh Norton concerning Re: peter carroll: JM> Well, unlike Schueler, at least Pete stuck in a disclaimer: JM> "The quantification of certain factors which are entered in the JM> equations awaits more precise calibration techniques and thus they JM> must currently be evaluated on a partly subjective basis." "Partly"? I'd say "purely". JM> He said he worked out the Equations of Magic JM> originally as a mental exercise for his own benefit - a way of coming JM> up with _some_ kind of logical structure to allow him to accept the JM> existence of magic. Once that was attained, the equations "might as Hmmm. OK, as a means of overcoming over-rationality, I'd buy it. Just curious -- have you ever read Korzybski's "Science and Sanity"? If not you ought to, since you come from an engineering background. Might give you a different perspective on the use of symbols and meaning. JN> subjective states, he certainly ought to publish -- a century's worth JN> of psychological research hasn't come close to doing so! JM> Well, as I pointed out above, he never claimed to have done so. But JM> then, has anyone ever tried hooking up a magician to an EEG or a CAT JM> scanner and had hir perform magical work? Not that I've heard of. Maybe JM> someone _should_! The closest I know of is the TMers. It would certainly be interesting, at the least. Though I have doubts about its usefulness beyond confirming that something is going on. Even an NMR -- the most sensitive means available at present -- only shows the general level of activity in various brain regions. It's a long way from determining what the person is actually doing with all that activity. JN> I'll leave a critique of his "Aeonics" for another time. (Though I'll JN> remark that that "psychohistory" figure looks suspiciously like a JN> biorhythm chart.) JM> So does a DNA strand - does that mean that we should be suspicious of JM> the existence of DNA for that reason? "That was a joke, son." JM> Consider it an updating then. If I can understand his system of color JM> associations, it negates the need for me to subject myself to the JM> archaic, mind-numbing ordeal of learning to think in terms of "Chesed" JM> and "Hod". Most of the point of Carroll's work is to yank the Art of JM> Magick out of the archives of the British Museum, out of the JM> Kabbalist's cloister and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st JM> century. Why is it that Magick must _always_ be considered an "antique" JM> art? I don't _want_ to have to learn Hebrew -- it makes my throat hurt! JM> And "Blue" has much more brevity than "Deep azure flecked yellow" JM> anyway. So why _not_ update it for 21st century sensibilities? Oh, come on! Every specialization has its jargon, most of it "mind- numbing" until you get used to it. Engineers are among the most guilty in this respect, as are physicists. (Educators are the worst, but their intent is to obfuscate, not communicate. ) The value of such jargon is that it is a standardized shorthand that simplifies communication between practitioners; when knowledge expands, you add the minimum number of necessary new symbols, and modify interpretation of existing symbols to the minimum extent necessary to fit the new ideas. This provides continuity over time, and makes the accumulation of knowledge possible. Imagine the hell engineers would go through if the label for "e" or "i" were arbitrarily changed every ten years or so! The fact that we use archaic symbols doesn't mean that we use them in an archaic manner. The value of these symbols lies in the fact that we know that, at some time in the past, each of these symbols served large numbers of people as an expression of one of the root-factors of their perceived reality. And when certain patterns of symbols repeat themselves over and over in human history, through many different cultures, we can be fairly confident that they represent some factor common to human experience in general. They are the subjective equivalents of "e", "i", and Pi -- constants of human experience that have many different uses depending on the context to which they are applied. The fact that they are trans-cultural demonstrates that they originate on some "deeper" level of our being than the conscious mind. Otherwise their appearances would have been wiped out along with the myriad of consciously-created and culture- specific fads of thought that have come and gone over the millenia. I see our job as magicians as not to simply accept and work with the archaic interpretations of these common symbols. Instead it is to extract their trans-cultural essence, discover how they are expressing in our own natures and our world, and to re-organize our conscious self- and world-perception so as to integrate these expressions. Additionally, we need to discover -- by exclusion of those things -- the parts of ourself and world that are not capable of inclusion within the limits of existing symbols, and to provide _tentative_ new symbols for them, so that understanding of their action can be gradually elaborated over time. It is through exactly this process, and the public communication of results and ideas, that magick is constantly being updated to fit our changing context. There is no need to "drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century"; it is already moving there at a steady pace, WITHOUT the need to radically change its base-symbols. Even if you restrict magick to the thaumatugic variety, it seems to me that proper use of these older symbols would increase the effectiveness of the work. As Carroll points out, most of the work of magick is done by unconscious parts of the being; the conscious mind generally interferes with their action. The older symbols are what these parts are already working with; they are the language of the unconscious. Communicating with them in a way they understand would likely get them to work more effectively. JN> I think I'd be less annoyed with Pete if he didn't have a lot of good JN> things to say amongst all the flummery. JM> Yes, he does. Actually, he has a lot less "flummery" mixed in to the JM> valuable stuff than Crowley, wouldn't you say? Mmmm...I dunno, depends on which book you're looking at. I usually find Crowley's stuff (except his poetry) pretty dense with information, once I understand where his head was at when he wrote it. ... Is this tagline thing turned on? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 2 Oct 94 11:36:06 Subject: Chaos and magic UpdReq Thus said Joseph Max to Andrew Haigh concerning Chaos and magic: JM> But I guess I usually associate the word "success" with actually JM> _doing_ something besides contemplating one's non-linear, JM> transcendental navel. JM> To me, if it doesn't "cause change to occur in accordance with Will" JM> then it ain't _Magick_. I'll count personality changes brought about by JM> magickal illumination, but only if they result in modification of one's JM> behavior in the world. How wonderfully Behavioristic of you! Do you keep your kids in a Skinner box? Do you mean to say that your internal subjective states are totally irrelevant except when they result in actions in the observable, exterior world? If you look back over your own thoughts during a typical day, I'd bet that 90% or more of what occupied your attention had nothing at all to do with the external behaviors you actually exhibited. That's not my estimate, it's what the professional psychs say about the average American male. So why are you wasting your time with all that irrelevant thinking?? JM> Otherwise, one can get the same thing from a JM> handful of mushrooms or an iso-tank with a lot less fuss and muss. Joe, that's bullshit. As an old acid-head, I know damn well that drugs and iso-tanks produce temporary _disruptions_ of existing patterns of thought, which appear to the uneducated perception to be an elevated state. Creating a _specific_ mental state using them is much more difficult, and usually requires a great deal of pre-conditioning, plus the careful guidance of a trained, non-stoned associate. See Tim Leary's work from the 1950's, especially his work with prisoners and acid. As much work, or more, than magickal methods. And, as Ken Kesey was reputed to have said, "The problem with acid is that you always come down again." Once the drug wears off, you're back where you started -- temporarily a little looser, perhaps, but essentially unchanged. Magick excels at producing specific classes of experiences and permanent changes in consciousness, just what hallucinogens don't do. ... Your asteroid NEEDS White Elephants! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Grendel Grettisson 2 Oct 94 13:00:44 Subject: Sod Off UpdReq Obviously you have no Idea of peace, and you have mistaken me for someone who gives a rat's genitalia for what you do. If you can not respond to conversations intelligently, I suggest that you keep your glorious platitudes to yourself. Now, if you think you can respond with a decent amount of knowledge or concern, then I will begin to correspond with you again, else, I can ignore your messages like most others do. End of Discussion. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: All 2 Oct 94 20:13:00 Subject: Star Ruby & Pan? UpdReq Recently while I was performing the Star Ruby, I was told by an observer that I changed in outline at certain times. I appeared at times to take on a "leafy" form? Anyway, it sounded to me like Pan or Dionysus, but I didnt think that there was any true connection to either in the ritual. At least not enough to invoke them Anyone that has a clue at what occured, please tell me. Is there a large Pan invocational energy? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Oct 94 09:40:06 Subject: Re: LIBER AL PROPHECY UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Howdy Josh! >Ne> Comment: Very nice and lucid though it disregards most of the world. > > Mmm. I'd have to disagree, since the US/Soviet rivalry had its effect on > most regions of the world, through economic and military support. A more narrow application could be toward nuclear weapons capability, first demonstrated in the '40's; during the 80's there was a lot of attention paid to dis-armament, and in fact some steps taken toward that end. Most of the world *has* nuclear weapons as well...and the countries that don't would still be affected to a greater or lesser degree by any even remotely wide-scale 'incidents.' Aum Namah Sivaya...just rambling again! ;> Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Paul Hume 3 Oct 94 13:09:48 Subject: Re: Equinox Vol. III UpdReq -=> Quoting Paul Hume to Ralf Loeffler <=- PH> The Crowley-copyright material (still in effect or in PD) that makes PH> up Vol III is to be found on the various boards with Crowey material. PH> III,10,with the rights in Weiser's name, is not online. Actually, many of it's parts are available here on Baphonet, and have been for years, including some parts written specially for it, like Ad Veritatem's history of the OTO, and HaLayl's biography of Grady. Enjoy! ... Advice To Christians: Refuse the Kool-Aid. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718