From: To Meta Therion Area: Thelema To: Michelle Hass 3 Nov 94 15:00:32 Subject: 10 = 1 discussion UpdReq MH> Well, from what I understood from everything I've read, If you MH> cross the Abyss YOU KNOW IT. Then again, what do I know? The people whose works I have read that have discussed crossing the abyss were all ceremonial magickians in one order or another. They had others to guide them and to show them where they were in their progress. They had been around others that have experienced the abyss and knew what to expect. I myself and I suppose that the majority of other nonorganizational magickians around are kind of of fuzzy about the whole abyss situation. Let's face it, no one really came out and shared their experience. Crowley's poetry may help those that have already crossed, but what of those that are in the process? The best help that I have had on the subject has been my correspondence with Alexander Haigh (you might want to check out some of his responses, he is very clear with his examples). I regret that so much gray area surrounds my magickal work. The lack of someone that can tell me "Yeah, that's right," or "Here's what you're doing wrong" frustrates me at times. I know some that can get all they need from the books in print, but so much seems ambiguous to me. I have no idea where I stand in the magickal hierarchy, and I have no idea where I am going. I guess that is what the Eastern philosophies mean by the phrase, "Just Be." Flow with the current, and you cannot go wrong. Maybe. MH> Something I have lived by in all my magickal life. I believe even the MH> books that Crowley designated in Class A, even Liber AL, are not to MH> be swallowed whole without critical thought. He never meant them to be. He just did not want them changed, so people could not corrupt them. Hell, Crowley didn't believe Liber Al until years (can't remember how long) after he wrote it. MH> I am enjoying this conversation. You seem to be very intelligent and MH> grounded now. My first impressions of you were misleading me. I have run MH> into so many pompous fools on THELEMA...good to hear somebody say "I MH> don't know." Cause I don't either. I'm still learning. I know what you mean, and sympathize fully. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Therion Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 3 Nov 94 15:16:12 Subject: The abyss UpdReq JN> In G.D./A.A. terms, I'm a mere Magister, so I can't speak with authority JN> about those higher grades. I was wondering if you could speak a short time about your journey through the abyss? I find it disenchanting that there seems no way to tell where one is according to the Tree of Life, without _intense_ study or link with a magickal group. How do you know when you have been initiated into a new understanding without actually going through the organizational structure? I ask this because I feel as though I am jumping around left and right without knowing where I am. How can I be the best Neophyte, Adeptus, Magister without knowing that I am one? Peace and curiosity. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jt Area: Thelema To: Michelle Hass 3 Nov 94 20:06:00 Subject: Re: Natural laws? UpdReq Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law --]On 01 Nov 94 09:10 --]From Michelle Hass --]To Andrew Haigh --]Subj Natural laws? AH> There are no laws that cannot be subverted in one way or AH> another. MH> Well then, can "Do What Thou Wilt" be subverted? that's easy, false true will. MH> 93 MH> --.\\<-H-- Love is the Law, Love under Will jt V.V. 128 There is no law beyond Do what thou Wilt +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ - jt - jt@brewich.com - Nobody will ever let you know, when you ask the reasons why, they'll just tell you that your on your own, fill your head all full of lies. ... You can do anything thou wilt at Aleister's Restaurant. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Ned 1 Nov 94 06:20:42 Subject: Re: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq Ned> If Mr Aquino's explanation is so complex that he feels obliged to Ned> appeal (for the sake of *clarity*, yet) to the tortuous prose of Ned> Hegel's translators (which is presumably derived from Hegel's own Ned> tortuous German), then I think his explanation is suspect. I am not reluctant to talk about Hegel's ideas, but thought that readers of this echo might find the reference sufficient if they cared to pursue the matter. I'll give you a few paragraphs from my Hegel-essay in the _Ruby Tablet of Set_ and see if you're still awake at that point: Georg F. Hegel (1770-1831) developed his theories of dialectic idealism and organicism by approximately 1816, when he held a professorship at the University of Heidelberg. His two principal concepts are defined as follows: (1) Hegel conceives the Universe as the manifestation of God's mind seeking complete self-realization through a process called *dialectic idealism*. This is occasionally [and more precisely] called the *dialectic of absolute spirit*. As applied to Earth, it is the concept that the history of the world consists of part of the spirit of God, manifesting itself through the collective spirits of mankind, moving onwards through logic (the dialectic) towards complete self-understanding. An existing idea (thesis) is criticized and partially refuted by its opposite (antithesis), resulting in a more perfect concept (synthesis). (2) The *organic state* is the manifestation or appearance of God in the material world. [It is *not* identical with God; it is a "reflection" of the dialectic of his mind. Accordingly it proceeds in ways and towards goals which are not necessarily the sum total of the ways and goals of the individual human minds within it.] In many ways Hegel is a reaction (antithesis & synthesis) to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Bishop Berkeley's *subjective idealism* had held that nothing could be known objectively - that knowledge is limited to subjective impressions. Kant refines this into what is called *critical idealism*, in which human consciousness is subdivided into *sensation*, *understanding*, and *pure reason*. Sensations and understanding of them and consequences of them ca be proven, Kant says, but pure reason (concepts unsupported by sensations) cannot be conclusive. It is "beyond causality". Hegel overcomes Kant's problem by making "pure reason" a necessary and intrinsic part of God/the Universe. All history is "logical". If it sometimes seems illogical, it is because we don't see it as clearly as God does. The task of philosophy, therefore, is one of *understanding*, of *logical analysis* - and *not* one of creation of abstract, ideal political systems. Hegel introduced the concept of the *phenomenology of mind* as a variation on the Platonic "pyramid of thought" concept. With Hegel, of course, the mind develops *forward through time* (historically); whereas with Plato the levels of thought are measures of excellence irrespective of time or progression. Hegel's phenomenology of mind begins with *consciousness*, which is everyday experience (action and reaction to events) without self-consciousness. We take the truth of conscious experiences for granted; Hegel calls this *sense-certainty*. As soon as one pauses to reflect on conscious experiences, one moves to self-consciousness. At the same time there comes an awareness of other selves, other minds. This is very close to Hobbes' concept of the state of nature. The antagonism is because "they exist and are not me". Therefore I wish to control them and not to be controlled by them. I wish recognition by them; I do not wish to recognize them in return. Thus there comes into being the political "master/slave relationship". The next step in the dialectic involves a personal internalization of the master/slave relationship, as exemplified in Hellenistic stoicism and skepticism. The inconsistency this produces between internal and external life goes on to produce the rages and hypocrisies of medieval Christianity. In the Reformation the internal is seen as relevant to, and in command of the external. There is still the problem of conflict between individual wills, which, if undiciplined through organization and government, would run wild in anarchy "... since any institution whatever is antagonistic to the abstract self-consciousness of equality". [I think this is enough to make the point about Hegel's relevance to the "generalization/particularization" concept. And as you can see, he is really not that difficult to understand, and had some rather bright ideas.] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Ned 1 Nov 94 20:36:36 Subject: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq On Oct 30, 1994, Ned posted to BALANONE, re: Synthesis and exposition N> Formal (and hence, insincere) apologies for wading into your N> 3-way wrangle. Since I believe you all have come to N> something of a stopping point, I wanted to throw down while N> you were all still fired up in the hope that you might N> discuss your many interesting points with a non-entity like N> myself. Apologies not necessary. However, why would I be interested in discussing anything with a nonentity? Now if you were a person, with a mind and consciousness of your own, then I might be interested in discussing something with you... :-) N> Aquino said: MA> Every particularization expands the scope of the principle - MA> pushes outwards on the limits of its universe, one might say. In MA> the case of the principle of consciousness of the self (=Set), this MA> would be no less the case, and the Neter would partake of the MA> awareness of its particularizations accordingly. You might Cf. MA> Georg Hegel's discussions of the "overmind", although he saw the MA> OM as something *driving* and controlling individual minds on MA> a collective basis - which would not apply to a Setian situation of MA> each individual mind possessing [at least the potential for] free MA> will. N> So, "every particularization expands" and "pushes" the N> principle, and the Neter "partakes" of an awareness of N> every particularization. Sounds like the ideal is in N> some way influenced by the particular, and subject to N> progressive development. Yes? I think that would be an N> answer to Josh's original question. You're playing with abstract philosophical ideas where opinions may not be unanimous. (Yes, I acknowledge that sometimes I might tend towards understatement.) Think of the principle we name "table" -- there are many, many different particularizations of that principle, and as we grow in experience, encountering new tables, our conception / perception of the principle grows accordingly. In most cases, I don't think the principle itself is affected, or grows, but it's just our partial perception of it which is affected. The question becomes, when someone invents a totally new type of table (say a velcro table to hold things down on it while in orbit, or something even more different than that), does the principle expand to encompass the new invention, or did the principle already include that new idea, and we just discover it? If we then try to expand the discussion from the rather simple "table" to "self" or "consciousness" you can see how the questions get somewhat more complicated. N> Josh said to Aquino: BJN> One would think that you have had experiences relevant to the BJN> question, and have synthesized some sort of model of the BJN> relationship between the Neter and its particularization in BJN> yourself, so that you don't have to depend on other BJN> people's ideas. N> Balanone answered Josh's objections to Aquino's explanation: BA> You therefore have a choice. You can complain about not getting your BA> sound bites, or you can take the time to explore the meaning of the BA> very clear expositions you've already rejected. ... N> In other words: "My way or the highway." N> OK, your way - N> While exploring the meaning of a certain Setian's "very N> clear expositions" I have come across a spurious N> reference to a Hegelian concept that I believe is N> intended to obscure the expositor's meaning rather than N> serve as "Setian symbolism/jargon/shorthand",particularly N> since it is claimed in the very same sentence that it does N> "not apply to a Setian situation". The expositor later N> contradicted this clause by contending that Hegel is N> relevant to his exposition, but declined to specify in N> exactly what manner. Would you care to clarify? I'd like to, but since I'm not that "certain Setian," and since Hegel's literary legacy is fairly large, and since my knowledge of that legacy is indeed minimal (though I had a minor in philosophy in college decades ago, my education concerning Hegel was limited, and my own studies have not greatly expanded on that knowledge to date), I am probably not qualified to do so. Any such attempt on my part would likely confuse matters even more. As you quote above, Dr. Aquino's reference was to Hegel's discussions of the "overmind," and that aspect of Hegel's philosophy is one I'm certainly not able to discuss with any familiarity. Now that he's indicated that its useful as an alternative view, I'll probably be looking at it to see what I can get out of it. MA> ... although he saw the MA> OM as something *driving* and controlling individual minds on MA> a collective basis - which would not apply to a Setian situation of MA> each individual mind possessing [at least the potential for] free MA> will. I think here you are overreacting to the "which would not apply" statement. Rather than telling you to disregard this idea, he's saying "as opposed to the Setian situation..." If you (and/or Josh) refuse to look at alternative perceptions (Hegel's views vs Setian views) it's going to be much more difficult to understand why Setian views are different from others. Knowing the Setian view, I would make the assumption (pending my future investigation) that Hegel's "overmind" is a hypothesized global intelligence consciousness which serves as a species-related "god" directing human behavior and thought, perhaps the human equivalent of a hive-mind. Given that (possible erroneous) view, if we were to view that "overmind" as a principle of intelligence or consciousness (a principle of which we are all particularizations), then that principle would indeed seem to be modified and/or expanded by each new intelligence which arises within the hive. Alternately, if this principle already includes all possible forms of intelligence including those not yet born or dreamed of, then the principle doesn't change, but simply is reflected by each new mind born within it. N> And N> while we're citing Hegel without giving specific pg numbers, N> lets referencelessly quote some Hegel that he never N> published (though he did write it): N> "the most venerable human beings are assuredly not always N> those who have speculated most about religion and who N> very often transform their religion into theology." N> -sounds neither Setian nor Thelemic. Agreed, but I don't get your point. Are you saying that a person can't reflect different ideas at different times? I assure you I don't sound or seem very Setian or Thelemic while I'm umpiring Little League baseball games either. Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Nov 94 19:04:42 Subject: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq On Oct 31, 1994, Josh Norton wrote to Balanone re: Synthesis and exposition B> Grin, Josh, your impatience is showing. You're asking someone who B> has spent a very large portion of his life exploring these questions, B> discussing them, refining them, and who has published the results of B> his explorations in some very marvelous documents within the Temple JN> ^^^^^^ B> of Set, to explain it all to you in the network equivalent of sound bites. JN> Note the accented word above. This has been my problem with JN> the Temple of Set all along. First, that its members are so JN> often insufferably smug about their supposed personal and JN> moral/philosophical/spiritual superiority, and second, that JN> they are not willing to expose the details of their JN> philosophy and practice to discussion in the "common market" JN> of public discussion, where the ideas would live or die on JN> their own merit. Understood. I believe we've discussed our reasons, and I acknowledge that you don't accept those reasons. JN> If either of these things were not the case, I wouldn't keep JN> needling you at intervals. You could shut up and keep both JN> your philosophy and your opinion of yourselves to JN> yourselves, and quite rightly say that the details of the JN> system are private. Or, you could continue bragging and JN> reveal those details, so that others would have some JN> foundation for determining whether your opinion is JN> justified or is simply a lot of hot air. Or we can continue doing what we're doing, which admittedly isn't 100% satisfying for anyone. JN> It seems to me that people ought to demand that any JN> self-proclaimed (is there any other kind?) Magister, Magus, JN> or Ipsissimus at least demonstrate that he is capable of JN> original work in both the theoretical _and_ the practical JN> side of magick. If Michael isn't willing to do so, then JN> neither should he be waving those grades in people's faces. Define "waving." Neither should he deny his achievements, even if he does not choose to demonstrate his work as you would want. JN> But since he does wave them -- and on talks shows, no less! JN> -- neither he nor you should be upset if the occasional JN> impolite soul treats him with something less than the awe JN> and respect you think he deserves. I don't think we're "upset" -- more like understandingly bemused. To see "upset" see some of the flames in alt.satanism. As far as talk shows, those have always been few and far between and usually with hesitation and under duress. B> Any attempt to do so, within the size constraints of a network B> message, in language you would understand (devoid of the Setian B> symbolism / jargon / shorthand we've developed to condense meanings B> into shorter statements), would be useless; the response would be so B> general as to be misleading and unsatisfactory. JN> I've given you the solution to this many times already. Just JN> publish one of those already-existent books (now available JN> only to Setians) in which he explains it all. The public JN> can then use that as a basis for discussion. Perhaps someday we'll do so. B> You therefore have a choice. You can complain about not getting your B> sound bites, or you can take the time to explore the meaning of the B> very clear expositions you've already rejected. One path gives you the B> puffed-up feeling (you've "shown up" the Magus of the Aeon); the other B> leads to Initiation. JN> (loud guffaws) For the other folks reading this, the fellow JN> saying this is the same one who once accused me of JN> advocating using human babies as a food source, and other JN> vile practices. I guess I should be thankful that he's only JN> doing his Chevy Chase impersonation today -- "I'm an JN> Initiate, and you're not!" Let's have Mr. Peabody power up the Not-So-Way-Back Machine, and visit: Area: Base Of Set Echo Msg#: 493 Sent Local Date: 24 Oct 93 19:10:18 From: Balanone Read: Yes Replied: No To: Josh Norton Mark: Subj: Re: illusion of separateness On 21 Oct 93 14:33:08, concerning illusion of separateness, Josh Norton said to Balanone ... ... JN> My position on this issue of un-naturalness and/or separateness (I JN> don't see them as separate issues) is fundamentally the same as the JN> Taoists: everything -- _including_ all aware beings of whatever sort, JN> and all possible levels of existence (whether or not part of the JN> physical universe), and all possible universes -- arises from the same JN> basic "stuff" and is dependent ultimately upon that stuff for its JN> continued existence. I deny that anything can be un-natural because JN> there is nothing except this "stuff" for it to arise from. I deny that JN> anything can be separate because there are no divisions in the stuff. JN> See my most recent message to Christeos Pir under the subject JN> "Currents" for an expansion of this. Yes, that does seem to be where we differ. I'm looking at this from two different levels, and so I'm going to have to give you two different comments. Please try to keep them separate, since merging them will only confuse the issue. 1) I see two types of "stuff", the stuff the Taoists and you see, and a different type of stuff which is qualitatively and totally different from the stuff you're working with. I'll agree that the stuff you and the Taoists see is pervasive and difficult to ignore, but the stuff I think you're overlooking is the stuff which to me gives importance and meaning to life. It is very likely you and the Taoists see the same stuff I do, but simply say, "It's all the same stuff in the final analysis." I disagree -- I think these two types are distinctly and *fundamentally* different types of stuff. I believe I have strong metaphysical evidence to support my opinion (as I'm sure you feel you have to support yours). ... Yes, but you're taking the universe out of context. 2) Even looking within the "everything" which I think you're talking about, I see two types of "stuff" within the "everything", with properties that are quite different from each other. Perhaps the best way to explain this second point is by analogy -- a lump of rock is made of the same subatomic particles and energies as you or I, as far as science can tell. From your description, you see that relationship as being primary, and therefore we and rock are (at a higher level of organization) both part and parcel of the same thing. I see inherent differences between these two examples, not because the brain is "separate" from the rock, but rather because there is a "stuff" of different quality found within me (and I assume you) which is not found within the rock. Given a choice between saving a rock from certain destruction (being blasted back to its subatomic components) and saving a kitten from minor harm, I vote for the kitten. Given a choice between saving a kitten from certain death (or even subatomic decomposition) and saving a child from mental anguish, I vote for the child. I see qualities within the "stuff" these things are made of which make such decisions easy. It seems as if you're saying that since we're all made of the same "stuff", it doesn't matter whether a kitten or child lives or dies, since alive or dead it's the same stuff. We disagree. ----------------------------------------------------------------- to this, Josh responded: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Area: Base Of Set Echo Msg#: 493 Rec'd Date: 29 Oct 93 15:51:06 From: Josh Norton Read: Yes Replied: No To: Balanone Mark: Subj: Illusion of separateness Thus said Balanone to Josh Norton concerning Re: illusion of separaten: ... What may be throwing you here is that, while all these levels derive ultimately from the Tao or "stuff", humans do not directly apprehend that stuff until they reach a relatively high level of organization. The appreciation of the Tao is a high-level experience; the existence of the Tao is not, but is rather the foundation or substrate of existence, _preceding_ all phenomenal manifestations such as rocks, humans, etc. Ba> [....] Ba> It seems as if you're saying that since we're all made of the same Ba> "stuff", it doesn't matter whether a kitten or child lives or dies, Ba> since alive or dead it's the same stuff. We disagree. ARRRRGGGGHH! You must really be intent on dragging this discussion into the gutter. In this paragraph and the preceding unquoted one, you've brought in four of politicians' nastiest tricks for diverting attention from the issues: 1) You make a statement that does not follow from my presentation. 2) You ascribe to me motivations and perceptions that are totally irrelevant to the topic under debate, and then seek to destroy my arguments by attacking the image of my moral character that YOU created. This is called an "argumentum ad hominem", and our readers are probably seeing a lot of it in the campaign ads for the November elections. 3) You mis-interpret things I did say, and then argue against your mis- interpretation as if it were what I really said. The is the "Straw Man" fallacy. 4) You drag in dead kittens and babies to divert attention by an appeal irrelevant emotions. This is really ugly behavior on your part. ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems to be the start of Josh's emotional upset at me. JN> 1) You make a statement that does not follow from my presentation. I thought it did. JN> 2) You ascribe to me motivations and perceptions that are totally JN> irrelevant to the topic under debate, and then seek to destroy my JN> arguments by attacking the image of my moral character that YOU created. JN> This is called an "argumentum ad hominem", and our readers are probably JN> seeing a lot of it in the campaign ads for the November elections. I thought the perceptions I was discussing were relevant to the topic, to the unity of the "stuff" of everything, and I was trying to project the results of the perceptions forward to their conclusion. Perhaps I erred in putting them forth as rhetorical statements rather than questions, but from our previous discussions I thought that would be an acceptable and useful form of discussion. JN> 3) You mis-interpret things I did say, and then argue against your mis- JN> interpretation as if it were what I really said. The is the "Straw Man" JN> fallacy. Obviously, if I don't fully understand what you say, I'm going to misinterpret it. And if I'm going to disagree with what I thought you said, then I'm going to argue about it. The whole purpose of the discussion was to better understand what we were trying to say to each other, wasn't it? JN> 4) You drag in dead kittens and babies to divert attention by an appeal JN> irrelevant emotions. No, I invented(?) those dead kittens and children as an illustration that there's something special in Life and in living beings that isn't found at large in the mostly dead universe, and that there are gradations of Life (I cherish the life of a child more than I do a cat). I didn't see this as an appeal to anything, but rather as examples of what I was talking about. But JN> This is really ugly behavior on your part. And this is where our conversation began to fall apart. I sighed a silent sigh, saw our posts quickly going downhill, and shortly afterwards we stopped corresponding at all. So be it. Now let the evidence stand on its own, let today's readers make up their own minds about our personal qualities, and let's get on with the discussion at hand. JN> Apparently what's "clear" to you isn't clear to anybody JN> else; I've received five netmail messages so far concurring JN> with the opinion that Michael's replies were deliberate JN> dodges and obfuscations of the issue. Given that I rarely JN> receive any mail at all about echo discussions, this counts JN> as a virtual avalanche of support. One wonders how many JN> other people felt the same but weren't inclined to say so. Probably quite a few. I'll agree that's not an uncommon reaction. JN> If ego-boosts were the reason I keep needling you folks, I JN> would have switched targets a long time ago; the gods know JN> there are enough easier ones around. And you've given JN> enough vituperation in return to shred anyone who thought JN> their "self" was important. No, that's not the reason at JN> all. I presume by "you've given enough vituperation in return" you're talking about Setians in general, or perhaps some specific Setians and just happen to be lumping me in the group. I consider myself to generally be exceedingly civilized in my posting, and do not attack or retaliate on the net -- I simply turn on the twitlist whenever warranted. (And in case anyone's wondering, I've never put Josh on my twitlist.) JN> And just to make things clear, I don't believe that Michael JN> is the Magus of a "New Aeon"; I doubt whether he is a Magus JN> in any sense. Neither do I believe that he has touched the JN> core of the Set current, but just one of its outer layers; JN> and he and the ToS have screwed up even that, through their JN> idiotic insistence on Set's isolation and the existence of JN> an untouchable "self" at the core of being. Just another in a large group of differences of opinion between us. JN> ...and in conclusion, I say again that Carthage must be JN> destroyed. Trying to pour salt in an open wound? :-) Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Ned 1 Nov 94 06:20:42 Subject: Re: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq Ned> If Mr Aquino's explanation is so complex that he feels obliged to Ned> appeal (for the sake of *clarity*, yet) to the tortuous prose of Ned> Hegel's translators (which is presumably derived from Hegel's own Ned> tortuous German), then I think his explanation is suspect. I am not reluctant to talk about Hegel's ideas, but thought that readers of this echo might find the reference sufficient if they cared to pursue the matter. I'll give you a few paragraphs from my Hegel-essay in the _Ruby Tablet of Set_ and see if you're still awake at that point: Georg F. Hegel (1770-1831) developed his theories of dialectic idealism and organicism by approximately 1816, when he held a professorship at the University of Heidelberg. His two principal concepts are defined as follows: (1) Hegel conceives the Universe as the manifestation of God's mind seeking complete self-realization through a process called *dialectic idealism*. This is occasionally [and more precisely] called the *dialectic of absolute spirit*. As applied to Earth, it is the concept that the history of the world consists of part of the spirit of God, manifesting itself through the collective spirits of mankind, moving onwards through logic (the dialectic) towards complete self-understanding. An existing idea (thesis) is criticized and partially refuted by its opposite (antithesis), resulting in a more perfect concept (synthesis). (2) The *organic state* is the manifestation or appearance of God in the material world. [It is *not* identical with God; it is a "reflection" of the dialectic of his mind. Accordingly it proceeds in ways and towards goals which are not necessarily the sum total of the ways and goals of the individual human minds within it.] In many ways Hegel is a reaction (antithesis & synthesis) to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Bishop Berkeley's *subjective idealism* had held that nothing could be known objectively - that knowledge is limited to subjective impressions. Kant refines this into what is called *critical idealism*, in which human consciousness is subdivided into *sensation*, *understanding*, and *pure reason*. Sensations and understanding of them and consequences of them ca be proven, Kant says, but pure reason (concepts unsupported by sensations) cannot be conclusive. It is "beyond causality". Hegel overcomes Kant's problem by making "pure reason" a necessary and intrinsic part of God/the Universe. All history is "logical". If it sometimes seems illogical, it is because we don't see it as clearly as God does. The task of philosophy, therefore, is one of *understanding*, of *logical analysis* - and *not* one of creation of abstract, ideal political systems. Hegel introduced the concept of the *phenomenology of mind* as a variation on the Platonic "pyramid of thought" concept. With Hegel, of course, the mind develops *forward through time* (historically); whereas with Plato the levels of thought are measures of excellence irrespective of time or progression. Hegel's phenomenology of mind begins with *consciousness*, which is everyday experience (action and reaction to events) without self-consciousness. We take the truth of conscious experiences for granted; Hegel calls this *sense-certainty*. As soon as one pauses to reflect on conscious experiences, one moves to self-consciousness. At the same time there comes an awareness of other selves, other minds. This is very close to Hobbes' concept of the state of nature. The antagonism is because "they exist and are not me". Therefore I wish to control them and not to be controlled by them. I wish recognition by them; I do not wish to recognize them in return. Thus there comes into being the political "master/slave relationship". The next step in the dialectic involves a personal internalization of the master/slave relationship, as exemplified in Hellenistic stoicism and skepticism. The inconsistency this produces between internal and external life goes on to produce the rages and hypocrisies of medieval Christianity. In the Reformation the internal is seen as relevant to, and in command of the external. There is still the problem of conflict between individual wills, which, if undiciplined through organization and government, would run wild in anarchy "... since any institution whatever is antagonistic to the abstract self-consciousness of equality". [I think this is enough to make the point about Hegel's relevance to the "generalization/particularization" concept. And as you can see, he is really not that difficult to understand, and had some rather bright ideas.] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Ned 1 Nov 94 20:36:36 Subject: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq On Oct 30, 1994, Ned posted to BALANONE, re: Synthesis and exposition N> Formal (and hence, insincere) apologies for wading into your N> 3-way wrangle. Since I believe you all have come to N> something of a stopping point, I wanted to throw down while N> you were all still fired up in the hope that you might N> discuss your many interesting points with a non-entity like N> myself. Apologies not necessary. However, why would I be interested in discussing anything with a nonentity? Now if you were a person, with a mind and consciousness of your own, then I might be interested in discussing something with you... :-) N> Aquino said: MA> Every particularization expands the scope of the principle - MA> pushes outwards on the limits of its universe, one might say. In MA> the case of the principle of consciousness of the self (=Set), this MA> would be no less the case, and the Neter would partake of the MA> awareness of its particularizations accordingly. You might Cf. MA> Georg Hegel's discussions of the "overmind", although he saw the MA> OM as something *driving* and controlling individual minds on MA> a collective basis - which would not apply to a Setian situation of MA> each individual mind possessing [at least the potential for] free MA> will. N> So, "every particularization expands" and "pushes" the N> principle, and the Neter "partakes" of an awareness of N> every particularization. Sounds like the ideal is in N> some way influenced by the particular, and subject to N> progressive development. Yes? I think that would be an N> answer to Josh's original question. You're playing with abstract philosophical ideas where opinions may not be unanimous. (Yes, I acknowledge that sometimes I might tend towards understatement.) Think of the principle we name "table" -- there are many, many different particularizations of that principle, and as we grow in experience, encountering new tables, our conception / perception of the principle grows accordingly. In most cases, I don't think the principle itself is affected, or grows, but it's just our partial perception of it which is affected. The question becomes, when someone invents a totally new type of table (say a velcro table to hold things down on it while in orbit, or something even more different than that), does the principle expand to encompass the new invention, or did the principle already include that new idea, and we just discover it? If we then try to expand the discussion from the rather simple "table" to "self" or "consciousness" you can see how the questions get somewhat more complicated. N> Josh said to Aquino: BJN> One would think that you have had experiences relevant to the BJN> question, and have synthesized some sort of model of the BJN> relationship between the Neter and its particularization in BJN> yourself, so that you don't have to depend on other BJN> people's ideas. N> Balanone answered Josh's objections to Aquino's explanation: BA> You therefore have a choice. You can complain about not getting your BA> sound bites, or you can take the time to explore the meaning of the BA> very clear expositions you've already rejected. ... N> In other words: "My way or the highway." N> OK, your way - N> While exploring the meaning of a certain Setian's "very N> clear expositions" I have come across a spurious N> reference to a Hegelian concept that I believe is N> intended to obscure the expositor's meaning rather than N> serve as "Setian symbolism/jargon/shorthand",particularly N> since it is claimed in the very same sentence that it does N> "not apply to a Setian situation". The expositor later N> contradicted this clause by contending that Hegel is N> relevant to his exposition, but declined to specify in N> exactly what manner. Would you care to clarify? I'd like to, but since I'm not that "certain Setian," and since Hegel's literary legacy is fairly large, and since my knowledge of that legacy is indeed minimal (though I had a minor in philosophy in college decades ago, my education concerning Hegel was limited, and my own studies have not greatly expanded on that knowledge to date), I am probably not qualified to do so. Any such attempt on my part would likely confuse matters even more. As you quote above, Dr. Aquino's reference was to Hegel's discussions of the "overmind," and that aspect of Hegel's philosophy is one I'm certainly not able to discuss with any familiarity. Now that he's indicated that its useful as an alternative view, I'll probably be looking at it to see what I can get out of it. MA> ... although he saw the MA> OM as something *driving* and controlling individual minds on MA> a collective basis - which would not apply to a Setian situation of MA> each individual mind possessing [at least the potential for] free MA> will. I think here you are overreacting to the "which would not apply" statement. Rather than telling you to disregard this idea, he's saying "as opposed to the Setian situation..." If you (and/or Josh) refuse to look at alternative perceptions (Hegel's views vs Setian views) it's going to be much more difficult to understand why Setian views are different from others. Knowing the Setian view, I would make the assumption (pending my future investigation) that Hegel's "overmind" is a hypothesized global intelligence consciousness which serves as a species-related "god" directing human behavior and thought, perhaps the human equivalent of a hive-mind. Given that (possible erroneous) view, if we were to view that "overmind" as a principle of intelligence or consciousness (a principle of which we are all particularizations), then that principle would indeed seem to be modified and/or expanded by each new intelligence which arises within the hive. Alternately, if this principle already includes all possible forms of intelligence including those not yet born or dreamed of, then the principle doesn't change, but simply is reflected by each new mind born within it. N> And N> while we're citing Hegel without giving specific pg numbers, N> lets referencelessly quote some Hegel that he never N> published (though he did write it): N> "the most venerable human beings are assuredly not always N> those who have speculated most about religion and who N> very often transform their religion into theology." N> -sounds neither Setian nor Thelemic. Agreed, but I don't get your point. Are you saying that a person can't reflect different ideas at different times? I assure you I don't sound or seem very Setian or Thelemic while I'm umpiring Little League baseball games either. Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Balanone Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Nov 94 19:04:42 Subject: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq On Oct 31, 1994, Josh Norton wrote to Balanone re: Synthesis and exposition B> Grin, Josh, your impatience is showing. You're asking someone who B> has spent a very large portion of his life exploring these questions, B> discussing them, refining them, and who has published the results of B> his explorations in some very marvelous documents within the Temple JN> ^^^^^^ B> of Set, to explain it all to you in the network equivalent of sound bites. JN> Note the accented word above. This has been my problem with JN> the Temple of Set all along. First, that its members are so JN> often insufferably smug about their supposed personal and JN> moral/philosophical/spiritual superiority, and second, that JN> they are not willing to expose the details of their JN> philosophy and practice to discussion in the "common market" JN> of public discussion, where the ideas would live or die on JN> their own merit. Understood. I believe we've discussed our reasons, and I acknowledge that you don't accept those reasons. JN> If either of these things were not the case, I wouldn't keep JN> needling you at intervals. You could shut up and keep both JN> your philosophy and your opinion of yourselves to JN> yourselves, and quite rightly say that the details of the JN> system are private. Or, you could continue bragging and JN> reveal those details, so that others would have some JN> foundation for determining whether your opinion is JN> justified or is simply a lot of hot air. Or we can continue doing what we're doing, which admittedly isn't 100% satisfying for anyone. JN> It seems to me that people ought to demand that any JN> self-proclaimed (is there any other kind?) Magister, Magus, JN> or Ipsissimus at least demonstrate that he is capable of JN> original work in both the theoretical _and_ the practical JN> side of magick. If Michael isn't willing to do so, then JN> neither should he be waving those grades in people's faces. Define "waving." Neither should he deny his achievements, even if he does not choose to demonstrate his work as you would want. JN> But since he does wave them -- and on talks shows, no less! JN> -- neither he nor you should be upset if the occasional JN> impolite soul treats him with something less than the awe JN> and respect you think he deserves. I don't think we're "upset" -- more like understandingly bemused. To see "upset" see some of the flames in alt.satanism. As far as talk shows, those have always been few and far between and usually with hesitation and under duress. B> Any attempt to do so, within the size constraints of a network B> message, in language you would understand (devoid of the Setian B> symbolism / jargon / shorthand we've developed to condense meanings B> into shorter statements), would be useless; the response would be so B> general as to be misleading and unsatisfactory. JN> I've given you the solution to this many times already. Just JN> publish one of those already-existent books (now available JN> only to Setians) in which he explains it all. The public JN> can then use that as a basis for discussion. Perhaps someday we'll do so. B> You therefore have a choice. You can complain about not getting your B> sound bites, or you can take the time to explore the meaning of the B> very clear expositions you've already rejected. One path gives you the B> puffed-up feeling (you've "shown up" the Magus of the Aeon); the other B> leads to Initiation. JN> (loud guffaws) For the other folks reading this, the fellow JN> saying this is the same one who once accused me of JN> advocating using human babies as a food source, and other JN> vile practices. I guess I should be thankful that he's only JN> doing his Chevy Chase impersonation today -- "I'm an JN> Initiate, and you're not!" Let's have Mr. Peabody power up the Not-So-Way-Back Machine, and visit: Area: Base Of Set Echo Msg#: 493 Sent Local Date: 24 Oct 93 19:10:18 From: Balanone Read: Yes Replied: No To: Josh Norton Mark: Subj: Re: illusion of separateness On 21 Oct 93 14:33:08, concerning illusion of separateness, Josh Norton said to Balanone ... ... JN> My position on this issue of un-naturalness and/or separateness (I JN> don't see them as separate issues) is fundamentally the same as the JN> Taoists: everything -- _including_ all aware beings of whatever sort, JN> and all possible levels of existence (whether or not part of the JN> physical universe), and all possible universes -- arises from the same JN> basic "stuff" and is dependent ultimately upon that stuff for its JN> continued existence. I deny that anything can be un-natural because JN> there is nothing except this "stuff" for it to arise from. I deny that JN> anything can be separate because there are no divisions in the stuff. JN> See my most recent message to Christeos Pir under the subject JN> "Currents" for an expansion of this. Yes, that does seem to be where we differ. I'm looking at this from two different levels, and so I'm going to have to give you two different comments. Please try to keep them separate, since merging them will only confuse the issue. 1) I see two types of "stuff", the stuff the Taoists and you see, and a different type of stuff which is qualitatively and totally different from the stuff you're working with. I'll agree that the stuff you and the Taoists see is pervasive and difficult to ignore, but the stuff I think you're overlooking is the stuff which to me gives importance and meaning to life. It is very likely you and the Taoists see the same stuff I do, but simply say, "It's all the same stuff in the final analysis." I disagree -- I think these two types are distinctly and *fundamentally* different types of stuff. I believe I have strong metaphysical evidence to support my opinion (as I'm sure you feel you have to support yours). ... Yes, but you're taking the universe out of context. 2) Even looking within the "everything" which I think you're talking about, I see two types of "stuff" within the "everything", with properties that are quite different from each other. Perhaps the best way to explain this second point is by analogy -- a lump of rock is made of the same subatomic particles and energies as you or I, as far as science can tell. From your description, you see that relationship as being primary, and therefore we and rock are (at a higher level of organization) both part and parcel of the same thing. I see inherent differences between these two examples, not because the brain is "separate" from the rock, but rather because there is a "stuff" of different quality found within me (and I assume you) which is not found within the rock. Given a choice between saving a rock from certain destruction (being blasted back to its subatomic components) and saving a kitten from minor harm, I vote for the kitten. Given a choice between saving a kitten from certain death (or even subatomic decomposition) and saving a child from mental anguish, I vote for the child. I see qualities within the "stuff" these things are made of which make such decisions easy. It seems as if you're saying that since we're all made of the same "stuff", it doesn't matter whether a kitten or child lives or dies, since alive or dead it's the same stuff. We disagree. ----------------------------------------------------------------- to this, Josh responded: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Area: Base Of Set Echo Msg#: 493 Rec'd Date: 29 Oct 93 15:51:06 From: Josh Norton Read: Yes Replied: No To: Balanone Mark: Subj: Illusion of separateness Thus said Balanone to Josh Norton concerning Re: illusion of separaten: ... What may be throwing you here is that, while all these levels derive ultimately from the Tao or "stuff", humans do not directly apprehend that stuff until they reach a relatively high level of organization. The appreciation of the Tao is a high-level experience; the existence of the Tao is not, but is rather the foundation or substrate of existence, _preceding_ all phenomenal manifestations such as rocks, humans, etc. Ba> [....] Ba> It seems as if you're saying that since we're all made of the same Ba> "stuff", it doesn't matter whether a kitten or child lives or dies, Ba> since alive or dead it's the same stuff. We disagree. ARRRRGGGGHH! You must really be intent on dragging this discussion into the gutter. In this paragraph and the preceding unquoted one, you've brought in four of politicians' nastiest tricks for diverting attention from the issues: 1) You make a statement that does not follow from my presentation. 2) You ascribe to me motivations and perceptions that are totally irrelevant to the topic under debate, and then seek to destroy my arguments by attacking the image of my moral character that YOU created. This is called an "argumentum ad hominem", and our readers are probably seeing a lot of it in the campaign ads for the November elections. 3) You mis-interpret things I did say, and then argue against your mis- interpretation as if it were what I really said. The is the "Straw Man" fallacy. 4) You drag in dead kittens and babies to divert attention by an appeal irrelevant emotions. This is really ugly behavior on your part. ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This seems to be the start of Josh's emotional upset at me. JN> 1) You make a statement that does not follow from my presentation. I thought it did. JN> 2) You ascribe to me motivations and perceptions that are totally JN> irrelevant to the topic under debate, and then seek to destroy my JN> arguments by attacking the image of my moral character that YOU created. JN> This is called an "argumentum ad hominem", and our readers are probably JN> seeing a lot of it in the campaign ads for the November elections. I thought the perceptions I was discussing were relevant to the topic, to the unity of the "stuff" of everything, and I was trying to project the results of the perceptions forward to their conclusion. Perhaps I erred in putting them forth as rhetorical statements rather than questions, but from our previous discussions I thought that would be an acceptable and useful form of discussion. JN> 3) You mis-interpret things I did say, and then argue against your mis- JN> interpretation as if it were what I really said. The is the "Straw Man" JN> fallacy. Obviously, if I don't fully understand what you say, I'm going to misinterpret it. And if I'm going to disagree with what I thought you said, then I'm going to argue about it. The whole purpose of the discussion was to better understand what we were trying to say to each other, wasn't it? JN> 4) You drag in dead kittens and babies to divert attention by an appeal JN> irrelevant emotions. No, I invented(?) those dead kittens and children as an illustration that there's something special in Life and in living beings that isn't found at large in the mostly dead universe, and that there are gradations of Life (I cherish the life of a child more than I do a cat). I didn't see this as an appeal to anything, but rather as examples of what I was talking about. But JN> This is really ugly behavior on your part. And this is where our conversation began to fall apart. I sighed a silent sigh, saw our posts quickly going downhill, and shortly afterwards we stopped corresponding at all. So be it. Now let the evidence stand on its own, let today's readers make up their own minds about our personal qualities, and let's get on with the discussion at hand. JN> Apparently what's "clear" to you isn't clear to anybody JN> else; I've received five netmail messages so far concurring JN> with the opinion that Michael's replies were deliberate JN> dodges and obfuscations of the issue. Given that I rarely JN> receive any mail at all about echo discussions, this counts JN> as a virtual avalanche of support. One wonders how many JN> other people felt the same but weren't inclined to say so. Probably quite a few. I'll agree that's not an uncommon reaction. JN> If ego-boosts were the reason I keep needling you folks, I JN> would have switched targets a long time ago; the gods know JN> there are enough easier ones around. And you've given JN> enough vituperation in return to shred anyone who thought JN> their "self" was important. No, that's not the reason at JN> all. I presume by "you've given enough vituperation in return" you're talking about Setians in general, or perhaps some specific Setians and just happen to be lumping me in the group. I consider myself to generally be exceedingly civilized in my posting, and do not attack or retaliate on the net -- I simply turn on the twitlist whenever warranted. (And in case anyone's wondering, I've never put Josh on my twitlist.) JN> And just to make things clear, I don't believe that Michael JN> is the Magus of a "New Aeon"; I doubt whether he is a Magus JN> in any sense. Neither do I believe that he has touched the JN> core of the Set current, but just one of its outer layers; JN> and he and the ToS have screwed up even that, through their JN> idiotic insistence on Set's isolation and the existence of JN> an untouchable "self" at the core of being. Just another in a large group of differences of opinion between us. JN> ...and in conclusion, I say again that Carthage must be JN> destroyed. Trying to pour salt in an open wound? :-) Balanone PP FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/444.15 Internet: Balanone@tefnut.astaroth.sacbbx.com 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 2 Nov 94 07:55:44 Subject: Re: Synthesis and exposition UpdReq JN> And just to make things clear, I don't believe that Michael is the Magus JN> of a "New Aeon"; I doubt whether he is a Magus in any sense. Neither do JN> I believe that he has touched the core of the Set current, but just one JN> of its outer layers; and he and the ToS have screwed up even that, JN> through their idiotic insistence on Set's isolation and the existence of JN> an untouchable "self" at the core of being. Ow, that hurt! Well, to make you feel better, sometimes I wonder myself. After all, there is no nice set of official rules about "how to 'do' an authentic aeon, or know for certain that you are talking to a real god/neter/Form, or be initiated to anything by anyone/anything. We all have certain ideas, experiences, and capabilities; we work with them to see what we can do with them. You as a non-Setian are neither asked nor expected to "believe" anything about the Temple of Set or myself. In fact the less attention paid to the Temple, and myself for that matter, the more contented I am, as I don't have to waste time trying to explain highly-complex concepts to persons unable to grasp them [or psychologically indoctrinated into rejecting them as "crimethink"]. It is of course for this same reason that Temple of Set publications are not sold to the public, nor are my own writings. Of course there are extensive references to historic philosophers, scientists, et al. in my writings. I am an academician (B.A., M.A., M.P.A., Ph.D.) and am accustomed to research-writing rather than just "expounding". I draw upon [and credit] as many sources as I can to discuss any idea on the table. This not only informs the reader where I come by certain of my points of view, but enables him to pursue those influential sources directly if desired. As for what I have done personally: I could give you a nice, long _Vitae_ of my many experiences & attainments, but prefer to keep my personal life personal [intrusions by the press, etc. have not been appreciated]. And as for magical work: Much of it will necessarily be and remained unrecognized as such, by its very nature. But I am pleased with it. And of course there is the Temple of Set itself - the cumulative product of not just my work but thousands of other interested and sincere Initiates over the last two decades. It has done much good: brought wisdom, pleasure, and inspiration into many lives in a variety of personalized ways. I think we're all rather pleased with this, all the more so since it has been a difficult social climate in which to work. Instead of just grumping about it, or me, why not do something yourself that you consider better. You will be happier, you won't feel that you have to orbit around the Temple of Set so much, and if you succeed in your efforts, you can benefit any number of other people. So rather than destroying Carthage, just build a nice, new city for yourself down the coast. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michelle Hass Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 4 Nov 94 20:25:40 Subject: a place to start 1/ UpdReq Nice to hear from you again, Josh, or should I say, Supremely Honored Josh. It's so hard to see the whole picture where I am. You raise a lot of good points and due to technical difficulties I can't go into my Reader software and go over this all point by point. I'm still learning. And like the Magus Lao Tzu once pointed out, to admit your ignorance is the first step to learning, and to say you know is to expose yourself as an ignoramus. I look forward to further discourse. 93, --.\\<-H-- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 3 Nov 94 13:49:00 Subject: book of coming forth 1/ UpdReq Z> On 23 Oct 94 10:49am, Josh Norton wrote to Michael Aquino: JN> Forgive me, but no one except a tenured professor would JN> consider your answer responsive, especially in light of my JN> request that the answer concern what _you_ have discovered JN> from _your_own_experience_. The literary corpses of dead JN> philosophers -- or dead magicians -- aren't important at all; JN> what is important is what you have taken from them, what you JN> have made of what was taken, how you use it, and where you JN> have gotten as a result. Z> Hello Josh. Just wanted to add some thoughts. Z> Z> I think it's prudent to examine or at least consider the remains of Z> the "literary corpses" of "dead philosophers/magicians" (dead, but Z> perhaps only in the physical sense). It's possible that someone Z> will "see" what others could or would not. Of course, there will Z> be an amount of the "deceased" Work that will remain vague or lost Z> to most or even all but perhaps the deceased. That's basically what I said above, and the reason I said it. Z> For myself it's important to explore the thoughts, findings, and Z> behavior of those I interact with. Those with whom I correspond Z> with in regards to magic as well as those on a temporal level. It Z> is however more meaningful to me when I combine my exploration with Z> the abstract. In doing this I find I am able to better comprehend Z> and appreciate the initiatory "struggles" of those I observe and at Z> the same time find relevance to that of my own struggles. And this is what I've been getting at. Michael doesn't want to do this, except within his "club". Z> It seems that you want lucid information in regards to a study that Z> is in no uncertain terms ambiguous. I find it unlikely that Z> Michael Aquino or anyone else will be able to give a synopsis that Z> will do justice to the magnitude of what is realized through years Z> of Initiation. This is Balanone's "sound bites" argument. The answer is that Michael has already written a couple of books that he says explain his view of the magickal universe. In past discussions, he's referred to them without quoting them -- saying, in essence "I've have an explanation, but I'm not going to tell you." You have to join the Temple of Set to get access to them. If you don't want to join, you're still expected to believe that they have some marvelous secret. To me, this smacks of smoke and mirrors, not initiation. I think that people get too hung up on the Ineffability Of It All. As a Magister Templi, I know perfectly well that anything I say about the transcendental realms -- indeed, about any level of initiation -- is going to be incomplete, and therefor a lie. And is going to be misinterpreted by those not yet at that level. Despite this, simply keeping silence or saying "it's beyond your grade" or (like Michael) "it's a secret" is, to me, a cop-out, an abandonment of our obligations in the Great Work. If one is sincerely interested in helping people to initiate themselves, the advantages of public discussion far outweigh any disadvantages. As Michelle Hass and Andrew Haigh show in another current thread, people are going to make interpretations regardless. Explanations by people who have actually been there at least have the advantage of having _some_ connection to what really happens, and can therefor serve as a clue, however vague, to getting there. In Western systems, the information available about various initiations -- especially in the higher levels -- is the work of a very few people, and is often reaching us at several removes from its originator. This means that the descriptions don't point to the essence of the experience. Instead they point to its "least common denominators" -- those aspects that are dramatic enough to be noticeable even after the description is filtered through several peoples' minds. These dramatic moments often turn out to be utterly trivial, or completely deceptive, when it comes to understanding the real significance of a particular grade's perceptions. .pg [ Continued In Next Message... ] ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Zepher 3 Nov 94 13:49:02 Subject: book of coming forth 2/ UpdReq [ ...Continued From Previous Message ] This being the case, I feel that those who have experience have an obligation to give the best descriptions they can manage of the levels they have attained, and to dispel the misperceptions that have accumulated around past descriptions. One can't always succeed, but dialog with intelligent individuals often produces better results than one imagined possible before trying to do so. I've had several long discussions here of the so-called Abyss and the Master of the Temple grade, and in retrospect I'm still fairly well satisfied with what came out of it. The descriptions aren't complete by any means, and don't give the depth of the real experience, but they are a reasonably accurate description of the parts they do deal with. Now, in the case of Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set it is even more important that they attempt to provide clear, unambiguous descriptions of their initiations. This is because they specifically deny the validity and necessity of certain events that appear in practically every other major initiation system in the world, east and west. (Most notably, they deny the loss of identification with the individualized self that precedes the grade of Master of the Temple.) In respect to these things, they are effectively saying that every past and present initiatory system _except_ theirs is wrong, and based on delusions. Given the import of this discovery, if true, and the weight of evidence against them, I don't see it as at all unreasonable to demand that they justify this in detail, both from a theoretical view _and_ from the view of documented practical experimentation. It may be that they actually have something going for them. But how can anybody know? And why should we bother to believe them, or their claims of superiority, without such evidence? In the absence of such information, we are equally justified in believing that they have concocted some self-serving belief system no better than any other common religion. Or -- my own opinion -- that they have simply reached the limits of the individualized mind, and have chosen to turn their backs on what lies beyond that stage. ___ X SPEED 1.30 [NR] X 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: .Nisaba Area: Thelema To: Moderator 4 Nov 94 20:50:20 Subject: echo rules UpdReq * Message originally: From: .Nisaba To : Moderator Date: 04-11-94 Area: "AMATEUR_PSYCHOLOGY" * Forwarded by Vivienne West using RemoteAccess 2.02 Dear moderator, I'm upgrading my files areas, and I was wondering if you'd like to post a list of echo rules and/or suggestions for the benefit of my users, please. Thank you, .Nisaba, sysop, the Witches' Hovel; HairNet, PODSnet, Coastlink, OPEN, FIDO ... Beware the One True Way. That path leads only to the One True Mistake. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Andrew Haigh Area: Thelema To: Michelle Hass 4 Nov 94 12:33:24 Subject: 10 = 1 discussion UpdReq MH> Well, from what I understood from everything I've read, If you MH> cross the Abyss YOU KNOW IT. Then again, what do I know? No-one truly knows anything. I choose to remain as doubtful as possible to allow the widest range of realities. I have had several experiences that directly relate to my perception/conception of the Abyss, was it the true abyss? I will not allow myself to believe that it was, as there might always be a larger chasm beyond the next veil. @:|---- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: Thelema To: Keith S Schurholz 5 Nov 94 17:51:38 Subject: Re: C.F. Russell and Michael Bertiaux UpdReq KSS> Hiya Tony I. Yes there is a slew (sp.?) of new material re: KSS> both C.F. and Krum-Heller. I am on the verge of getting two KSS> new poems (!) by Russell, and we have a lot of new F.R.A. KSS> material (K-H's group) to translate. Much of his stuff is in Sounds interesting. Didn't know Russel wrote poems as such. I'd like to have a look at the K-H stuff too, especially the Mass-related parts. KSS> I will be in NYC area in Dec. - hope to visit you then Sure! Netmail when you have an itinerary, and I'll send my numbers. 93! 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718