From: Lazarus Long Area: MagickNet To: Rose Dawn 13 Oct 94 15:26:00 Subject: CHAOS UpdReq Hello Rose! Answering a msg of <05 Oct 94>, from Rose Dawn to Joseph Max: Could you give me some good books to read about the OTO and info on how to find a chapter or something? I'm really curious. Thank you! [ Lazarus Long*FidoNet 1:349/32.12*arne7546@TAO.sosc.sosshe.edu ] [ BlaNet 66:2100/0 * SOKUNet 32:100/12 * PODNet 93:9703/8 ] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Lazarus Long Area: MagickNet To: Kai Mactane 13 Oct 94 15:27:00 Subject: new UpdReq Hello Kai! 04 Oct 94 17:21, Kai Mactane wrote to Andrew Hotopp: KM> "On many things?" Gee, that covers an awful lot of KM> territory. Do you have anything more specific in mind? And, just KM> out of curiosity, why did you pick me to ask? :) Maybe he did it because you've got a cool name? [ Lazarus Long*FidoNet 1:349/32.12*arne7546@TAO.sosc.sosshe.edu ] [ BlaNet 66:2100/0 * SOKUNet 32:100/12 * PODNet 93:9703/8 ] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: MagickNet To: JOSH NORTON 14 Oct 94 09:51:00 Subject: RE: MAGICK VERSUS RELIGI UpdReq -=> Quoting Josh Norton to Joseph Max Re: Dr. John Dee <=- JN> Dee didn't consider himself to be a magician, and denied it on many JN> occasions. He wanted to distinguish himself from the many other JN> "magicians" in England at the time. Most of these were concerned with JN> summoning demons (Sir Walter Raleigh dabbled in this) or with JN> producing physical effects, neither of which Dee cared about. I wonder how much of the denial was prompted by his private feelings and how much by the pressures of his position at court. Even with all his hand-washing, his house got burned down in what is probably the archtypical "angry-villagers-torching-evil-mad-scientists-house" scene for practicing "witchcraft". Queen Elizibeth _must_ have liked the prestige of having him around... And remember, true motivations and public pronouncements by public figures are not always the same. If he had some "mortal fear" for his soul keeping him from performing actual magickal work that he himself devised, he couldn't very well admit it publicly, now could he! So his "disdain" for magickal operations may just have been a face-saving smokescreen. JN> But as a matter of _practice_, I believe he fits the bill well enough. JN> It true there's no record of his having used the Enochian system JN> itself, but the workings in which he received that system certainly JN> qualify as magickal. True enough, but he was definetly in the position of observer and chronicler. Typical detached scientist's attitude. JN> In his work with Kelly, the method used was that Dee did the JN> invocations and Kelly scryed to see what appeared in response. Dee JN> believed that his invocations were only "fervent Christian prayer". JN> But, looking at the few extant samples, the only difference I can see JN> from magickal invocations of the time was that Dee _requested_ the JN> spirits to appear rather than commanding them. This isn't significant, JN> IMO; I do the same thing myself. Of course. Most systems of evocation have varying forms of "address" to spiritual entities, from beseeching to bullying, depending on their nature. It's not totally insignificant, in that it's one of those significant details of ritual work to put one into the proper subconscious state to deal with a particular entity to be evoked. JM> On the surface, one had no choice but to profess Christianity in those JM> days. Dee called the Enochian entities "Angels", though the entities JM> never used the term - there's not even an Enochian word for "angel". He JM> _had_ to try to put a facade of Christianity on what they were doing or JM> he and Kelly would have surely been hanged as witches. JN> If you read Causobon's "A True Relation..." I think you'll find that JN> Dee's Christianity was anything but superficial lip-service. One has JN> to remember that Elizabethan folks saw no conflict in being rational JN> towards the "natural" world and hyper-religious towards the spiritual. JN> Their world-view had the two as completely separate realms, each with JN> their own rules. (Dee's view of the matter follows the three-worlds JN> model of Agrippa. For a good explanation, take a look at Tyson's notes JN> on the subject in the Llewellyn edition of Agrippa's "Three Books of JN> Occult Philosophy".) I guess my point was that they had no choice but to profess that position regardless of what they may have personally believed. It would be very had to ever do more than speculate about their states of mind, but I guess it's the old skeptic in me that always has me looking for new ways to interpret what people _say_ as distinct from what may _be_. JN> Kelly was also steeped in Christianity though, like Christopher JN> Marlowe, he flip-flopped between being a good son of the Church and a JN> Satanic rebel. At no time would he ever have been considered an JN> agnostic, atheist, or pagan. The fellow seems to me to have been a JN> rather miserable soul, feeling limited by the constraints of religious JN> custom but unable to free himself from them, living in fear of the JN> real and imagined consequences of doing so. Perhaps we do live in more enlightened times now, after all... JN> And in fact, their mutual insistence on fitting everything into a JN> Christian framework was a definite hindrance throughout the period JN> when the Calls, Tablets, and Aethyrs were being presented to them. JN> Whenever the angels said something that didn't fit Christian dogma, JN> Dee and Kelly both went into a panic, worrying about whether they were JN> contacting false spirits, wondering whether they should cut off JN> contact, etc. I often wonder what they would have gotten had either of JN> them been capable of taking a truly dispassionate approach to the JN> work. I second that! But somehow I think there will _always_ be a slant in one way or another. Look at _Vision and the Voice_. Crowley's visions were most definetely influnced by his background and had his "Thelemic" slant to them. JN> Whether the Enochian beings ever called themselves angels: The whole JN> enochian working was under the auspices of the archangels Raphael, JN> Uriel, etc, who appeared in person. Dee and Kelly encountered beings JN> who were specifically said to be their personal "angels". Laycock's JN> dictionary lists many names of angels they encountered, but most of JN> these come from parts of Dee's records I haven't seen, so I can't say JN> whether they actually identified themselves as such. Did Rapheal, Uriel, etc. use their "Hebrew" names ever, or did they always use their Enochian "equivlents"? I mean, if I were confronted with four evoked "entities", who called themselves by names in another language, and they had the four Elemental qualities to them, then I'm going to _interpret_ them differently if I'm a Wiccan rather than a Christian. Perhaps they were just fitting their visions to their accepted frmaework: "Oh, RAAGOSAL must be _really_ just another name for Rapheal..." and so on. JN> However, the Enochian entities did frequently (and still do, to me) JN> call themselves "ministers of God"; in the Elizabethan context, this JN> is just a fancy way of saying "angel". Enochian has the word "Noco" JN> (plural "noquodi") for "minister", though it applies as well to humans JN> as to angels. The record also includes the names of four groups of JN> beings specifically identified as being angelic in character: JN> Lang -- "ministering angels" JN> Luah or Luach -- "praising angels" JN> Sach -- "confirming angels" JN> Urch -- "confounding angels" I like the fact that "ministers" can be spirit entities OR human entities! Fits with my "equality for all spiritual beings" paradigm... Thanks for your clarifications, oh friend Magus... ... Sacred cows make great hamburger. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718