From:    Khephera                               Area: MagickNet
To:      GardenStone                            17 Jul 96 08:10:16
Subject: Mahaseh Berashith IV                   UpdReq 

On Jul 14 17:32 96, GardenStone of 93:9200/1 wrote:
K>> If you guys find this interesting, then I'll post the following
K>> artical.  I havn't written the third and final one yet...but perhaps
K>> within the next few days....
G> Thanks Khepera.
G> Just go on. :-)
Okey Dokey....I'll get the other in here in a day or two.  ;)
Blessed Be, may Yahweh and His Asherah guide and keep thee,
Ar ReX Em SeXem Eref Neter Au-a
Rx
Khephera


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Khephera                               Area: MagickNet
To:      Falcon                                 17 Jul 96 08:11:44
Subject: revelations                            UpdReq 

On Jul 05 11:37 96, Falcon of 93:9200/3 wrote:
F>>> perfectly right. Let's trash all the theory and build some nuclear
F>>> reactors without.
K>> We are speaking about Magick, not nuclear reactors.
F> are you sure there is such a qualitative difference? why?
There is a huge difference.  If you can't see that, then you have a long way 
to go indeed....
F>>> Sometimes, Khephera, sometimes your "Dogma" is necessary to harvest
F>>> results
K>> Total and utter Bull that shows me you have very little practical
K>> experience.
F> haven't had such a good laugh for years. Khephera, I _did_ write you that 
[...]
F> that what you call "Dogma" could well be called magickal theory.
F> And it is a fact that on certain magickal paths, you need your "Dogma", 
i.e. 
F> magickal theory, before you can even think about the practice. You cannot 
F> work in enochian without knowing a bunch about it.
And to assume that any part of it is immutable (ie, a Dogma) is incorrect.
K>> Stupidity is often defined as doing the same thing time and time
K>> again- expecting different results.
F> reread my mail. Khephera, a general hint: *Read* my mails. All of them. Try 
F> to understand the context, not only the lonely sentences.
Not a chance.  If you can't get your ideas across correctly, that is not my 
problem.
F> If you do so, you will see what I was refering to with the above sentence, 
F> namely that some things have a long way to go before reaching a goal. 
Yes, they do.  But, you also said that:
F>>> later, sometimes _much_ later. You may know that something doesn't
F>>> give results now. But how do you know that it will _never_ do so? A
If you perform an operation that does not give the desired results, then you 
screwed up.  Period.  Even Operations that are supposed to take a long time 
(like Catholic Mass, for example) still have an affect from one Rite to the 
next.  If you don't see those affects, then you're doing something wrong.  
The results are only the expected results of any one part of the operation- I 
did not say anything about the long-term goal of the operations.
F> Science is a prime example, but do you know even a single magickal path 
that 
F> was not developed over time? Most of them had little effect in the start 
and 
F> grew in power as mistakes were cut out and other people contributed better 
F> ideas. Your idea of "works=right, doesn't work=wrong" applied to them - we 
F> would miss nearly everything that's called magick today.
Wrong.  You have just proved my point.  They had little effect at first- but 
they DID have a little.  Over time they tried new things.  Those things that 
worked they kept.  Those that didn't work, they tossed.  And thus the 
sophisticated Magickal Traditions we have today.
K>> There is *nothing* in Magickal Practice that you have to do over and
K>> over again for it to work.
F> wrong, wrong, thrice wrong. Have you ever read a single book about 
F> ceremonial magick? Huge parts of that path are all about doing things again 
F> and again.
You really have no clue, do you?  Certain operations are cumulative, yes.  
But, to think that any one part of the operation doesn't have it's own 
expected results is ignorance.  Which....you do seem to have a way of 
showing...;)
K>> The only argument for your favor is Ritual Magick-which is designed to
K>> be done over long periods of time for long-term affects.
F> "the only argument" and then referring to the prime western path. You 
really 
F> get me laughing today.
Laughter is about all you should look for.  Because certainly that's all there 
is for you.
K>> Once again, you are attempting to apply Magickal practice with
K>> Scientific Theory- something that can not be done.
F> oh, the great guru knows exactly what can be done and what can't. Khephera, 
Thank you for finally admiting this.
F> there are people, *real* magickans, working on that front. Magick can learn 
And I suppose you are one?  You have yet to show me the first bit of evidence 
of that.  You have posted nothing of any Magickal relevance, and have 
repeatedly shown me in your arguments that you don't have the first clue 
about what you're speaking of.  You flip and flop all over the place so much 
it's not even funny.
Well....actually it is.  ;)
F> from science as much as science can learn from magick. It is exactly that 
F> they _are_ different world-views that makes this exchange fertile.
Yep.  But, as I said (and you just agreed with), the ARE different world-views.
K>> I am speaking of Magick here- the mental planes, not the "real world"
K>> of nuclear reactors.
F> if your magick is on the mental planes only, it only encompasses a quarter 
F> of the world. I'd call that a failure.
But you have nothing with which to compare that with, do you?  Here's an idea: 
 post something of interest.  You're ignorant little "challenge" to me fell 
on it's face.....yet I go on posting relevent posts and talking to other 
active Magick users on real techniques and Magickal Theory.  You have yet to 
post the first message of the sort.
How does it feel being Conan's patsy?  :):):)
Blessed Be, may Yahweh and His Asherah guide and keep thee,
Ar ReX Em SeXem Eref Neter Au-a
Rx
Khephera


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718

From:    Khephera                               Area: MagickNet
To:      Falcon                                 17 Jul 96 08:22:54
Subject: words                                  UpdReq 

On Jul 05 11:36 96, Falcon of 93:9200/3 wrote:
K>> And your point is?
F> written in the next sentences. Why don't you read all of my mails before 
F> replying? It would stop a lot of useless traffic.
Like I said, your communication problem is not my own.  You apparently seem to 
think your posts are MUCH more important to me than they ever could be.  
Basically, you're just noise.  I've ignored you in Magick, and I'm about to 
ignore you in here.
Hmmmmmmm......if an idiot rambles on, and no one listens, is he really an 
idiot?  I guess in your case we shall soon see.  :):):)
(you see, I CAN make use of Scientific Principal!)
Blessed Be, may Yahweh and His Asherah guide and keep thee,
Ar ReX Em SeXem Eref Neter Au-a
Rx
Khephera


201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718