From: Ammond Shadowcraft Area: Base of Set To: Diane Vera 5 Apr 92 10:33:00 Subject: Your posts to Colorado Springs... UpdReq Diane, All your post made it to Colorado Springs. After reading them there seemed tobe nothing to reply to. We disagree on many things. We'll have to agree to disagree on them. And no I don't have the time or the energy to enumerate them all. Still, I like reading your posts, so please don't get discouraged. B^) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ammond Shadowcraft Area: Base of Set To: Nrrys 5 Apr 92 10:36:00 Subject: Neurological Relativism... UpdReq Date: 28-Mar-92 10:46 From: Nrrys To: Ammond Shadowcraft Subj: Visibility Hi! I was quite impressed with this post of yours. This echo tends to be filled with xian bull and bickering. Unfortunately, you have left me speechless with this one! I'm looking forward to more of this thread! Too many people discount Bob Wilson as one of those "useless" Discordians. Well thank you. My opinion is that Wilson, like his contemporarys Leary and to a lesser degree Lilly, tend to hang on the limb a little too far. But that's what motions-their-oceans. I don't subscribe to everything they write, but they sure seem to hit some nails directly on the head. In a world which seeks cognitive certainty, neurological relativism is not presently popular, but as neuroscience proceeds it appears that the research supports NR so strongly that one must wonder to what great degree the philosophy accurately models the Gift/Curse. If I remember the text, I was attempting to point to Diane that (as NLP teaches) a noticeable degree familarity of jargon and of pacing is sometimes needed when communicating with human nervous systems under the control of potent memes. Wilson writes of an experiment done by someone whose names I've now forgotten (and also commented on by Colin Wilson) with a domestic house cat. Its head was modifed to accommodate electrical sensors connected to a few brain fuctions. At the beginning of the experiment the cat was exposed to a continuous ticking which showed up quite nicely on the instruments connected to the electrical sensors connected to aural nerves. After a short period of time used to establish a baseline the cat was exposed to food (a squeeking mouse). The ticking disappeared from the instruments entirely as the cat concentrated on new information--ie. food. This shows that at least in the common cat (and experience confirms this for humans) that the host's nervous system has the ability to audit and censor incoming data. Thus, with PR it is evident that if he finds rigorus religious reason to ignore common sense his nervous system will filter out the data he doesn't want to experience and/or contemplate. That's a natural occurence for all humans. To penetrate this interminable filtering (culture trance as I call it) one can choose to pace with body language and/or jargon or burst through the trance with new information. Usually I try to pace first, but in this medium bursting seems to be a little more successful--and hence some of my antics are now exposed, but I'll continue anyway because it seems to work. B^) There's no denying the the Hebrew God Jehovah (or equlivant) is the literary (language itself is a spell of sorts) vessel for the ancient Hebrew Confederation to funnel their murderous intent into, sorta' a God to rubber stamp their hideous deads. Today Jehovah isn't the same critter. We live in a different time with intermingling cultures and advancing technologies. Even in Jesus' time the "Our Father" was a different God with a noticeable Hellenic flavor. That's why the Jews killed the heretic Jesus--he was Hellenized (and to a degree Egyptianized) and that was someting that the Jews struggled against in the Maccabbees War. But breaking through the Christian culture trance is difficult. Common sense and rational thought are demonized as the whorish concubines of the natural man. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ammond Shadowcraft Area: Base of Set To: Dirge 7 Apr 92 14:59:00 Subject: Re: "GAY RIGHTS" UpdReq In a message to Diane Vera <04-05-92 18:32> Dirge wrote: Di> The mere fact that homosexuals seek a special recognition of Di> *their* Di> rights as homosexuals indicates that they are seeking rights that Di> would Di> exceed those guaranteed to all citizens. If not, why would they need Di> such Di> special recognition in the first place? That's my sentiment. Instead of having laws protect homosexuals I'd rather have laws that protect *everyone* regardless of their sexual preference. I'd have that extend to co-habitating couples too! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ammond Shadowcraft Area: Base of Set To: All 7 Apr 92 20:42:00 Subject: Sane Occultism UpdReq Sane.1 of 4 In Christopher Hyatt's book Undoing Yourself Too he recounts a discussion he had with Israel Regardie who was perhaps one of the last of the great western occultist. After some chit-chat concerning how Israel generally gets himself in trouble with such published discussions, Christopher and Israel get down to business... HYATT: Does this explain why you don't want to bother with most people in the occult and psychology fields? REGARDIE: In a very large measure. As soon as they begin to talk it's offensive to me. HYATT: In which way? REGARDIE: Cosmic foo-foo. Flying saucers, star seeds, or whatever kind of crazy nonsense. All the stuff that's pure projection of their own need structures. Occasionally I will go to an occult bookstore here or there and browse around. I just listen to people talk. I don't say anything. Sometimes I may strike up a conversation to get them going. They don't recognize me -- that is until now, with all these photos you've published. I'll prod them, and just listen to the crap that follows. You see you have gotten me in trouble again. HYATT: Are these type of people what you refer to as sweet and light? REGARDIE: Yes, that and more. I would also call them lazy and infantile. They give the field a bad reputation. For them there is no evil, no lust, there is no nothing. They have the planes all mixed up. Everything changes by just wishing. Everything is nice, pure and holy, which it is au fond but not in their sense of the words. HYATT: Really they don't want to deal with anything. REGARDIE: No. Nothing! They're happy all the time... HYATT: Do you really think that? REGARDIE: No! Of course not. They're an abysmal mess. An abysmal mess. HYATT: That's probably one reason they don't like Crowley very much. REGARDIE: He would chew up this cosmic foo-foo and spit it out. Crowley made so many enemies simply by talking about sex, violence, etc., the way he did. And let me add this, you're creating a whole lot of enemies for us now in the opening of The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic, where you talk about sex. You will create a whole lot of enemies right away. This author sees a real need in the magickal communities to ground ourselves well and to have a useful map to work from. Without this grounding, without knowing where we are, we will fly off into the eternal vastness of cosmic foo-foo. Just the problems of sex and spirituality along with transcendence and embodiment are enough to derail most magicians. Just read along... HYATT: You recommended psycho-therapy for those people seeking to embark on the Great Work. It seems that most people don't pay any attention to your advice. REGARDIE: Absolutely. But never mind whether they pay attention, I'll still insist on it. You see it is the only valid requirement for a sane occultism. HYATT: What school of therapy? REGARDIE: I don't care. Any school. HYATT: Jungian? REGARDIE: Even that. Once they've been exposed to even a little bit of it, it's like a virus, like herpes, it takes root. HYATT: I feel that therapy doesn't get deep enough. REGARDIE: I agree with you, but it makes a beginning, that's all I'm concerned with. As long as some entry can be made into their armour somewhere along the road, then it's all to the good. The rest will happen, by happenstance, Karma, accident, call it whatever you will. HYATT: At least we can hope for that. REGARDIE: I think we can count on it. I will. It may not show immediately, but after some years it will. Look what it's done for your friend. Your description of him was that he is almost human! Miracles do happen. Any kind of therapy I think is absolutely essential for someone in this field, because as a rule they have absolutely no insight whatsoever. Now if they've been slightly oriented to the Crowley point of view, they're a wee bit different. But they can still be completely barmy. HYATT: What type of therapy is best from your point of view? REGARDIE: Listen, I have my own experience of therapy. I had one year of Jungian, two years of Freudian, four years of Reichian. There is no comparison between them. The year of Jungian was a wasted year. The only thing it did for me, and this is the most important thing, it made me delve into Jungian literature. I became conversant with the lingo. It gave me a philosophy which still has its place in my life, but as therapy I think it's utterly useless. And all this business of active imagination and making an image of figures in a dream and talking to them is plain mental masturbation. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Lady Byron Area: Base of Set To: Azrael 7 Apr 92 18:35:22 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq A> As to my being able to ask straight forward A> questions, I fear that my like of information keeps A> me from being able to do this. So I would ask you I understand the confusion. When I first started searching for my own Path, I had no idea what to ask or what I wanted. Now that I've pretty much formed my own ideas and found others of like mind, I can see how difficult it is to put it all in a nutshell. I can start by saying I don't worship any gods OR demons/devils. I don't believe in worship of any kind, and basically see worship as a form of kissing ass (sorry for the bluntness). I, personally, am a Setian, which,to me, differs slightly from a Satanist, but not a whole lot. I do not worship either Set or Satan, and don't really know if either exists objectively. However, Satan as a symbol is truly not a negative figure. He stands for opposition to the Cosmic Order, and the ability to think for oneself (i.e., the knowledge of good and evil). The Church and the Right Hand Path are much against this for various reasons. Hence, their need to give Satan and his "followers" a rather bad rap. Set is an ancient Egyptian diety that is basically the same sort of character. Out of Order came Consciousness. It is my individuality and consciousness that I exhalt above all else, and seek to nurture. This allows me to enjoy life to the fullest, with no concept of "sin" involved -- however, ethics plays a big part in my decisions. A> One of the writings that I downloaded, stated that "Satanism" used A> Satan as only a "figurehead" for a set of ideals. A> Why chose a figurehead that is so negitively A> recieved by the masses, if indeed all you what is a A> figurehead for a set of ideals? Enlighten me. I've wondered this myself when I first got involved. However, the definition of Satan as a bad guy that's negatively received by the masses is truly only the way the Christian faith and followers of other Right Hand Paths see him. He does not, to me, stand for any sort of "evil" or "harmful and malicious" energy. He has come to stand for the unwillingness to conform, the ability to be individually creative, and the lust for life. All these things the Church seems to wish were absent in human nature, but are not. It is very important to look at both sides' opinions, as you are so consciously and intelligently doing. Please feel free to ask any further questions of me and any other people on the LHP. Cheers! Lady Byron 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Nrrys Area: Base of Set To: Balanone 6 Apr 92 19:23:08 Subject: re: Moderator UpdReq BA> N> X SLMR 2.1a X Second thing we do, we kill all the Moderators! BA>You have a delightful way of encouraging an echo's moderator BA>to step forward ... Oops! I didn't know you were the EchoGod here! I thought it was someone out of Purgatory. Well, you can call me annoying, or you can call me obnoxious, or you can call me ... Thou art god! NRRYS ___ X SLMR 2.1a X I have a weird feeling none of this has happened before.. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Nrrys Area: Base of Set To: Jonathon 6 Apr 92 20:47:20 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq JO>FA>Nobody on here is going to change their approach from a message on a JO>FA>Bulletin-Board. JO>Or even from several hundred messages Oh, I don't know... I have much faith in my interlocutory powers! Thou art god! NRRYS ___ X SLMR 2.1a X I came close to seeing Elvis, but my shovel broke! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Dirge 7 Apr 92 18:28:52 Subject: Gay rights and feminism UpdReq On April 5, you wrote me a message titled "'GAY RIGHTS'" in response to my March 29 message to Ammond Shadowcraft, "'Breeders' and 'illusions of union with the Universe'": . D > The mere fact that homosexuals seek a special recognition of *their* rights as homosexuals indicates that they are seeking rights that would exceed those guaranteed to all citizens. If not, why would they need such special recognition in the first place? I refer you to the recently voted-upon bill here in California regarding gay rights. .What????? Did you get this idea from the wording of the bill itself, or from right-wing Christian propaganda? Care to quote the bill? .Every gay-rights bill *I've* ever heard of merely prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such bills are referred to as "gay rights" laws *NOT* because they give gays any special privileges, but because gays need the protection of an anti- discrimination law, since gays are hated by many. .Similarly, laws against discrimination on the basis of religion could be referred to as "religious minority rights" laws, even though they don't give religious minorities any rights that Christians don't have, but merely guarantee that unpopular religious minorities have the same rights as Christians. Aren't you glad the U.S. military has a rule against religious discrimination? You yourself benefitted from this rule; you'd probably be in deep shit without it. But it didn't give you any privileges over Christians. .You also objected to my phrase "oppressor group". Can you suggest a better term? What word would you use, for example, to describe the position of Christians relative to persecuted religious minorities (such as Satanists)? If Christians (especially fundamentalist Christians) aren't an "oppressor group", then what are they? .Also on April 5, you wrote me a message titled "FEMINISM" in response to my March 29 message to Ammond Shadowcraft, "Feminism and you (1 of 2)": . D > May I ask if you consider the reverse to be true? Can a woman be qualified to advise men on their gender-specific problems merely because she has never experienced them? Can book-study replace experience in such matters? .Perhaps book-study *could* be sufficient, but how many men do you know who are seriously interested in studying up on the subject of women's experience? How many men do you know who even bother to try to understand? Many women, on the other hand, are constantly trying to understand men. For example, magazine articles on "How to save your marriage" are nearly always found in women's magazines, *not* men's magazines. Most men will just settle for thinking the women in their lives are silly or irrational, and will make little or no effort to understand. .I myself get around this problem, at least in my intimate life, by being into S/M and being a dominant woman. The men in *my* life damn well *better* listen to me.... :-) However, I wouldn't recommend this as a solution for all women, because there are only a limited number of good submissives to go around.... 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Dirge 7 Apr 92 18:34:44 Subject: Satanism and politics UpdReq In your April 5 message to me, "'GAY RIGHTS'", you wrote: . D > I think what we've managed to discover over the last few months of this "gay bashing" debate is that Satanism is a big enough house to contain people on both sides of the issue of gay rights. More generally, there are left-wing Satanists, right-wing Satanists, and middle-road Satanists. .I'm glad *you* think so, but one sure wouldn't know this from reading the OTS files, which try to define not just the OTS's own philosophy, but also Satanism itself, as a right-wing political and economic philosophy. .Of course, the OTS is merely following in the tradition of CoS, which has also become (in recent years) primarily a vehicle for the promulgation of Anton LaVey's political views, and which (like the OTS) tries to claim that Satanism in general requires those views. Actually, in LaVey's case, it's hard to tell how seriously he really believes some of the stuff he says, or whether he has simply made a business decision that extreme right-wingers are his market. .By the way, I wouldn't be at all surprised if extreme right-wing views are indeed held by a sizable fraction, perhaps even the majority, of the less educated (i.e. less truly "Elite") types of Satanists, who do not have access to computer networks. But among those Satanists who do have computers, the majority seem to be indifferent to politics, while those who *are* interested in politics are typically libertarians. .If indeed the majority of uneducated, non-"Elite" Satanists are extreme right-wingers, I think the real reason would probably be that most Satanists are former fundamentalist Christians and therefore have a lot of attitudes in common with fundamentalist Christians, who are typically right wing. (The irony is that such Satanists like to think of their political and economic views as "truly Satanic", when in fact those views are shared by the most regressive Christians: the very same types of Christians who are most likely to have an intense hatred for Satanists and other occultists.) .See also my message to Azrael, below. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Azrael 7 Apr 92 18:37:36 Subject: Re: left-hand? UpdReq On April 4, you wrote to Lady Byron, "Re: left-hand?"? . A > One of the writings that I downloaded, stated that "Satanism" used Satan as only a "figurehead" for a set of ideals. Why chose a figurehead that is so negitively recieved by the masses, if indeed all you what is a figurehead for a set of ideals? .Good question! I assume you are referring to the Ordo Templi Satanis documents. The person you should ask about that is Dirge. .I've been wondering the same thing myself. It seems to me that defining a political or economic agenda as "Satanic" is hardly an effective way to promulgate it. (And besides, not all Satanists agree with the OTS's agenda.) What makes it even stranger is that there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who hold almost identical political/economic views, except for the part about sexual freedom. .To me, the idea of "Satanism" makes sense only if it is primarily a form of religion and/or magick, *not* a political or economic stance. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Dirge 7 Apr 92 18:39:06 Subject: Quickie descriptions of a belief systemUpdReq And now, on a friendlier note: .On April 5, you wrote to Azrael in a message titled "ENLIGHTENMENT": . D > If you have been here for any time at all, you should know better than to demand that someone "enlighten" you. Merely coming in with an empty cup and insisting that it be filled is not the way to learn anything. If you were to ask specific questions, then I am certain you would receive specific answers. But merely asking for a quickie description of their entire belief system is beyond the scope of computer messages! .I personally think it's in our interests to be able to provide quickie descriptions. It isn't easy, but it is possible, and in my opinion it's a skill worth learning, at least for those of us who are interested in educating the public. Remember, we live in the era of short attention spans (alas!). .I'll be interested in your comments (if any) on the quickie description I'll be providing in my message to Azrael, below. Of course, it's far from complete (and a *complete* description *would be* impossible); but I think it's a helpful start. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Diane Vera Area: Base of Set To: Azrael 7 Apr 92 18:40:28 Subject: What is Satanism? UpdReq On April 4, you wrote to Lady Byron, "Re: left-hand?" . A > As you're more than likely aware, I am almost completely uninformed as to what your beliefs are. I have done some reading (mostly books obtained at local bookstores for the open minded) but other than that I have not had a chance to openly discuss this topic/area of study with anyone that was informed. .What books have you read? . A > As to my being able to ask straight forward questions, I fear that my like of information keeps me from being able to do this. So I would ask you to give me a breif over view of your belifs (just basics please) and I will be able to start asking questions of a more direct nature. .As Dirge correctly told you, there are many kinds of Satanists. My own view can be summed up as follows: .A common modern magic(k)al theory (held by many kinds of occultists, not just Satanists) regards the "deities" of any religion *not* as literal entities, but as human-created thought-forms through which larger, impersonal magic(k)al energies can manifest. Deities exist only in the minds of people who believe in them; but they nevertheless are manifestations of real power. .My form of Satanism simply takes this standard magic(k)al theory and applies it, as consistently as possible, to the fact that we live in a Christian country. The power of any deity is related to (among other things) the number of people who put energy into that thought- form, either by worshipping it or by connecting with it in some other way (e.g. by fearing it, as most fundamentalist Christians fear Satan). But the Christian "God", as seen by mainstream Christians, is anti-magic(k)al. Magick is considered to be "of the Devil". Therefore, the most powerful magic(k)al deity in our culture is Satan. .I do not regard Satan as "evil", but as representing a wide assortment of human traits and magic(k)al energies, neither good nor bad in themselves, which mainstream Christianity aims to repress. Remember, Christianity calls itself "the Narrow Way" and, as such, Christianity considers a lot of things "evil" that a non-Christian wouldn't necessarily consider evil. .Does this explanation make sense to you? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718