From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 10 Sep 92 13:34:06 Subject: The great work UpdReq VI>OK, you could look at it that way, though what I'm saying is that >there is only one flow, from separateness towards (I didn't say "to") >Unity. The `up' and `down' flows are actually one and the same, from >two different points of view. "Is the flag moving, or the wind?" Hmm. We're getting into a subtle point here, and I'm not sure how to express the distinction I want to make clearly. Let's see... While there IS a flow towards unity, there is also a simultaneous flow towards greater diversity -- not "separation", but "diversity". That is, the universe becomes more complex and varied as it evolves, as well as becoming more integrated. In contacting the downward flow, we participate in the creation of that diversity, while our contact with the "upward" flow ensures that our own creations will be in general concordance with the divine intent -- to the extent that the randomizing factors I mentioned elsewhere allow it. Both aspects are important. And to avoid being dualistic we shouldn't forget the "sideways" flows that are always present -- between ourselves and our fellow creators of the same or nearby levels, and the effects of macrocosmic and microcosmic flows as they affect our levels while passing through channels other than ourselves. And never forget things like the planets, which exert a sideways or centripetal action on almost all the levels we deal with as human beings. * SLMR 2.1a * Antelope Freeway -- 5 Mi. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Crat 10 Sep 92 11:54:08 Subject: Right & Wrong 1/ UpdReq CR>It is nice to know that even R.A. Wilson has read G.B. Shaw's "Major >Barbara" You're right. It's been so long since I read the old bustard that I didn't recognize the similarity. * SLMR 2.1a * Scratch a conservative and you will find a feudalist. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 10 Sep 92 11:57:10 Subject: Re: karma UpdReq VI>OK. I'll see if the message is still lying around here somewhere >under a virtual pile of imaginary stuff. I checked the Sex Magick echo on another local board, and found lots of message from you, but none to do with Karma. Maybe it got delayed somewhere in the pipeline, so I'll check again. * SLMR 2.1a * Does Atlantis have the Buddha-nature? Mu! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 10 Sep 92 13:42:14 Subject: Traffic UpdReq VI>And so we do, above the abyss. But `down' here, duality Is. VI>??? Sounds personal. We think in dualities in the everyday mode, >because the everyday world abounds in duality, indeed, is only >possible because of it. As for traps, _all_ limitation is a trap. But >in order to manipulate the manifested, we must use the limitations >that are our `handles' or `hooks'. What's the big deal? Sure, it's a >trap to use words, but until our minds can communicate directly, >words are a useful, and necessary, tool. So, too, are such limited, >and dualistic, sub-abysmal concepts as "duality." No, no, no, NO! We think in dualities because our language CONDITIONS us to think in dualities, and nobody has ever taught us to think in a different way. It is not inherent in our minds, as the existence of non-dualistic languages like Hopi demonstrates. And it is certainly not inherent in the world. SOME dualities exist, but very little of the world is dualistic. Most of the time, when someone talks in a dualistic manner, it is a simplistic reduction of processes that are actually more complex -- sheer mental laziness. But I shouldn't be bitching about this too much, or I'll put myself in the same position that I was complaining about in Michael Lee -- alleging the existence of something without being able to offer the details. Let's just say that while I am convinced a non-dualistic system of initiation is possible, as yet my view isn't clear enough to formulate the details. A well-developed non-dualistic system for thinking about normal matters already exists, in General Semantics. VI>Sounds good to me! Are you sending one directly to either Tony I. or >Fr. Nachash -- no need for me to spend LD money in duplication. I'll send one to Nachash -- I don't have Tony's address. * SLMR 2.1a * Laws create criminals 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Grendel 10 Sep 92 12:59:16 Subject: Traffic UpdReq GR> If you make sure these texts get on a BBS with V32 9600 bps connections >(like Mysteria or Baphonet), I'll file request them for my >BBS here in Seattle. As an alternative, you could send a >copy to my PO Box like you did for your own material, but >the first would be cheaper for yourself. I would really >like to get this stuff on my BBS one way or another though. >I'm the only BBS in the Western half of Washington with a >large filebase of this sort of stuff. I'll send them along when done. At the moment, I'm debating whether to spend the necessary amount of time reproducing the few 3-d diagrams in _Anatomy_of_the_Body_of_God_, or to just forget it until I can locate someone with a flatbed scanner. Most of the 2-D diagrams are done, and need only be converted to GIF format. * SLMR 2.1a * Laws create criminals 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 10 Sep 92 13:16:18 Subject: Right & wrong UpdReq VI>JN> Writing is such a chore for me that I sometimes VI>Beg pardon? I'd hate to see you set your mind to something _easy_ in >that case! Or perhaps it's the friction that causes the energy your >posts generate. It IS a hard process for me. The only exception is bureaucratese, which I can put out at the rate of about four pages per hour. The rest of the time, writing is like wading upstream in hip-deep water. The only reason I work so hard at it is that it is the only alternative I have to speaking, and due to some weird congenital defect that runs in my family, I'm literally tongue-tied when I try to put complex thoughts into speech. VI>In either case, "then play on..." Ah! You liked that Fleetwood Mac album too, eh? * SLMR 2.1a * Never trust an occipian. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 10 Sep 92 09:10:02 Subject: The Great Work UpdReq JN>IM(current)O, the entire universe, including everything from the JN>"material" world on out into that infinity in front of which we hang the JN>labels "God" and "the divine", is part of a single _continuous_ and JN>_integrated_ process of creative activity. There is nothing to be JN>"repaired" because the material is still in the process of being shaped. JN>It was not, as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view holds, created in a JN>perfect form, and then somehow "fallen" into its present state, from JN>which it has to be "raised" again. Yes. Part of the problem, IMAO, is that we persist in using the old terms to describe these events. Perhaps what we are trying to describe as "the fall" is better described as "the implementation". JN>KL>But the difference between a "simulation" and a "field test" can JN> >often lie in the perspective of the tester. JN>Hmm. I can't come up with an example of this offhand. Did you have some JN>specific instance in mind? Only the hypothetical case in which the simulation is sufficiently detailed that it supports artificial intelligences. Then, from the POV of the designer of the simulation, it's a simulation. From the POV of the AI inhabitants of the system, it's a field test. For a more real-world case, we need to address the question of what a simulation really is. I consider a simulation a test in an artificially restricted environment. If something is field tested in a sufficiently restricted environment, can it be considered a simulation? (Sword blows can be simulated using real swords and real people, but restricting the range of movement so the sword is constrained from intersecting a person.) JN>KL>That might be a good analogy. Maybe the universe is like an individual JN> >performance of a play? JN>Sure, if you allow us to change the plot and dialog ad libitum, and run JN>thousands of performances at the same time. Improv, then? JN>But in that analogy, we JN>would again run up against a possibly-false duality, this time between JN>the "masks" and the "players". Many esoteric theories hold that what we call the personality, or individuality, or whatever, actually IS a mask, adopted for one lifetime, and discarded at the end of one incarnation. Emperical verification of this theory is somewhat problematic, of course. JN>KL>Your very interesting message ends abruptly here. I think one of the JN> >nodes on the echo is owned by Procrustes. :-) JN>Well, better it chops off my messages than my legs! Not from *MY* point of view! You can still type without legs, but I can't read the part of the message that's chopped off! ___ X SLMR 1.0 X Don't question authority. It doesn't know either. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Ian Kesser Area: Thelema To: Vitriol 11 Sep 92 04:04:00 Subject: Great Work UpdReq Quoth Vitriol: (Quothing Me): V> > we could answer this question. I cannot say how, and will not V> > even play with because. V> V> Hmmm... according to the Holographic Model of existence: V> V> As Above, So Below. May he be damned for a dog! :) With Love, Ian MMST 2.09 UnRegistered - Of COURSE I'm on topic (Which echo is this?) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718