From: Christeos Pir Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 4 Oct 94 19:14:26 Subject: Gnosis letter UpdReq -=> Josh Norton sent a message to Christeos Pir on 01 Oct 94 13:09:00 <=- -=> Re: Gnosis letter <=- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. JN> Thanks much. I find I agree with you, though judging from the I-net JN> and Compuserve sections that deal with magick, I can see how Tim got JN> his opinion! Not many places have the level of interesting discussions JN> we get here. I agree. Much nicer people here, too. JN> Such is life. Nice to be in such prestigious company, though. BTW, is JN> Sr. Chen off the nets, or is she just lurking in echos I don't read? JN> And how 'bout her vituperative SO? Her old man is no longer part of the picture. And, since the Mumbo Jumbo Kathedral is no more, I'm afraid she won't be on the nets anytime soon. She'd be too busy anyway: just bought a new old house and is renovating it (last I heard, she was busy sanding several decades worth of lead-based paint off the kitchen walls), plus doing the Bahlasti Papers, plus a full Lodge schedule, etc, etc... Love is the law, love under will. - CP ... Eternity is in love with the productions of time. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: MICHAEL AQUINO 30 Sep 94 09:06:00 Subject: RE: SECRET RITES OF THE O UpdReq -=> Quoting Michael Aquino to Joseph Max <=- MA> Is nothing sacred? No, nothing. Was that an answer? ... ebius tagline. This is a moebius tagline. This is a mo ... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: ANDY BENDER 30 Sep 94 09:06:00 Subject: Re: MARRY 'EM AND BURY 'E UpdReq -=> Quoting Andy Bender to All <=- AB> Anybody know where I can find something approximating a Thelemic AB> marriage ritual? Or any kind of Qabalistic ritual, for that matter. AB> Much gras... Yes. Pick up a copy of _The Way Of The Secret Lover_ by Christopher S. Hyatt and Don Milo Duquette (New Falcon Press, 1991 ISBN 1-56184-044-0) and consult Chapter 14: "The Ceremony Of The Sun And The Moon -- Being a Ritual of Marriage designed for the Cojoining of two souls in Nuit and Hadit", composed by David Cherubim. Quite a lovely one, too.... ... "Kindness is my true religion." ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Michael Aquino Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 1 Oct 94 11:22:54 Subject: Re: Eyebrows UpdReq TMT> So, like, are you the guy I saw on Geraldo? TMT> If so, you sure did have some cool eyebrows! Like, I am. As for the eyebrows, they are "original equipment". [The eyes beneath them get a little more bloodshot all the time from the ongoing "Bad Craziness", as Hunter Thompson would say.] 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Fir 3 Oct 94 11:08:00 Subject: Solar enlightenment UpdReq Thus said Fir to Josh Norton concerning Solar enlightenment: Fi> Hi Josh! Hi! Fi> Pretty good. Getting ready to visit San Diego. Sis is going to Fi> let me put down a sleeping bag at her place and I'm really Fi> looking forward to meeting some of the folks down there. You're sure getting around a lot lately. Fi> Then looking to get serious during the winter. I recall you Fi> telling Kayla on the Enochian echo that your scrying comes more Fi> easily seasonally in the summer. Yeah. I've concluded that it's due to biorhythms and the lack of sunlight. If I keep lots of lights on all the time in winter, things seem to get easier again. JN> But I still space out occasionally, as I'm sure you've noticed. Fi> You were here what, 17 days straight? You seemed pretty present Fi> to me. Heh. All those Leo planets of yours must have focused my attention. ... Do you daydream about your inability to fantasize? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Julia Phillips 3 Oct 94 14:05:04 Subject: organization UpdReq I am not sure about the reception of Buckland in your homeland, but in Cincinatti, the covens that I am familiar with seem to completely bypass Gardner and force their members to read Buckland. I am not necessarily saying that Buckland had a clue, just that it appears that he is quite important among the Wiccan crowd in this area. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 3 Oct 94 16:21:02 Subject: Chaos magick practices UpdReq Thus said Joseph Max to Josh Norton concerning Chaos magick practices: Hi Joseph! I think maybe we're getting back on track here... a few of your recent messages (especially the ones to which I responded in yesterday's batch) made me wonder if you weren't really a member of CSICOP trying to infiltrate the "opposition". The content was about magick, but the attitude that seemed to be expressed was remarkably like that of Carl Sagan or Martin Gardner. Or even more closely, of Steven Weinberg, a highly intuitive man whose world-view doesn't permit him to admit the existence of intuition. JM> Well, _I_ never said that older symbols are "useless". I use them JM> quite a bit! The only superstitious thing about the use of symbols that JM> I can see being a problem is if one does not recognise the fact that JM> they are _symbols_ and confuse the symbol as being the higher reality JM> itself. That is certainly NOT the impression you gave before. You seemed to be saying that ALL use of pre-Chaosian symbols was superstitious (your word) and all the regalia and pomp of ceremonial magick useless. JM> When I spoke of stripping away symbolism, I spoke of _useless_ JM> symbolism. For example, I know you do quite a bit of Enochian work. Do JM> you think the outrageously ponderous Golden Dawn system, with it's JM> plethora of (often conflicting) symbology and page after page of JM> excessive verbage is required to work with the Enochian archtypes? The JM> old Golden Dawn certainly thought it was, and repeatedly warned against JM> working with Enochian Magic without it. The main problem I have with that is: Useless to whom? And useless at what point in their careers as magicians? Personalities differ in their degree of need for drama and aids to focus; I don't deny its usefulness just because I now find it irritating personally. And veterans can get away with shortcuts that wouldn't be possible for the less experienced. As far as the G.D. goes, it's obvious that they weren't a terribly experimental or creative bunch; they borrowed from earlier sources without questioning the content overmuch. And as Victorian Englishmen who hadn't yet absorbed the lessons of Hume and Kant, and were focused on the importance of projecting the Proper Image, all that pomp was probably more effective for them than for superannuated hippie like me. In re Enochian, I agree that all that stuff isn't necessary for the invocation side of the equation; the calls and names alone are sufficient in most cases to produce a response. But on the other side of the equation -- making sense of the response -- a mental armory full of symbols and myths is absolutely essential. I'd hesitate to label _any_ symbol as useless or "wrong", even if it doesn't make sense to me at a particular point in time. What seems useless to me at one point often turns out to be extremely useful at another. Even the Bible has lots of useful stuff, once you can look at it dispassionately. JM> So I guess I feel that I have followed the old maxim of "learn the JM> rules first, _then_ break them." If one hasn't learned the symbolism, JM> how can one "strip it away"? _Not_ learning it in the first place is JM> NOT stripping away. There is a difference. I agree, but why didn't you say that in the first place? JN> The Chaosist insistence on ignoring the initiatory aspects of magick JN> seems terribly strange to me; like having a huge hoard of gold coins, JN> but only using them to pry the lids off paint cans. Or owning a JN> mansion but only using a single room in the basement. JM> I'm not sure I follow you here -- why do you think that Chaos Magick JM> ignores the "initiatory" aspects of magick? In the first place, would JM> you agree that the only "true" magickal initiations are those one puts JM> _oneself_ through? Or are you of the opinion that there _must_ be an JM> "initiator" as in another human being involved? I've always felt that JM> that idea is closer to the Eastern mystical school of "guruism" -- that JM> one _must_ have a guru to attain enlightenment. This was primarily a response to the results-oriented terminology of your previous messages, and to your apparent insistence that changes in inner states are unimportant unless they produce observable changes in behavior. Many initiatory experience _don't_ produce such changes, because they deal with realms other than our mundane lives. Or because they produce changes in perception and understanding that don't require any change in behavior, despite having a supreme importance for the subjective self. This becomes more true the farther you go. Disregarding these seems to me to be missing the whole point of magick. I agree that real initiations come out of our own work and our developing relationship to the rest of the universe. The "official", ceremonial initiations of some organization at best provide only an _opportunity_ which we have to convert to our personal context. As for the necessity for an initiator -- that's a deep subject. Briefly, my feeling is that every initiation requires the imposition of force upon the initiatee from outside himself, in order to move his consciousness into a truly new level. This force needn't be the result of conscious and deliberate focus by some being, though it often is. Certain natural forces -- such as astrological forces -- produce the same effects. JM> Aw, don't take it so hard. Some of us aren't so bad... JM> I can JM> understand your reluctance to be lumped in with a lot of the idiots JM> that call themselves "Chaos Magicians", though. You'd have to put me in the "forerunner" category, since I've been doing things this way longer than Chaos magick has been around. JM> Maybe I see myself as JM> having a "sacred mission" to counter that perception. JM> And I like to tilt at windmills in my spare time...... Heh. I get that way about the Setians from time to time, to their aggravation. JM> But they're kind of stuck with the "erisian" viewpoint, through which JM> they filter everything. The whole Chaosist "ideal" is to not have _any_ JM> single filter to run everything through. Which is basically the discordian position. That what Wilson was getting at with his talk of "reality tunnels". JM> But you must admit that many, if not most, "traditional" ceremonial JM> magicans (especially those who consider themselves "Pagans"), _do_. But most pagans explicitly put their activities into the category of "religion", not "magick". The intent is definitely different, though I'd be hard put to define the difference. The gods know _they_ certainly perceive a difference! JM> The fact that the context _does_ keep changing (becasue existence is JM> but a manifestaiton of the Primal Chaos, of which change is the only JM> constant) is why old symbols must be canstantly re-evaluated and JM> altered to fit the times. This is the challange that modern magicians JM> must come out of the dusty library and meet. Haw! Which is exactly what I said in my diatribe yesterday! ... I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michael Aquino 3 Oct 94 16:42:04 Subject: book of coming forth UpdReq Thus said Michael Aquino to Josh Norton concerning Re: book of coming forth: JN> How do you reconcile this statement with certain assertions made by JN> Setians during our discussion earlier this year, and not contradicted by JN> yourself? I.e. that at the core of a human being is a "self" completely JN> separate from, and uninfluenced by, the rest of the universe? JN> Is the Set you experienced simply a part of that "self" which is not JN> under conscious control? It seems to me that, if any part of this JN> experience of Set has its origins in the universe outside that "self", JN> then we must either conclude that the experiencing entity is not that JN> core self, or the core self is not free from outside influence. Which? JN> Or do you offer a third alternative? MA> [See also my response to Joseph Max on this.] Thanks for a responsive answer. MA> Well, I would have to say the "third alternative" in that MA> we are talking about MA> two "orders" or "strata" of isolate self-consciousness - MA> and I grant that this MA> is a complex notion to wrestle with. The Egyptian apprehension of MA> _neters_ is well-discussed in the various de Lubicsz books [nicely MA> conversationally in _Her-Bak_], and it is this system that was MA> re-presented by Pythagoras, and then by Plato as his "Theory of the MA> Forms". It represents an entirely different way of distinguishing MA> phenomena [or entities] than our modern science is accustomed to. MA> [It MA> was no surprise to me that Carl Sagan, or "Old Turtleneck" as I call MA> him, came down hard on Pythagoras, Plato & their ilk in a _Cosmos_ MA> segment.] Yeah, Carl definitely suffers from a lack of imagination. I'll have to check out your Egyptian references before commenting on that part of it. Since I'm broke at the moment, that will be a while. Egyptian imagery is important in my work, but I don't pretend to use it the way they did. Nor do I want to. Hmmm. So you're ascribing to the "core self" of a man an existence akin to that of a Platonic Ideal, which is reflected imperfectly into various lower planes, but is uninfluenced by those reflections? I can see right now that we're never going to agree about this; I'm having trouble twisting my thinking around to fit what I think is your view. But let me ask another question to clarify your position. (I'm playing Socratic Stooge here, not necessarily conforming to my own view on the matter.) One problem I see with Ideals lies in one of the fundamental characteristics of magickal work: feedback. Or, if you prefer, invocation and response. It's typical of all initiatory magick that a "lower" self invokes a "higher" level, and gets a response therefrom. The supposed relation of a Platonic Ideal to the world -- to the extent it has one -- is all one way, downwards. If the Ideal is uninfluenced by its reflections, where is this response coming from? Or, to phrase it differently, what is causing the lower, imperfect self to raise its awareness towards the Ideal? I suppose you could say that it is coming from another reflection on a higher level. If I understand your interpretation of Crowley's experience correctly, you are saying that his consciousness was becoming progressively identified with reflections closer and closer to the level of the ideal or "core" self. Or with less particularized and/or more generalized reflections of that self. But it seems to me that if the ideal is totally uninfluenced by its reflections -- and therefor unresponsive to them -- then attempting to identify the consciousness with the Ideal Self would be subject to asymptotic effects. One could get arbitrarily close (as close as the theoretical "highest" reflection of the Ideal) but could never quite get to the point of identity. Comments? Another thought occurs to me -- perhaps we have a divergent understanding of what "isolate" means in this context. Care to provide a definition? ... AGLA: A good laugh, afterwards. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 3 Oct 94 00:48:00 Subject: book of coming forth UpdReq JN> In Western culture I discount the Pentecostalists and other charismatics JN> (by far the largest group of direct-contact types) because, while they JN> emphasize personal _contact_ with the divine, they appear to have a JN> definite aversion to making _sense_ of those contacts. As far as JN> understanding the divine goes, they still insist on trusting the JN> preacher's interpretation. If you don't toe the preacher's line and JN> recite the right buzzwords, you get prayed over until you wish you had. JN> At least that's true here on the edge of Appalachia. JN> JN> I don't know if the various Voudous are really similar in that respect, JN> but to this unknowledgable outsider's eye, they seem to be -- JN> except for the "toe the line" part. And the situation is even more JN> screwed up in the regions where voudoun gods are identified with JN> Christian saints. JN> Anyone else got an opinion? Yeah. Why do you think it is the same in Voudon? In those sorts of religion, the Loas/Orishas themselves (who could be counted as gods anyway) act as go-betweens for the worshipper. This is leaving aside the personal experience of deity that many of these people have acting as a horse for one of these entities. Wassail, Grendel Grettisson 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grendel Grettisson Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 3 Oct 94 00:49:02 Subject: Sod Off UpdReq TM> Obviously you have no Idea of peace, and you have mistaken me TM> for someone who gives a rat's genitalia for what you do. If TM> you can not respond to conversations intelligently, I suggest TM> that you keep your glorious platitudes to yourself. Now, if TM> you think you can respond with a decent amount of knowledge or TM> concern, then I will begin to correspond with you again, else, TM> I can ignore your messages like most others do. Aren't you precious? Grow up and come back when you can converse like an adult and not a little boy. Wassail, Grendel Grettisson 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ar Aakhu-t Area: Thelema To: Fir 3 Oct 94 02:19:00 Subject: Liber Resh UpdReq 93- Yeah, howdy! Um, I don't remember for sure, but what it most likely was was Resh as written, plus an adoration. The text says to use the adoration given to you by your holy guru, so for lack of better guidance I use the adorations in Liber Al, the rhymed verse in Ch. I and continued in III which was Crowley's paraphrase of the writing on the front of the stele. Goes like: Above the gemmed azure is the naked splendour of Nuit She bends in ecstasy to kiss the secret ardours of Hadit The winged globe the starry blue are mine O Ankh af na khonsu Then it continues in Chapter III: I am the lord of thebes and I the inspred speaker of mentu for me unveils the veiled sky the self-slain Ankh-af-na-khonsu whose words are truth I invoke I greet thy presence O Ra-Hoor Khuit. Unity uttermost showed I adore the might of thy breath supreme and terrible God who makest the gods and death to tremble before thee I, I adore thee (at this point I sometimes, like for special occasions or when I am feeling moved to do so, I insert the phonetic egyptian of the preceding verse: A ka dua Tuf ur biu Bi aa khefu du du ner af an nuteru {and on with: Appear on the throne of Ra open the ways of the Khu Lighten the ways of the Ka The ways of the Ka run through me to stir me or still me AUM Let it fill me THe light is mine its rays consume me I have made a secret door into the house of Ra and Tum of Khephra and of Ahathoor I am thy Theban O mentu the prophet Ankh af na khonsu By Bes Na Maut my breast I beat By wise Ta Nech I weave my spell show thy star-splendour O Nuit Bid me within thine house to dwell O winged snake of light Hadit Abide with me Ra-Hoor-Khuit (Then, as the ritual says, you pass into meditation for a moment or a while. THat's, I'm sure, what we did up there- because a bunch of people saw me do it that way first, that's the way they've learned to do it, but I know there are different interp[retations of how it should be done. One point I know is that I've heard some, such as Sor. Meral, insist that the first verse from Ch. I should not be included. I don't know why- I like it. Also, doing in my way ,akes it just the right length so that if you start at Dawn just when the sun is peeking up, when you finish it will be all the way above the horizon. And likewise for Sunset. 93/93 /\ . . \./ \,/ -AR AAKHU-T X >< X /'\ /`\ bb125@scn.org \/ 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: Kevin Bold 27 Sep 94 07:44:52 Subject: Re: Qabalistic Cross UpdReq KB> The fact is that the verse from the psalm which you said contained the KB> QC formula doesn't contain it at all. I never said any such thing. Please quote when you reply to messages, I'm very confused as to what you are going on about and can only guess that this is in reference to the QBL.faq extract which I posted, but did not write. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: JOSEPH MAX 27 Sep 94 07:59:18 Subject: RE: SECRET RITES OF THE O UpdReq Na> Perhaps from one of the many who were formulating Chaos magick Na> long before Carroll came on the scene. JM> I've been informed Spare used the term. I did a scan I could find no references to "Chaos magick" in "Anathema of Zos", "The Book of Pleasure" or "The Focus of Life". JM> I would debate the idea that anyone could have been JM> fomulating much of anything resembling Chaos Magick before JM> Crowley threw Spare out of the A:.A:. for being too weird JM> and Zos Kia Cultis came on the scene. My primary frustration with this is that I was working on a Chaos magick concept independently and found a bunch of other people were starting to use the same term. When I checked them out, I found we had entirely different ideas of the Work. So far, no problem. But then they packaged it, and it became organized, rigidified and not especially chaotic in any meaningful sense. JM> I see nothing wrong with using a broad-stroke defintion to JM> distinguish a particular "tradition" of working that can JM> find it's "roots" in Z:.K:.C:. as distinct from say, JM> Thelemites. Now _there's_ a "group" with a particular lack JM> of concensus! And therefore, better candidates as Chaos magicians. JM> As far as negating the concept, I can see the point JM> semantically, but it seems like nit-picking to the extreme JM> to me. Go argue with the IOT about it, I did, got frustrated with Carroll's (surprisingly) conservative attitudes. Decided he didn't have anything to do with Chaos. JM> but hey, my Temple got thrown out of the IOT for being too JM> independent. "Chaos Magick Order" -- now _there's_ a JM> contradiction in terms! Sounds like your experience with him mirrors mine. JM> Of course, Chaotes being what they are -- chaotic -- it's possible JM> that others use other terms or make up new ones. You can call it the JM> "H.G.A." or the "Augoeides" or "My invisible friend Fred" for that JM> matter, as long as _you_ know what you mean. Na> Since I don't believe in such a thing, I don't call it anything. JM> What an odd attitude for a past or present Chaote to have. I don't follow the "party line" of Carroll and his cohorts. JM> Have you been keeping up with your meta-belief exercises JM> lately? _Any_ belief structure can be useful on certain JM> occasions, so long as one does not find oneself locked into JM> any _particular_ belief structure, which appearently you JM> have. Strange comment. By my not having a belief you're saying I'm "locked into" one? (even ignoring the fact that you have no way of knowing what is or is not a "temporary" belief of mine). At any rate, I don't think one's relationship to belief structures has any to do with Chaos magick. Example: I believe that air contains oxygen. It's stupid to believe otherwise, and not especially useful. I have certain beliefs, one of which has to do with the fundamental nature of the Universe which lead me to a conception of Chaos magick, others regarding social interactions and personal exploration which are expressions of that. That's why I used to call myself a Chaos magician. Since people say things like "we Chaos magicians call it the Augoeides" I don't bother any more as I would have to spend too much time trying to explain that I'm not that kind of Chaos magician. BTW, I don't think that "any" belief structure can be useful, but that's a matter of personal opinion so I won't argue the point. JM> I have personally experienced certain psychic JM> effects that match the pattern of the H.G.A. phenomenon, and framing JM> the experiences in the more-or-less traditional structure of "Knowledge JM> and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" proved to be a useful JM> model for deriving further effects - but that's all there is to it. Fair enough. I have no complaints with your personal experiences or beliefs based on them, but I don't like it when you suggest that "we" all hold those beliefs. JM> Whether I want to attribute any "higher" level of pragmatic JM> reality to the experience is a totally moot point. "Nothing JM> is true, and everything is permitted", right? Nice idea, but not very practical. JM> Forgive me for saying so, but I can see no particular JM> advantage to your attitude, since you are limiting your JM> possible range of experience for no purpose *I* can see, JM> other than coming off as trendy... Interesting remark, since I'm dissenting from the party line. If that's being trendy, then great. I hope more people do it. Na> I can no longer refer to myself as a "Chaos Na> magician" because numerous references to "we Chaos magicians" has Na> made the term has become misleading (or at best, meaningless). JM> And hence, more in keeping with the concept, by your logic! The less JM> "concrete" meaning there is to the term, the better, right? The term has not become less concrete, but more, and in such a way as to be misleading. It is (at best) meaningless in that it's become a minor variation of the same old magic(k) and not the radical departure it should have become. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 27 Sep 94 07:43:06 Subject: Re: TOPY UpdReq TMT> Sorry about not quoting the messages, but I don't have an offline TMT> reader/editor so how is it possible? Depends on the BBS you call. Most of them do provide for quoting. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 27 Sep 94 08:35:06 Subject: Re: liber al prophecy UpdReq JN> I agree that it's probably not worth arguing about. My personal JN> feeling is that Thelema would still get along quite well if all its JN> "official" organizations were to suddenly vanish. At this point, A.C.'s work is so well established that it might survive the OTO and A.'.A.'.. However, this wouldn't have happened without those organizations promolgating and defending his work. JN> The current was never under their control, and isn't JN> dependent upon them for spreading itself. Not under their control certainly, and at this point, not necessarily dependent but someone would have to fill their shoes and I don't see any organzations willing or able to do so. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Navitae Area: Thelema To: To Meta Thereon 27 Sep 94 08:44:02 Subject: Re: organization UpdReq TMT> A Thelemite that is unfamiliar with Crowley?! I have been secluded TMT> too long! I thought that it would be impossible to even joke about TMT> being a Thelemite w/o reading as much Crowley as possible. We live in a post-literate society. TMT> I still buy whatever I can get my hands on and read it TMT> thouroughly. That's like the Christians not reading the TMT> Bible! the Muslims w/o the Koran and the Wiccans w/o TMT> Gardner or Buckland! I've met lots of Wiccans who haven't read Gardner or Buckland. No great loss actually. TMT> i can understand the myriad interpretations of Crowley, TMT> because that is what he desired to keep Thelema from TMT> breaking into sects, but it is when these views are TMT> impenetrable that one runs into trouble. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, but I'll comment anyway. I suspect that A.C. didn't mind if Thelema broke into sects, or at least diversified. There is a point in the A.'.A.'., for example, when one can start ones own Thelemic organization or lineage. Sure, when views become impenetrable there are problems. Do you see a lot of that happening? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: TO META THERION 1 Oct 94 09:22:00 Subject: Re: CHAOS MAGICK? UpdReq -=> Quoting To Meta Thereon <=- TMT> My theory of chaos magick is the actual pulling down and utilizing TMT> bits and pieces of the surrounding chaos and molding it into the TMT> shapes and forms that you seek. If this is to be practiced, then the TMT> resulting creation would be highly unstable and could revert to chaos TMT> immediately. If this is so, then you are correct that Carroll has TMT> just hooked on to the chaos name to grab followers. TMT> The only problem with the Chaos Magick as I understand it is that it TMT> _is_ Highly unstable, and a mistake could lead you into oblivion. Carroll "hooked" onto the name from the works of Austin Ossman Spare, who published his works about 75 years ago. And the first "publications" by Carroll were privately circulated to members of his Order only. Not exactly the way to "hook" followers... Primal Chaos is the source of all existence, so the practice of _any_ magickal form could be considered as what you describe. Chaos is _not_ disorder, for both order and disorder are manifestations of Chaos. The designation of "Chaos Magick" by Carroll came along in the early 1970's before science had come up with "Chaos Mathematics", which thrust the term into the public consciousness. This is why so many maladjusted misanthropes have glommed onto the term to describe lighting black candles and f**king to Psychik T.V. records. What a joke... And if those idiots and their boy/girlfriends come unglued by mucking around with their subconscious garbage heaps in that fashion, it is not the fault of Spare, Carroll, Genesis P. Orridge or anyone else who has used the term to describe their Magick. These people will lead _themselves_ into oblivion no matter _what_ they have or do not have access to. How many people have gone over the edge by practicing Thelemic magick, or even Wicca? Many more than have ever even cracked a copy of _Liber Kaos_, I assure you. If you're going to destroy yourself with Magick, you _will find_ a way to do so. I call it natural selection at work. Consider it vacuuming out the gene pool... ... Reality-ometer: [\........] Hmmph! Thought so... ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Joseph Max 4 Oct 94 17:14:28 Subject: Re: MARRY 'EM AND BURY 'E UpdReq By the way, that's the same ritual as in Taboo 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: To Meta Thereon Area: Thelema To: Michael Aquino 4 Oct 94 17:14:56 Subject: Re: Eyebrows UpdReq So, what do Setians do? I am sort of familiar with Lavey and his lycanthropy ritual, but beyond that it sounds like a lot of physical and little mental magickal interaction. By the way, one of my friends got his legs broken while performing the lycanthropy ritual. Is this normal? He said he drew in too much negative energy and a car purposefully swerved to hit him. If that's what your rituals do then, nevermind. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Fir Area: Thelema To: Ar Aakhu-t 4 Oct 94 00:05:00 Subject: Liber Resh UpdReq 93, Thanks much Ar for posting that. Had you heard Leon talk about the Tarot before? Isn't he amazing? Like many others in this area, I went through one year of Outer Grove with him and I learned so much from that experience and from that man! 93 93/93, Fir ... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 30 days. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ar Aakhu-t Area: Thelema To: Fir 4 Oct 94 01:23:00 Subject: Liber Resh UpdReq 93- FF> Had you heard Leon talk about the Tarot before? Isn't FF> he amazing? Not specifically on the tarot, no. Leon's pretty remarkable. It was too bad, though, that he only had time for an introductory whiz through the cards. I'd like to hear him go into more detail, since (at the risk of sounding obnoxious) I was already familiar with most of what he covered, save for a few details. But it was a good lecture, a good evening. BTW- for the benefit of others, we're talking about a lecture on the tarot given by a local notable at a meeting of Cro-Maat Camp here in Seattle. FF> Like many others in this area, I went through one year of FF> Outer Grove with him and I learned so much from that experience FF> and from that man! I've heard an awful lot of good about him- haven't made the time commitment to any of his classes yet. 93/93 /\ . . .___/__\___. Ar Aakhu-t `./ \,' / ,><. \ bb125@scn.org /' `\ ... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 30 days. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ar Aakhu-t Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 4 Oct 94 01:24:00 Subject: Hey howdy! UpdReq 93! You get my flyer in the mail yet? 93/93 /\ . . \./ \,/ -AR AAKHU-T X >< X /'\ /`\ bb125@scn.org \/ ... This copy of GEdit has been unregistered for 30 days. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Serpens 4 Oct 94 08:29:00 Subject: 'LEAVINGS' UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Serp...I remember a while back, you posted a message asking about how to obtain the 'leavings' for making the cakes'o'light. At the time, I wasn't ready to make any myself, so didn't pay as much attention as I could've...*now* I'm wanting to prepare some, and of course, I can't remember what the concensus on the best way to obtain/create this ingredient was. :/ Will I have to ferment my own red wine, or...? Thanks! ;> Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Serpens 4 Oct 94 08:31:38 Subject: PLANETARY RITS UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Hi again Serp.... I remember briefly discussing planetary magick, a la D&P with you. Do you have any thoughts on the suitability of the outer planets for this general type of ritual? I realize it isn't 'necessary' to include any but the 'traditional seven' archetypes, but it seems to me there are subtle differences in how the energy manifests, and I'm thinking bout creating some personal rituals designed to approach and tap on Pluto, Neptune, and Ouranos, and was wondering if you had tried anything similar, and what kind of results you did or did not obtain thereby. Talk to ya later! Love is the law, love under will. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ned Area: Thelema To: JOSH NORTON 5 Oct 94 02:19:00 Subject: ideal/core self UpdReq JN>Hmmm. So you're ascribing to the "core self" of a man an existence akin JN>to that of a Platonic Ideal, which is reflected imperfectly into various JN>lower planes, but is uninfluenced by those reflections? JN>One problem I see with Ideals lies in one of the fundamental JN>characteristics of magickal work: feedback. ... JN> .... If the Ideal is uninfluenced JN>by its reflections, where is this response coming from? JN>But it seems to me that if the ideal is totally uninfluenced by its JN>reflections -- and therefor unresponsive to them -- then attempting to JN>identify the consciousness with the Ideal Self would be subject to JN>asymptotic effects. One could get arbitrarily close (as close as the JN>theoretical "highest" reflection of the Ideal) but could never quite get JN>to the point of identity. JN>Comments? I dont see an asymptotic approach to the ideal as presenting a problem. A Platonic ideal is theoretically inexhaustable, so any particular, finite identification is neccesarily short of total. The "response" or "feedback" might be of a passive nature inasmuch as it is inherent in the ideal - its manifold particularizations collapse into whichever single response finds resonance in the individual. The characteristic of feeding back to the particular could be a primary, or *the* primary, trait of the ideal. In fact, if it wasn't, how could humans apprehend it at all? If this doesn't make sense, well, you've only yourself to blame for appending the open-ended "Comments?" line. Ned. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: JOSEPH MAX Area: Thelema To: JOSH NORTON 2 Oct 94 09:39:00 Subject: RE: PETER CARROLL UpdReq -=> Quoting Josh Norton to Joseph Max <=- JM> He said he worked out the Equations of Magic JM> originally as a mental exercise for his own benefit - a way of coming JM> up with _some_ kind of logical structure to allow him to accept the JM> existence of magic. Once that was attained, the equations "might as JN> Hmmm. OK, as a means of overcoming over-rationality, I'd buy it. It worked for me... JN> Just curious -- have you ever read Korzybski's "Science and Sanity"? JN> If not you ought to, since you come from an engineering background. JN> Might give you a different perspective on the use of symbols and JN> meaning. No I haven't -- but on your recommendation, I shall look it up! JM> Well, as I pointed out above, he never claimed to have done so. But JM> then, has anyone ever tried hooking up a magician to an EEG or a CAT JM> scanner and had hir perform magical work? Not that I've heard of. Maybe JM> someone _should_! JN> The closest I know of is the TMers. It would certainly be interesting, JN> at the least. Though I have doubts about its usefulness beyond JN> confirming that something is going on. Problem with the TMers is that they are trying to "prove" what is to them a foregone conclusion. But I think I might try to look up some of their research records and see if anything can be gleaned from them. JN> Even an NMR -- the most JN> sensitive means available at present -- only shows the general level JN> of activity in various brain regions. It's a long way from determining JN> what the person is actually doing with all that activity. Perhaps the key is in approaching it dynamically. Say perhaps a measurement is taken after applying a certain kind of stimulus, either direct brain stimulation, or sensory stimulation via virtual reality images or the like, and measure what parts of the brain respond at what levels and to what stimulus. Another approach that might actually put Carroll's equations to practical use is in the area of divination, which according to Carroll is a reverse function of the equations for spellcasting. If his curves mean anything, then the more likely something is to occur by "chance" the easier it is to affect. The curve is exponential and rather steep. I saw it as like balancing a heavy weight so that a small amount of force is all that is required to tip it over. In experiments on ESP using zener cards, the subject has only a 20% chance of "guessing" the correct card. Say an experiment is set up where the subject has an 80% chance of guessing correctly. If Carroll is right, the "weighting" makes it easier to use ESP to select the outcome correctly. All we are looking for is a deviation from the baseline -- it matters not if we draw the baseline at 20% or 80%. Then the "positive" responses should increase rather dramatically when divinitory powers are brought into play. Say use trained Tarot readers as test subjects and "normals" as a control. Wouldn't be too hard to try out, really. Hmmm, this is all off the cuff right now, but maybe I'm on to something here.... I know a few Tarot readers (including myself) hmmm.... I'm gonna consider this seriously. JN> I'll leave a critique of his "Aeonics" for another time. (Though I'll JN> remark that that "psychohistory" figure looks suspiciously like a JN> biorhythm chart.) JM> So does a DNA strand - does that mean that we should be suspicious of JM> the existence of DNA for that reason? JN> "That was a joke, son." OK, ok.... But I rather agreed with his approach. I've yet to find anyone who can poke any serious holes in his logic. Actually, the most useful part of _Liber Kaos_ was "Liber KKK", the section on a self-taught course in magickal work. JM> Consider it an updating then. If I can understand his system of color JM> associations, it negates the need for me to subject myself to the JM> archaic, mind-numbing ordeal of learning to think in terms of "Chesed" JM> and "Hod". Most of the point of Carroll's work is to yank the Art of JM> Magick out of the archives of the British Museum, out of the JM> Kabbalist's cloister and drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st JM> century. Why is it that Magick must _always_ be considered an "antique" JM> art? I don't _want_ to have to learn Hebrew -- it makes my throat hurt! JM> And "Blue" has much more brevity than "Deep azure flecked yellow" JM> anyway. So why _not_ update it for 21st century sensibilities? JN> Oh, come on! Every specialization has its jargon, most of it "mind- JN> numbing" until you get used to it. Engineers are among the most guilty JN> in this respect, as are physicists. (Educators are the worst, but JN> their intent is to obfuscate, not communicate. ) And you don't think that _most_ of magickal "traditions" are designed to obfuscate!?! Look at the Golden Dawn -- how many currently operating lodges require learning Tattvas? And the whole idea of Geomancy was to come up with a divination system that was more direct and less mired in archaic symbology. And what about the Enochian system -- should we have told Dee and Kelly, "Forget it, guys - we already have the Trre of Life, we don't need to introduce all this "Watchtower" stuff. And, hey, we have the three (four) levels of higher existence already laid out by the Kabbala, and here you guys had to come up with THIRTY levels with this "aethers" bit..." I've yet to see any "unified theory" that can link the Kabbala and Enochia without loose ends all over the place. A whole lot of "ancient" magickal tradition is predicated on the idea that it takes a lifetime of mind-breaking work to derive even the most minor psychic abilities, but nowadays we have people manifesting psychic powers almost spontaniously without a scrap of training! Sure, it's undirected, and therefore potentially dangerous to those it is affecting, but it's happening! I truly believe that that is part of the "changing current" of magick itself; fewer burning bushes, more spontanious telepathy. Using the metaphor of physics, one could compare the "old" traditions of Magick to Newtonian physics. Works fine, as long as you aren't trying to encompass anything outside it's scale. But when a whole class of phenomenoa was detected that Newtonian physics didn't cover, Relativity theory had to be proposed to cover them. Now we are seeing the same thing happen in Magick. I know young, untrained people who seem to be manifesting impressive psychic powers with no training whatsoever, and "tradition" says that's not possible! So clearly it's time to propose a new framework that can account for this. Carroll's Aeonics provide a possible answer, or at least the underpinnings of one. JN> The value of such jargon is that it is a standardized shorthand that JN> simplifies communication between practitioners; when knowledge JN> expands, you add the minimum number of necessary new symbols, and JN> modify interpretation of existing symbols to the minimum extent JN> necessary to fit the new ideas. This provides continuity over time, JN> and makes the accumulation of knowledge possible. Imagine the hell JN> engineers would go through if the label for "e" or "i" were JN> arbitrarily changed every ten years or so! You do have a point, and I'm not in favor of scrapping the old ways altogether. A good quantum physicist knows hir Newton, and we still use Newtons equations to launch spacecraft. But allow me to propose a different metaphor: Ptolemy worked out a Geocentric system of planetary movement that _did_ account for all of the observed motions of the planets -- but it was _horribly_ complex. Copernicus came up with the Heliocentric system that also accounted for it and was _drastically_ simpler. But the "old guard" didn't want to accept it. I think we're seeing the same thing happen in magickal metaphysics. JN> The fact that we use archaic symbols doesn't mean that we use them in JN> an archaic manner. The value of these symbols lies in the fact that we JN> know that, at some time in the past, each of these symbols served JN> large numbers of people as an expression of one of the root-factors of JN> their perceived reality. And when certain patterns of symbols repeat JN> themselves over and over in human history, through many different JN> cultures, we can be fairly confident that they represent some factor JN> common to human experience in general. It can be thought of as physicists or engineers working in different languages. A _whole_ lot of engineering work is done in Japan these days, but we can't expect all English and German speaking engineers to be required to learn Japanese techinical terms. Like it or not, there will be a need for "translation"; as long as the base meanings are comparable, I don't think it's required for a Japanese engineer to speak German. All engineers these days seem to have a passing aquaintence with English tech terms, so probably any good magician should have a passing aquaintence with the Kaballa - at least enough to relate it to whatever their "native" language may be. JN> They are the subjective equivalents of "e", "i", and Pi -- constants JN> of human experience that have many different uses depending on the JN> context to which they are applied. The fact that they are JN> trans-cultural demonstrates that they originate on some "deeper" level JN> of our being than the conscious mind. Otherwise their appearances JN> would have been wiped out along with the myriad of consciously-created JN> and culture- specific fads of thought that have come and gone over the JN> millenia. The problem with your "pi" metaphor is that the meanings of such things as "Hod" or "TEX" cannot be reduced so drastically -- by their nature they encompass many "layers" of meaning and cannot be "reduced" further. "What's in a name? Would not a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" JN> I see our job as magicians as not to simply accept and work with the JN> archaic interpretations of these common symbols. Instead it is to JN> extract their trans-cultural essence, discover how they are expressing JN> in our own natures and our world, and to re-organize our conscious JN> self- and world-perception so as to integrate these expressions. Practicality is the criteria to judge, as I see it. I don't think Carroll's "Colors of Magic" is a total negation of the past corrospondences. In fact it uses the classic planetary relationships quite directly (more directly than the Kabbala, the way I see it.) JN> Additionally, we need to discover -- by exclusion of those things -- JN> the parts of ourself and world that are not capable of inclusion JN> within the limits of existing symbols, and to provide _tentative_ new JN> symbols for them, so that understanding of their action can be JN> gradually elaborated over time. I'd take it a step further and declare ALL symbols, old or new as equally tentative, with effectivness in context as the criteria by which they should be judged. JN> It is through exactly this process, and the public communication of JN> results and ideas, that magick is constantly being updated to fit our JN> changing context. There is no need to "drag it kicking and screaming JN> into the 21st Century"; it is already moving there at a steady pace, JN> WITHOUT the need to radically change its base-symbols. JN> Even if you restrict magick to the thaumatugic variety, it seems to me JN> that proper use of these older symbols would increase the JN> effectiveness of the work. As Carroll points out, most of the work of JN> magick is done by unconscious parts of the being; the conscious mind JN> generally interferes with their action. The older symbols are what JN> these parts are already working with; they are the language of the JN> unconscious. Communicating with them in a way they understand would JN> likely get them to work more effectively. The problem I have with this idea is that as cultural contexts change, so does the applicable symbology. Take the Tarot as an example. It was a product of Mediterranian culture. One of the symbols in say, The High Priestess is the pomegranate. The "archtype" of the many-seeded (therefore "female") fruit of that tree had a cultural connection to people of that region. It was part of their lives, and figured in things like the stories they heard as children. But to a native North American, it's culturally meaningless. On the other hand, an oak tree has great cultural meaning to a North American. It is the "mighty oak", it is "strong", it represents growth from humble beginnings: "from a tiny acorn, comes a mighty oak tree..." and so forth. It is laden with cultural symbology, but totally absent from the "classic" Tarot. The point is that one raised in N.A. culture has a symbolic connection with the archtype of "oak" that could be magickally effective and useful due to the subconscious imprinting that comes from being raised in that particular culture, whereas working with a "pomegranate" would _not_ have the same kind of resonance. It has to be _learned_, and such learning aquired as an adult will _never_ resonate as strongly as what is learned "at your mother's knee". Likewise the ideas of "Lotus Flower" or "Elephant" cannot carry the same corrospondences to an American as to an Indian. A Hindu child learns that Gonesh is "the strong friend", but thanks to Walt Disney, an American child thinks of Dumbo! The upshot of all this is that _there are no universal archtypes_! I believe such an idea is as silly as the "luminiferous ether" was in theroetical physics; an idea that was proposed primarily so that the ideas of classical physics wouldn't have to be revamped (to the great embarassment of classical physicists.) You seem to be proposing that a metaphysical equivilent to luminiferous ether exists - an "absolute framework", and I can't go along with that idea. In this way, I'm a Relativist - I say there is no absolute framework, it's all relative. To backtrack a bit: JN> Even if you restrict magick to the thaumatugic variety, it seems to me JN> that proper use of these older symbols would increase the JN> effectiveness of the work. As Carroll points out, most of the work of JN> magick is done by unconscious parts of the being; the conscious mind JN> generally interferes with their action. The older symbols are what JN> these parts are already working with; they are the language of the JN> unconscious. Communicating with them in a way they understand would JN> likely get them to work more effectively. This is where the Eight-Color scheme seems to make the most sense. The old style of relating "red" to "sex" for example - I could never figure that one out! Carroll's scheme relates it to War, Blood, Violence, Aggression, Mars - makes a lot more sense to me. Or relating "green" to "money" or "wealth" - hey, only in America is money _green_! Relating green to Life, Nature, Venus, Love, etc. seems to be a more universal application. The only way we'll ever get even within spitting distance of "universal arcgtypes" would be to simplify them as much as is possible, and Carroll's system goes a long way in this direction. The I Ching begins with eight trigrams, and derives more complex meanings by combining them into a dynamic combinations yielding 64 hexagrams. This is the way to go about it, I think. JN> I think I'd be less annoyed with Pete if he didn't have a lot of JN> good things to say amongst all the flummery. So I'm curious -- what did you see as "good things"? ... "Truth, sir, is a White Elephant." -- Samuel Johnson ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718