From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Michelle Hass 15 May 95 11:57:00 Subject: Re: JUGORUM UpdReq Thus said Michelle Hass to Paul Hume concerning Re: JUGORUM: Hi Michelle! MH> I am personally of the opinion that adapting the Gurdjieff Work MH> practice of "Cultivating The Witness" may be best of all in this. The MH> idea is to train your mind to be constantly, objectively observing all MH> of what you do, as sort of a background process. It's training your MH> brain to consciously multi-task. Having used something similar, I agree that this is an excellent practice, especially for those in the "outer orders". It can be done anywhere, in any odd moment that's available, with no outward evidence that it is being done. Thus nullifying the usual excuses for not working: "I don't have the time.", "I don't have a proper temple.", "It's embarassing to do it in public.", etc. It should be noted that the practice in itself doesn't lead to the specific sorts of results that Jugorum is intended to accomplish. It is excellent training for such, however. MH> Jugorum in all its myriad forms seems to me to be, mas o menos, MH> Skinnerian counter-conditioning. It's a very robotic way of getting MH> rid of the robotic actions you are trying to overcome. It would seem MH> that it would be counterproductive in the end. If you want to train the MH> mind to a greater awareness and vigilance, you don't use methods which MH> shortcircuit awareness. Punishing Nefesh is no way to strengthen the MH> link between Ruach and Neschamah. I wonder how many people who try Jugorum to stop a bad habit end up starting some sort of compensatory behavior. After all, that's how many neuroses get started in the first place -- you don't dare think about one thing, so the mind starts obsessing on something else instead. ... IHVH: Initiation Has Value Here. --- Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 * Origin: Access! Information Services (93:9000/2) SEEN-BY: 31/11 102/943 107/946 109/235 202/311 215/9393 401/0 513/200 666/119 SEEN-BY: 1000/1 3 1100/0 2000/1 4 11 9000/0 2 4 8 10 9007/0 9008/0 9010/0 SEEN-BY: 9020/0 9030/0 9040/0 9060/0 9070/0 9080/0 4 7 10 12 9081/0 9083/0 SEEN-BY: 9086/0 9090/0 9100/0 9200/0 9300/0 9400/0 9430/0 9500/0 9600/0 2 7 SEEN-BY: 9606/0 9608/0 9609/0 9620/0 9630/0 9650/0 9660/0 9680/0 9690/0 SEEN-BY: 9800/0 9900/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Josh Norton Area: Thelema To: Dolphin 15 May 95 11:57:00 Subject: This that and the other.. UpdReq Thus said Dolphin to All concerning This that and the other..: Do> whether Crowley actually did anything with the Necronomicon. I've Do> heard, or read about it somewhere or another, and found myself rather Do> doubting it simply because I've always considered the book to be just Do> regurgitated Lovecraft and didn't think Crowley would've involved Do> himself with it. Lovecraft invented the name "Necronomicon" as something nasty-sounding around which to build his horror stories. He never had such a book, never heard of such a book except as a plot device among pulp writers; and as far as he was concerned, anyone who thought it really existed was a looney. Since no version of the Necronomicon existed during most of his life, it would have been rather hard for him to have done so. Given Crowley's contempt for American literature, I doubt he ever even heard of it. I believe the earliest version was fudged up by L.S. DeCamp (another pulp writer) sometime in the mid-1940's -- only a year or two before Crowley's death. The popular Avon version wasn't invented until the 70's. ... From Cincinnati -- where pigs really DO have wings! --- Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 * Origin: Access! Information Services (93:9000/2) SEEN-BY: 31/11 102/943 107/946 109/235 202/311 215/9393 401/0 513/200 666/119 SEEN-BY: 1000/1 3 1100/0 2000/1 4 11 9000/0 2 4 8 10 9007/0 9008/0 9010/0 SEEN-BY: 9020/0 9030/0 9040/0 9060/0 9070/0 9080/0 4 7 10 12 9081/0 9083/0 SEEN-BY: 9086/0 9090/0 9100/0 9200/0 9300/0 9400/0 9430/0 9500/0 9600/0 2 7 SEEN-BY: 9606/0 9608/0 9609/0 9620/0 9630/0 9650/0 9660/0 9680/0 9690/0 SEEN-BY: 9800/0 9900/0 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Paul Hume Area: Thelema To: Dolphin 16 May 95 12:34:26 Subject: This that and the other.. UpdReq Dolphin - The Necronomicon, modern revisionist movements to the contrary, does not appear in any context prior to Lovecraftian fiction. Lovecraft himself is on the record (inhis correspondence) that he made up the name and the awful/awe-full contents, with the other writers in his voluminous circle of friends contributing colorful, hair-raising passages, etc. Crowley didn't work with the Necronomicon for the simple reason that there wasn't a "real" one then (nor is there now, come to that, as the various books making the claim - Simon, Hay, et al - are constructions by modern authors of what a working grimoire like the fabled Necronomicon would be if it did exist). There is no evidence that the two men, Crowley and Lovecraft, ever met or wrote, or that they were particularly aware of each others existence. Paul 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christeos Pir Area: Thelema To: Brian Dare 13 May 95 09:56:22 Subject: Re: HELLO? UpdReq -=> Brian Dare sent a message to Grey on 01 Jan 80 00:00:00 <=- -=> Re: Re: HELLO? <=- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. BD> Then _I_ must be the One True God! ;) ...and it's about time you acted like it! Love is the law, love under will. - V - ... I am clothed with the body of flesh; 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grey Area: Thelema To: Brian Dare 14 May 95 21:57:26 Subject: Re: The Unicursal He UpdReq Thanks for your comments. I appreciate constructive criticism from someone who actually attempts to understand what he reads, and not look for ways to pick it apart. I don't believe I ever referred to quoting the work of others as mindless, but accepting "traditional" findings without understanding certainly is. Not because the reader is stupid (though may certainly jump to the conclusion if told so), but because the writings themselves are so easily misunderstood. I simply take "traditional" interpretations of Holy Books and examine alternative interpretations. I never said that what I've experienced is gospel, or that my words are the One True Way, or that my interpretation of the unicursal hexagram was THE right one. I was simply trying to point out that a little examination of related texts can yield an amount of cohesive information. I got defensive because I immediately got pounced upon by someone who had made no attempt to understand what I was saying, but would rather compare new input with accepted "traditional" information. Every attempt with understanding something new begins with putting aside that which you already know. If not, are you really open to the possibility of learning anything new? Would we have discovered that the world was round? That electricity could be made by hand? Certainly Crowley never said his word was carved in stone. At any rate, the Tree of Life was not the first model I mentioned for the unicursal hexagram, so it truly is a moot point as to what of the umpty-ump thousand variations one uses to define it. Grey 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Grey Area: Thelema To: Keven Bold 15 May 95 11:11:10 Subject: What are you trying to prove? UpdReq I never claimed that what I said was gospel. I simply pointed out something I thought was interesting about the unicursal hexagram that had to do with the way it is formulated. You still haven't mentioned that part yet, too busy with the Tree of Life reference. As for standing criticism, I enjoy consctructive criticism, but I really don't have the time or inclination to listen to someone spouting off about every little word I write that doesn't conform to their dogma. You are not a critic. You are a whiner, and I have no idea why you started your little crusade about a simple observation. Your grasp of what I said was miminal, your study of Holy Books obviously nil, and your insults are totally uncalled for. I realize you have your own set ideas of the Way Things Are, and they conform to other people's ideas and books for your own security. However, some of us like hearing new ideas and concepts and their possibilities. Since obviously your study of magic has produced an Ipsissimus, answer me this... 1) What DOES make the unicursal hexagram different from a bicursal hexagram? In other words, why have two hexagram forms? 2) How do Liber Tzaddi, Liber CCC (3 and 12) and (36 and 69), figure? 3) Why is it called the Elevenfold Star? 4) Why is it also called another form of the Rose Cross? 5) Why is it also called the Holy Hexagram by those who are not totally obsessed by sex? 6) How do YOU perform the Star Sapphire at the end? Do you just stand there and say ARARITA ARARITA ARARITA and what does each utterance mean? What are the signs of Set and Baphomet? What is the sacrament? I don't know what you came here for. It certainly seems as if you came here to stroke your own ego by bashing other people's ideas with accepted ones. I came here for open discussion of ideas. Grey 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718