The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn
Fr. A.o.C.
existence.
The Order's website can be accessed at: http://www.osogd.org where
information can be found regarding our Work, Lineage and Manifestation.
The Manifesto of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn,
issued on the Autumnal Equinox, 23 September 2002 CE,
may be viewed at:
http://tahuti.osogd.org/osogd.org/aboutUs.html
Please address inquires to the Cancellarius at: cancel...@jdshome.com
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> The Manifesto of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn,
> issued on the Autumnal Equinox, 23 September 2002 CE,
> may be viewed at:
>
> http://tahuti.osogd.org/osogd.org/aboutUs.html
>
>
I find in interesting that the first line of the page at the URL above
begins with Crowley's:
"Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs."
This has always been taken to mean that all of the Golden Dawn rituals
are no longer valid. It basically was saying that Crowley should have a
group to replace and/or supersede the GD, something he created (or
attempted to create) with the AA.
So my question to you is, if all of the GD rituals, ordeals, words, and
signs are abrogate, why not call yourself something other than the GD?
By the way, thanks for posting all of the flying scrolls.
Re
aethyr augoeides
Re: AL: c. I v. 49:
Actually, the above seems like the dogmatic, literalistic, perhaps most
surface of interpretations available (rather than *the* solitary truth
available), one that breaks down pretty easily as soon as you realize
that Crowley didn't actually whole-hog replace everything (illustrated
by copious borrowing from GD and other 'old aeon' resources) or
completely reinvent the wheel, but rather took his Cue from:
'Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be
cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this
Knowledge go aright. ' -AL: ch. II v. 5
What the first quote (ch. I v. 49) above really means, poetically, seems
more along the lines of "don't trust anyone over the age of 30" ;)
rather than some sectarian 'secret society' quibbling attempt at ?,
I read it as a general rule-of-thumb rather than a precise algorithm to
bludgeon my friends with.
(Your mileage may vary. See regular Class A Comment on Legis as
catch-all disclaimer)
At least that seems the obvious Second interpretation immediately
presenting itself-
A less assuming, more meaningful truth *all-in-all* if you want my
opinion...
Most if not all of Legis has taken on this more subtle shade of meaning
for me. If I want 'literal' truth, I'll ask my local Catholic priest
what the Pope says and consider the matter closed.
BTW, the GD moniker *itself* was even retained in the 1907-1909
reformulation: the Outer Order being denoted by the selfsame initials
G.'.D.'.- and this fact has not changed even today AFAIK. At least One
Star in Sight has not been edited to reflect any difference here. If
there wasn't this wholesale borrowing going on, it'd be a lot easier to
take the Surface interpretation (suggested above) a little more
seriously. As it is, I find it a difficult truth to try to use or defend
in this particular way. However, if it's useful for you, I am sure you
can get some more use out of it. I won't stop you from claiming it as yours.
BTW, nice graphics, programming, and content on the website, thanks!
yours in thelema,
aa
deqvf
aethyr augoeides
>In article <3D901EEB...@address.com>,
> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Manifesto of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn,
>>issued on the Autumnal Equinox, 23 September 2002 CE,
>>may be viewed at:
>>
>>http://tahuti.osogd.org/osogd.org/aboutUs.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
On the website:
> So we conclude that the form of the Golden Dawn system is modifiable
> "for reasons of Tribe and Culture," and in fact requires of us to do
> so given the vast cultural differences between 1888 England and
> ourselves today.
This seems thee more mature/ modern interpretation ov Magick. Not
woo-woo mysticism, but culture and brain-centered research.
Later on same page:
> Since the essence of the Golden Dawn constitutes "mysteries," and
> insofar as they are valid they transcend culture, every time the
> culture shifts, the Mysteries must be "rediscovered" -- which is to
> say they must be re-cast into a form that has the desired effect of
> Initiation and Exaltation on practitioners belonging to the new culture.
This is excellent! A dynamic picture of revelation, not static! This is
something I can roll with!
Later, same page:
> The revelation of the once-secret Hermetic symbols and philosophies
> that are the foundation of the Golden Dawn's system has long since
> occurred, yet we still see Lodges swearing their Aspirants to absolute
> secrecy with mighty oaths of death and destruction, if they dare to
> reveal to the uninitiated the "secret knowledge" which the uninitiated
> could buy cheaply at a used book store. We see no reason to follow
> this defunct and even harmful approach.
So true! Once again, if the only available interpretation of the 4th
power of the Sphinx is to Shut Up, Mind Your P's and Q's, and Obey the
Man, what the hell do I have to do with the Sphinx?
Later, same page:
> _Duty_: The Order will not require or promote any form of moral dogma,
> religious canon, apocalyptic doctrine or political philosophy. In
> keeping with the well-established and eminently wise tradition of the
> original Order, the civil, moral and religious beliefs and practices
> of the individual members are none of the Order's business, however
> much the teachings and practices of the Order may deepen awareness of
> one's commitments.
You mean this isn't some pyramid scheme where I can give you my money
and throw away my brain and all my personal responsibility later to be
patted on the back for being so smart and good-looking? Sheesh, where's
the fun there? ;)
yours in the great work,
aa
deqvf
Re O'Stat
aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
Which, I think, is more a condemnation of Crowley's work rather than the
interpretation. It's pretty clear what I posted is what he *thought.*
Likewise, it's pretty clear what you posted is what he "did."
This leaves us with quite a dichotomy: did he fail at doing what he
thought he should do, or did he do something else and lie about what he
thought?
> or
> completely reinvent the wheel, but rather took his Cue from:
>
> 'Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be
> cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this
> Knowledge go aright. ' -AL: ch. II v. 5
>
> What the first quote (ch. I v. 49) above really means, poetically, seems
> more along the lines of "don't trust anyone over the age of 30" ;)
> rather than some sectarian 'secret society' quibbling attempt at ?,
> I read it as a general rule-of-thumb rather than a precise algorithm to
> bludgeon my friends with.
> (Your mileage may vary. See regular Class A Comment on Legis as
> catch-all disclaimer)
> At least that seems the obvious Second interpretation immediately
> presenting itself-
> A less assuming, more meaningful truth *all-in-all* if you want my
> opinion...
I agree with you that this would be directly relevant IF that was the
statement on the web site. It wasn't.
This also seems to imply (since both quotes are from AL) that the book
is contradictory, Crowley didn't follow all of the data of AL, etc.
> Most if not all of Legis has taken on this more subtle shade of meaning
> for me. If I want 'literal' truth, I'll ask my local Catholic priest
> what the Pope says and consider the matter closed.
Respectfully, my point is not about the overall meaning of the quote in
Thelemic theory, but rather the use of one quote they used according to
Crowley's interpretation.
> BTW, the GD moniker *itself* was even retained in the 1907-1909
> reformulation: the Outer Order being denoted by the selfsame initials
> G.'.D.'.- and this fact has not changed even today AFAIK. At least One
> Star in Sight has not been edited to reflect any difference here. If
> there wasn't this wholesale borrowing going on, it'd be a lot easier to
> take the Surface interpretation (suggested above) a little more
> seriously. As it is, I find it a difficult truth to try to use or defend
> in this particular way. However, if it's useful for you, I am sure you
> can get some more use out of it. I won't stop you from claiming it as yours.
>
I never said it was. Strange that you seem to be bringing up extraneous
points to support your argument. But, whatever...
Re
aethyr augoeides
Disentangling the lies of the beast would be quite a feat. Please do tell.
>
>Likewise, it's pretty clear what you posted is what he "did."
>
I am glad you have achieved clarity on the topic.
>
>This leaves us with quite a dichotomy: did he fail at doing what he
>thought he should do, or did he do something else and lie about what he
>thought?
>
>
Here is where I get a little coumfused? Explaining the mysterious by the
absurd? If it works for you...
>
>
>
>
>>or
>>completely reinvent the wheel, but rather took his Cue from:
>>
>>'Behold! the rituals of the old time are black. Let the evil ones be
>>cast away; let the good ones be purged by the prophet! Then shall this
>>Knowledge go aright. ' -AL: ch. II v. 5
>>
>>What the first quote (ch. I v. 49) above really means, poetically, seems
>>more along the lines of "don't trust anyone over the age of 30" ;)
>>rather than some sectarian 'secret society' quibbling attempt at ?,
>>I read it as a general rule-of-thumb rather than a precise algorithm to
>>bludgeon my friends with.
>>(Your mileage may vary. See regular Class A Comment on Legis as
>>catch-all disclaimer)
>>At least that seems the obvious Second interpretation immediately
>>presenting itself-
>>A less assuming, more meaningful truth *all-in-all* if you want my
>>opinion...
>>
>>
>
>
>I agree with you that this would be directly relevant IF that was the
>statement on the web site. It wasn't.
>
Sure, ok. I was actually responding at the blatant misuse of the words
'all' and 'always' in thee context ov a message that said (or otherwise
commonly implied for you literalistic types) it was bound by time
(specifically, about 2000 years or so).
>
>This also seems to imply (since both quotes are from AL) that the book
>is contradictory, Crowley didn't follow all of the data of AL, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Most if not all of Legis has taken on this more subtle shade of meaning
>>for me. If I want 'literal' truth, I'll ask my local Catholic priest
>>what the Pope says and consider the matter closed.
>>
>>
>
>
>Respectfully, my point is not about the overall meaning of the quote in
>Thelemic theory, but rather the use of one quote they used according to
>Crowley's interpretation.
>
Seems to me AC had as many and just as often as few interpretations as
anyone else usually, on any one Legis quote I can think of. Hey, we can
differ, that's ok.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>BTW, the GD moniker *itself* was even retained in the 1907-1909
>>reformulation: the Outer Order being denoted by the selfsame initials
>>G.'.D.'.- and this fact has not changed even today AFAIK. At least One
>>Star in Sight has not been edited to reflect any difference here. If
>>there wasn't this wholesale borrowing going on, it'd be a lot easier to
>>take the Surface interpretation (suggested above) a little more
>>seriously. As it is, I find it a difficult truth to try to use or defend
>>in this particular way. However, if it's useful for you, I am sure you
>>can get some more use out of it. I won't stop you from claiming it as yours.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I never said it was. Strange that you seem to be bringing up extraneous
>points to support your argument. But, whatever...
>
I never said you said it wasn't. I was following a hypothetical to it's
logical or otherwise absurd conclusion. I am thinking out loud, I can do
that here, it's newsnet.
>
>
>Re
>
>
aa
deqvf
catherine yronwode
Nice concept, nice graphics! And Sam Webster is known as a good mind and
a good person.
Does the Open Source paradigm (which we support enthusiastically)
include open ritual activities, or are such activities limited to
members? If the latter, what constitutes "membership" in an Open Source
lodge?
Please reply in newsgroups, as well as via email.
Thanks.
cat and nagasiva yronwode
forestville, california
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> In article <3D901EEB...@address.com>,
> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > The Manifesto of the Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn,
> > issued on the Autumnal Equinox, 23 September 2002 CE,
> > may be viewed at:
> >
> > http://tahuti.osogd.org/osogd.org/aboutUs.html
> >
> >
>
> I find in interesting that the first line of the page at the URL above
> begins with Crowley's:
> "Abrogate are all rituals, all ordeals, all words and signs."
>
> This has always been taken to mean that all of the Golden Dawn rituals
> are no longer valid.
It's taken that way by doctrinare Thelemites, perhaps. But the quote says
what it says: ALL rituals, etc. The Golden Dawn is not mentioned
specifically.
Our interpretation of this is that it applies to all Magical formulae
based on old Aeon paradigms.
> It basically was saying that Crowley should have a
> group to replace and/or supersede the GD, something he created (or
> attempted to create) with the AA.
Well, that's one interpretation, but not ours. "Each for himself", and all
that.
> So my question to you is, if all of the GD rituals, ordeals, words, and
> signs are abrogate, why not call yourself something other than the GD?
Because we are still using the basic structure of the GD system, not
trying to change its foundation, as was done with the A.A. and the
Thelemic Golden Dawn.
Once something is "abrogate", it is open to be replaced with anything. So
we declare the old GD system aborgate, then proceed to put *most* of it
back in place, changing only those things that don't fit the formulae of
the new Aeon. To give but one example, our Hierophant in the East is
Horus, replacing Osiris. Horus in the West is replaced with Set.
In a week or so we'll have our redaction of the 0=0 Hall posted, and
people can get a clearer idea of what we're doing.
> By the way, thanks for posting all of the flying scrolls.
Rolls.
Your welcome. You have *no* idea how long it took to format all that
stuff!
- Fr. A.o.C.
Fr. A.o.C.
catherine yronwode wrote:
> Nice concept, nice graphics!
Thanks! The design and coding was all done by Lodge members.
> And Sam Webster is known as a good mind and a good person.
He certainly is.
BTW, Cat -- it's me, JM555. I'm working with Sam on this.
> Does the Open Source paradigm (which we support enthusiastically)
> include open ritual activities, or are such activities limited to
> members?
Our lodge's rituals are open to non-members who come as the guest of a
member. Anyone who would like an "invitation" and lives within striking
distance of the Bay Area (California) should send a request to cancel...@jdshome.com.
We meet every Monday evening from 7 to 10pm
1st Monday: Grade initiations (1=10 to 4=7, as required)
2nd Monday: Seminars and workshops (magickal technique, Qabala, Hebrew
alphabet, etc.)
3rd Monday: Hall of the Neophytes (0=0 intitations and other work using
the Hall)
4th Monday: Lodge Officer workshop (be a Hierus for a day!)
5th Monday (when it occurs) is "open" for use as needed.
We plan to sponsor larger "open to the public" rituals in the future,
probably by the next Equinox.
> If the latter, what constitutes "membership" in an Open Source lodge?
Currently it means membership in the Mother Lodge, Het-Nuit. This will
change as new Lodges are created. Initiations are required and must be
performed in physical presence. Regular attendence to Lodge meetings is
not required to take the Initiations. However, Aspirants must pass
proctored examinations, based on the Knowledge Lectures, for Grades
higher than Neophyte.
Please keep the questions coming, as we are preparing a FAQ to be posted
sometime next month.
- Fr. A.o.C. Imperator, Het-Nuit Lodge, OSOGD
"I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any
difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and
developing the habit of believing." -- Umberto Eco
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>... we declare the old GD system aborgate, then proceed to put *most*
of it back in place, changing only those things that don't fit the
formulae of the new Aeon. To give but one example, our Hierophant in the
East is Horus, replacing Osiris. Horus in the West is replaced with Set.
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, but thought that it
needed to be updated. So he declared baseball as we know it abrogate.
Then he proceeded to put most of the rules for baseball back into place,
changing only those things he didn't like. To give but one example,
because people today are fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making
the distance between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that fielding
ground balls became simpler.
He called it "Open Source Baseball."
It wasn't successful, either.
Re
Fallitron the Wise
> change as new Lodges are created. Initiations are required and must be
> performed in physical presence. Regular attendence to Lodge meetings is
> not required to take the Initiations. However, Aspirants must pass
> proctored examinations, based on the Knowledge Lectures, for Grades
> higher than Neophyte.
Are these the same Knowledge Lectures as in the HOGD, or are they revised
for your new lodge? How is this material accessible? What about membership
dues?
aethyr augoeides
><snip>
>
>>
>>
>
>
>I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, <snip>
>
>It wasn't successful, either.
>
>Re
>
>
I knew a guy once who thought that the analogies he made were somehow
relevant to the people he told them too. He wasn't successful either.
aa
deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, but thought that it
> needed to be updated. So he declared baseball as we know it abrogate.
> Then he proceeded to put most of the rules for baseball back into place,
> changing only those things he didn't like. To give but one example,
> because people today are fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making
> the distance between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
> have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that fielding
> ground balls became simpler.
>
> He called it "Open Source Baseball."
Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply made the
game easier.
Unlike "a guy", we are making nothing easier. Initations must be held in
person. Aspirants must pass written and demostrative examinations before
being allowed to take Grades higher than 0=0. They must attend a minimum
number of hours in educational workshops, and are assigned a reading
list and a system of exercises. (Which are all posted on our web page.)
They are expected to maintain a Magical Diary. Each Neophyte must
understudy one of the Lodge Offices. There are mandatory waiting periods
bewteen Grades. IOW, our Lodge does NOT make things any easier than the
original H.O.G.D.
So tell me then, how does your analogy apply?
> It wasn't successful, either.
Seeing as how we have been in "private" operation for almost two years,
and have initiated over twenty-five Neophytes in that time, AND our
offical "opening" is only a few days old, I would venture to say your
prediction is both incorrect AND premature.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, but thought that it
> > needed to be updated. So he declared baseball as we know it abrogate.
> > Then he proceeded to put most of the rules for baseball back into place,
> > changing only those things he didn't like. To give but one example,
> > because people today are fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making
> > the distance between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
> > have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that fielding
> > ground balls became simpler.
> >
> > He called it "Open Source Baseball."
>
> Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply made the
> game easier.
>
Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have the
courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to pick the name
of the previous game and try to have success based on the fame and
popularity of the original.
He might have had more success if he had called it what it was:
Something new that was derived from baseball.
> Unlike "a guy", we are making nothing easier. Initations must be held in
> person. Aspirants must pass written and demostrative examinations before
> being allowed to take Grades higher than 0=0. They must attend a minimum
> number of hours in educational workshops, and are assigned a reading
> list and a system of exercises. (Which are all posted on our web page.)
> They are expected to maintain a Magical Diary. Each Neophyte must
> understudy one of the Lodge Offices. There are mandatory waiting periods
> bewteen Grades. IOW, our Lodge does NOT make things any easier than the
> original H.O.G.D.
>
> So tell me then, how does your analogy apply?
LOL!
It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that way.
That analogy was about changing something, but then giving it the title
of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame of that
original.
Why not be honest?
Give it the name it should have:
Sam's Club
With material adapted from the G.D., Crowley, and anybody else you like.
Re
Fr. A.o.C.
> In article <user-C368D9.1...@netnews.attbi.com>, "Re O'Stat" wrote:
>
> > > I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, but thought
> > > that it needed to be updated. So he declared baseball as we
> > > know it abrogate. Then he proceeded to put most of the rules
> > > for baseball back into place, changing only those things he
> > > didn't like. To give but one example, because people today are
> > > fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making the distance
> > > between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
> > > have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that
> > > fielding ground balls became simpler.
> > >
> > > He called it "Open Source Baseball."
> >
>> Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply
>> made the game easier.
>
> Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have
> the courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to
> pick the name of the previous game and try to have success based
> on the fame and popularity of the original.
First of all, you didn't answer the question, which was why "a guy"
called it "open source baseball". See below.
Second: what is your definition of "entire nature"? I don't think that's
accurate at all.
Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
cult.)
So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
qualifies as "entire"?
Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> He might have had more success if he had called it what it was:
> Something new that was derived from baseball.
See above comment. Define "success"?
>> So tell me then, how does your analogy apply?
> LOL!
>It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
Not amazing, it's quite simple really. When you use an inapplicable
analogy that has nothing to do with the point you want to make, you can
usually expect to be misunderstood.
> The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
> way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
> it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
> of that original.
Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
intended.)
For example, if you used an analogy of "you are like bulls in a china
shop", the implication is that someone is doing oblivious damage to
something far too fragile for them to be handling. But if you are
challenged to show what damage is being done and why the object of the
analogy is being compared to a bull, it doesn't do to then say, "Well, I
meant that bulls shouldn't own china shops, because they don't know
anything about Royal English Creamware!"
When you use these examples:
> > > because people today are
> > > fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making the distance
> > > between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
> > > have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that
> > > fielding ground balls became simpler.
...the operative descriptors are "fat and lazy" (regarding the players)
and "simpler" (regarding the gameplay). This clearly indicates what the
point could be assumed to be -- that you were attempting to say with a
little humor (very little) that our organization is also "fat and lazy"
and wants to make things "simpler". The analogies of the "changes" in
the above example all involve making the technical aspects of the
game-play less challenging.
I offered testimony that this is not the case. Now you change the
parameters by which you are passing judgment from the above clear
implications to something else, i.e. "an attempt to succeed off of the
fame of that original", and I can find nothing in your analogy that
speaks to this point. Can you indicate where it is?
And see above comments about "success" and it's measurement.
> Why not be honest? Give it the name it should have:
> Sam's Club
> With material adapted from the G.D., Crowley, and anybody else
> you like.
Because that would not be an accurate descriptor, for one thing.
For another, with any label it's a matter of information packing.
Calling it what we have packs far more information as to what we are
doing into the label than your suggestion. That is the operative purpose
of any label.
Calling it "Sam's Club" is highly ambiguous, unless one knows who "Sam"
is, and which "Sam" is being referred to.
The second part is not as ambiguous as the first, for "Crowley" is a
more specific label, but actually we've taken very little from Crowley
except some philosophical points (points that many people who are not
Thelemites also agree with, so it's not "Crowleyism" by any stretch) and
some Godforms, which are pretty much from the Egyptian anyway. So this
would also not convey ay useful information.
"Anybody else you like" is also fairly useless as a label. Not only is
it highly inaccurate, it also conveys zero information, since the public
is unlikely to know what "we like".
So for now, we'll stick to "Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn", and
stand by the reasons and rationales we put forth in our Manifesto for
our choice. But thank you for the suggestion.
Re, I'm going out on a limb here, but are there "personal issues"
involving yourself and any people in our organization? Or "professional
issues", perhaps?
That's fine if there is, but it would be *honest* of you to be
forthcoming about what these issues are, so people know where you're
coming from. Or state clearly you know nothing about us our anyone
involved except for what's been published on our website. But that seems
unlikely to me. Your diatribe sounds like there's much more to it than
matters of metaphysics.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Fr. A.o.C.
The information in them is the same as the originals.
One could memorize the information in the Knowledge Lectures from
Regardie's books, or Zalewski's, or from H.O.G.D., or various on-line
reproductions, and pass the tests we give for the Grades.
We do provide additional study material and exercises for the Grades (we
only have the First Knowledge Lecture and our associated materials up on
our site so far), but this is in addition to the Lectures, and is not
tested for.
All "final" versions of our study materials will eventually published on
our website. We plan open PDF versions for downloading to make it easy
to print for study.
> What about membership dues?
There will not be membership dues for the OSOGD itself -- this sort of
goes against the whole idea of being Open Source, eh?
As of now, there is only one Lodge operating. We do not charge
membership dues, but we do "pass the hat" at our meetings to defray the
cost of temple supplies. (Our accounting sheets can be viewed by any
member at any time, and a report is given monthly by the Cancellarius as
to our finacial status.) It's never been any more money than could be
reasonably stored in a cookie jar. <grin>
This may change in the future, if so voted by the membership. I would
venture that any future Lodges would establish their own financial
arrangements, but we'll deal with that when there's another Lodge! <smile>
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> In article <3D934DCE...@address.com>,
> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <user-C368D9.1...@netnews.attbi.com>, "Re O'Stat"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > I new a guy once who loved the idea of baseball, but thought
> > > > that it needed to be updated. So he declared baseball as we
> > > > know it abrogate. Then he proceeded to put most of the rules
> > > > for baseball back into place, changing only those things he
> > > > didn't like. To give but one example, because people today are
> > > > fat and lazy, he added three extra bases making the distance
> > > > between the bases much shorter. That way, runners don't
> > > > have to run as far. Then he added three extra fielders so that
> > > > fielding ground balls became simpler.
> > > >
> > > > He called it "Open Source Baseball."
> > >
> >> Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply
> >> made the game easier.
> >
> > Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have
> > the courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to
> > pick the name of the previous game and try to have success based
> > on the fame and popularity of the original.
>
> First of all, you didn't answer the question, which was why "a guy"
> called it "open source baseball". See below.
>
You're missing the subject and dodging the issue.
You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
> Second: what is your definition of "entire nature"? I don't think that's
> accurate at all.
You're focusing on little points rather than dealing with the main issue:
You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>
> Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
> conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
> Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
> temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
> cult.)
But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
new GD is a cult?
> So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
> qualifies as "entire"?
I dunno. I don't join cults.
>
> Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>
Any way you like.
> > He might have had more success if he had called it what it was:
> > Something new that was derived from baseball.
>
> See above comment. Define "success"?
>
> >> So tell me then, how does your analogy apply?
>
> > LOL!
> >It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
>
> Not amazing, it's quite simple really. When you use an inapplicable
> analogy that has nothing to do with the point you want to make, you can
> usually expect to be misunderstood.
>
Yes, when people choose to miss a point they can do it quite easily.
> > The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
> > way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
> > it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
> > of that original.
>
> Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
> this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
> intended.)
That's a good one!
But it still dodges the issue:
You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
That's exactly my point!
Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
respected (well, by some) group.
What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
>
> The second part is not as ambiguous as the first, for "Crowley" is a
> more specific label, but actually we've taken very little from Crowley
> except some philosophical points (points that many people who are not
> Thelemites also agree with, so it's not "Crowleyism" by any stretch) and
> some Godforms, which are pretty much from the Egyptian anyway. So this
> would also not convey ay useful information.
You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
attributions. That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
football?
>
> "Anybody else you like" is also fairly useless as a label. Not only is
> it highly inaccurate, it also conveys zero information, since the public
> is unlikely to know what "we like".
>
> So for now, we'll stick to "Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn", and
> stand by the reasons and rationales we put forth in our Manifesto for
> our choice. But thank you for the suggestion.
You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
being dishonest for some unknown issue.
>
> Re, I'm going out on a limb here, but are there "personal issues"
> involving yourself and any people in our organization? Or "professional
> issues", perhaps?
>
> That's fine if there is, but it would be *honest* of you to be
> forthcoming about what these issues are, so people know where you're
> coming from. Or state clearly you know nothing about us our anyone
> involved except for what's been published on our website. But that seems
> unlikely to me. Your diatribe sounds like there's much more to it than
> matters of metaphysics.
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
You're absolutely correct.
I don't know anyone in your group.
I don't care what you do.
But I do have a deep respect for honesty and truth.
And the truth is, your group is new, but based on Crowley, the GD, and
(let's face it) anything else you'd like.
There's nothing wrong with that at all.
But it's not the Golden Dawn in any way.
But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
that Sam was booted from the G.D. Perhaps, then, he has "personal
issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
Re
aethyr augoeides
I am surprised you've gotten an answer/ response at all! I'd not have
answered you, were I Sam. "Little" points? What do you expect when you
are the one who is nitpicking?! It was a lame analogy to begin with (at
least how you persued it), and you aren't willing to back down on this.
Additionally you asserted a bunch of vague stuff about Sam and his new
gig that was a little out of left field, all of which Sam already
answered in this thread. So, maybe you have some facts you'd like to
share with us Re? Or you want to just keep riding someone else's shirt
tails?
>
>
>
>
>
>>Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
>>conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
>>Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
>>temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
>>cult.)
>>
>>
>
>
>But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
>anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
>new GD is a cult?
>
Wall's "cult"? We need to use loaded language now? Why? I wasn't aware
that was the official status of the T.'.G.'.D.'. Hmmm...
>
>
>
>
>>So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
>>qualifies as "entire"?
>>
>>
>
>I dunno. I don't join cults.
>
You seem pretty clear on these points. Why don't you keep that for
yourself and move on?
>
>
>
>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Any way you like.
>
>
>
Hmm, these were pretty valid questions. You dismissing them as
irrelavent is not good for your nebulous Point.
>
>
>
>
>>>He might have had more success if he had called it what it was:
>>>Something new that was derived from baseball.
>>>
>>>
>>See above comment. Define "success"?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>So tell me then, how does your analogy apply?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>LOL!
>>>It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
>>>
>>>
>>Not amazing, it's quite simple really. When you use an inapplicable
>>analogy that has nothing to do with the point you want to make, you can
>>usually expect to be misunderstood.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Yes, when people choose to miss a point they can do it quite easily.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
>>>way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
>>>it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
>>>of that original.
>>>
>>>
>>Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
>>this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
>>intended.)
>>
>>
>
>
>That's a good one!
>But it still dodges the issue:
>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>
Does everyone think you sound like a harpy? Have you stopped beating
your wife?
If that was "exactly" your point, you'd pass on this part and tell us
you agree. As it is, you are merely being argumentative.
>
>Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
>few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
>respected (well, by some) group.
>
>What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
>
What's honest about Chaos magick?! Love the group, but honest is the
last bit of description I'd apply to their Cult.
>
>
>
>
>
>>The second part is not as ambiguous as the first, for "Crowley" is a
>>more specific label, but actually we've taken very little from Crowley
>>except some philosophical points (points that many people who are not
>>Thelemites also agree with, so it's not "Crowleyism" by any stretch) and
>>some Godforms, which are pretty much from the Egyptian anyway. So this
>>would also not convey ay useful information.
>>
>>
>
>
>You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
>If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
>You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
>attributions. That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
>again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
>football?
>
Somehow I followed this line of thought without any serious hurdles to
my understanding. Maybe you are being purposefully bull-headed?
>
>
>
>
>
>>"Anybody else you like" is also fairly useless as a label. Not only is
>>it highly inaccurate, it also conveys zero information, since the public
>>is unlikely to know what "we like".
>>
>>So for now, we'll stick to "Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn", and
>>stand by the reasons and rationales we put forth in our Manifesto for
>>our choice. But thank you for the suggestion.
>>
>>
>
>
>You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
>being dishonest for some unknown issue.
>
>
Have you stopped beating your wife, Re?
>
>
>
>>Re, I'm going out on a limb here, but are there "personal issues"
>>involving yourself and any people in our organization? Or "professional
>>issues", perhaps?
>>
>>That's fine if there is, but it would be *honest* of you to be
>>forthcoming about what these issues are, so people know where you're
>>coming from. Or state clearly you know nothing about us our anyone
>>involved except for what's been published on our website. But that seems
>>unlikely to me. Your diatribe sounds like there's much more to it than
>>matters of metaphysics.
>>
>>- Fr. A.o.C.
>>
>>
>
>You're absolutely correct.
>I don't know anyone in your group.
>I don't care what you do.
>
Then leave it alone. And go to a thread that does Compel you.
>But I do have a deep respect for honesty and truth.
>
Um, sure OK.
>And the truth is, your group is new, but based on Crowley, the GD, and
>(let's face it) anything else you'd like.
>There's nothing wrong with that at all.
>
>But it's not the Golden Dawn in any way.
>
So you say. By what authority/ reason?
>
>But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
>that Sam was booted from the G.D. Perhaps, then, he has "personal
>issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
>out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
>
Is this "Let's psychoanalyze Anyone Who'll listen newsnet hour?" Take it
somewhere else, Stat.
I am all for holding people accountable to their deeds, words, etc. but
Sam seems Clear enough on these points, that there might be a juicier
target out there for you somewheres else Re?
>
>Re
>
>
aa
deqvf
cock
news:user-002B73.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
For fuck's sake, man. It's obvious from even a cursory glimpse at their
website that the order they've formed is utilizing the structure, format,
and methodology of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Colloquially, the
"Golden Dawn" hasn't meant a specific magical order for damn near a hundred
years, but the system of magic that that order created. Using the name
Golden Dawn is the most succinct description of what they're doing. They're
not trying to claim direct lineage or any of the other anal retentive things
most Golden Dawn clones do, they're just using the system. So they've made
a few changes. BFD. It's still recognizable as being based on the Golden
Dawn, and it's not attempting to mislead anyone. Your splitting hairs over
bullshit. Don't you have anything better to do than flame people over
minutiae?
--
************************************************
The liberation of the human mind has never been furthered by dunderheads; it
has been furthered by gay fellows who heaved dead cats into sanctuaries and
then went roistering down the highways of the world, proving to all men that
doubt, after all, was safe - that the god in the sanctuary was finite in his
power and hence a fraud. One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.
It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.
H.L. Mencken
Fr. A.o.C.
>
> In article <3D98021C...@address.com>,
> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > He called it "Open Source Baseball."
> > > >
> > >> Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply
> > >> made the game easier.
> > >
> > > Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have
> > > the courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to
> > > pick the name of the previous game and try to have success based
> > > on the fame and popularity of the original.
> >
> > First of all, you didn't answer the question, which was why "a guy"
> > called it "open source baseball". See below.
> >
>
> You're missing the subject and dodging the issue.
I asked for clarification, since you did not present your 'issue' in a
clear manner. Instead you used an inappropriate analogy -- presumably
because you thought you were being oh-so-clever?
> You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
Ah, and when did I stop beating my wife!!!
Though Mr. Stat (or Ms. Stat?) continues to harp on this "question"
later, we can start here.
In the first place, it's not a question, it's a accusation. One
presented with no facts in evidence to support it, except a poorly
crafted baseball analogy.
We're still bogged down in nomenclature, and you aren't giving any
information as to how you arrive at your assumptions. For example, how
is a "new system" defined? Using the original Order to illustrate, the
first "system" the put together in 1888 was changed in many ways within
a year or so, and then changed again more profoundly in 1892. And
changed on a regular basis thereafter, by the originators and their
heirs. Where do we draw the line -- or more to the point here, where do
YOU draw it?
Actually, the question you haven't answered is what you consider to be
the OLD system? Until we define that, there is no way to evaluate
whether or not ours is a "new" system, in the sense you seem to be
implying. What defines the "Golden Dawn System"? The Cipher Manuscript?
We follow that scrupulously. We consider it to be the only "canon" of
the Golden Dawn, and everything else is window dressing. Not only is
that obvious considering the history of the Order, but Mathers even said
so explicitly.
I could make the case, and I think it's a valid one, that the Cipher
Manuscript is the only reliable defining factor for ANY Golden Dawn
group. It's the one *we* use, anyway. And we actually go WAY beynd that
in what we follow regarding the traditions of the Order.
So before I can address any of this, you need to define your terms. You
keep changing them, or assuming "everybody" agrees with the definition
that only exists inside the confines of your own skull.
> > Second: what is your definition of "entire nature"? I don't think that's
> > accurate at all.
>
> You're focusing on little points rather than dealing with the main issue:
No, this IS the main issue, or at least we can't deal with your "main
issue" until we clear this up. You can't accuse us of creating a "new
system" and have it actually mean anything until you can tell us what
you think the OLD system is, and then we can compare them. Define your
terms. Everything turns on this.
> You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
So that's what all this is about then? Why didn't you just come to the
point right up front, instead of playing baseball games?
I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
get anywhere until you declare your terms: What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
"lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
If you can't, or won't, answer these simple questions, we have no way to
communicate except to be argumentative, offer lame analogies and ask
'wife-beating' questions.
This also assumes that you have Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz and can
clairvoyantly determine the inner workings of our intentions and motivations.
> > Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
> > conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
> > Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
> > temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
> > cult.)
>
> But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
> anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
> new GD is a cult?
Tell you what: if you'd like to send us all your money and subjugate
your will to our commands, I won't stop you.
> > So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
> > qualifies as "entire"?
>
> I dunno. I don't join cults.
Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate.
> > Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> > we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> > accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> > problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> >
>
> Any way you like.
Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
'wife-beating' ones!
> > >It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
> >
> > Not amazing, it's quite simple really. When you use an inapplicable
> > analogy that has nothing to do with the point you want to make, you can
> > usually expect to be misunderstood.
>
> Yes, when people choose to miss a point they can do it quite easily.
I was just waiting for you to MAKE a point, that anyone other than your
own self could clearly determine.
> > > The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
> > > way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
> > > it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
> > > of that original.
> >
> > Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
> > this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
> > intended.)
>
> That's a good one!
Glad you liked it. I got a million of 'em.
> But it still dodges the issue:
> You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
Pound that table! Harder! It makes you seem SO convincing!
<snippage of the hard questions put to Re that he refuses to address,
and snippage of the example that points out how inapplicable his analogy
was, which he refuse to acknowledge, though it's fairly obvious.>
> > > Why not be honest? Give it the name it should have:
> >
> > > Sam's Club
> > > With material adapted from the G.D., Crowley, and anybody else
> > > you like.
> >
> > Because that would not be an accurate descriptor, for one thing.
> >
> > For another, with any label it's a matter of information packing.
> > Calling it what we have packs far more information as to what we are
> > doing into the label than your suggestion. That is the operative purpose
> > of any label.
> >
> > Calling it "Sam's Club" is highly ambiguous, unless one knows who "Sam"
> > is, and which "Sam" is being referred to.
>
> That's exactly my point!
>
> Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
> few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
> respected (well, by some) group.
Again, Mr. Stat displays his Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz, and reads our minds
to determine what we REALLY are thinking. It's good to have someone like
him around to keep us informed as to what we're thinking.
> What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
Which was not based on the Cipher Manuscript, and was not founded by an
Adept of the Golden Dawn using the same materials. Nor does it test its
Aspirants on the same knowledge as the Order always has, with the same
study materials.
Apples. Oranges. Never the twain shall meet.
> > The second part is not as ambiguous as the first, for "Crowley" is a
> > more specific label, but actually we've taken very little from Crowley
> > except some philosophical points (points that many people who are not
> > Thelemites also agree with, so it's not "Crowleyism" by any stretch) and
> > some Godforms, which are pretty much from the Egyptian anyway. So this
> > would also not convey any useful information.
>
> You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
Yes, and...? It's the ONLY quote from him, in fact. Hmph, that's really
sticking in your craw, isn't it? Did we desecrate the Great Beast's Holy
Words<tm> or something? If I quote one line from Nietzsche, does that
make me an dogmatic Existentialist? If I quote Bullwinkle, does that
make me a moose?
> If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
Dramatic impact? *grin*
> You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
> attributions.
No, we did not say that. Crowley never attributed Set to the West, for
example. "Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn" changed the rituals to
match 'Crowleyan' attributions. Compare ours to theirs and behold the
difference! Ours conform to the Cipher Manuscript, theirs do not.
Tell you what -- in a week or so our redaction of the 0=0 Hall of the
Neophytes will be up on our site. Why don't you look at that and tell me
if we *match* 'Crowleyan attributions'. I think a whole lot of
Thelemites would think not.
> That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
> again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
> football?
You haven't had the best of luck with sports analogies, you know. But to
indulge you, we're playing baseball by the rules of baseball. We know
this because we read the rulebook, and that's how we play the game.
Anyone who knows baseball knows that "The Rulebook" is the final
authority, and if you play the Book, it's baseball. What colors your
uniforms are is beside the point. I can call the basemen and shortstop
"Who", "What", "When" and "I Don't Know", but if they play the game by
the Rulebook, it's BASEBALL.
The Rulebook is the Cipher Manuscript.
> > "Anybody else you like" is also fairly useless as a label. Not only is
> > it highly inaccurate, it also conveys zero information, since the public
> > is unlikely to know what "we like".
> >
> > So for now, we'll stick to "Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn", and
> > stand by the reasons and rationales we put forth in our Manifesto for
> > our choice. But thank you for the suggestion.
>
> You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
> being dishonest for some unknown issue.
I wish I had Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz like you. Hey, what card am I
thinking of right now? I mean, you can tell what we're thinking, right?
Do you need to wear a big gold lame' turban when you exercise your
clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands around and scrunch up your eyes
really tight?
You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking.
> I don't know anyone in your group.
> I don't care what you do.
You seem to care a great deal.
> But I do have a deep respect for honesty and truth.
So it would be a good thing if you would be more upfront about what you
proclaim as "honesty and truth", and how you arrived at them.
> And the truth is, your group is new, but based on Crowley, the GD, and
> (let's face it) anything else you'd like.
If we did not base our system carefully and deliberately on the Cipher
Manuscript and the core traditions of the Order, I would say that your
above description is adequate. But as it happens, we do, and that is
what makes ANYTHING "Golden Dawn".
> There's nothing wrong with that at all.
I'm so happy to have your dispensation. At last I'll be able to sleep
again at night!
> But it's not the Golden Dawn in any way.
And that's where you are wrong. Sorry, but you have not made your case.
You've not made ANY case, except to ask trick questions and assume that
everybody thinks like you do, freeing you from any need to explain
yourself. At least we *made* a case, with our Manifesto, and more
importantly, by DOING THE WORK.
You're entire case is, "You're wrong because I say so, and I can read
your mind." Is this really where you rest your case?
> But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
> that Sam was booted from the G.D.
Somewhat inaccurate. He was expelled from a particular *Lodge* because
he questioned how the leader was breaking that Lodge's own rules as they
applied to his authority to establish a Lodge himself. In fact, several
people would argue whether or not that particular Lodge was really
"official" or not, and have. The parties involved shall remain nameless
to protect the guilty from embarrassment.
> Perhaps, then, he has "personal
> issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
> out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
Mooph! A personal attack! Ad hominem! The last resort of the scoundrel?
Sam does his Will quite adequately. And thank you -- that does settle
the question of whether you know Sam Webster or not. You clearly don't.
My apologies, for implying such was an obvious error on my part.
But speaking of which, lets' do a quick survey of the logical fallacies
you've served up so far (*dusts off the old Logic textbook*):
* False Analogy*
Definition: In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B
must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B,
are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
* Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)*
Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not
been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument
may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is
therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it
assumes that all propositions must ether be known to be true or known to
be false.)
* Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) *
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's
character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it
may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable
outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
* Hasty Generalization *
Definition: The size of the sample, or the amount of garnered knowledge,
is too small to support the conclusion.
* Fallacy of Exclusion *
Definition: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive
argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all
relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".
I could dig out others, I suppose, but I think that's sufficient.
You know, Re, if you wanted to actually ASK questions about who we are,
what we're doing, and why, I'd be more than happy to answer. But you
don't. You have it all figured out, and you never lie, and you're always
right. So what is there to talk about?
- Fr. A.o.C.
"Why don't you join the Rosicrucians,
They can give you back your hope,
You can find your love with diagrams
In a plain brown envelope."
-- Leonard Cohen
Ramakrishna Rao
aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
You call it "nitpicking," I call it "responsibility and honesty."
Why not call it the Open Source A.A.?
Why not call it the Open Source O.T.O.?
Why not call it the Open Source O.T.A.?
Naw, like so many others, they think that the G.D. is the bees knees, so
they glom on to that name.
I don't know them. I don't know what they teach. As far as I know it may
be very good. I'm not criticizing that at all.
But the fact is, either it IS the GD or it isn't.
It isn't.
> >
> >>Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
> >>conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
> >>Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
> >>temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
> >>cult.)
> >
> >But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
> >anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
> >new GD is a cult?
> >
> Wall's "cult"? We need to use loaded language now? Why? I wasn't aware
> that was the official status of the T.'.G.'.D.'. Hmmm...
Oh please. If Wall left there'd be nothing left.
> >
> >>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> >>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> >>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> >>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Any way you like.
> >
> >
> >
> Hmm, these were pretty valid questions. You dismissing them as
> irrelavent is not good for your nebulous Point.
I wasn't dismissing them at all. It was asked how do I measure
"success." I said measure it any way you like.
> >
> >>>The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
> >>>way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
> >>>it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
> >>>of that original.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
> >>this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
> >>intended.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >That's a good one!
> >But it still dodges the issue:
> >You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> >order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
> >
> Does everyone think you sound like a harpy? Have you stopped beating
> your wife?
No, just you.
And I keep asking the same question because it has never been answered.
I'll leave the beating of wives to you.
<snip>
> >>Calling it "Sam's Club" is highly ambiguous, unless one knows who "Sam"
> >>is, and which "Sam" is being referred to.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >That's exactly my point!
> >
> If that was "exactly" your point, you'd pass on this part and tell us
> you agree. As it is, you are merely being argumentative.
I really don't think you're that dense, but I'll try to spell it out for
you. The name was chosen in an attempt to glom onto the fame of the G.D.
rather than call it something else which might be consider "highly
ambiguous" (to use your terms).
That would be like starting a junk food restaurant, put large, yellow
arches around it, and calling it "McDonnels." Obviously, the purpose is
to make it look like something it is not.
>
> >
> >Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
> >few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
> >respected (well, by some) group.
> >
> >What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
> >
> What's honest about Chaos magick?! Love the group, but honest is the
> last bit of description I'd apply to their Cult.
Geez! Take things in context.
They have, all along, admitted exactly where it came from and how it
developed. They didn't call it Thelema or Golden Dawn or crib the name
from another group.
> >
> >You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
> >If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
> >You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
> >attributions. That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
> >again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
> >football?
> >
> Somehow I followed this line of thought without any serious hurdles to
> my understanding. Maybe you are being purposefully bull-headed?
>
> >
> >You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
> >being dishonest for some unknown issue.
> >
> >
> Have you stopped beating your wife, Re?
Like I said, I'll leave the beatings to you.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Re, I'm going out on a limb here, but are there "personal issues"
> >>involving yourself and any people in our organization? Or "professional
> >>issues", perhaps?
> >>
> >>That's fine if there is, but it would be *honest* of you to be
> >>forthcoming about what these issues are, so people know where you're
> >>coming from. Or state clearly you know nothing about us our anyone
> >>involved except for what's been published on our website. But that seems
> >>unlikely to me. Your diatribe sounds like there's much more to it than
> >>matters of metaphysics.
> >>
> >>- Fr. A.o.C.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You're absolutely correct.
> >I don't know anyone in your group.
> >I don't care what you do.
> >
> Then leave it alone. And go to a thread that does Compel you.
>
>
>
> >But I do have a deep respect for honesty and truth.
> >
> Um, sure OK.
>
>
>
>
> >And the truth is, your group is new, but based on Crowley, the GD, and
> >(let's face it) anything else you'd like.
> >There's nothing wrong with that at all.
> >
> >But it's not the Golden Dawn in any way.
> >
> So you say. By what authority/ reason?
>
Well, for one, the Golden Dawn does not use the attributions they are
using. Further, they have specifically chosen to change the attributions.
That's like saying they're making Chanel #5 but have specifically chosen
to make it smell different.
The new scent may be wonderful, but it ain't Chanel.
>
> >
> >But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
> >that Sam was booted from the G.D. Perhaps, then, he has "personal
> >issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
> >out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
> >
> Is this "Let's psychoanalyze Anyone Who'll listen newsnet hour?" Take it
> somewhere else, Stat.
Just responding in kind. Interesting that you would only pick on me and
not for the people who started this aspect.
I wonder why that is.....
>
> I am all for holding people accountable to their deeds, words, etc. but
> Sam seems Clear enough on these points, that there might be a juicier
> target out there for you somewheres else Re?
>
Then why doesn't he refer to his group with the truth that it is not the
G.D.?
Re
Re Oé…¬tat
"cock" <cere...@ev1.net> wrote:
<snip>
*****They're not trying to claim direct lineage or any of the other anal
retentive things most Golden Dawn clones do, they're just using the
system. *******
In other words, they're not the G.D.
<snip>
Re
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> Re O'Stat wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D98021C...@address.com>,
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > He called it "Open Source Baseball."
> > > > >
> > > >> Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply
> > > >> made the game easier.
> > > >
> > > > Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have
> > > > the courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to
> > > > pick the name of the previous game and try to have success based
> > > > on the fame and popularity of the original.
> > >
> > > First of all, you didn't answer the question, which was why "a guy"
> > > called it "open source baseball". See below.
> > >
> >
> > You're missing the subject and dodging the issue.
>
> I asked for clarification, since you did not present your 'issue' in a
> clear manner. Instead you used an inappropriate analogy -- presumably
> because you thought you were being oh-so-clever?
>
What you've done, unfortunately, is mistaken the map for the reality.
I'm sorry that you can't figure out a simple analogy. That's your
problem.
The point, however, remains the same.
You have made major changes to the GD system yet you call what you do
the GD.
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
> > You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> > order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>
> Ah, and when did I stop beating my wife!!!
>
I note that this dodges the issue and doesn't respond to the question.
So I'll try it again in a different way:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
And I note that you are now copying the argument of AA. No need to. You
could come up with something original.
I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
> > > Second: what is your definition of "entire nature"? I don't think that's
> > > accurate at all.
> >
> > You're focusing on little points rather than dealing with the main issue:
>
> No, this IS the main issue, or at least we can't deal with your "main
> issue" until we clear this up. You can't accuse us of creating a "new
> system" and have it actually mean anything until you can tell us what
> you think the OLD system is, and then we can compare them. Define your
> terms. Everything turns on this.
>
Nope. There is still only one issue and you are trying to turn it onto
other points.
I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
> Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
> seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
> legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
> can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
And when people refuse to respond or come up with weak, absurd
rationalizations, repeat the question until you get an answer:
I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
> So that's what all this is about then? Why didn't you just come to the
> point right up front, instead of playing baseball games?
>
> I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
> get anywhere until you declare your terms: What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
> System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
> "lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
> SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
>
> If you can't, or won't, answer these simple questions, we have no way to
> communicate except to be argumentative, offer lame analogies and ask
> 'wife-beating' questions.
>
> This also assumes that you have Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz and can
> clairvoyantly determine the inner workings of our intentions and motivations.
Not at all.
The teachings of the G.D. are quite clear. On your website you make
clear that you have changed them. It follows, does it not, that you do
NOT think that the GD system, as constituted, works.
I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
> > > Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
> > > conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
> > > Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
> > > temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
> > > cult.)
> >
> > But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
> > anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
> > new GD is a cult?
>
> Tell you what: if you'd like to send us all your money and subjugate
> your will to our commands, I won't stop you.
This, unfortunately, is not a response.
>
> > > So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
> > > qualifies as "entire"?
> >
> > I dunno. I don't join cults.
>
> Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
> determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
> is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
> make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate.
Not at all.
I've made a point which you've attempted to rationalize away.
I have no group.
I have no desire to start a group.
If I did, even if I "borrowed" concepts from other groups, I wouldn't
use their name if I wasn't following their system.
But let's be clear:
This is not about me, no matter how much you try to make it so.
The fact remains that you have changed the G.D. including changes that
are clearly not part of their system. Your web site says so.
Here's one specific: you say you're changing from focusing on Osirus to
Horus. Good for you. That's great. Now, assume for just a second that
this was a religion. Instead of Osirus, you called it Christ and your
followers Christians. You have a Christian church. Now, assume that
somebody says, "We're going to change it to make it better and focus on
Horus. We'll worship Horus. And we'll call our religion 'Open Source
Christianity."
I don't think that is legitimate.
>
> > > Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> > > we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> > > accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> > > problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> > >
> >
> > Any way you like.
>
> Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
> 'wife-beating' ones!
Again you're copying AA. Hmmm.
And as I explained to him, I didn't dodge it at all. You asked how I
measure "success." I responded "Any way you like." That's not a dodge.
But once again you're trying to change the discussion from the main
point.
So I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
> > >
> > > Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
> > > this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
> > > intended.)
> >
> > That's a good one!
>
> Glad you liked it. I got a million of 'em.
Good! This...uh...discussion could use them.
;-)
>
> > But it still dodges the issue:
> > You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> > order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>
> Pound that table! Harder! It makes you seem SO convincing!
Asking a question has nothing to do with convincing. Reasking a question
is an attempt to get a reasonable response.
> > > > Why not be honest? Give it the name it should have:
> > > > Sam's Club
> > > > With material adapted from the G.D., Crowley, and anybody else
> > > > you like.
> > >
> > > Because that would not be an accurate descriptor, for one thing.
> > >
> > > For another, with any label it's a matter of information packing.
> > > Calling it what we have packs far more information as to what we are
> > > doing into the label than your suggestion. That is the operative purpose
> > > of any label.
> > >
> > > Calling it "Sam's Club" is highly ambiguous, unless one knows who "Sam"
> > > is, and which "Sam" is being referred to.
> >
> > That's exactly my point!
> >
> > Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
> > few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
> > respected (well, by some) group.
>
> Again, Mr. Stat displays his Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz, and reads our minds
> to determine what we REALLY are thinking. It's good to have someone like
> him around to keep us informed as to what we're thinking.
Fascinating. You continue to use the same arguments as AA. One would
think you two are one and the same, using different names just to make
it look like you are different people. Of course this comment doesn't
add anything to the discussion.
>
> > What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
>
> Which was not based on the Cipher Manuscript, and was not founded by an
> Adept of the Golden Dawn using the same materials. Nor does it test its
> Aspirants on the same knowledge as the Order always has, with the same
> study materials.
So what you're saying is that any chucklehead (Sam excluded, of course)
claims to be a G.D. Adept and starts a group, then he changes some of
the important aspects of the G.D., it's still okay to call it the G.D.
Whatever.
> > You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
>
> Yes, and...? It's the ONLY quote from him, in fact. Hmph, that's really
> sticking in your craw, isn't it? Did we desecrate the Great Beast's Holy
> Words<tm> or something? If I quote one line from Nietzsche, does that
> make me an dogmatic Existentialist? If I quote Bullwinkle, does that
> make me a moose?
>
> > If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
>
> Dramatic impact? *grin*
So is that why you chose to call the group the G.D.? for dramatic
impact? Is that why you've changed it from a focus on Osirus to Horus?
For dramatic impact?
Perhaps you should call it the "Dramatic Impact Golden Dawn?"
;-)
>
> > You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
> > attributions.
>
> No, we did not say that. Crowley never attributed Set to the West, for
> example. "Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn" changed the rituals to
> match 'Crowleyan' attributions. Compare ours to theirs and behold the
> difference! Ours conform to the Cipher Manuscript, theirs do not.
>
> Tell you what -- in a week or so our redaction of the 0=0 Hall of the
> Neophytes will be up on our site. Why don't you look at that and tell me
> if we *match* 'Crowleyan attributions'. I think a whole lot of
> Thelemites would think not.
So if you're Golden Dawn, why not just stick with their attributions?
Why have a "redaction" at all?
>
> > That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
> > again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
> > football?
>
> You haven't had the best of luck with sports analogies, you know. But to
> indulge you, we're playing baseball by the rules of baseball. We know
> this because we read the rulebook, and that's how we play the game.
> Anyone who knows baseball knows that "The Rulebook" is the final
> authority, and if you play the Book, it's baseball. What colors your
> uniforms are is beside the point. I can call the basemen and shortstop
> "Who", "What", "When" and "I Don't Know", but if they play the game by
> the Rulebook, it's BASEBALL.
>
> The Rulebook is the Cipher Manuscript.
So you're saying that the changes you've made are in the Ciphers?
> >
> > You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
> > being dishonest for some unknown issue.
>
> I wish I had Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz like you. Hey, what card am I
> thinking of right now?
Three of Clubs?
> I mean, you can tell what we're thinking, right?
> Do you need to wear a big gold lame' turban when you exercise your
> clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands around and scrunch up your eyes
> really tight?
>
> You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
> very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking.
That's because this is about why YOU people have decided to appropriate
the name of an organization which has concepts you choose not to follow.
It's not the Golden Dawn, it's your group. I haven't said anything about
the quality of what you do and teach. It may be very good. I don't know.
I don't claim to...
Okay, maybe it was the Jack of Diamonds?
All I'm doing is saying that it is clear you have taken the name because
you don't think what you're doing can stand on its own. If you want to
follow the GD traditions, call yourself the GD. If you don't, call
yourself something else.
What's so hard about that to understand?
> So it would be a good thing if you would be more upfront about what you
> proclaim as "honesty and truth", and how you arrived at them.
Once again, this is about your group. I was once told that some Roman
orator said, "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." This is
exactly what you're doing. You refuse to respond or else come up with
weak rationalizations. Well, if that's what you want to do that's up to
you.
>
> > And the truth is, your group is new, but based on Crowley, the GD, and
> > (let's face it) anything else you'd like.
>
> If we did not base our system carefully and deliberately on the Cipher
> Manuscript and the core traditions of the Order, I would say that your
> above description is adequate. But as it happens, we do, and that is
> what makes ANYTHING "Golden Dawn".
>
So where does it say change the Osiris orientation to Horus?
>
> And that's where you are wrong. Sorry, but you have not made your case.
> You've not made ANY case, except to ask trick questions and assume that
> everybody thinks like you do, freeing you from any need to explain
> yourself. At least we *made* a case, with our Manifesto, and more
> importantly, by DOING THE WORK.
It's no trick question. There is only one question:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
> You're entire case is, "You're wrong because I say so, and I can read
> your mind." Is this really where you rest your case?
No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me. It has to do with your
group. Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you
are doing.
Perhaps doing some personal and group analysis would be beneficial in
this.
>
> > But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
> > that Sam was booted from the G.D.
>
> Somewhat inaccurate. He was expelled from a particular *Lodge* because
> he questioned how the leader was breaking that Lodge's own rules as they
> applied to his authority to establish a Lodge himself. In fact, several
> people would argue whether or not that particular Lodge was really
> "official" or not, and have. The parties involved shall remain nameless
> to protect the guilty from embarrassment.
>
Well, I don't know the situation and don't care. But you closely point
out that he was expelled from a particular lodge. That would imply,
would it not, that he was also initiated within that lodge? So if he was
expelled from it, he no longer has the degrees given to him by that
lodge.
I assume from what I read on your web site that since he considers
himself an Adept, that he received that from the lodge. But if he was
expelled, he no longer is an Adept within that lodge. Therefore, would
not that claim be questionable?
Personally, I don't care one way or another. I imagine that there is
some sort of rationalization (sounds very much like Kenneth Grant's
story of how when he was kicked out of the O.T.O. by Germer he immedialy
became the head. By that logic Gore is President of the U.S.!) as to why
he is still a G.D. Adept.
So why not just do the G.D. work? Then you could certainly call it the
G.D.
> > Perhaps, then, he has "personal
> > issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
> > out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
>
> Mooph! A personal attack! Ad hominem! The last resort of the scoundrel?
LOL!
Tsk. Tsk. I was repeating (and mocking) your own attack on myself. but
turned it back to the source. Pay back's a bitch, huh?
;-)
>
> Sam does his Will quite adequately. And thank you -- that does settle
> the question of whether you know Sam Webster or not. You clearly don't.
> My apologies, for implying such was an obvious error on my part.
>
> But speaking of which, lets' do a quick survey of the logical fallacies
> you've served up so far (*dusts off the old Logic textbook*):
>
> * False Analogy*
> Definition: In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to
> be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B
> must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B,
> are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
I'm sorry you don't know the difference between an analogy and a
metaphor.
Your loss.
>
> * Argument From Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)*
> Definition: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not
> been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument
> may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is
> therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it
> assumes that all propositions must ether be known to be true or known to
> be false.)
When a question is repeatedly asked and no answer is given, it is
impossible to do anything other than reask the question or make
assumptions. So by not responding you have forced arguments based on
logic from what has appeared.
Sorry you don't like it. Too bad it fits.
And by the way, it should be pointed out that merely because a logical
argument indicates that something is not true, it does not mean it is
not true. The common example -- science says a bee has wings too small
to fly -- indicates that, logic be damned, the bee still flies.
>
> * Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) *
> Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
> argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's
> character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it
> may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable
> outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
> attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
Which came in response to your own attack on myself.
Sorry you don't like a mirror held up to you.
>
> * Hasty Generalization *
> Definition: The size of the sample, or the amount of garnered knowledge,
> is too small to support the conclusion.
>
> * Fallacy of Exclusion *
> Definition: Important evidence which would undermine an inductive
> argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all
> relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence".
>
> I could dig out others, I suppose, but I think that's sufficient.
>
> You know, Re, if you wanted to actually ASK questions about who we are,
> what we're doing, and why, I'd be more than happy to answer. But you
> don't. You have it all figured out, and you never lie, and you're always
> right. So what is there to talk about?
>
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
>
I'm sure you could come up with LOTS of things which are totally
irrelevant to the same thing I've tried to get you to answer and which
you continually refuse to answer:
I'll try it again:
Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
change, do you still choose to use the name?
It would seem, that with all of you comments (you and AA), I have
touched a nerve and it bothers you a great deal.
Think on that.
Re
aethyr augoeides
Why? Why is McDonald's not McGregors or O'Neill? Because they chose
McDonald's, not thee others.
>Naw, like so many others, they think that the G.D. is the bees knees, so
>they glom on to that name.
>
>I don't know them. I don't know what they teach. As far as I know it may
>be very good. I'm not criticizing that at all.
>
>But the fact is, either it IS the GD or it isn't.
>
>It isn't.
>
>
>
>
>>>>Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
>>>>conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
>>>>Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
>>>>temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
>>>>cult.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
>>>anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
>>>new GD is a cult?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Wall's "cult"? We need to use loaded language now? Why? I wasn't aware
>>that was the official status of the T.'.G.'.D.'. Hmmm...
>>
>>
>
>Oh please. If Wall left there'd be nothing left.
>
>
Pity that wasn't thee point I was addressing. Since you are mindlessly
following it, I'll wager that the tgd is not listed as a 'Cult' except
in thee o so reliable christian directories/ info sources. So, since you
are leaping on this 3rd grade bandwagon, you won't mind if I class you
with some of my less intelligent, more emotionally plagued Xian friends?
>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Any way you like.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hmm, these were pretty valid questions. You dismissing them as
>>irrelavent is not good for your nebulous Point.
>>
>>
>
>
>I wasn't dismissing them at all. It was asked how do I measure
>"success." I said measure it any way you like.
>
You didn't answer the rhetorical questions with Anything. The burden was
thrown back on you to clarify your thought, and you weren't up for the
challenge. Since you don't have a leg to stand on this is hardly surprising.
>The analogy was not about simplicity, but you chose to see it that
>way. That analogy was about changing something, but then giving
>it the title of the original in an attempt to succeed off of the fame
>of that original.
>
>
>
>
>>>>Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
>>>>this point, so I think you need to re-examine your "pitch" (pun
>>>>intended.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's a good one!
>>>But it still dodges the issue:
>>>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
>>>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Does everyone think you sound like a harpy? Have you stopped beating
>>your wife?
>>
>>
>
>
>No, just you.
>And I keep asking the same question because it has never been answered.
>
>
>
<snip>
You mean more ad hominem soup with some trusty shifting of pov's, and
slippery slope spice? No thank you; I've had my fill ov misinformation
rations for the week.
><snip>
>
>
>>>>Calling it "Sam's Club" is highly ambiguous, unless one knows who "Sam"
>>>>is, and which "Sam" is being referred to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's exactly my point!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If that was "exactly" your point, you'd pass on this part and tell us
>>you agree. As it is, you are merely being argumentative.
>>
>>
>
>
>I really don't think you're that dense, but I'll try to spell it out for
>you. The name was chosen in an attempt to glom onto the fame of the G.D.
>rather than call it something else which might be consider "highly
>ambiguous" (to use your terms).
>
This is what was implied. However, if I am impressed by so little (said
glory), I deserve what little misdirection inadvertantly offered by such
a cursory and Surface set of Impressions as you are presenting as
'inevitable' or otherwise compelling.
>
>That would be like starting a junk food restaurant, put large, yellow
>arches around it, and calling it "McDonnels." Obviously, the purpose is
>to make it look like something it is not.
>
>
>
>
>>>Rather than admitting you've created something new (because you think
>>>few people are interested) you glom onto the name of a traditional and
>>>respected (well, by some) group.
>>>
>>>What's wrong with honesty? Carroll et. al. did it with Chaos Magick.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>What's honest about Chaos magick?! Love the group, but honest is the
>>last bit of description I'd apply to their Cult.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Geez! Take things in context.
>They have, all along, admitted exactly where it came from and how it
>developed. They didn't call it Thelema or Golden Dawn or crib the name
>from another group.
>
Comparing apples and oranges is otherwise known as inappropriate
analogy. Point is, would you be fooled by the McDonnel's? If not, then
you have merely put forth another red herring. I know I wouldn't fool
myself into thinking Sam Webster's club was 'the original' gd, whatever
that might look like. Maybe my problem is I've actually done my homework
and I am not as gullible as an iron rod in an electrical storm.
>You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
>If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
>You've also said that you changed the rituals to match Crowleyan
>attributions. That's like saying you're playing baseball (back to that,
>again) but following the rules of football. Why not just call it
>football?
>
>
>
>>Somehow I followed this line of thought without any serious hurdles to
>>my understanding. Maybe you are being purposefully bull-headed?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
>>>being dishonest for some unknown issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Have you stopped beating your wife, Re?
>>
>>
>
>
>Like I said, I'll leave the beatings to you.
>
>
If we pass the buck often enough, I am sure everyone will be misled into
believing that the fallacious arguments you are setting forth are both
valid and coumplete, neither of which is even close to being the case.
gd doesn't exist bone head, hasn't for some 100 years. the branches that
have continued all had to one way or another admit this fact. gd ended
when germany wrote back to london saying 'go fish.'
so how are there any 'real' gd 'attributions'?
once again, your analogy is extremely weak and unconvincing...
>But Fr. A.o.C. let me go out on a limb here. On your website it says
>that Sam was booted from the G.D. Perhaps, then, he has "personal
>issues" about that organization dealing with rejection and is "acting
>out" those personal issues rather than doing his Will?
>
>
>
>>Is this "Let's psychoanalyze Anyone Who'll listen newsnet hour?" Take it
>>somewhere else, Stat.
>>
>>
>
>
>Just responding in kind. Interesting that you would only pick on me and
>not for the people who started this aspect.
>
>I wonder why that is.....
>
Not 'picking' on anyone. Go take a chill pill.
>>I am all for holding people accountable to their deeds, words, etc. but
>>Sam seems Clear enough on these points, that there might be a juicier
>>target out there for you somewheres else Re?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Then why doesn't he refer to his group with the truth that it is not the
>G.D.?
>
>Re
>
>
Why doesn't x corporation tell us the truth when they are about to go
bankrupt? i don't know, but their perogative to Lie, and Propogandize
how they will has little to do with historical fact or Natural Law than
Are they actually defrauding anyone or otherwise Offending the trust
Laws, etc.
aa
deqvf
aethyr augoeides
>In article <3D98C5F7...@address.com>,
> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Re O'Stat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <3D98021C...@address.com>,
>>> "Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>He called it "Open Source Baseball."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? It had nothing to do with being "open source", it simply
>>>>>>made the game easier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Because he changed the entire nature, but because he didn't have
>>>>>the courage to strike out (pun intended) on his own, he had to
>>>>>pick the name of the previous game and try to have success based
>>>>>on the fame and popularity of the original.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>First of all, you didn't answer the question, which was why "a guy"
>>>>called it "open source baseball". See below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You're missing the subject and dodging the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>I asked for clarification, since you did not present your 'issue' in a
>>clear manner. Instead you used an inappropriate analogy -- presumably
>>because you thought you were being oh-so-clever?
>>
>>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>I note that this dodges the issue and doesn't respond to the question.
>>So I'll try it again in a different way:
>>
>>Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
>>
>>
>>And I note that you are now copying the argument of AA. No need to. You
>>could come up with something original.
>>
>>
>>
Why reinvent the wheel? The implied message in the beating wife scenario is:
<blockquote>
> Every first-year undergraduate student of logic should be familiar
> with the fallacy illustrated above. Known formally as Denying the
> Antecedent, it can emerge inadvertently because of incorrect reasoning
> or as the purposeful result of a calculated deception. In the above
> example, "Smith's" reputation falls victim to denying the antecedent.
>
</blockquote>
(from: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/apr98/beres2.htm)
><snip>
>
>>
>>So before I can address any of this, you need to define your terms. You
>>keep changing them, or assuming "everybody" agrees with the definition
>>that only exists inside the confines of your own skull.
>>
>>
>
>
>I'll try it again:
>Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
>You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
>fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
>More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
>change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
Why is America called America when only some 3% are native indians, or
otherwise at all related to the 'real' / 'original' Americans? 'Cause
Europeans decided it was gonna be that way, and no one stopped us.
>
>
><snip>
>Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
>conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
>Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
>temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
>cult.)
>
>
>>>But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
>>>anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
>>>new GD is a cult?
>>>
>>>
>>Tell you what: if you'd like to send us all your money and subjugate
>>your will to our commands, I won't stop you.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>This, unfortunately, is not a response.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
>>>>qualifies as "entire"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I dunno. I don't join cults.
>>>
Considering the *time and energy alone* (not to mention any implied or
hoped for intellectual prowess) it would take to collect the materials
SW has and presented them the way he has, his claims are not overly
outrageous. Re's language here, as an example, more combative than seems
productive or warranted?
I don't join cults either, but that hardly influences my opinion on any
of this, even were we to agree on every point about what exactly defines
and makes a 'cult.' Even here, on alt.magick, 'cult' can be an overly
dismissive term used to stigmatize an opponent or their views.
Elsewhere, addressing similar topic, I wrote:
> Similarly, 'cultist' seems a term most third- graders are familiar
> with and everyone else reasonable reserves their usage of the term for
> suicide conspirators or other more notable Strange Phenomenon. And
> then they can also resort to plainer language, tell us what they
> actually *observed* and chaulk it up to 'suicide conspirators' rather
> than capitulate to the rather underwhelming: Nay undescriptive 'cultist.'
Later:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
>>>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
>>>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
>>>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Any way you like.
>>>
>>>
>>Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
>>'wife-beating' ones!
>>
>>
>
>
>Again you're copying AA. Hmmm.
>
>And as I explained to him, I didn't dodge it at all. You asked how I
>measure "success." I responded "Any way you like." That's not a dodge.
>
>
>But once again you're trying to change the discussion from the main
>point.
>
At this point, I am pretty sure Re has *some* valuable things to offer,
it is only taking awhile to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am also
pretty sure Sam has every legal/ moral/ intellectual right in the world
to claim the gd 'shell' and do with it as he pleases.
You may as well ask why Ford and Hyundai insist on calling their
products 'automobiles' when their products are clearly different (with
computers airbags etc. it is hardly fair to compare though, eh?) from
the Model T's of around a hundred years ago.
>
>So I'll try it again:
>Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
>You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
>fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
>More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
>change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Others besides myself found your analogy confusing and not speaking to
>>>><snip>
>>>>Fascinating. You continue to use the same arguments as AA. One would
>>>>think you two are one and the same, using different names just to make
>>>>it look like you are different people. Of course this comment doesn't
>>>>add anything to the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Sam and I are in fact different individuals. I belong to no occult
Order. I don't even know SW except by name, having read the csgdm (regudy).
><snip>
>
>
>I mean, you can tell what we're thinking, right?
>Do you need to wear a big gold lame' turban when you exercise your
>clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands around and scrunch up your eyes
>really tight?
>
>You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
>very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking.
>
>
>
>That's because this is about why YOU people have decided to appropriate
>the name of an organization which has concepts you choose not to follow.
>It's not the Golden Dawn, it's your group. I haven't said anything about
>the quality of what you do and teach. It may be very good. I don't know.
>I don't claim to...
>
>
>Okay, maybe it was the Jack of Diamonds?
>
>All I'm doing is saying that it is clear you have taken the name because
>you don't think what you're doing can stand on its own. If you want to
>follow the GD traditions, call yourself the GD. If you don't, call
>yourself something else.
>
>What's so hard about that to understand?
>
Maybe we should ask the makers of the hyperlink try to collect from all
us loafers and poachers who insist on using them?
Maybe we should ask Coca Cola to repair cocaine damages done to Los Angeles?
Maybe we should ask the Pope to stop calling his religion Christianity
in deference to Jesus' Hebraic background?
><snip>
>
>
>
>I'm sorry you don't know the difference between an analogy and a
>metaphor.
>
>Your loss.
>
>
I *might* buy that if you tease out the difference for me. As it is, I
am siding with FrAoC
><snip>
>
>
>I'm sure you could come up with LOTS of things which are totally
>irrelevant to the same thing I've tried to get you to answer and which
>you continually refuse to answer:
>
>
>I'll try it again:
>Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you are doing?
>You may come up with all of the rationalizations you wish to, but the
>fact is, you are not doing the G.D. work. You are doing something new.
>More power to you for it! So why, if you consider the GD needing so much
>change, do you still choose to use the name?
>
Why isn't Coke Classic called Pepsi Lite?
Bad marketting, all logic aside.
>
>
>
>It would seem, that with all of you comments (you and AA), I have
>touched a nerve and it bothers you a great deal.
>
>Think on that.
>
>Re
>
>
Doesn't bother me one whit. You are more than free to remain with your
views, changed or unchanged. Not my responsibility.
mektoub,
fard al-qahar
saracen knight ov thee gnosis
aka
aethyr augoeides,
known cultist, elitist, and nitwit
suspected conspirator of unimaginably vast unimportance
seer
(I wonder why you attract such activity!)
> I wish I had Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz like you. Hey, what card am I thinking of
> right now? I mean, you can tell what we're thinking, right?
LOL
You are thinking of The Fool...
;)
> Do you need to wear a big gold lame' turban when you exercise your
> clairvoyance?
Er, no.
> Do you wave your hands around and scrunch up your eyes really tight?
Sometimes. But only if I get lemon or something in my eye. Otherwise, no.
Seer
I'm going to shut up now, and not appear in this thread again...
*HA* I laugh at most of you.
catherine yronwode
Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> What you've done, unfortunately, is mistaken the map for the reality.
> I'm sorry that you can't figure out a simple analogy. That's your
> problem.
>
> The point, however, remains the same.
>
> You have made major changes to the GD system yet you call what you do
> the GD.
>
> Why not just give it a new name which better reflects what you
> are doing?
No offense intended to anyone, but i have three words to say in comment:
Kabbalah
Cabbala
Qabala
Some here will recall the many heated past threads to which those three
words refer and will understand their analogy to the present situation
Suffice it to say that some occcult / spiritual / mystica concepts are
so deemed valuable that their names are considered worthy of
appropriation, even when the actual systems of thought they represent
are revised beyond recognition.
cat yronwode
cock
news:user-BB70CE.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
Here's an idea: Rather than snipping one sentence out of my post and
continuing with the same refutation, why don't you answer the REAL question
I asked? Since we're so fond of repeating ourselves on this thread:
"For fuck's sake, man. It's obvious from even a cursory glimpse at their
website that the order they've formed is utilizing the structure, format,
and methodology of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Colloquially, the
"Golden Dawn" hasn't meant a specific magical order for damn near a hundred
years, but the system of magic that that order created. Using the name
Golden Dawn is the most succinct description of what they're doing. They're
not trying to claim direct lineage or any of the other anal retentive things
most Golden Dawn clones do, they're just using the system. So they've made
a few changes. BFD. It's still recognizable as being based on the Golden
Dawn, and it's not attempting to mislead anyone. Your splitting hairs over
bullshit. Don't you have anything better to do than flame people over
minutiae?"
Your assertions that "they're not the Golden Dawn" relies on a very strict
definition of what the Golden Dawn is, and assumes that that definition is
universally held. To most people that I've conversed with, the "Golden
Dawn" ceased to mean the specific organization formed by Westcott, Woodman
and Mathers about a hundred years ago, and since that time has referred to
the magical system that was created by said organization. Since that's the
system that the Open Source people are using, with a few minor cosmetic
changes, what's the big deal? You're whole argument is "if it's different,
why don't you change the name?", when those differences are relatively
minor, and the name HAS been changed. They are calling it "Open Source",
not "Hermetic Order." I see that as significant enough of a change to
distinguish. Your other claim is that they're trying to glom onto the fame
of the original order. Since they're not trying to get money from anyone,
like Zink, et.al., this seems rather ridiculous of an assertion. Once
again, the question is, why are you splitting hairs over inconsequential
matters?
--
*****************************************
You have to accept the possibility that God doesn't like you.
Tyler Durden, FIGHT CLUB
Fr. A.o.C.
> <massive snippage of heads banging against wallz>
> (I wonder why you attract such activity!)
Clean living, I guess.
> > I wish I had Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz like you. Hey, what card am I thinking of
> > right now? I mean, you can tell what we're thinking, right?
>
> LOL
>
> You are thinking of The Fool...
Funny how life imitates art, ain't it?
> > Do you need to wear a big gold lame' turban when you exercise your
> > clairvoyance?
>
> Er, no.
But they look so k00l!!!
> > Do you wave your hands around and scrunch up your eyes really tight?
>
> Sometimes. But only if I get lemon or something in my eye. Otherwise, no.
Aw, where's your sense of the dramatic?
> I'm going to shut up now, and not appear in this thread again...
I'm begininng to feel that way myself. I know, you warned me. I've even
composed a very thoughtful and non-beligerent response to clarify of our
manifestation, but ya know? I think I'd rather save it and polish it up
for the website, because it answers real questions. ReOstat has his own
final defintion of what the great thing called "The Golden Dawn" means,
we don't agree, and that is that.
There will be a FAQ very soon to address all the questions that have
come up here and in other forums. Most of the senior members (including
myself) have only just come back from a magical retreat held last
weekend, but we're on it now.
We'll just let our Work speak for itself. Anyone is invited to examine
us as closely as they like, and make up their own minds.
> *HA* I laugh at most of you.
More Fool me.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"When knowledge is reduced to a mere dogma that is blindly accepted, it
may appear to survive for some time, while its rules are still being
slavishly observed. But as its underlying coherence and justification
is being lost, the underlying truth is soon distorted and breaks into
pieces, in the same way that the dead body decays and falls apart under
the effects of putrefaction."Â
-- Albert Schweitzer
cock
news:3D994F7F...@address.com...
<SNIP>
> I'm begininng to feel that way myself. I know, you warned me. I've even
> composed a very thoughtful and non-beligerent response to clarify of our
> manifestation, but ya know? I think I'd rather save it and polish it up
> for the website, because it answers real questions.
I would actually like to see that response. I like what I've seen so far of
your group.
Tom
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3D9933...@luckymojo.com...
>
> No offense intended to anyone, but i have three words to say in comment:
>
> Kabbalah
> Cabbala
> Qabala
>
> Some here will recall the many heated past threads to which those three
> words refer and will understand their analogy to the present situation
>
> Suffice it to say that some occcult / spiritual / mystica concepts are
> so deemed valuable that their names are considered worthy of
> appropriation, even when the actual systems of thought they represent
> are revised beyond recognition.
Craballa
Kabollocks
Quibble-ah
Qabbaloney
And so on.
aethyr augoeides
Is this where we tell thee kidz about Qiddich, and the snitch?
Long live thee Lorax!
aa
deqvf
aethyr augoeides
aethyr augoeides
Point #1. Well stated. To the point. Undramatic and purposeful.
>
>We're still bogged down in nomenclature,
>
generous assumption
>and you aren't giving any
>information as to how you arrive at your assumptions.
>
The clincher. No information is Bad.
>For example, how
>is a "new system" defined? Using the original Order to illustrate, the
>first "system" the put together in 1888 was changed in many ways within
>a year or so, and then changed again more profoundly in 1892. And
>changed on a regular basis thereafter, by the originators and their
>heirs. Where do we draw the line -- or more to the point here, where do
>YOU draw it?
>
>Actually, the question you haven't answered is what you consider to be
>the OLD system? Until we define that, there is no way to evaluate
>whether or not ours is a "new" system, in the sense you seem to be
>implying. What defines the "Golden Dawn System"? The Cipher Manuscript?
>We follow that scrupulously. We consider it to be the only "canon" of
>the Golden Dawn, and everything else is window dressing. Not only is
>that obvious considering the history of the Order, but Mathers even said
>so explicitly.
>
>I could make the case, and I think it's a valid one, that the Cipher
>Manuscript is the only reliable defining factor for ANY Golden Dawn
>group. It's the one *we* use, anyway. And we actually go WAY beynd that
>in what we follow regarding the traditions of the Order.
>
>So before I can address any of this, you need to define your terms. You
>keep changing them, or assuming "everybody" agrees with the definition
>that only exists inside the confines of your own skull.
>
Consistency seems required for varied Enterprises, different methods
here, similar methods there. Defining terms. For this, I have found
Leery's 8-circuit model and terminology works as well as any.
>
>
>
>>>Second: what is your definition of "entire nature"? I don't think that's
>>>accurate at all.
>>>
>>>
>>You're focusing on little points rather than dealing with the main issue:
>>
>>
>
>No, this IS the main issue, or at least we can't deal with your "main
>issue" until we clear this up. You can't accuse us of creating a "new
>system" and have it actually mean anything until you can tell us what
>you think the OLD system is, and then we can compare them. Define your
>terms. Everything turns on this.
>
>
>
>>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
>>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>>
>>
>
>Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
>seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
>legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
>can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
>
Excellent! I can hear my dad even now, saying something similar.
>
>So that's what all this is about then? Why didn't you just come to the
>point right up front, instead of playing baseball games?
>
Pointed question. Do we have any takers? Silence seems as significant as
Speech sometimes, eh?
>
>I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
>get anywhere until you declare your terms: What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
>System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
>"lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
>SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
>
When these get seriously answered, I hope to be there.
>
>If you can't, or won't, answer these simple questions, we have no way to
>communicate except to be argumentative, offer lame analogies and ask
>'wife-beating' questions.
>
>This also assumes that you have Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz and can
>clairvoyantly determine the inner workings of our intentions and motivations.
>
>
>
>>>Crowley changed the "entire nature" for the A.A., because he made it all
>>>conform to Thelemite religious canon. (Cherubim's group does the same.)
>>>Waite threw out the Magic, Christianized it totally, and still kept the
>>>temple name. (And now, Zink and HOMSI turned it into a Xtian religious
>>>cult.)
>>>
>>>
>>But Crowley didn't call it the G.D. Wall's cult is more Wall than
>>anything. And HOMSI, you admit, is a cult. So are you saying that your
>>new GD is a cult?
>>
>>
>
>Tell you what: if you'd like to send us all your money and subjugate
>your will to our commands, I won't stop you.
>
IDOIGO doesn't like it though. ;)
>
>
>>>So what aspect of the "nature" of the Golden Dawn have we "changed" that
>>>qualifies as "entire"?
>>>
>>>
>>I dunno. I don't join cults.
>>
>>
>
>Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
>determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
>is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
>make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate.
>
>
Getting caught in sneaky obfuscation can be worse than saying what you mean.
>
>
>>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
>>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
>>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
>>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Any way you like.
>>
>>
>
>Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
>'wife-beating' ones!
>
Dogde noted.
>
>
>
>>>>It is amazing how easily people miss the point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not amazing, it's quite simple really. When you use an inapplicable
>>>analogy that has nothing to do with the point you want to make, you can
>>>usually expect to be misunderstood.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, when people choose to miss a point they can do it quite easily.
>>
>>
>
>I was just waiting for you to MAKE a point, that anyone other than your
>own self could clearly determine.
>
You are both Very pointy. I'll read Flatland.
Right, us Discordians gotta stick apart!
Without good definitions, time binding and space binding are muddled.
Gullible witnesses are amazed at the fireworks.
Let me have a Leonard Cohen afterlife with an eternal sigh-
Kurt Cobain/ Nirvana paraphrase ca. 1993 ev
aa
deqvf
Re Oé…¬tat
"cock" <cere...@ev1.net> wrote:
> "Re OÄ…Stat" <us...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:user-BB70CE.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > In article <uphd4e5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "cock" <cere...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > *****They're not trying to claim direct lineage or any of the other anal
> > retentive things most Golden Dawn clones do, they're just using the
> > system. *******
> >
> >
> > In other words, they're not the G.D.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Re
>
> Here's an idea: Rather than snipping one sentence out of my post and
> continuing with the same refutation, why don't you answer the REAL question
> I asked? Since we're so fond of repeating ourselves on this thread:
>
> "For fuck's sake, man. It's obvious from even a cursory glimpse at their
> website that the order they've formed is utilizing the structure, format,
> and methodology of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
<Sigh>
But they have made major changes to the basics, such as switch Horus
with Osiris.
So when does a new group no longer represent what went before?
How much do they need to change? 2% 10% 51%?
By your definition, the AA should cease calling itself that and change
their name to the G.D. because much of it is the same.
By your definition, the BOTA should do the same.
I've seen people relate the 3 degrees of Gardnerian Witchcraft to those
of the G.D. So let's call Wicca the G.D., too. And certainly Alexandrian
Witchcraft should be called the G.D. because they focus a great deal on
ceremonial derived from the G.D.
But then, in actuality, it shouldn't be called the G.D. at all. It
should be called Masonry.
Why do all of these groups have different names? Because they ARE
different.
If you want to run a GD group, do the GD work. Why bother taking the
G.D. name if you aren't going to do the G.D. work?
You may as well call the Cosa Nostra the FBI because some of the people
involved in both groups have Italian (or Sicillian) ancestry.
Well, of course, some people think they ARE the same.
;-)
Re
Re O'Stat
aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
> Fr. A.o.C. wrote:
>
> >Re O'Stat wrote:
> >
> >
> >In the first place, it's not a question, it's a accusation. One
> >presented with no facts in evidence to support it, except a poorly
> >crafted baseball analogy.
> >
> Point #1. Well stated. To the point. Undramatic and purposeful.
It's still a question.
Why not choose a legitimate name instead of taking on the fame of
another group? That IS what's being done. Like it or not.
> >>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
> >>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
> >seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
> >legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
> >can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
> >
> Excellent! I can hear my dad even now, saying something similar.
And when people don't answer a question, ask it again until they do give
an answer. Sorry if you don't like that, AA.
> >
> >I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
> >get anywhere until you declare your terms: What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
> >System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
> >"lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
> >SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
> >
> When these get seriously answered, I hope to be there.
Well, let's see. There are, I think, two answers.
First, there is what is commonly called the "Golden Dawn" current.
Certainly anyone can tap into this. Many people have written down the
practices and ideas which are involved with this current. Anyone is free
to tap into sections or all of that current.
Second, there is the physical manifestation of the Golden Dawn. Many
people have gone through working with the various manifestations, but as
soon as they changed it, they changed the name of what they were doing:
Case: BOTA; Crowley: AA; Fortune: Society (nee: Fraternity nee:
Community) of the Inner Light.
> >Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
> >determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
> >is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
> >make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate.
> >
> >
> Getting caught in sneaky obfuscation can be worse than saying what you mean.
Nope. I don't contend that I can determine what is GD and what isn't.
But when somebody says I started with the GD and then changed it, they,
themselves are saying they aren't GD.
If you start out playing checkers but then switch to chess, do you still
call it checkers simply because the board is the same? Of course not.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
> >>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
> >>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
> >>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Any way you like.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
> >'wife-beating' ones!
> >
> Dogde noted.
>
And, as I had written earlier, by accepting YOUR definition of success I
was not dodging anything. Rather, I was letting you determine your own
definition and saying I'd agree.
> >
> You are both Very pointy. I'll read Flatland.
I'm still waiting for somebody to do Flatland II: Adventures in the 4th,
5th and 6th dimensions.
Maybe you'll do it?
;-)
> Right, us Discordians gotta stick apart!
psst: if nothing sticks to teflon, how DO you get it to stick to the pan?
> >>>
> >>You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
> >>If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
> >
> >Dramatic impact? *grin*
Exactly.
And that's the same reason you're referring to what you do as the G.D.
rather than as something new (which it is): dramatic impact and the hope
that people will become interested. Obviously, they won't be interested
if you call it Joe's House of Spatulas and Occult Secrets.
> >>You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
> >>being dishonest for some unknown issue.
> >
> >You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
> >very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking.
That's because this discussion is about your assuming the name GD. I
note that I haven't started a group. I'm not going to. If you want to
start a new thead about what I'm thinking, fine. This is about the name
of your group.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I don't know anyone in your group.
> >>I don't care what you do.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You seem to care a great deal.
LOL!
It seems that you DO have your "Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz." I mean, you can
tell what I'm thinking, right? "Do you need to wear a big gold lame'
turban when you exercise your clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands
around and scrunch up your eyesreally tight?"
I repeat.
I don't know anyone in your group.
I don't care what you do.
I DO respect honesty, something which you are not expressing in your
choice of name.
Why not call the Temple of Set the G.D.?
Why not call the Church of Satan the G.D.?
> >If we did not base our system carefully and deliberately on the Cipher
> >Manuscript and the core traditions of the Order, I would say that your
> >above description is adequate. But as it happens, we do, and that is
> >what makes ANYTHING "Golden Dawn".
I see.
So what you're saying is that YOU can decide what should be followed and
YOU can decide what is and what is not the G.D. Forget tradition. Forget
history. Forget legitimacy. Whatever YOU decide is the G.D. is now, and
forevermore, officially, the G.D.
> >
> >And that's where you are wrong. Sorry, but you have not made your case.
> >You've not made ANY case, except to ask trick questions and assume that
> >everybody thinks like you do, freeing you from any need to explain
> >yourself. At least we *made* a case, with our Manifesto, and more
> >importantly, by DOING THE WORK.
Ooooh! You have a Manifesto.
So did the Communist party.
BFD.
Point 1. Your head, admittedly, was expelled from the G.D.
Point 2. Your group, started with the G.D. work but changed aspects of
it.
Point 3. Unlike those who would be honest (Crowley, Fortune, Case,
etc.), you have chosen to use the G.D. name in order to grab the fame of
that group.
Point 4. Since you admit on your web site that you have changed
attributions, you may be DOING WORK, but it is not the Golden Dawn work.
> >
> >You're entire case is, "You're wrong because I say so, and I can read
> >your mind." Is this really where you rest your case?
And your entire case is "It's the Golden Dawn. Why? Because we say so.
Sure, We've changed things (we know better). Sure, it's not the
tradition (we're smart enough to ignore over 100 years of people working
that tradition and come up with the "real" work). So EVERYONE ELSE is
wrong and only we are the G.D."
> >
> Without good definitions, time binding and space binding are muddled.
> Gullible witnesses are amazed at the fireworks.
Very true, AA.
<snip>
> >You know, Re, if you wanted to actually ASK questions about who we are,
> >what we're doing, and why, I'd be more than happy to answer. But you
> >don't. You have it all figured out, and you never lie, and you're always
> >right. So what is there to talk about?
> >
> >
> >- Fr. A.o.C.
You've already SHOWN who you are.
You're the group that takes the G.D., changes it, and still claims to be
the G.D.
Re
Blazin' Tommy D.
to
Tom <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<Jylm9.31$MK.5...@news.uswest.net>...
Blazin' Tommy D.
Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote in article
<user-3F6735.1...@netnews.attbi.com>...
> In article <3D99F2A7...@cox.net>,
> aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
[clip]
> And that's the same reason you're referring to what you do as the G.D.
> rather than as something new (which it is): dramatic impact and the hope
> that people will become interested. Obviously, they won't be interested
> if you call it Joe's House of Spatulas and Occult Secrets.
>
BTD: Geez, I don't know Re O'Stat, this is potentially unfair to short
order cooks prospectively interested in Occult secrets, everywhere. I was
working the grill one day, using this gleaming stainless steel spatula,
slipped into a trance and . . .
[clip]
Fr. A.o.C.
I'm going to make this reply as brief as I can. But first, I think
you're selling us short, Re. You seem to assume that we have no idea
what we're doing regarding this issue, that we haven't thought at all
about what "Golden Dawn" means, and our sole motivation for having the
words "Golden Dawn" in our name is to "glom" publicity that we just know
in our wicked little hearts we don't deserve. You're, in effect, calling
us liars.
I deny this characterization. I submit it might be possible that we are
in a more informed position to make "judgement calls", about what the
nature of the GD system is in this regard and what defines it, than you
are. Not because we are "elevated adepts" or in possession of
"revelations" or that we're "smarter than you", but by the simple virtue
of having many heads studying this issue for two years (including heads
with previous "traditional" GD experience, unlike yourself) and asking
ourselves the very same hard questions you circuitously put forth,
finding concensus, testing our assumptions, and then making an informed
and reasoned decision to name our Order what we have.
All of your "questions" are set up in such a way that no answer can be
made that doesn't first agree with two basic premises, which seem to be
1) that if anyone changes *anything* so much as the style of a letter
from the way the GD lodges under Mathers 100 years ago did things, they
have no "right" to call use the words "Golden Dawn" in their name, and
2) anyone who does use those two words in their name does so ONLY for
the purpose of dishonestly and maliciously attempting to deceive the
public for personal gain.
I don't agree with you. We draw the line elsewhere, and you are not
privy to our motivations. We believe we are in alignment with those core
elements of the Golden Dawn system that give it its unique character
(unlike the A.A. or ToS or any of your other examples), and to use the
words "Golden Dawn" in our name is therefore honest and correct. If you
don't agree, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What else can be said?
But to address one of the few "determining factors" that you *did*
actually mention specifically, here's your answer:
We use Horus as our Hierophant of the 0=0 Hall instead of Osiris. But in
the Cipher Manuscript, *there are no godforms mentioned at all* in the
Hall. That is a later redaction of the ORIGINAL ritual in the Mss., done
by S.L. and Moina Mathers. If you wish, you may go to
www.hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/ and confirm this for yourself. (See
Folios 1 through 8.) So therefore, we hold that NO godforms in the 0=0
Hall are "canonical" and we can apply other godforms to the symbolism of
the Hall as described in the Mss. than did Mathers, so long as it isn't
*contrary* to that symbolism. Frankly, we believe ours works *better*,
and it isn't based on outdated, embarassingly bad Egyptian scholarship,
as was Mathers'. If you don't agree, well, you're entitled to your
opinion. What else can be said?
As to why any other "heirs" to the GD current chose to use "Golden Dawn"
in their name or not, that's a matter for them to answer, not I. If they
stuck to as much of the core structure as we have, then they too have
the "right" to use those two words, AFAIAC. You call it "being honest",
I call it a matter of personal taste. *shrug* But in the case of those
old Orders you mentioned, maybe they didn't WANT to, as the name had
been dragged through a public scandal by the Horos incident. If you
don't agree, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What else can be said?
But take heart! Your questions (cleaned up and rendered into the form of
actual *questions*) have been added to our list of ones to be addressed
in our upcoming FAQ. If you want any more out of us on this matter,
you'll just have to wait until that comes out. But thank you for your contribution.
(Hey, how about the New Reformed Order of the Golden Dawn -- NROOGD?
They're a Wiccan coven! They've been around since 1968, but that's no
excuse! As the self-appointed guardian of Golden Dawn correctness, you
should leave some nasty, mean-spirited messages and bad baseball
analogies for them too! Go over to www.nroogd.org and give 'em a piece
of your mind!)
- Fr. A.o.C.
"When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those
who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do."
-- William Blake
Re Oé…¬tat
When you open
"Blazin' Tommy D's House of Spatulas and Occult Secrets" let us know.
I'll get one of those nifty, non-scratch numbers.
Re
Fr. A.o.C.
> But Bruce is playing an old game called "change the target."
>
> Here is how it is played:
>
> 1) Person X tells person Y to prove something or define something.
> 2) Person Y, assuming that person X has no ulterior motive, does so.
> 3) Person X, then changes the target in one of the following ways (or in
> other ways, too)
> A) Denounce the source of your proof
> B) Mock you or your proof
> C) Say that it doesn't work for him or her, therefore it cannot
> work at all
> D) Ask for more and more evidence (if you brought 10,000 pages
> it wouldn't be enough)
> E) Deny your proof or definition
> F) Etc.
>
> You see, Bruce NEVER wanted a definition of what Enochian is all about.
> If he had, he simply would have said, "Thanks!" Instead, I am sure, he
> will insult you or denounce Enochian, etc.
Now I ask you, isn't this similar to what you're putting me through? Not
in all the particulars, of course, but it appears the "spirit" is very
much the same. You never really wanted to hear our reasons for our
methods or our choice of name. You had already made up your mind. You
simply wished to insult us and denounce us, for crimes that only you
seem to misunderstand, or even care about.
Think on that.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
Not at all.
1) I have not asked you to prove or define anything
2) I have not changed the subject. But every time you have tried to
change the subject I have brought it back to the question at hand.
3) Since you have not attempted to "prove" anything, I could not have
mocked or denounced your evidence.
4) I haven't been talking at all about what "works." In fact, I have
written that I don't know if what you people do is good or not. That has
not been the point. Lots of groups are good. But lots of groups aren't
calling themselves the G.D.
5) I have not asked for more and more evidence. You have already given
the evidence that you have changed basic teachings of the G.D.
6) I haven't denied anything. I haven't denied anything you have
presented.
Respectfully, I have continually asked the same question. You have gone
round and round about the Ciphers and how your leader was not booted
from the G.D. but only from one lodge. I haven't denied anything about
this.
All I have said, continually, is that if you change the material it
would be more legitimate to change the name. Since you have chosen not
to do so, one wonders what your motive is.
Re
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> 1) I have not asked you to prove or define anything
No, instead you have imposed a defintion with which I do not agree to
begin with. It's like trying to arguing the value of "greenness" without
any agreement on what is called "green". So now what?
> 2) I have not changed the subject.
Your first subject was to call us "fat and lazy", and to imply that we
"made the game less challenging". Deny it all you want. You were rude
without any call for it.
Then you changed it.
> But every time you have tried to
> change the subject I have brought it back to the question at hand.
If your definition is invalid, so is any question based on it. We're
stuck here, and will remain so, unless we can agree on definitions. I've
stated mine. What's yours?
> 3) Since you have not attempted to "prove" anything, I could not have
> mocked or denounced your evidence.
You mocked and denounced *us*, explicitly, with your "baseball" analogy.
> 4) I haven't been talking at all about what "works."
Neither have I. I said not all the particulars apply, only the spirit in
which it's being offered.
> In fact, I have written that I don't know if what you people do is good or not.
Stipulated.
> That has not been the point. Lots of groups are good.
Agreed.
> But lots of groups aren't calling themselves the G.D.
True. And...?
> 5) I have not asked for more and more evidence. You have already given the evidence that you have
> changed basic teachings of the G.D.
You refuse to define "basic teachings", much less offered any argument
as to why they are basic, and which ones matter. This is the major
sticking point. Do that, and all else will follow.
> 6) I haven't denied anything. I haven't denied anything you have presented.
You deny our interpretation of what defines "Golden Dawn".
> Respectfully,
Hardly. "Fat and lazy"?
> I have continually asked the same question.
Based on the same un-agreed upon premise.
> You have gone
> round and round about the Ciphers and how your leader was not booted
> from the G.D. but only from one lodge. I haven't denied anything about
> this.
Peripheral to the point, offered for purposes of clarification only. The
point is, one can't argue a consequent without an agreed upon predicate,
and that's what you're going round and round trying to do.
> All I have said, continually, is that if you change the material
What if we changed one word? How about two? One ritual action? One
godform? How about two? Three? A dozen? Where do you draw the line? You
go round and round but won't come out and define your terms. This leaves
you free to change them whenever you want.
> it would be more legitimate to change the name.
Only if we changed those things which would warrant changing the name,
which we haven't (in our opinion, of course). Anything else I've offered
has been only to try to illustrate *why* we believe those few things we
have changed do not de-legitimize the use of a variation of the name
Golden Dawn.
You are free, of course, to disagree.
> Since you have chosen not to do so, one wonders what your motive is.
And thereby you denounce us further, hinting at strange, dark motives.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Blazin' Tommy D.
Us grill guys gotta stick together
:)
"Re Oé…¬tat" <us...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:user-E1514B.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
aethyr augoeides
><snip>
>
>
>
>But they have made major changes to the basics, such as switch Horus
>with Osiris.
>
>So when does a new group no longer represent what went before?
>How much do they need to change? 2% 10% 51%?
>
>By your definition, the AA should cease calling itself that and change
>their name to the G.D. because much of it is the same.
>
>By your definition, the BOTA should do the same.
>
>I've seen people relate the 3 degrees of Gardnerian Witchcraft to those
>of the G.D. So let's call Wicca the G.D., too. And certainly Alexandrian
>Witchcraft should be called the G.D. because they focus a great deal on
>ceremonial derived from the G.D.
>
>But then, in actuality, it shouldn't be called the G.D. at all. It
>should be called Masonry.
>
>
>Why do all of these groups have different names? Because they ARE
>different.
>
No. They have different names for the sake of marketing, for sake of
ownership, etc. Just like Pepsi and Coke are named different, but the
actual difference is nil. The difference or non-difference between Coke
and Pepsi has very little to do with their names, everything to do with
their mindshare/ brandnames.
>
>If you want to run a GD group, do the GD work. Why bother taking the
>G.D. name if you aren't going to do the G.D. work?
>
>You may as well call the Cosa Nostra the FBI because some of the people
>involved in both groups have Italian (or Sicillian) ancestry.
>
>Well, of course, some people think they ARE the same.
>
>;-)
>
>Re
>
>
aa
deqvf
Joseph
> "When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those
> who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do."
> -- William Blake
i took a look at your web site, this thread has gotten so much traffic i
thought it might be interesting to see what all the fuss was about, i
particularly enjoyed your discusion of Liber Al and look forward to
perusing it in depth.
its nice to see an east bay forum developing.
from what i can tell from your web site you seem to be dong some good
and interesting work.
don't let the nay sayers get you down, like the poor & suffering in the
gospels they will always be with us.
LVX
--
Joseph
Count de Money.
Re O'Stat
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com> wrote:
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > 1) I have not asked you to prove or define anything
>
> No, instead you have imposed a defintion with which I do not agree to
> begin with. It's like trying to arguing the value of "greenness" without
> any agreement on what is called "green". So now what?
That's okay.
In your paradigm you can say you're the G.D. no matter how much or how
little you have changed it.
>
> > 2) I have not changed the subject.
>
> Your first subject was to call us "fat and lazy", and to imply that we
> "made the game less challenging". Deny it all you want. You were rude
> without any call for it.
I'm sorry.
Your total misrepresentation of what I wrote is totally false.
I was writing about some others.
I was also writing in metaphors which seem to be totally over your head.
I NEVER said this about you or your group.
If you think metaphors and analogies are all so literal, perhaps you
might consider becoming part of a fundamentalist Christian group, too.
After all, they have the same attitude.
>
> Then you changed it.
>
> > But every time you have tried to
> > change the subject I have brought it back to the question at hand.
>
> If your definition is invalid, so is any question based on it. We're
> stuck here, and will remain so, unless we can agree on definitions. I've
> stated mine. What's yours?
It's very simple.
1) You claim the founder of your group was booted from a G.D. lodge.
2) You also claim the founder of your group received initiation from
that lodge.
3) You further claim that you no longer follow the associations of that
version of the G.D., changing Horus for Osiris, for example.
The G.D. is Osirian. By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no
longer the G.D.
I'm not saying that's bad. I'm not saying that you might not have a good
reason for it. I'm not saying that you're not successful in magicks
based on the change.
It's just not the G.D.
>
> > 3) Since you have not attempted to "prove" anything, I could not have
> > mocked or denounced your evidence.
>
> You mocked and denounced *us*, explicitly, with your "baseball" analogy.
>
It was an analogy. Analogies have references. I'm sorry you don't
understand analogies, but they don't have direct carry overs into
reality. Do you really think Jesus' analogy of the mustard seed only
dealt with mustard seeds?
> > 4) I haven't been talking at all about what "works."
>
> Neither have I. I said not all the particulars apply, only the spirit in
> which it's being offered.
On the contrary. You gave several "explanations" of your system and why
it works.
>
> > In fact, I have written that I don't know if what you people do is good or
> > not.
>
> Stipulated.
>
> > That has not been the point. Lots of groups are good.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > But lots of groups aren't calling themselves the G.D.
>
> True. And...?
>
> > 5) I have not asked for more and more evidence. You have already given the
> > evidence that you have
> > changed basic teachings of the G.D.
>
> You refuse to define "basic teachings", much less offered any argument
> as to why they are basic, and which ones matter. This is the major
> sticking point. Do that, and all else will follow.
I have stated it several times. I have also stated it above. You have
already said on your site that you have changed it. The first sentence
on your web page was a quote from Crowley who designed the A.A. to
supersede the G.D.
>
> > 6) I haven't denied anything. I haven't denied anything you have presented.
>
> You deny our interpretation of what defines "Golden Dawn".
Not at all. What you have basically done is say that anything you want
to include is hereby part of the Golden Dawn.
Put that into your web site and into your teachings. At least it would
be honest.
>
> > Respectfully,
>
> Hardly. "Fat and lazy"?
That was about another group.
It's a shame that you consider that such a description also describes
you. Otherwise, you wouldn't think that there was a direct, metaphoric,
analysis.
A friend of mine, a hypnotist, was describing how he helped a business
manager in dealing with employees. While in trance, he had the man
imagine that he was the captain of a ship and had to have all of the
sailors work to the common goal of getting the ship to work. The man
came to realize that he could use several of the techniques he used as a
"sea captain" to work with his employees.
He did not, however, think that he was a sea captain.
He did not, however, think that his employees were sailors.
He did not, however, think that the business he managed was a ship.
You, however, seem hung up on the metaphor rather than returning to the
reality. And simply put you're using the G.D. name under the assumption
that the G.D. can be anything you please in order to attract people to
your group.
>
> > I have continually asked the same question.
>
> Based on the same un-agreed upon premise.
It's not about premises. It's a simple question.
When you refused, continually, to answer, I came up with my own opinon.
>
> > You have gone
> > round and round about the Ciphers and how your leader was not booted
> > from the G.D. but only from one lodge. I haven't denied anything about
> > this.
>
> Peripheral to the point, offered for purposes of clarification only. The
> point is, one can't argue a consequent without an agreed upon predicate,
> and that's what you're going round and round trying to do.
It doesn't clarify anything. Rather, it muddies the issue by bringing in
peripheral points that have nothing to do with the basic question which
you refuse to answer.
>
> > All I have said, continually, is that if you change the material
>
> What if we changed one word? How about two? One ritual action? One
> godform? How about two? Three? A dozen? Where do you draw the line? You
> go round and round but won't come out and define your terms. This leaves
> you free to change them whenever you want.
I have repeatedly described exactly what I meant. You have continually
played word games in an attempt to dodge the issue.
>
> > it would be more legitimate to change the name.
>
> Only if we changed those things which would warrant changing the name,
> which we haven't (in our opinion, of course). Anything else I've offered
> has been only to try to illustrate *why* we believe those few things we
> have changed do not de-legitimize the use of a variation of the name
> Golden Dawn.
Right.
A friend of mine sent me a match book from the "Golden Dawn Dairy." That
doesn't legitimize or de-legitimize the use of the name.
Changing an Osirian group to a Horus-orientation does.
On your web site, that is what you claim you do.
>
> You are free, of course, to disagree.
>
> > Since you have chosen not to do so, one wonders what your motive is.
>
> And thereby you denounce us further, hinting at strange, dark motives.
>
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
On the contrary. I was talking here about you, not your group.
I wrote, "Since you have chosen not to do so..." Groups cannot "choose"
anything. Only individuals do.
You, however, have assumed that this relates to your group and not to
you, the writer of the post. It does not.
Your group has no "strange, dark motives."
You, on the other hand, as the writer of the post, have unguessed
motives.
Why would somebody call their group the "Golden Dawn" when they are not?
Re
Re Oé…¬tat
aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Why do all of these groups have different names? Because they ARE
> >different.
> >
> No. They have different names for the sake of marketing, for sake of
> ownership, etc. Just like Pepsi and Coke are named different, but the
> actual difference is nil. The difference or non-difference between Coke
> and Pepsi has very little to do with their names, everything to do with
> their mindshare/ brandnames.
Whew! You must have fried most of your taste buds.
Virtually everyone I know can easily tell the difference between Pepsi
and Coke.
Re
cock
news:user-8908D1.1...@netnews.attbi.com...
<SNIP>
> The G.D. is Osirian. By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no
> longer the G.D.
>
> I'm not saying that's bad. I'm not saying that you might not have a good
> reason for it. I'm not saying that you're not successful in magicks
> based on the change.
>
> It's just not the G.D.
<SNIP>
This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.? If that is
true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
involved, but I can also see validity in the Osirian/G.'.D.'. :
Horus/A.'.A.'. approach. The debate changes and might become interesting
again. Thoughts?
Secretary ECT
Please excuse my brief and unsolicited comment. In my view the 'magic' of the
'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'. We may refer the various
levels of GD to Christ, Osiris and the Christian Rosenkreuz. Osiris is
the resurrected in the outer Order. Horus is not a resurrected god.
- Jean de Cabilis
Puck T. Smith
>
> [...] The man knocks on the door.
>
> Mr Vibrating:(from within) Come in.
> Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
> Mr Vibrating: I've told you once.
> Man: No you haven't.
> Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.
> Man: When?
> Mr Vibrating: Just now!
> Man: No you didn't.
> Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!
> Man: You most certainly did not.
> Mr Vibrating: Now, let's get one thing quite clear... I most definitely
> told you!
> Man: You did not.
> Mr Vibrating: Yes I did!!
> Man: Look this isn't an argument.
> Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
> Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
> Man: Yes it is.
> Mr Vibrating: It is not.
> Man: It is. You just contradicted me.
> Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.
> Man: Ooh, you did!
> Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.
> Man: You did, just then.
> Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!
> Man: Oh, look this is futile.
> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
> Man: I came here for a good argument.
> Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
> Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
> Mr Vibrating: It can be.
> Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements
> intended to establish a definite proposition.
> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
> Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
> Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary
> position. Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
> Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
> Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process...
> contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other
> person says.
> Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
> Man: Yes it is.
> Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
> Man: Now look!
> Mr Vibrating:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.
> Man: What?
> Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
> Man: But I was just getting interested.
> Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.
> Man: That was never five minutes just now!
> Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.
> Man: No it wasn't.
> Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
> Man: What!?
> Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for
> another five minutes.
> Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on! (Vibrating
> looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
> Mr Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue
> unless you've paid.
> Man: Oh. All right. (pays) There you are.
> Mr Vibrating: Thank you.
> Man: Well?
> Mr Vibrating: Well what?
> Man: That was never five minutes just now.
> Mr Vibrating: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
> Man: I've just paid.
> Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
> Man: I did! I did! I did!
> Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
> Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.
> Mr Vibrating: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.
> Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!
> Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
> Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.
> Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
> Man: I've had enough of this.
> Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
>
Let's not leave it there:
Hitting on the Head Lessons
(Man from the Argument sketch enters an office)
Man: (Michael Palin) I want to complain.
Complainer: (Eric Idle) You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only
had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
Man: No, I want to complain about...
Complainer: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
Man: Oh!
Complainer: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired
of this office.
(Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door. Gets hit on head as he
steps through.)
Man: Hello, I want to... Ooooh!
Spreaders: (Terry Jones) No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah.
Try it again. (hits him on the head again)
Man: uuuwwhh!!
Spreaders: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Hold your hands here.
Man: No.
Spreaders: Now..
Man: Waaaaah!!!
Spreaders: Good, Good! That's it.
Man: Stop hitting me!!
Spreaders: What?
Man: Stop hitting me!!
Spreaders: Stop hitting you?
Man: Yes!
Spreaders: What did you come in here for?
Man: I came here to complain.
Spreaders: Oh no, that's next door. It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in
here.
Man: What a stupid concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the study material at OSOGD is good, when can we expect more.
--
Puck the Smith [p_t_smith (at) hotmail (dot) com]
http://www.smudgestudios.com/arwmfaces/ptsmith.html
***************************************************
The Earth is a witch and the men still burn her.
--Charlie Murphy
Fr. A.o.C.
"Puck T. Smith" wrote:
> BTW, the study material at OSOGD is good,
Thank you. If it's truly helpful to others in their own Work (whether
they are affiliated with us or not) there is no higher praise possible.
We're very gratified, if a little surprised, by the positive responses
we've received from so many people. We've also very pleased to have been
added to the Resources page of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn at:
http://www.hermeticgoldendawn.org/links.htm .
> when can we expect more.
Some additional materials pertaining to the 1=10 Zelator grade should be
in place within the week. We hope to have at least some of the 2=9 study
guides posted soon after. Our Frequently Asked Questions page is being
given the top priority right now (for obvious reasons!)
The next major update will be the entire text of the 0=0 Hall and
Initiation, which is the foundation of all practical Golden Dawn Work.
Also included will be some of the mythology behind our redaction of the
Hall, which will provide further background information on what we're
doing with it and why.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Fr. A.o.C.
> > "Re O'Stat" <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > The G.D. is Osirian.
At last -- a statement of definition!
> > > By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no longer the G.D.
It can be, since the G.D. is not "Osirian" in that sense -- any more
than it is "Isisian" or "Setian" or even "Horusian".
The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript. In
fact, the whole idea of the "resurrected god" doesn't even become
relevant until you get to Mathers' Second Order system, which by
definition is not Golden Dawn, it's R.R. et A.C. Our Order makes no
claim of being based in any way, shape or form on Mathers' R.R. et A.C.
> "cock" <cere...@ev1.net> replied to "Re O'Stat":
> > This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
> > from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
> > original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
> > of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
> > you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
> > Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.?
A good question! It appears that Re (with all due respect) has been more
concerned with "catching us in a lie", so to speak, than advancing any
particular argument on the issues involved. He seems intent on establishing:
1. His interpretation of what constitutes the "Golden Dawn" is the only
possible correct one, and to disagree is like denying that grass is green.
2. Since we do not adhere to this interpretation, we have no 'right' to
use the words "Golden Dawn". Furthermore, we actually know in our
'secret hearts' that there really is only one possible interpretation
(the one he's using), and so therefore we are simply lying when we claim otherwise.
3. Since we are lying to cover up our denial of the obvious, we should
be suspected of ulterior motives for using "Golden Dawn" in the name of
our Order. Possiblites include seeking undeserved attention,
misrepresentation in order to deceive the public, and other "cultish" motivations.
This line of reasoning doesn't address the question of *why* we would
want to do such a thing -- what possible gain is in it for us -- since
we don't charge dues or fees for our materials or classes, offer no
long-distance Initiations, our Aspirants make no oaths of "loyalty" to
the Order of any kind, all of our 'secrets' are not secrets but
available to anyone, we give away all of our original works for free on
the Web, and we don't even require Members to attend Lodge meetings.
Neither do we claim that our way is necessarily 'better' for any given
person than any other way, much less profess to follow the One True
Way<tm>. That doesn't leave much for unethical motivation but sheer,
Web-based ego aggrandizement, in which case we can be nothing more than
harmless Internet kooks.
Anyone is invited to believe we are harmless Internet kooks, if they so desire.
> > If that is
> > true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
> > particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
> > adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
> > methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
> > involved,
This very accurately describes our working premise. The "Golden Dawn" is
a training system, not a religion. The godforms used by Mathers and
Westcott are allegories for the Forces being invoked, and since
allegories are only applicable if they are used in context, when the
context changes, so must the allegories. What use would it be to say,
"they're just like Romeo and Juliet" to someone who has never seen or
read Shakespeare? They wouldn't understand the allegory.
> > but I can also see validity in the Osirian/G.'.D.'. :
> > Horus/A.'.A.'. approach. The debate changes and might become interesting
> > again. Thoughts?
I'd welcome such a debate as this! ("Look, I came here for an argument...")
Re is correct when he says that Crowley's intention with the A.A. was to
"supplant" the old Aeon formula used by the original H.O.G.D. Our
intention is not the same as Crowley's -- our goal is to redact, not to replace.
Here's the rub: we're using the G.D. methodology and structure, not the
A.A.'s. Crowley went the whole hog and created a new structure, changing
the "knowledge" teachings, the Grades, the requirements for advancement,
the core rituals, the tools, etc. And in any case, the A.A. is far more
precisely "tuned" to a particular set of godforms than is the core
system of the Golden Dawn, as described in the Cipher Manuscript. Which
is to say, the system revealed in the Manuscript is *much* less specific
than the one Crowley obviously 'micro-engineered' to conform with
Thelemic religion, and is therefore more malleable.
"Secretary ECT" wrote:
> Please excuse my brief and unsolicited comment. In my view the 'magic' of the
> 'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'.
We disagree with this view. Our position is based on the fact that such
allegorical symbolism was wrapped around the fundamental training system
of the Golden Dawn by Westcott and Mathers. It's an outer form, not the
core of the system. The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
Since most operating GD groups *are* based on Osirian orientation, this
sometimes leads to confusion. The most popular versions of the GD
materials available are from the Stella Matutina, who were clearly
religious Christians, so most people take this to mean that whatever is
contained in them is *the* "Golden Dawn". It seems as if few people --
including many GD practitioners -- have ever actually read the Cipher
Manuscript itself. It can be quite revealing. Many people are surprised
to find that no godforms whatsoever are represented in the 0=0 Neophyte
Ritual and Initiation, for example.
Most people don't realize how much Mathers et al. layered on top of the
Mss. There are no godforms in the 0=0 Hall. There are Angelic Names in
the 1=10 (and throughout all the Grades), used as metaphors for the
Forces being invoked (expressed in the meanings of their Hebrew letters
and gematra.) Osiris appears in the 2=9, and again in the 4=7. "Christ"
appears *once*, and it's a passing metaphoric reference in the 4=7, and
it's *not* a reference to Osiris. The Main Officers play many godforms,
even swapping roles -- the Heirus speaks as Osiris in the 2=9. The
Hegemon assumes the form of Isis instead of Ma'at in one Path, even
though (theoretically) Isis can't leave the Dais -- she's behind the
Veil. There are other similar examples. The operative function appears
to be that the Officers simply assume various godforms (Hebrew, Egyptian
and/or Hellenic) as required by the Work of the particular Hall.
> We may refer the various
> levels of GD to Christ, Osiris and the Christian Rosenkreuz.
We MAY indeed. The point is, we don't HAVE to.
> Osiris is the resurrected in the outer Order.
I can't find any reference to this in the Cipher Manuscript. The word
"resurrected" does not even appear in it. That's not outer Order, that's
the teachings of the R.R.et A.C.. They are not the same thing.
Here's a useful comparison: Any Muslim accepts that the Koran is the
canonical basis of Islam. However, some Muslims give equal standing to
other historical Muslim teachings which came later, such as the
Shari'ah, which dictates the "Islamic Law" meant to govern earthly
affairs. Therefore, to such strict fundamentalists as the Taliban,
anyone who does not adhere to the Shari'ah is not practicing 'real'
Islam and has no right to call themselves Muslim. Many Muslims strongly
disagree with this position, and believe the Shari'ah may have been a
useful part of Islam *in its time*, but it is no longer a necessary
guide to life in the 21st century. They believe that anyone who accepts
only the Koran as the basis of their religion may properly be called
"Muslim", regardless of whether or not they follow the Shari'ah or other
subsequent teachings.
Using this metaphor, the Cipher Manuscript = The Koran. All the material
written by Mathers and others that is NOT in the Cipher Manuscript = The
Shari'ah. Our Order follows the "Koran", but considers the "Shari'ah" to
no longer be a necessary guide in the 21st century.
So this all comes down to (oh the horror!) a sectarian debate. It's like
the Catholic theologians telling the Protestants that since they don't
accept the Holy Trinity, the veneration of Mary, and the apostolic
succession of the Pope, they aren't practicing "real" Christianity and
shouldn't call themselves "Christian".
There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of those
words that can illuminate this debate.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Roger Smith
"Fr. A.o.C." wrote:
Â
> BTW, the study material at OSOGD is good,
Thank you. If it's truly helpful to others in their own Work (whether
they are affiliated with us or not)Â there is no higher praise possible.
We're very gratified, if a little surprised, by the positive responses
we've received from so many people. We've also very pleased to have been
added to the Resources page of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn at:
Who cares? Join the AA and quit spamming our newsgroup.
Â
Roger Smith
"Fr. A.o.C." wrote:
>
> Anyone is invited to believe we are harmless Internet kooks, if they so desire.
At least you got the last part right. Join the AA and quit spamming our newsgroup.
Fr. A.o.C.
> Join the AA
Why would I want to join Alcoholics Anonymous?
Oh, wait -- you mean the Crowleyanity folks? Can't do it. I'm not a
fundimentalist Thelemite.
> and quit spamming our newsgroup.
Hey, I didn't write all the 50+ messages on this thread.
Define "our".
- Fr. A.o.C.
Paul Hume
>
Roger -
couple of questions...
- While I haven't seen Sam on alt.magick for a bit, until this topic
cropped up, I don't remember seeing you (under this handle anyway) at
all. So, "our newsgroup"?
- I'd have to count threads, but didn't a lot of the latest individual
threads about Sam's order start with attack posts by folks who seem to
be from David G.'s order? I suppose you could call it spam if he
responds, but that seems rather hard lines.
- It will be interesting to see if David's GD is going to sue Sam's GD
over a trademark that Chic's GD holds. Mind you, David's GD may have
the interest in it that they claim, and thus legal standing to being
that suit. But I'll be interested in seeing if the threats are backed
with reality.
- I would like to know if this is tied in with some recent rumblings
in "Cthonic-Ouranian OTO". [Note: I don't have an interest in GD
lineages, but of course I believe Sam will go to hell for being in
another OTO (g).]
But most of this is sheer snoopiness on my part.
In the meantime, is there some particular reason we should give the
posts whch seem intent on attacking OSOGD on some kind of lineage or
legal grounds anything but passing attention? Other than that, they
seem to be howling denunciations kind of loudly (certainly drawing
attention to that which otherwise might fade into obscurity).
Paul
Fr. A.o.C.
Paul Hume wrote:
>
> > Who cares? Join the AA and quit spamming our newsgroup.
> >
>
> Roger -
> couple of questions...
>
> - While I haven't seen Sam on alt.magick for a bit, until this topic
> cropped up, I don't remember seeing you (under this handle anyway) at
> all. So, "our newsgroup"?
Hello Paul.
Confusing, isn't it?
Just to try (again) to make this clear, Sam has nothing to do with any
recent postings to alt.magick, except that he and I belong to the same
group. The *only* person involved with OSOGD who has posted anything to
alt.magick on this subject is myself, Joseph Max (sometimes known as
J:.M:.555). Many people on this newsgroup know me, or know of me (like
yourself, I'm sure) as I've been kicking around here off and on since 1993.
Sam has even been accused of making a post to the NG that was placed by
"christian rosenkruez" (with replies by a few others) and a long,
venomous screed was placed in "response" to this misconception. If
anyone is making unsubstantiated and untrue allegations, it's the
persons or person who alleges that Sam has posted anything here on
alt.magick at all in years.
> - I'd have to count threads, but didn't a lot of the latest individual
> threads about Sam's order start with attack posts by folks who seem to
> be from David G.'s order? I suppose you could call it spam if he
> responds, but that seems rather hard lines.
I only responded to make it clear that neither I, nor especially Sam,
was the author of the posting that got the persons or person so horribly upset.
> - It will be interesting to see if David's GD is going to sue Sam's GD
> over a trademark that Chic's GD holds. Mind you, David's GD may have
> the interest in it that they claim, and thus legal standing to being
> that suit. But I'll be interested in seeing if the threats are backed
> with reality.
Especially if the motivation is over comments or claims that no one in
the OSOGD even made.
> - I would like to know if this is tied in with some recent rumblings
> in "Cthonic-Ouranian OTO". [Note: I don't have an interest in GD
> lineages, but of course I believe Sam will go to hell for being in
> another OTO (g).]
No, there is no connection there, except for Sam himself. The last time
the subject came up, I seem to recall that Sam hadn't heard anything
from that old crowd in years. But I'll ask him when I see him tomorrow night.
And of course he's going to hell! Aren't we all?
> But most of this is sheer snoopiness on my part.
>
> In the meantime, is there some particular reason we should give the
> posts whch seem intent on attacking OSOGD on some kind of lineage or
> legal grounds anything but passing attention? Other than that, they
> seem to be howling denunciations kind of loudly (certainly drawing
> attention to that which otherwise might fade into obscurity).
Well, they say no publicity is bad publicity, but...
- Fr. A.o.C.
Paul Hume
93.
> Hello Paul.
>
> Confusing, isn't it?
>
> Just to try (again) to make this clear, Sam has nothing to do with any
> recent postings to alt.magick, except that he and I belong to the same
> group. The *only* person involved with OSOGD who has posted anything to
> alt.magick on this subject is myself, Joseph Max (sometimes known as
> J:.M:.555). Many people on this newsgroup know me, or know of me (like
> yourself, I'm sure) as I've been kicking around here off and on since 1993.
I am sorry I got the identities incorrect. As you note, its gotten to
be very confusing. We met online a lot, and in the flesh a couple of
times, if I am not getting totally senile, at Rina's, down in San
Diego, when dinosaurs and FIDO ruled the earth.
> Sam has even been accused of making a post to the NG that was placed by
> "christian rosenkruez" (with replies by a few others) and a long,
> venomous screed was placed in "response" to this misconception. If
> anyone is making unsubstantiated and untrue allegations, it's the
> persons or person who alleges that Sam has posted anything here on
> alt.magick at all in years.
Ah, clear. Okey doke, then we substitute JM for SW in my original
response, and that fixes that error (where's that global
find-and-replace key for the Internet? ctl-shift-f333 isn't it?).
Same issue for Roger and all...sort of "Sam we know and Joseph we
know, but who are ye?"
> > - It will be interesting to see if David's GD is going to sue Sam's GD
> > over a trademark that Chic's GD holds. Mind you, David's GD may have
> > the interest in it that they claim, and thus legal standing to being
> > that suit. But I'll be interested in seeing if the threats are backed
> > with reality.
>
> Especially if the motivation is over comments or claims that no one in
> the OSOGD even made.
But I bet you thought said them astrally or something. Lucky for you
spectral evidence is not admissible in US (as opposed to Mass. Bay
Colony) courts.
Regards,
Paul
aethyr augoeides
>In article <3D99F2A7...@cox.net>,
> aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Fr. A.o.C. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Re O'Stat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>In the first place, it's not a question, it's a accusation. One
>>>presented with no facts in evidence to support it, except a poorly
>>>crafted baseball analogy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Point #1. Well stated. To the point. Undramatic and purposeful.
>>
>>
>
>
>It's still a question.
>Why not choose a legitimate name instead of taking on the fame of
>another group? That IS what's being done. Like it or not.
>
Do you prefer ECMA Script or JavaScript? One is a Standard, the other a
Marketing Tool of Netscape. Just because Netscape wanted to ride Java's
(TM) coattails doesn't mean that they didn't have every right in the
world to do so.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>You've come up with a new system yet insist on grabbing the GD name in
>>>>order to give you an appearance of tradition and authority. Why?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Repetition! Some people think that can make an otherwise weak position
>>>seem stronger. Reminds me of something my lawyer once told me about
>>>legal arguments: When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When you
>>>can't argue the facts or the law, pound on the table.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Excellent! I can hear my dad even now, saying something similar.
>>
>>
>
>
>And when people don't answer a question, ask it again until they do give
>an answer. Sorry if you don't like that, AA.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I know this must be terribly frustrating for you, but we really can't
>>>get anywhere until you declare your terms: What *IS* the "Golden Dawn
>>>System" as you define it, and what are it's identifying aspects? Not
>>>"lineage", not charters, not old books, not personalities -- what is the
>>>SYSTEM? What is it's NATURE? How can you TELL?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>When these get seriously answered, I hope to be there.
>>
>>
>
>
>Well, let's see. There are, I think, two answers.
>
>First, there is what is commonly called the "Golden Dawn" current.
>Certainly anyone can tap into this. Many people have written down the
>practices and ideas which are involved with this current. Anyone is free
>to tap into sections or all of that current.
>
This is where you start to finally *commit to paper* some of your
assumptions. Your integrity is assured by such initiative.
>Second, there is the physical manifestation of the Golden Dawn. Many
>people have gone through working with the various manifestations, but as
>soon as they changed it, they changed the name of what they were doing:
>Case: BOTA; Crowley: AA; Fortune: Society (nee: Fraternity nee:
>Community) of the Inner Light.
>
Vital difference. Couldn't one suppose that the GD in OSOGD refers
mainly to the *current* referenced above? In which case, I am unsure why
you have questioned Sam's honesty/ integrity on the issue...
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Now look who's dodging questions! You present yourself as being able to
>>>determine, without possiblity of error, what is "Golden Dawn' and what
>>>is not. But when called on to lay out these definitions by which you
>>>make these conclusions, you refuse to elaborate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Getting caught in sneaky obfuscation can be worse than saying what you mean.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Nope. I don't contend that I can determine what is GD and what isn't.
>But when somebody says I started with the GD and then changed it, they,
>themselves are saying they aren't GD.
>
>If you start out playing checkers but then switch to chess, do you still
>call it checkers simply because the board is the same? Of course not.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Third: how do you measure "success"? Is this a popularity contest? Are
>>>>>we keeping score? Counting noses? Hoarding assets? Fattening bank
>>>>>accounts? What is your definition of "success"? Seems we're having a
>>>>>problem with nomenclature, and this is always a barrier to communication.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Any way you like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Dodged again! And *you* want *me* to answer *your* questions, even the
>>>'wife-beating' ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Dogde noted.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And, as I had written earlier, by accepting YOUR definition of success I
>was not dodging anything. Rather, I was letting you determine your own
>definition and saying I'd agree.
>
>
The burden seems to be on you Re. If you continue to be so overbroad
with your definition of success, don't then start to get picky with
others. It's confusing!
>
>
>
>>You are both Very pointy. I'll read Flatland.
>>
>>
>
>
>I'm still waiting for somebody to do Flatland II: Adventures in the 4th,
>5th and 6th dimensions.
>
>Maybe you'll do it?
>;-)
>
>
>
>
>>Right, us Discordians gotta stick apart!
>>
>>
>
>psst: if nothing sticks to teflon, how DO you get it to stick to the pan?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>You start the web page you gave out with a quote from him!
>>>>If you're only taking "very little" from him, why start with it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Dramatic impact? *grin*
>>>
>>>
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>And that's the same reason you're referring to what you do as the G.D.
>rather than as something new (which it is): dramatic impact and the hope
>that people will become interested. Obviously, they won't be interested
>if you call it Joe's House of Spatulas and Occult Secrets.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>You can call it whatever you like, but you'll always know that you're
>>>>being dishonest for some unknown issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You seem to be very good at telling what other people are thinking, and
>>>very bad at letting anyone know what you are thinking.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>That's because this discussion is about your assuming the name GD. I
>note that I haven't started a group. I'm not going to. If you want to
>start a new thead about what I'm thinking, fine. This is about the name
>of your group.
>
And a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, eh?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know anyone in your group.
>>>>I don't care what you do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You seem to care a great deal.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>LOL!
>
>It seems that you DO have your "Super-k00l l33+ P0w3Rz." I mean, you can
>tell what I'm thinking, right? "Do you need to wear a big gold lame'
>turban when you exercise your clairvoyance? Do you wave your hands
>around and scrunch up your eyesreally tight?"
>
>I repeat.
>I don't know anyone in your group.
>I don't care what you do.
>I DO respect honesty, something which you are not expressing in your
>choice of name.
>
>Why not call the Temple of Set the G.D.?
>Why not call the Church of Satan the G.D.?
>
They each have a unique or not so unique brand they are pushing.
>
>
>
>
>>>If we did not base our system carefully and deliberately on the Cipher
>>>Manuscript and the core traditions of the Order, I would say that your
>>>above description is adequate. But as it happens, we do, and that is
>>>what makes ANYTHING "Golden Dawn".
>>>
>>>
>
>
>I see.
>So what you're saying is that YOU can decide what should be followed and
>YOU can decide what is and what is not the G.D. Forget tradition. Forget
>history. Forget legitimacy. Whatever YOU decide is the G.D. is now, and
>forevermore, officially, the G.D.
>
Defintion above seems more inclusive than exclusive. And Fr AoC doesn't
seem averse to letting others define things how they Will, so I'd let it go.
Frater CoA
name in the headers so people knows we exist. Come play with me please, so I dont
have to answer my own posts. We so badly need the attention.
Re O'Stat
Frater CoA <Frat...@osogd.orj> wrote:
You could always play with yourself.
;-)
333
"Re O'Stat" <us...@mediaone.net>:
>>>> The G.D. is Osirian.
"Fr. A.o.C." <max...@address.com>:
> At last -- a statement of definition!
with Osiris presiding over an Oriental (Eastern) kiblah,
this has some staying power as a hypothesis.
>>>> By changing it to a Horus orientation it is no longer the G.D.
>
> It can be, since the G.D. is not "Osirian" in that sense -- any more
> than it is "Isisian" or "Setian" or even "Horusian".
>
> The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
> developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
> on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
> material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
> In fact, the whole idea of the "resurrected god"
I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
mated with 'initiation'. I'm not hearing from you about a specific
replacement for this motif as regards the phenomenon of initiation
or why the methodology can survive intact without it.
> doesn't even become
> relevant until you get to Mathers' Second Order system, which by
> definition is not Golden Dawn, it's R.R. et A.C. Our Order makes no
> claim of being based in any way, shape or form on Mathers' R.R. et A.C.
so are you saying that the original GD never constructed rituals for
those degrees you (and presumably they) identify as RRetAC?
"cock" <cere...@ev1.net> replied to "Re O'Stat":
>>> This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
>>> from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
>>> original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
>>> of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
>>> you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
>>> Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.?
>
> A good question! ....
but you didn't directly address it here. so you'd have no objections?
>>> If that is
>>> true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
>>> particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
>>> adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
>>> methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
>>> involved,
interesting. in religion that would be off-base, because so often the focus
of worship would be the deciding factor. in GD/et al, why does 'methodology'
exclude god(form)s?
> ...The godforms used by Mathers and
> Westcott are allegories for the Forces being invoked, and since
> allegories are only applicable if they are used in context, when the
> context changes, so must the allegories....
why doesn't changing the context also change the methodology?
>>> but I can also see validity in the Osirian/G.'.D.'. :
>>> Horus/A.'.A.'. approach. The debate changes and might become interesting
>>> again. Thoughts?
there's about 4 'systems' wound up and/or attempting to vie
for superiority/concentricity here. Crowley's AA, for example,
attempted to incorporate/replace the Golden Dawn, Rosicrucians,
and, by extension, the Great White Brotherhood as borrowed from
Von Eckharthousen(sp?). why any of these ought to be connected other
than in name is a discussion I don't see happening yet either.
one might compare Crowley's attempt to co-opt Hindu yogic lineages
or Jewish Kabbalistic lineages through adoption of some of their
pieces, misrepresenting them to potential converts.
> Re is correct when he says that Crowley's intention with the A.A. was
> to "supplant" the old Aeon formula used by the original H.O.G.D. Our
> intention is not the same as Crowley's -- our goal is to redact, not
> to replace.
in other words, you didn't shift the whole previous system down into
'precursors' to your own set-up, en par with how the Scottish Rite
and the OTO attempted to do with the Freemasonry, or how the AA
attempted it as detailed above.
> Here's the rub: we're using the G.D. methodology and structure,
at what point must you admit of a departure? that is the real issue,
from what I can see.
> not the A.A.'s.
both the GD and the AA were fashioned as secret societies. by virtue
of Open Source aren't you destroying the methodology of the GD? this
seems the most logical trajectory of argument which someone like Re
might take after disputing particulars of rite that you've admitted.
> Crowley went the whole hog and created a new structure, changing
> the "knowledge" teachings, the Grades, the requirements for advancement,
> the core rituals, the tools, etc.
thanks for detailing these. all of these remain the same in the OSGD?
you've already said that the rites have changed somewhat. I think you
also mentioned that you've changed the knowledge lectures, though I
may be mistaken.
> And in any case, the A.A. is far more
> precisely "tuned" to a particular set of godforms than is the core
> system of the Golden Dawn, as described in the Cipher Manuscript.
there's that buck-stops-at-Cypher-Ms thing again. ok.
> Which is to say, the system revealed in the Manuscript is *much*
> less specific than the one Crowley obviously 'micro-engineered'
> to conform with Thelemic religion, and is therefore more malleable.
extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition and extending off of it
according to Thelemic interests seems to be what you're saying is
"redacting the Golden Dawn".
"Secretary ECT":
>> ...the 'magic' of the 'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'.
>
> We disagree with this view.
so it seems that this is definitely one of the points of disagreement
over the character of what you are creating (godforms involved).
> Our position is based on the fact that such allegorical symbolism
> was wrapped around the fundamental training system of the
> Golden Dawn by Westcott and Mathers.
I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of the GD.
you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters, it seems.
> It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
> The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
how did you determine where the "core" ended and the "outer" began?
it seems rather arbitrary to me, because like Re one might select
something larger and call it "core" and arrive at the opposite
conclusion. is there some precedent for determining this "core"?
> Since most operating GD groups *are* based on Osirian orientation,
this argues for the orientation being "core".
> this sometimes leads to confusion.
it sounds to me as if it may undermine your argument here.
> The most popular versions of the GD
> materials available are from the Stella Matutina, who were clearly
> religious Christians,
did they self-identify as such? I've sometimes desired to identify
others as such but out of respect I realized that my evaluations
would be extreme and tried to keep them at bay. here, you seem to
be evaluating their religion while simultaneously maintaining that
religion isn't really the issue when dealing with "godforms". I'm
not sure you're being consistent and I'd like to hear your response.
> so most people take this to mean that whatever is
> contained in them is *the* "Golden Dawn". It seems as if few people --
> including many GD practitioners -- have ever actually read the Cipher
> Manuscript itself. It can be quite revealing. Many people are surprised
> to find that no godforms whatsoever are represented in the 0=0 Neophyte
> Ritual and Initiation, for example.
so your argument really comes down to the contention that the Cypher
Manuscript constitutes the "core" and nothing else need be maintained
in order to link, methodologically, to the GD in name-brand?
> Most people don't realize how much Mathers et al. layered on top of the
> Mss. There are no godforms in the 0=0 Hall. There are Angelic Names in
> the 1=10 (and throughout all the Grades), used as metaphors for the
> Forces being invoked (expressed in the meanings of their Hebrew letters
> and gematra.) Osiris appears in the 2=9, and again in the 4=7. "Christ"
> appears *once*, and it's a passing metaphoric reference in the 4=7, and
> it's *not* a reference to Osiris. The Main Officers play many godforms,
> even swapping roles -- the Heirus speaks as Osiris in the 2=9. The
> Hegemon assumes the form of Isis instead of Ma'at in one Path, even
> though (theoretically) Isis can't leave the Dais -- she's behind the
> Veil. There are other similar examples. The operative function appears
> to be that the Officers simply assume various godforms (Hebrew, Egyptian
> and/or Hellenic) as required by the Work of the particular Hall.
why isn't this the methodology? what clearly delineates "method" from
"variation on the method"?
> Here's a useful comparison: Any Muslim accepts that the Koran is the
> canonical basis of Islam. However, some Muslims give equal standing to
> other historical Muslim teachings which came later, such as the
> Shari'ah, which dictates the "Islamic Law" meant to govern earthly
> affairs.
the Hadith is probably a better illustration here. Shariah seems
to vary somewhat in its content depending on the court system(s).
> Therefore, to such strict fundamentalists as the Taliban,
> anyone who does not adhere to the Shari'ah is not practicing 'real'
> Islam and has no right to call themselves Muslim. Many Muslims strongly
> disagree with this position, and believe the Shari'ah may have been a
> useful part of Islam *in its time*, but it is no longer a necessary
> guide to life in the 21st century. They believe that anyone who accepts
> only the Koran as the basis of their religion may properly be called
> "Muslim", regardless of whether or not they follow the Shari'ah or other
> subsequent teachings.
but you're dealing in religions again, so this is somewhat confusing.
you see what I'm getting at, don't you? you're using religious analogies
while claiming that what you're doing is not religion per se (in order
to shift the godforms and not be accused of conversion to Thelema).
> Using this metaphor, the Cipher Manuscript = The Koran. All the material
> written by Mathers and others that is NOT in the Cipher Manuscript = The
> Shari'ah. Our Order follows the "Koran", but considers the "Shari'ah" to
> no longer be a necessary guide in the 21st century.
so you're basically Mackenzieist Golden Dawn, were you to agree with some
writers on the subject and come to the logical conclusion that Kenneth
Mackenzie created the document and ciphered it in Trimethian code before
sending it along to Westcott (or passing it on in his paperwork
inherited by him from KM's wife), despite Westcott's subsequent
mythologizing via the fictitious 'Fraulein Sprengel'.
> So this all comes down to (oh the horror!) a sectarian debate.
not quite. Mackenzie didn't ever claim to have created the GD, whereas
I think Mathers and Westcott *did* identify the entirety of what they
created as the Golden Dawn. subtract anything from it or change a part
of it and you have an argument for why you're not doing the same thing
as long as you're not directly connected via lineage. I haven't under-
stood from you why you have selected the Cipher Ms. as a stop-point.
> It's like
> the Catholic theologians telling the Protestants that since they don't
> accept the Holy Trinity, the veneration of Mary, and the apostolic
> succession of the Pope, they aren't practicing "real" Christianity and
> shouldn't call themselves "Christian".
or is it more like Muslims telling Christians that since their prophet
died on the cross or was ferretted away prior to actually dying, he
deserves a prominent place as a teacher but not as God Himself? there's
more than one direction you can come at this (from behind or in front).
> There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
> Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
> those words that can illuminate this debate.
I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
y
r B
o l b
n e e
w s a
o s s
d e t
e d !
.com@nagasiva (333)
Joshua Geller
> I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
> motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
> attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
> mated with 'initiation'.
It lends itself to a specific, practical, intensely powerful initiatory
rite.
(0) Entomb the candidate so that it is impossible to get free unaided:
bits of rotting corpse optional.
(1) Leave the candidate alone for a good long while. At least overnight,
maybe as many as three days.
(2) Dig the candidate up. Optionally, have sex with the candidate.
This is a very old practice, and has been used by any number of different
groups over the past few thousand years.
.
Joseph
> 50021230 VII let's get back to this again, shall
> we? :>
>
>
> I thought they were pretty much considered the
> fashioners of the GD.
> you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters,
> it seems.
>
> > It's an outer form, not the core of the
> system.
> > The core of the system is found in the Cipher
> Manuscript.
The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but then
so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
class it more with mss like, the donation of
constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
your choice, liber legis, and various other
assorted be all end all documents.
i sometimes think there all adult expresions of
marasmus. the only differance between them is in
the amount or number of people espousing the
individual documents.
a need recognized in the indivdiual that religion
is a cutural, collective expression of.
(snipping a whole bunch of my own sciological
snobbery i decided not to post along with a long
winded distertation drawing upon the literature of
child psycholgy to make a point of comparision
about ritual magick & childrens play and the
psychology of magick/religion which i would guess
has all been said before but which however i
saved to file if any ones even vaguely
interested.)
--
Joseph ( The probability for an event which can
happen in two indistinguishable ways is the sum of
the probability for each way considered
separately) Count de Money.
Fr. A.o.C.
I'm going to drop a short note on this one, since it's been brought up.
Our Lodge has NOT eliminated the "dying-and-reborn god" formula from our
rites. Unlike Crowley, we look at incorporating Thelemic elements to the
basic GD foundation much the same way the originators looked at
incorporating the Chaldean materials -- to expand, not to eliminate.
Everyone seems to assume that since we place Horus on the Throne of the
East in our Hall, we've kicked Osiris out completely. Not so.
Our Aspirants encounter Osiris and his Formula in the Portal Grade
(since there is nothing higher than 4=7 in the Ciphers, we can do what
we wilt with it.) The Aspirant dies and is reborn, BUT that is not the
end of the journey. In the 5=6 rite he connects to his or her Divine
Genius, and takes the Throne of the East as the Crowned and Conquering Child.
- Fr. A.o.C.
Fr. A.o.C.
I'm taking a copy of your posting with me tonight as I celebrate the New
Year with Sam (Fr. IO). We'll go over it point-by-point and post a reply
in a day or so.
Hey, let me know next time you (and Cat) make it up this way -- we'll do
caffinated beverages or something. I haven't seen you guys since the
party at Tim's place.
- Fr. A.o.C. (555)
Fr. A.o.C.
Joseph wrote:
> The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but then
> so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> class it more with mss like, the donation of
> constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
> various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
> your choice, liber legis, and various other
> assorted be all end all documents.
Absolutely correct! And your point is...?
It's a tenet of Logic that the validity (or lack thereof) of any
statement has nothing to do with it's source; it must be evaluated on
it's own terms. The biggest fool in the world might say it's raining,
but that in itself does not prove the sun is shining.
> (snipping a whole bunch of my own sciological
> snobbery i decided not to post along with a long
> winded distertation drawing upon the literature of
> child psycholgy to make a point of comparision
> about ritual magick & childrens play and the
> psychology of magick/religion
Magick and religion are two different pursuits, IMHO. (However, by own
Chief Adept would not put it this way.YMMV.) So the psychology of each
is different. That's certainly been my experience anyway.
As a professional Tarot reader, does it bother you that what you do
bears such a strong resemblence to "children's play"? (Got any threes?
Go fish!) Does that make it any less valid or useful for the comparison?
Maybe I'll show up on Telegraph Ave. some afternoon and anonymously put
you to the test! See if you can guess who I am! Bwawhahahah...
- Fr. A.o.C.
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud, but
> then
> > so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> > bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> > class it more with mss like, the donation of
> > constatine, the protocols of the elders of
> zion,
> > various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor"
> of
> > your choice, liber legis, and various other
> > assorted be all end all documents.Absolutely
> correct! And your point is...?
the same one you make below
>
no it does not bother me at all, it is a form of
play, i wuppose it i was a state oracle or a
religious oracle i might have a differant
orientation twords what i do, however im convinced
that the ability to "play" is an integral part of
successfull divination as well as magick.
>
>
> Maybe I'll show up on Telegraph Ave. some
> afternoon and anonymously put
> you to the test! See if you can guess who I am!
> Bwawhahahah...
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
weather permitting, though you might find yourself
in a bit of a guessing game, as its not called
tarot corners due to a paucity of diviners. on
some occasions theres as many differant readers as
there are t-shirt sellers on the ave.
Joseph
no it does not bother me at all, it is a form of
> play, i suppose it, is, or was, a state oracle
Re O'Stat
wrote:
> Hi Josh!
>
> I'm going to drop a short note on this one, since it's been brought up.
>
> Our Lodge has NOT eliminated the "dying-and-reborn god" formula from our
> rites. Unlike Crowley, we look at incorporating Thelemic elements to the
> basic GD foundation much the same way the originators looked at
> incorporating the Chaldean materials -- to expand, not to eliminate.
> Everyone seems to assume that since we place Horus on the Throne of the
> East in our Hall, we've kicked Osiris out completely. Not so.
>
> Our Aspirants encounter Osiris and his Formula in the Portal Grade
> (since there is nothing higher than 4=7 in the Ciphers, we can do what
> we wilt with it.) The Aspirant dies and is reborn, BUT that is not the
> end of the journey. In the 5=6 rite he connects to his or her Divine
> Genius, and takes the Throne of the East as the Crowned and Conquering Child.
>
That's what everyone says when they taken something and put a new spin
on it.
The question is, when does the new spin indicate a completely new path?
When the One who comes from the East is Horus, not Osiris, you have a
thelemic structure, not a G.D. structure.
There's nothing wrong with having any particular structure, as long as
it works. If this structure works for you, great!
It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
Re
Re O'Stat
>
> > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,...
>
"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net>
wrote:
> Absolutely correct!
So you're involved with a group which considered the documents upon
which they are founded to be a pious fraud.
Hmmmmmm....
Re
aethyr
what is literally true that is not a priori true?
aa
Deqvf
aethyr
If you have reason for your faith (apologetics) its not faith
wind the mort!
aa
Deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
That's right, a pious fraud! (At least in the way that they were framed
and promoted by Westcott et al.) Which has nothing whatsoever to do with
the usefulness or accuracy of the information contained in them.
My personal opinion is that Westcott's tale of the Mss coming from
mysterious German Secret Chiefs was a load of dingo's kidneys, second
only to Mathers' subsequent tales of his Second Order material coming
from mysterious French Secret Chiefs. (Why is it they always write their
ciphers in English?) At least Westcott bothered to forge some written documentation.
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And
vice versa." -- Lazarus Long
Fr. A.o.C.
Re O'Stat wrote:
> It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
Yes, we know how you feel about it.
However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
Griffin-HOGDâ„¢ rogue's gallery of "false" Golden Dawn orders!
http://www.golden-dawn.com/temple/index.jsp?s=articles&p=goldendawn
Huzzah! Fame at last! Call Oprah...
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The opinions that are held with great passion are always those for
which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the
holder's lack of rational conviction." -- Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays
{ Secret Chief }
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > > The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,...
> > >
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Absolutely correct!
Yes, at least insofar as Mathers and Westcott's story about finding
them goes.
But the consensus these days seems to be that they were some of
Kenneth Mackenzie's sketches for one of his various occult orders,
which Westcott picked up when he was looking for the Swedenborg Rite
rituals. And in and of themselves, there's no particular fraud in
them.
But yeah, the story's phony. Is Re surprised at this? Or perhaps
he's located Fraulein Sprengel with the help of his mysterious
'current'.
SwAmI
>
>
> Re O'Stat wrote:
>
> > It's just not the G.D...open source or otherwise.
>
> Yes, we know how you feel about it.
>
> However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
>
What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
these opposites?
So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
Fr. A.o.C.
SwAmI wrote:
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> > However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
> > Griffin-HOGDâ„¢ rogue's gallery of "false" Golden Dawn orders!
> >
>
> What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
> contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
> crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
> these opposites?
What opposites?
But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
8: "Never condemn others religion."
The other statement is a transcript of a godform speaking only for
itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
upon the crapulous creeds. So they are not comparable in context or
application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed. Similarly, in many
myths Isis tricked Ra into revealing his secret name by slipping him
poison, and even though we also work with Isis as a godform, we feel no
need to trick or poison anyone either. If working with a variety of
invocatory godforms require that we also adopt every mannerism and
function of the godform as an ongoing personal belief system, we'd be in
a bit of a sticky wicket.
> So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
> the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
David Griffin runs the particular GD which posted that (mostly
incorrect) description of our Order. Chic and Tabitha Cicero run the
particular GD that simply has a link to our site on its Links page.
Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
- Fr. A:.o:.C:.
"A great warrior, hmm? Wars not make one great." -- Yoda
aethyr
>
> SwAmI wrote:
>
>
>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
>>news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>>
>>
>>>However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to the
>>>
>>
>>What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all faiths
>>contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
>>crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
>>these opposites?
>
>
> What opposites?
more 'opposites' on the path? also : portae lucis (liber x) and hamus
heremeticus similarly dominate the text with metaphors along these lines
>
> But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> 8: "Never condemn others religion."
>
you mean i can't twist your(my!) metaphors to mean whatever i want? what
kind of a coalition is this, the communist league of america?
republicans are us? <g>
> The other statement is a transcript of a godform speaking only for
> itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> upon the crapulous creeds. So they are not comparable in context or
> application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
unless it is of the regular thien tao lesson? see liber xli
> Similarly, in many
> myths Isis tricked Ra
yup
> into revealing his secret name by slipping him
> poison, and even though we also work with Isis as a godform, we feel no
> need to trick or poison anyone either. If working with a variety of
> invocatory godforms
you mean we can't assume Ares was a nice fellow to be around? :)
> require that we also adopt every mannerism and
> function of the godform as an ongoing personal belief system, we'd be in
> a bit of a sticky wicket.
trading one horrible dogma for another?
>
>
>>So who runs that particular GD (the link you gave) and which one is run by
>>the Cicero's? It's all just so confusing. heh
>
>
> David Griffin runs the particular GD which posted that (mostly
> incorrect) description of our Order. Chic and Tabitha Cicero run the
> particular GD that simply has a link to our site on its Links page.
>
> Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
>
> - Fr. A:.o:.C:.
>
>
> "A great warrior, hmm? Wars not make one great." -- Yoda
great sig! Fr. A:.o:.C:.
aethyr
SwAmI
>
>
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
> >
> > > However, on a similar note, we take pride in our recent addition to
the
> > >
> >
> > What did you expect? "I will respect all religions, seeing that all
faiths
> > contain a ray of the ineffable Light which i seek" and "I spit on your
> > crapulous creeds" just don't mix, really. How does your Order reconcile
> > these opposites?
>
> What opposites?
>
Well, one seeks to spit on the ineffable Light and the other seeks it.
> But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> 8: "Never condemn others religion."
This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with. What
if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to the
Light?
>
> The other statement is a transcript of a godform
I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it claims it
is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
speaking only for
> itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> upon the crapulous creeds.
Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What is
the saying, "Lead by example".
So they are not comparable in context or
> application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in the
presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
[1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
<snips red herring>
The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes of
Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes may
not be exact.)
An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
ones ability to see and seek the Light.
The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind the
Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
So you're working with an Entity that disrepects the oaths being taken and
would blind one to the Light. Or am i just twisting things to suit an a
prioi purpose? I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
sharing a pov.
>
> Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL one
wonders?
--
---
SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
aethyr
basic questions:
liber ccc konx om pax (Greek) 'Light in Extention' Eleusian mysteries
liber cl lege de libellum (Latin) 'Law of Liberty'
also called nol (Hebrew) 'sandal strap'
less basic questions:
hamus hermeticus: (Latin) secret fish-hook
<www.hermetic.com>
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib90.html
ultimate questions:
liber liberi
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib7.html
>
> --
> ---
> SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
>
>
>
aa
Deqvf
SwAmI
"aethyr" <nospamaethy...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3E1F0600...@cox.net...
"25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the cowardly, the poor, the
tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am come to destroy them."
Did Hitler write that? Silver Star= SS? Aiwaz is suspiciously similar to the
rune Iwaz that Hitlers SS used.
I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the Nazi's were in touch with the
same Demonic entities.
--
---
SwAmI Sathyasaishivashaktianandadadevi
aethyr
the martial language is figurative and is plainly justified or explained
by the title and is sufficiently explicated in the surrounding text to
not be coumfusing in this particularly peurile manner. if this is the
sense you have received from the words, I would start to also question
the martial aspects of the New Testament, and numerous other more
familiar usual suspects. if you insist on twisting the perfectly clear
meaning in Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, conflating it with stupid
Naziism, I am not altogether sure how seriously anyone in the forum is
gonna regard you. Just an FYI.
look at the title again.
liber xc (xc is a roman numeral adding to the arabic 90)
essoterically, this is significant, especially, alongside the latin
words in the title:
hamus hermeticus
Tzaddi is the trump associated with both the numeral 90
Tzaddi is further referred specifically to the trump of the King or
Emperor, assigned astrologically to Aries, hence the martial tone should
be the last thing we are questioning in this liber.
this is by no means the most incisive or orignal of readings proferred
for liber 90, indeed, it is saying almost nothing new at all.
so as to your original question, namely:
So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL
>>
> one
>
>>>wonders?
I will quote directly from liber 90:
20. I ask you to sacrifice nothing at mine altar; I am the God who
giveth all.
Aa
Deqvf
Fr. A.o.C.
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
>
> > But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> > during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence, for
> > there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you are
> > seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> > 8: "Never condemn others religion."
>
> This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with. What
> if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to the
> Light?
It may be possible that you are misunderstanding it, as you are doing in
this case. Hence the admonishment.
> > The other statement is a transcript of a godform
>
> I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it claims it
> is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
Which really doesn't matter. Any mythology is a story that enlightens,
whether the events actually happened or not. Does it matter to the GD
practitioner if there really was a physically incarnate Isis who
reassembled the dead body of Osiris and reanimated it? Or is it allegory
as an instrument of enlightenment? Which is more important?
> > speaking only for
> > itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its spitting
> > upon the crapulous creeds.
>
> Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What is
> the saying, "Lead by example".
Then those people are misunderstanding it, the same way you are. Many
Christians believe that they should murder Jews, homosexuals and
abortion doctors (among other examples), based on their 'reading' of
Christian scripture. Do we blame the scripture, or those that
misunderstand it and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities?
> > So they are not comparable in context or
> > application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
>
> So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in the
> presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
What does that have to do with it? Unless you're also a wrathful god,
you can't be expected to act like one -- not even by a wrathful god.
> [1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
> god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
Of course not. They were Christians.
> <snips red herring>
Heh. No answer for that one, eh?
> The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes of
> Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes may
> not be exact.)
So much for any claim of understanding it -- "I read it once,
superficially, so now I am qualified to comment on its esoteric meaning."
It's "peck at". If you're going to critique something you ought to quote
from it directly. There's plenty of on-line sources. That you can't be
bothered to look them up doesn't add credence to your analysis.
> An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
> Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
> ones ability to see and seek the Light.
Well, Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is...?
> The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
> Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
> other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind the
> Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
Pecking at. No indication that the eyes were "scratched out." And again,
you're twisting the text that you don't bother to read, taking it out of
context and applying it in an inappropriate manner. Why would you assume
that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is referring to "the Aspirant"? Where does it say
that? It's very specific, and misquoting it to "prove" some esoteric
meaning that isn't there just makes you look silly.
> So you're working with an Entity that disrepects the oaths being taken and
> would blind one to the Light. Or am i just twisting things to suit an a
> prioi purpose?
Yes, you are. "The fool readeth this Book of the Law, and its comment; &
he understandeth it not."
> I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
> sharing a pov.
Could have fooled me. But I accept your rude comments as a manifestation
of your soul crying out for enlightenment.
> > Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits, so shall ye know them."
>
> Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the Entity talking in Liber AL one
> wonders?
Same as the Wrathful Buddhas of Compassion. Sometimes wrath is what's
called for. In certain circumstances, utter destruction is an act of
supreme compassion. (Keep in mind that when he 'received' Liber AL,
Crowley was a practicing Buddhist, so Buddhism is an appropriate 'lens'
to use to study it.)
In The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism, the beings referred to as
"deities" perform different types of functions for the practitioner.
They may be a focus or aid to individual meditation and transformation,
in which case they are called yidams, or they may function as a
protector of the dharma and/or of an entire class of being. In all
cases, they are understood as a means to the liberation and
enlightenment of all.
Any Buddhist deity may manifest in four ways: benign, active,
semi-wrathful and wrathful. That is, their activity is pacifying,
enriching, magnetizing, or subduing/destroying. (A parallel can be
found in the Thelemic deities of Nuit, Aiwass, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.)
The four-armed form of the protector, Maharaja, demonstrates by means of
his gestures or mudras, all four.
An example of a wrathful deity or heruka is Guru Drakpur. This is a
manifestation of Amitabha Buddha's activity via Padmasambhava (patron
saint of Tibetan Buddhism) as Vajrakilaya, vanquisher of malevolent
obstructions [lit.>Sanskrit: indomitable sin-eliminator]. See http://www.tibetart.com/image.cfm/463.html
Vajrakilaya (also, Benzarkila or Vajrakila. Tibetan: Dorje Purba) is a
winged dark blue wrathful deity whose characteristic implement is the
phurba, the 3-sided 'spirit nail.' He is said to have appeared as an
aspect of Padmasambhava to subdue the opposing and chaotic forces which
tried to prevent all activities motivated by compassion and generosity
from penetrating Tibetan culture.
Vajrakilaya is also considered the wrathful embodiment of bodhisattva
(supreme compassion), as he acts to subdue, purify and transform the
actions of those, whether they be gods, spirits or people, who seek
accomplishment or power for selfish or irresponsible reasons. To the
Buddhist, who believes in reincarnation (as does the Thelemite, and the
majority of GD practitioners, I would guess), being destroyed by a
wrathful Buddha is like being thrown out of the game by the referee.
It's simply being sent back to the 'starting line' to try again.
We can view those words of Ra-Hoor-Khuit as the expression of His role
as "vanquisher of obstructions". The old Aeon monotheist religions are
the obstructions (in this case, obstructions to the liberation and
enlightenment of humanity) and they must be subdued and vanquished. They
had already proven themselves to be corrupted and polluted beyond all
redemption, even in Crowley's time. The raging evil of Fundamentalism
(be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish -- all targets of
Ra-Hoor-Khuit's wrath) is even more starkly obvious in our post-9/11 era.
"The wrathful deities ... enact the enormous power of cosmic rage, a
primal anger without hatred, which cuts through doubts... confusions,
and all the turbulence of this increasingly dark age. Their mouths are
open, fangs bared in a primordial scream so ferocious it is like an
electric shock. They are black and wear bone ornaments and tiger or
leopard skins, treading on the corpse of ego. In their hands they hold
cutting objects - the drigu or curved knife, the phurba, or three sided
dagger, and the katvanga or trident with impaled skulls. But in the huge
round orbs of their eyes there is stillness, the small quiet space of
compassion. Because we have more negative than positive energy, these
wrathful forms are a truer representation of the Buddha for these
times." --Norma Levine, "Blessing Power of the Buddhas"
- Fr. A.o.C.
"The term 'myth', as we know, is merely a polite euphemism." -- Robert Bloch
Joseph
> "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> >
> >
> > SwAmI wrote:
> >
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > > news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> >
> > Avoiding confusion is easy: "By their fruits,
> so shall ye know them."
>
> Oh how apt. So what is the fruit like of the
> Entity talking in Liber AL one
> wonders?
this posting is one of them, as are all the
reissues of the book itself to say nothing of the
various groups of people (or individuals) that
have come together to use the book for their own
purpose. for good or ill, right or wrong, truth or
lies, one does not have to look far to find the
fruits of, if not the entity, than at least the
book, Liber AL.
also if one is abel to see in the message of the
book an expression of fundamental human nature
shorn of its romantic trappings, and expressing an
evaluation of the human animals psychotic need to
worship something, anything, good or bad, it can
be seen as a seminal work, if not original, than
at least honest in its assessment of the animals
nature of man. Confucius is perhaps a nobler
attempt at codifying human nature but liber al is
IMO more honest.
Joseph
> "aethyr" <nospamaethy...@cox.net> wrote
> in message
> news:3E1F0600...@cox.net...
> > SwAmI wrote:
> > > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > > news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> > >>SwAmI wrote:
> > >>>"Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in
> message
> > >>>news:3E180FDB...@slip.net...
>
> > less basic questions:
> > hamus hermeticus: (Latin) secret fish-hook
> > <www.hermetic.com>
> >
> http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib90.html
>
> "25. The weak, the timid, the imperfect, the
> cowardly, the poor, the
> tearful --- these are mine enemies, and I am
> come to destroy them."
>
> Did Hitler write that? Silver Star= SS? Aiwaz is
> suspiciously similar to the
> rune Iwaz that Hitlers SS used.
>
> I am beginning to wonder of Crowley and the
> Nazi's were in touch with the
> same Demonic entities.
consider, if you will, that the nazi's are only
demonized cause they lost. had they won, conquered
europe & russia and went on to world domination &
having won the war in europe and given enough time
to develop missiles that could reach the east
coast of america the history of them would
undoubtedly be written differently than it is.
if the one world government is to be considered
demonic in origin, and as many people consider
government of even the most limited sort demonic,
than an argument could be made for satanic origins
of not only the nazis but bonapart, carolus
magnus, Caesar, alexander, marx, the great khan,
etc.etc.etc.
as an organizing principal in nature seems evident
in human evolution of social structures i tend to
think those forces and powers that succeed in
thwarting world domination are the demonic forces
resisting an inevitable and natural trend in human
culture.
--
Joseph ( Swami Havenagoodtimevishnuwerehere) Count
de Money.
333
333:
>> I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of
>> the GD. you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters,
>> it seems.
555:
>>> It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
>>> The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
Joseph <jos...@pacbell.net>:
> The cipher manuscript is a pious fraud,
what constitutes a fraud? the claims surrounding its
composition? its interior seems to have been constructed
by someone familiar with rituals of the type to which it
was subsequently applied (written by Mathers apparently).
this is why many claim the author was Kenneth Mackenzie.
> but then so is the bible, the koran, the torah, the
> bhagavigita etc. etc. however i would tend to
> class it more with mss like, the donation of
> constatine, the protocols of the elders of zion,
> various rosecrucian manifestos, the "grimeor" of
> your choice, liber legis, and various other
> assorted be all end all documents.
if it were inherited from papers by Mackenzie, then the
presentation by Westcott was certainly fraudulent. this
contains much less controversial assertions than may be
found in books like the Protocols, however, and the type
of documents to which you compare it seem unsustainable.
corrections welcome.
>...the only differance between them is in
>the amount or number of people espousing the
>individual documents.
they are easily distinguished by type, contrariwise.
>a need recognized in the indivdiual that religion
>is a cutural, collective expression of.
religious trappings informing a magical and/or
mystical document are quite different than
the espousals of ancient prophets (however well-
sourced) or the lies intending to convert and
slander a competing religion (e.g. Protocols).
nagasiva
Fr. A.o.C.
333 wrote:
> > The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
> > developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
> > on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
> > material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
In a manner of speaking. But there's much more to it than that, and it
has to do with the nature of the Mss and of the Western Magical
tradition itself.
When we approached this project, we decided we had to establish a
"baseline" on which to rest the concept of a "Golden Dawn Order", and
for this the logical choice was the most fundamental document in the GD
canon. We had two motivations for doing this: to establish a rational
position on which we could call ourselves a "Golden Dawn Order" in actual
fact, and to "draw the line" in such a way that allows us to liberate a
magical tradition that, in our opinion, had been polluted and distorted
in a dangerous and harmful manner, even by the so-called "original"
members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Our own intuition and research led us to believe that the system as
described in the Mss (and all of Western Magic in general, of which the
Mss details a functional microcosm) was (and is) fundamentally Pagan in
nature. Examination of the Mss proved this out. Furthermore, that
aspiring magicians who belonged to the Christian Church, unwilling or
unable to free themselves from their monotheistic cage, were compelled
to appropriate Pagan-based invocations of godforms and other pagan
traditions and techniques to actually do Magical Work. They tried as
best they could to cover their practices with a patina of Christianity,
while simultaneously denying the tenets of the own religion, which
explicitly forbids ALL magic to its followers. (Dr. John Dee was a
master at this kind of revisionism, as his Enochian Angels told him
explicitly that "Jesus is not God" and that "No prayer should be made to
Jesus", among other blasphemies. Somehow this didn't induce Dee to give
up his Christian rendering of Enochian Magic. He can be forgiven for
this though, since in his time it didn't mean getting flamed on Usenet,
but rather getting flamed at the stake.)
They were trapped between their quite natural desire to do the Work
of Magic, while at the same time aware (at least subconsciously) that
what they were doing was blasphemy in the eyes of their own faith. The
inner psychological conflict, and the outer organizational conflict,
caused by their attempt to be ersatz Pagans and faithful
Christians at the same time contributed greatly to all the schisms,
intracine warfare, personality clashes and abuses of power that began
with the original Hermetic Order and basically continues to this day.
They were cursed by their own insistence on clinging to 19th century
Christian dogma. As we all know, Yahweh is a jealous god...
So we look on our satrap of the GD not so much as changing something of
the old Aeon into something new, but rather as returning the Current to
the original roots of its nature -- *purifying* a strain of Magick that
had been inappropriately hijacked in it's formative stages by religious
dogmatics and turned into something it was *not* meant to be in the
first place.
> > In fact, the whole idea of the "resurrected god"
>
> I think Re O'Stat argued that the reason that this resurrected god
> motif was important to GD rites was on account of the importance
> attached to transformation and how the death-and-rebirth resonance
> mated with 'initiation'.
Here's some stuff from an essay Sam has been working up for our
website library, along with some of my own editorial comments:
First, I'm not sure we agree on how to describe the process of
Initiation, as regards the elevation of a mundane human being to
Magickal Adepthood.
Why should the Osirian Myth be offered as a template for the path of
Adepthood in the first place? It is a particularly unsuitable model.
The main problem with this approach is that while the weighing of the
heart is about the induction of the dead person into the Underworld,
it is not about the initiation of a Magician into the Adept's path.
Osirus is a god of vegetation. All green up-thrusting things are His.
In the north we would call Him the Green Man, well known to Pagans as
the God who is born, flowers, and is cut down in His season only to
spring up again in His turn. Osiris' suffocation, dismemberment by
Set and later renewal is akin to the story of John Barleycorn (and
many other mythological cycles.) What does this have to do with the
study and mastery of Magick?
In the story behind the Hall of Great Truth, Osiris is even less
benevolent than John Barleycorn. After His various misadventures at the
hands of Set and Isis, Osiris ends up as ruler of the Land of the Dead.
He then blackmails the rest of the Gods into putting His son on the
Throne of Ra, threatening them with ill judgment otherwise when they die
and come before Him. Incidentally, throughout this process, Osiris never
really comes back to life. He sires the Younger Horus while dead and
later His wife Isis reassembles and 'reanimates' Him (while still
missing an important, and I would say rather magically significant,
portion of His anatomy), but then He goes off to rule the Underworld,
never to return.
Hmmm, gullible dead eunuch god who makes the grass grow, rules the
land of the dead and blackmails His fellow Gods. Now is that the
godform I wish to emulate as a magician?
It can be surmised that the original Hermetic Order used the Hall of
Great Truth because the imagery (they thought) resonated with the
Christian Mythos of the slain and risen God, who then becomes the judge
of the dead. The GD members of the time were Victorian Christians, and
this interpretation of the Hall of Great Truth (and it's not the only
one, though they didn't know that in 1888) looked a lot like what they
were used to; they were comfortable with it. Since the RR & AC (their
second order) used Christian-styled symbolism, Osiris seems like a good
Outer Order echo of their Inner Rites. Perhaps this suited the time, but
that time has passed.
So the question remains: what does the Osiris myth have to do with the
study of Magick and the path to Adeptship? What about the Osiris story
makes him a good model for the mage? If taken on its own merits, apart
from the original Hermetic Order's use, would it make any sense? We can
find no Egyptian source that used the Hall of Great Truth as a
telesterion, a hall of Initiation. Osiris is a god of the vegetative
cycle. Even taken in its broadest sense, ever returning from the dead
has no necessary correlation with the process of acquiring magickal
wisdom, power, and skill. Nor is there any particular value to being
'purified through suffering' or 'glorified through trial' to the process
of learning magick. (These are Christian moral dogmas, not practical
magickal instruction.) So why use Osiris and the Hall of Great Truth at
all?
> I'm not hearing from you about a specific
> replacement for this motif as regards the phenomenon of initiation
> or why the methodology can survive intact without it.
Ok, take it away, Frater IO:
"Since [our] Hall of Initiation is not presided over by Osiris who's
proper place is in the Hall of Great Truth, that layer of the 0=0 rite
(that was added on to the basic form of the Ciphers) will need to
change. The most logical setting for the Son of Ra is at the helm of His
father's boat, as is traditional. Being a long-time sailor myself, this
is an especially fruitful image. The boat symbolizes the vehicle that
takes us on the river, the long journey through darkness into light. The
Hierophant is the captain of the boat, accompanied by His crew of fellow
gods. The passenger is the Sun, Ra-Hoor Himself, but also is the self of
the aspirant, aspiring to become a crewmember on the ship of Ra called
"The Barque of Millions of Years". Initiation is to repeat the
cosmogonic process with the Aspirant as the world being created and
simultaneously, the deity doing the creation. Similarly, it is the
process of being welcomed as a member of the crew, which is being
welcomed as a member of the Order, the company of those traveling
towards 'the light' (literally the 'golden dawn' of a new day.)
"One other advantage of this scheme is its ability to reintegrate Set
into the company of the gods after a bitter absence. By placing Horus in
the East we leave a vacancy in the West. With Ra-Hoor at the helm of the
Barque of Ra, we can remember the old 19th Dynasty telling of the story
that places Set at the prow (with His spear) to fend off the Serpent
Apep, who would devour the Barque and keep Ra from being reborn again at
the dawn. Set defeats this 'lurker on the threshold' permitting the Sun
to rise. As Hierus in the 0=0 hall, Set truly shows His power as the
Master of Darkness. This corrects the problem well understood by the
psychologically inclined of the 'return of the repressed'. That which is
split off and denied will rise again later in new form to wreak havoc.
By including Set, the Shadow is given a place to be projected. With Set
in the Hall, the Shadow has it place and is brought into the service of
the evolving soul."
> so are you saying that the original GD never constructed rituals for
> those degrees you (and presumably they) identify as RRetAC?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If by "original GD" you mean
Westcott, Mathers, et al of Isis-Urania Temple No.3 and its affiliated
lodges, then of course they constructed rituals for their Second Order
grades. If you mean the unknown authors of the Cipher Manuscript, then
we don't know. All that is certain is that the Ciphers stop at 4=7. One
page in French describing the L-V-X (the Key of the Portal) is part of
the Cipher folio, but it's considered to be a later insertion, probably
by the Francophilic Mathers.
My own tendancy would be to NOT assume that any fixed rituals or
instructions for Grades beyond the Portal were ever composed, or
even *needed*. Once one reaches Adeptship, one knows one's True Will
and is under the direct guidance of one's own Divine Genius. Every man
and every woman's Will is unique and self-directing, which is the
point. I would venture that once one attains direct contact with the
Genius, any 'intiation' required will surely occur, whether a formal
ritual framework is provided or not.
> "cock" <cere...@ev1.net> replied to "Re O'Stat":
> >>> This thread would have been a lot less annoying if you had just said that
> >>> from the beginning. If I understand you correctly, your premise is that the
> >>> original G.'.D.'. was a product of the Aeon of Osiris, and a representative
> >>> of Osiris. IF this IS what you mean, would I be correct in assuming that
> >>> you would have little problem with them if they took the name of an Aeon of
> >>> Horus organization, such as Open Source Order of the A.'.A.'.?
> >
> > A good question! ....
>
> but you didn't directly address it here. so you'd have no objections?
I'll have to leave that one for Re, as it was he who didn't address his
own statement.
Anyone can take any name they wish, and as long as they can demonstrate
rational reasons as to why, I'll grant it has validity.
> >>> If that is
> >>> true, the argument then becomes whether the name Golden Dawn is limited to a
> >>> particular godform/Aeon, rather than a system of methodology that can be
> >>> adapted for different deities. I would be of the opinion that the
> >>> methodology/structure is what makes it the Golden Dawn, not the godforms
> >>> involved,
>
> interesting. in religion that would be off-base, because so often the focus
> of worship would be the deciding factor.
Sam (Fr. IO) and I don't always agree on the definition of "religion".
(In our Order, people are allowed to disagree with the Chief Adept.) My
answer would be that magick and religion are two different fields of
human endeavor, and should not be confused with each other or evaluated
in the same way. To me, mixing magick and religion is like mixing
politics and religion. Bad juju. Sam would argue (I think) that defining
"religion" as requiring an "object of worship" is not a valid
definition, that "magick" itself is a sub-set of "religion".
But here's his take on it:
"The religion vs magick is a problem I would like to leave for another
day (very deep water). What we are discussing here is the relative
centrality of godforms vs methods.
"What we have here is a form vs content problem. The godforms layered on
the ritual offices are content being carried by the form or method of
the rites. What we are doing is maintaining the form or container while
changing the content through our interpretation of it in light of
Thelema.
"333's comment [above] is simply not true. It is only taken as a
given in this region of the planet because we are in a creedal and
monotheistic culture. However, in less primitive locations, a
plurality of worship foci are recognised. One can be a worshiper of
Krisha or Rama (or Kali, or Lakshmi, or Ganesha) while any of them are
still Hindu. What makes them all recognisably Hindu is the methodology
used to do that practice. A classic GD practitioner would recognise
our method, our teachings, and our practices as being 'Golden Dawn'."
> in GD/et al, why does 'methodology' exclude god(form)s?
It doesn't exclude them, but it leaves a lot of room for interpreting
them. Especially when the original versions of the rituals have no
godforms mentioned at all.
A bit more from Sam's essay:
"The only good reason I can see for [the old Hermetic Order] using
Osiris is that for a time our world dwelt in the Aeon of Pisces of which
the Slain and Risen God, Osiris or Jesus, was the Archon or Aeonic
ruler. For this time period the path of Initiation was presided over by
this God and His formula. Fortunately we have received (to use the
language of the classical GD) a new dispensation: Ra-Hoor-Khuit hath
taken His seat in the East at the Equinox of the Gods. While this may
appear 'to change everything', it really is a return to the older more
traditional approach to the evolution of the soul into becoming a magick
user.
"In Egypt there were many deity cults, as is appropriate in a
polytheistic land. At different times in Egyptian history different
deities rose to ascendancy only to be replaced by another. The cults of
Osiris and Ra were two of these. In the latter years of Egypt the
Osirian cult had, in keeping with the Aeon, come to dominate religious
thought. However, long before that the Pharaonic cult was particularly
that of Ra. This is important as it touches upon the nature and purpose
of Initiation.
"Initiation is no vain hope to escape death by assimilating one's self
to the ever-repeating vegetative cycle or by placating the Judge of the
Dead. Initiation into the Magickal Art is to enter into the supreme role
a being can aspire to in existence: participation in the process of
creation itself. What does the God of the Dead have to do with creation?
Nothing.
"Ra is the Egyptian demiurge, the creator, and for a time, ruler of the
manifest world. Ra embodies the great cosmological cycles of the day and
year. It is with gods of a creative and bountiful nature that we should
be assimilated to in the process of initiation, not death (unless we are
trying to form a death-cult). Because Osiris can be seen as fulfilling
that role during His Aeon we can forgive the classical Golden Dawn their
use, but we today have no excuse to follow this ill-fitting approach.
"The Pharaoh was assimilated to Ra as the archetype of the ideal man and
the embodiment of the demiurge incarnate, as well as the First King. In
being assimilated to Ra, the Aspirant takes his place as the agent of
the Creator in the world. To the world this looks like a king.
"Ra's story is not about getting himself tricked into His own death,
siring a son while dead, getting cut to pieces, reassembled and then
blackmailing His peers. Ra's story is about traveling through the day,
the world of men, 'giving life unto the dwellers of earth' and then
through the night, the otherworld in the company of good companions on a
ship passing the Pylons of the Hours, being welcomed or challenged by
the doormen, defeating or subduing the obstacles of the way, and
eventually breaking forth in the Dawn. This is a great model of the
magickal learning process. In the outer world we share our lives with
our fellows helping them on their way. In the inner world we face the
challenges of our lives and 'by subtlety or by force,' and the help of
our companions, subdue our opponents, and attain to such realizations as
is the coming of the dawn. As an allegory of Magickal Inititation, the
Osirian myth can't hold a candle to Ra."
> > ...The godforms used by Mathers and
> > Westcott are allegories for the Forces being invoked, and since
> > allegories are only applicable if they are used in context, when the
> > context changes, so must the allegories....
>
> why doesn't changing the context also change the methodology?
Why should it, if the methodology comes first? The methodology is the
technology, the tools for construction. The Golden Dawn in the Outer is
about learning to use the tools. The Second Order is about using them to
build a Magickal Being. The only 'context' that matters is that what one
builds should fit into it's environment and also be pleasing and useful
to its occupant.
> > Re is correct when he says that Crowley's intention with the A.A. was
> > to "supplant" the old Aeon formula used by the original H.O.G.D. Our
> > intention is not the same as Crowley's -- our goal is to redact, not
> > to replace.
>
> in other words, you didn't shift the whole previous system down into
> 'precursors' to your own set-up, en par with how the Scottish Rite
> and the OTO attempted to do with the Freemasonry, or how the AA
> attempted it as detailed above.
I think I see what you're getting at, and the answer is no. The
cirriculum of training and its graded multi-level structure -- and the
Golden Dawn is first and foremost a teaching order -- as described in
the Ciphers is what we still use. Crowley really did toss the whole
thing out and start over. The cirriculum of the AA is quite different
from that of the GD.
> > Here's the rub: we're using the G.D. methodology and structure,
>
> at what point must you admit of a departure? that is the real issue,
> from what I can see.
Let's define the Golden Dawn as being a college of classic Western
Magickal technique, and attaining to all the Grades as equivalent to
getting your 'bachelor's degree' in Western Magick. If you have a degree
in anything, it's assumed that means you've been schooled in certain
areas of knowledge and technique. In the case of the Golden Dawn
'degree', these include the Qabalah, the Hebrew alphabet, the Planetary
godforms, Alchemy, Astrology, Tarot, Geomancy, Enochiana and Tattvas,
as well as the basic knowledge of meditation, visualization,
vocalization and so on.
By this measure, a "graduate" of the old Hermetic Order's school (the
Outer Order) and a graduate of the OSOGD's school would be trained in
the same knowledge and techniques. Anyone who could pass the old Order's
Grade examinations could use the same knowledge to pass our examinations
and vice versa -- it's the same curriculum.
The points of departure are in the rituals used to signify the
Aspirant's attainment of each Grade. For this we analyzed what the
symbolism of each Grade ritual is supposed to represent in the path of
the Aspirant, by referencing the original Cipher documents and building
on the framework defined in them. This is exactly what Westcott and
Mathers did. The difference being that they interpreted it in the light
of their 19th century Christian world-view. We don't share that
world-view. So naturally our redaction is not going to be the same as
theirs.
> > not the A.A.'s.
>
> both the GD and the AA were fashioned as secret societies. by virtue
> of Open Source aren't you destroying the methodology of the GD? this
> seems the most logical trajectory of argument which someone like Re
> might take after disputing particulars of rite that you've admitted.
Someone else I've corresponded with pointed this out, but also pointed
out that by removing the word "Hermetic" -- which at its root means
"sealed in" (read:secret) -- from our name and replacing it with "Open
Source", we clearly indicate our paradigm shift.
In the old Aeon, secrecy was required to protect the safety of the
members. Westcott was "outed" and had to publicly resign from the Order
to avoid losing his livelihood. Scandal came anyway as a result of the
Horos case. The text of the Neophyte ritual was read into the court
record and the proper Victorian Christians of the time were properly
horrified. In that era (when anti-witchcraft laws were still on the
books) such practices, if made public, had serious personal
consequences. The secrecy served an actual purpose. (We do of course
respect of member's privacy, and declaring themselves publically is
entirely up to the individual.)
These conditions no longer obtain. In the first place, the "secrets"
are no longer secrets anyway -- the Golden Dawn has been "open
source" in actual fact since Crowley's publication in 1914. To
swear Initiates to oaths of secrecy regarding GD materials today
is ludicrous.
In the second place, our is the Information Age, and secrecy is
contraindicated. The only purpose ritual secrecy serves now is the
hoarding of information for personal advantage and profit. This is a
very practical example of "the rituals of the old time are black."
> > Crowley went the whole hog and created a new structure, changing
> > the "knowledge" teachings, the Grades, the requirements for
> > advancement,the core rituals, the tools, etc.
>
> thanks for detailing these. all of these remain the same in the OSGD?
With some very minor adjustments, yes. (Example: the Wand of the Hegemon
bears the Feather of Ma'at on it's head rather than the Cross of
Christianity.)
> you've already said that the rites have changed somewhat. I think you
> also mentioned that you've changed the knowledge lectures, though I
> may be mistaken.
The Knowledge Lectures have been "changed" only in that we have added to
them. We took nothing out. We did add quite a bit of explanatory text to
certain sections, such as explaining what the Houses and Aspects signify
in Astrology; the old Order simply required these things be learned by
rote, without explaining what they meant.
Our requirements for Grade advancement are actually more stringent than
the old Hermetic Order. Our Aspirants must learn all the things theirs
had to, and then some. And unlike so many Orders today, our Grade exams
must be taken in the presence of a proctor and answers given from memory
without books or notes. They even include essay questions!
> > And in any case, the A.A. is far more
> > precisely "tuned" to a particular set of godforms than is the core
> > system of the Golden Dawn, as described in the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> there's that buck-stops-at-Cypher-Ms thing again. ok.
Well, we're being honest and open about our sources, again unlike so
many manifestations of the Order today. A certain group, for example,
touts their "pre-GD esoteric sources" and is loth to publicly reveal
these sources in their entirety, or give an unambiguous accounting of
where and from whom they were obtained. In our era, there is simply
no compelling reason to withhold esoteric knowledge except to use it
as a 'hook' to attract followers (usually of the paying variety) and
coerce compliance in the internal ranks.
By contrast, anyone can obtain our sources on-line or in several
published books. Open Source.
> > Which is to say, the system revealed in the Manuscript is *much*
> > less specific than the one Crowley obviously 'micro-engineered'
> > to conform with Thelemic religion, and is therefore more malleable.
>
> extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition and extending off of it
> according to Thelemic interests seems to be what you're saying is
> "redacting the Golden Dawn".
"Extracting the Cypher Ms. from the tradition" is non-sequitor -- the
Cipher IS "the tradition." Westcott and Mathers built an "extended"
tradition on that original tradition. We are doing the same thing they
did, though naturally with different results.
> "Secretary ECT":
> >> ...the 'magic' of the 'Golden Dawn' has to do with the 'resurrected god'.
> >
> > We disagree with this view.
>
> so it seems that this is definitely one of the points of disagreement
> over the character of what you are creating (godforms involved).
Of course. We aren't using the Outer Order of the GD as a prep school
for a Christian Rosicrucian Inner Order, so we aren't compelled to ram
the square peg of the Pagan mysteries revealed in the Mss. into the
round hole of Christianity -- for example, by pasting the Osirian Myth
on top of it. It could even be possible that Mathers' "Continental
contacts" were Rosicrucians who deliberately and underhandedly used a
gullible Mathers to hijack the current of a non-Christian mystery
tradition and convert it to a tool of their own dogma.
> > Our position is based on the fact that such allegorical symbolism
> > was wrapped around the fundamental training system of the
> > Golden Dawn by Westcott and Mathers.
>
> I thought they were pretty much considered the fashioners of the GD.
> you're saying that only the Cypher Ms. matters, it seems.
That is correct, though somewhat over-simplified. The Mss. gives a
baseline description of what is "Golden Dawn". Westcott and Mathers
didn't invent the name "Golden Dawn", it's named as such in the Mss
itself. They were the fashioners of the HERMETIC ORDER of the Golden
Dawn, a specific manifestation.
It's kind of like how so many people think that Henry Ford invented
the automobile. He didn't, he simply came up with the most popular
manifestation of it, and almost all subsequent manifestations have
followed Ford's general pattern (for example, steering wheels instead
of joysticks or cranks, and brake pedal on the left.)
> > It's an outer form, not the core of the system.
> > The core of the system is found in the Cipher Manuscript.
>
> how did you determine where the "core" ended and the "outer" began?
> it seems rather arbitrary to me, because like Re one might select
> something larger and call it "core" and arrive at the opposite
> conclusion. is there some precedent for determining this "core"?
One has to draw the line somewhere. The Cipher self-identifies as "the
name and order/Golden Dawn." (Folio 1). So it's not illogical to take it
at face value and say, "what's in this document that calls itself
"Golden Dawn" is what is 'Golden Dawn'."
> > Since most operating GD groups *are* based on Osirian orientation,
>
> this argues for the orientation being "core".
So does that mean that only Fords should be properly called
"automobiles", just because they were a rarity before Henry started mass
producing them? In some way, shape or form, "Golden Dawn"
existed before Westcott found their coded manuscripts, just as the
automobile existed before Ford started cranking out Model Ts. They even
styled their lodge "No. 3", implying there were precedents. If the
Cipher Mss is considered the record of the first precedent, then what's
in the Ciphers must define the form.
> > The most popular versions of the GD
> > materials available are from the Stella Matutina, who were clearly
> > religious Christians,
>
> did they self-identify as such?
They certainly had all the trappings of Christian religion, including
the belief in Jesus as the incarnated God and Savior. It can all be
found in Regardie's 'black doorstop'. Read the description of the Rose
Cross Lamen, for example, or the benediction at the end of any of
their Z2 based ritual forms.
> I've sometimes desired to identify
> others as such but out of respect I realized that my evaluations
> would be extreme and tried to keep them at bay. here, you seem to
> be evaluating their religion while simultaneously maintaining that
> religion isn't really the issue when dealing with "godforms". I'm
> not sure you're being consistent and I'd like to hear your response.
I'm certainly not trying to invalidate what Westcott/Mathers and their
successors built on the basic core of the GD system. Religion isn't an
"issue" in the sense that it doesn't matter what one builds on the
bare-bones framework of the Ciphers as far as "validity" goes. All we're
saying is that our redaction is every bit as valid as Westcott and
Mathers' version, not that it is "better" or "the only true way". We
happen to think it's better, but that's just our opinion and YMMV. The
"traditionalists" argue that the GD system is Osirian/Christian
exclusively, and we argue that it *can* be INclusive of that
interpretation (although we think it's a particularly bad fit) but that
it doesn't EXclude other interpretations.
So the response is that religion isn't an issue because more than one
religious interpretation can be redacted onto the basic framework of the
Ciphers, so evaluation of religions doesn't enter into the equation.
> > so most people take this to mean that whatever is
> > contained in them is *the* "Golden Dawn". It seems as if few people --
> > including many GD practitioners -- have ever actually read the Cipher
> > Manuscript itself. It can be quite revealing. Many people are surprised
> > to find that no godforms whatsoever are represented in the 0=0 Neophyte
> > Ritual and Initiation, for example.
>
> so your argument really comes down to the contention that the Cypher
> Manuscript constitutes the "core" and nothing else need be maintained
> in order to link, methodologically, to the GD in name-brand?
As I said, that's simplistic, but fairly accurate.
> > Most people don't realize how much Mathers et al. layered on top of the
> > Mss. There are no godforms in the 0=0 Hall. There are Angelic Names in
> > the 1=10 (and throughout all the Grades), used as metaphors for the
> > Forces being invoked (expressed in the meanings of their Hebrew letters
> > and gematra.) Osiris appears in the 2=9, and again in the 4=7. "Christ"
> > appears *once*, and it's a passing metaphoric reference in the 4=7, and
> > it's *not* a reference to Osiris. The Main Officers play many godforms,
> > even swapping roles -- the Heirus speaks as Osiris in the 2=9. The
> > Hegemon assumes the form of Isis instead of Ma'at in one Path, even
> > though (theoretically) Isis can't leave the Dais -- she's behind the
> > Veil. There are other similar examples. The operative function appears
> > to be that the Officers simply assume various godforms (Hebrew, Egyptian
> > and/or Hellenic) as required by the Work of the particular Hall.
>
> why isn't this the methodology? what clearly delineates "method" from
> "variation on the method"?
Adding something (such as specific godform assignment to the 0=0
officers of the Hall) is a "variation" because no godforms were originally
specified. When they *are* specified (in the higher Grades), it's clear
they are specific to the particular work of that Grade initiation, for
the same Officers adopt different godforms in different Grades.
> > Here's a useful comparison: Any Muslim accepts that the Koran is the
> > canonical basis of Islam. However, some Muslims give equal standing to
> > other historical Muslim teachings which came later, such as the
> > Shari'ah, which dictates the "Islamic Law" meant to govern earthly
> > affairs.
> > Therefore, to such strict fundamentalists as the Taliban,
> > anyone who does not adhere to the Shari'ah is not practicing 'real'
> > Islam and has no right to call themselves Muslim. Many Muslims strongly
> > disagree with this position, and believe the Shari'ah may have been a
> > useful part of Islam *in its time*, but it is no longer a necessary
> > guide to life in the 21st century. They believe that anyone who accepts
> > only the Koran as the basis of their religion may properly be called
> > "Muslim", regardless of whether or not they follow the Shari'ah or other
> > subsequent teachings.
>
> but you're dealing in religions again, so this is somewhat confusing.
> you see what I'm getting at, don't you? you're using religious analogies
This seems like splitting hairs to me. I used an analogy to
automobiles also. Does that mean I think that the GD is a car, or can
only be discussed or understood as compared to cars? Or simply there is
something in the analogy that could illustrate the point?
> while claiming that what you're doing is not religion per se (in order
> to shift the godforms and not be accused of conversion to Thelema).
Eh? I don't understand where you got all that from. Why would "claiming
that what you're doing is not religion per se" preclude one from using a
analogy to religion? Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the
people". Was he precluded from using the analogy to make a point simply
because he saw what he was doing not as religion but as sociology? (One
could argue the 'religious' nature of Marxism, but that's beside the point.)
If anyone wants to accuse us of "conversion to Thelema" they're welcome
to do so. We happen to think that Thelema is the natural development
from the GD system into our age. But then, we've incorporated elements
of boddhichitta and the Vajrayana into our rituals as well. So are we
accused of converting to Buddhism? Our Adoration in the 0=0 has
distinct elements of the Tao Te Ching. Are we also accused of converting
to Taoism? Some of our training includes using Spare's Sigil system in
the GD context. Are we also Chaos Magicians? And our Portal Grade
requires the death-and-rebirth of the Aspirant according to the Osirian
formula. So are we Christians too?
See what I'm getting at here?
Our redactions are based on effacy and reason, rather than religious
restrictions. Everything the old Hermetic Order did with the core
teachings of the GD Mss had to serve the over-arching purpose of
conforming to Christian doctrine. Our's serve the over-arching purpose
of what makes sense (to us) for our time, and what works in practice.
> so you're basically Mackenzieist Golden Dawn, were you to agree with some
> writers on the subject and come to the logical conclusion that Kenneth
> Mackenzie created the document and ciphered it in Trimethian code before
> sending it along to Westcott (or passing it on in his paperwork
> inherited by him from KM's wife), despite Westcott's subsequent
> mythologizing via the fictitious 'Fraulein Sprengel'.
>
> > So this all comes down to (oh the horror!) a sectarian debate.
>
> not quite. Mackenzie didn't ever claim to have created the GD,
This is making me dizzy. Do you mean the writer(s) of the Mss (Mackinzie
or whomever) didn't claim to be "the" Golden Dawn? Yes they did, it's
named as such in the document, in the first lines of the first page.
> whereas
> I think Mathers and Westcott *did* identify the entirety of what they
> created as the Golden Dawn.
As the HERMETIC ORDER of the Golden Dawn. Number three. They were quite
clear that they were not the originators.
> subtract anything from it or change a part
> of it and you have an argument for why you're not doing the same thing
> as long as you're not directly connected via lineage. I haven't under-
> stood from you why you have selected the Cipher Ms. as a stop-point.
Because it self-identifies itself as being such, and Westcott/Mathers
took that core and added on to it.
> > It's like
> > the Catholic theologians telling the Protestants that since they don't
> > accept the Holy Trinity, the veneration of Mary, and the apostolic
> > succession of the Pope, they aren't practicing "real" Christianity and
> > shouldn't call themselves "Christian".
>
> or is it more like Muslims telling Christians that since their prophet
> died on the cross or was ferretted away prior to actually dying, he
> deserves a prominent place as a teacher but not as God Himself? there's
> more than one direction you can come at this (from behind or in front).
You've totally lost me now. I'd need that clarified in non-allegorical
terms before I could even comment on it. I *think* I agree with that,
but
I'm not sure...
> > There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
> > Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
> > those words that can illuminate this debate.
>
> I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
I'm sure that was the point of it. But taken in a "higher sense",
perhaps it serves as a lesson in "don't let this happen to you": avoid
turning the system detailed in the Mss into some form of "Magical
Catholicism", which the Stella Matutina seems to have tried to do, and
HOMSI does unabashedly in our time.
I hope this long-winded response answers your questions. Fr. IO sends a
tip of the pointy hat. It's good to have thoughtful introloqutors.
- Fr. A.o.C.
'The old beauty is no longer beautiful; the new truth is no longer
true', is the eternal cry of a developing and really vitalised life. Our
civilisation has passed through the First Empire of pagan sensualism;
and the Second Empire of mistaken sacrifice, of giving up our own
independence, our own courage. And the Third Empire is awaiting those of
us who can see -- that not only on Olympus, not only nailed to a Cross,
but IN OURSELVES is God. For such of us, the bridge between flesh and
spirit is built; for such among us hold the Keys of Life and Death. --
Soror S.S.D.D (Florence Farr), Chief Adept of Isis-Urania No.3
aethyr
>>>There's a line in the Cipher Manuscript that says, "Avoid Roman
>>>Catholics, but with pity." Perhaps there is an occult meaning of
>>>those words that can illuminate this debate.
>>
>>I gather it is intended to imply the masonic character of the document.
>
>
> I'm sure that was the point of it. But taken in a "higher sense",
> perhaps it serves as a lesson in "don't let this happen to you": avoid
> turning the system detailed in the Mss into some form of "Magical
> Catholicism", which the Stella Matutina seems to have tried to do, and
> HOMSI does unabashedly in our time.
>
> I hope this long-winded response answers your questions. Fr. IO sends a
> tip of the pointy hat. It's good to have thoughtful introloqutors.
>
> - Fr. A.o.C.
>
>
> 'The old beauty is no longer beautiful; the new truth is no longer
> true', is the eternal cry of a developing and really vitalised life. Our
> civilisation has passed through the First Empire of pagan sensualism;
> and the Second Empire of mistaken sacrifice, of giving up our own
> independence, our own courage. And the Third Empire is awaiting those of
> us who can see -- that not only on Olympus, not only nailed to a Cross,
> but IN OURSELVES is God. For such of us, the bridge between flesh and
> spirit is built; for such among us hold the Keys of Life and Death. --
> Soror S.S.D.D (Florence Farr), Chief Adept of Isis-Urania No.3
Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
(Women of the Golden Dawn
by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
aa
deqvf
Gnome d Plume
>
>333 wrote:
>
>> > The original Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn's *outer form* as
>> > developed by Mathers et al. for the Isis-Urania Lodge was indeed based
>> > on the Osirian mythological cycle. But this is not found in the *source*
>> > material that Mathers drew from, which is the Cipher Manuscript.
>>
>> so the buck stops at the Cipher Ms (Mackenzie?)?
>
>In a manner of speaking. But there's much more to it than that, and it
>has to do with the nature of the Mss and of the Western Magical
>tradition itself.
>
****Care Frater:
I'm not going to repost all of this but I do want to say that it was
one of the best , most informative and insightful posts we've had on
this NG in quite a while--even though I don't completely agree with
you on the minimal importance of Osiris, either in the background of
the G.D. or the Western Tradition in general. The Osirian concept was
spiritually in advance of Moses at a much earlier date, and the direct
precursor of the Christ myth and the Hiram Abiff legend. The R.R. et
A.C.'s candidate crucifixion is not an exercise in Christianity.
Christians cannot become Christ, they can only be Christ-like. R.R. et
A.C. resurrection symbolism is essentially Osirian. No matter! Your
awareness of the key importance of the Cypher Manuscript as the
foundation of modern Western Magick is certainly correct. Keep up the
Great Work. And for those who would like to study the original G.D.
Cyphers, we just completed the third printing of *Secrets of the
Golden Dawn Cypher Manuscript*. Check it out at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965488128/qid%3D1042433127/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-9248619-6336619
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html
Fr. A.o.C.
Let me point out that your book on the Ciphers is the reference we use
when working on our redacted rituals. (You bumped Darcy K. from that
exalted position!) Your insights in the footnotes, as well as the
chapters of history and analysis, have been a highly valuable resource
for us, and we recommend your book highly.
- Fr. A.o.C.
catherine yronwode
From: "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net>
[everything snipped, all of it. go back and read it in google.]
Hey, Max, that was an entertaining and enlightening response to siva's
questions. Thanks to Sam for contributing, also.
I think that this series of exchanges is beginning to clarify my
understanding of what the OSOGD is up to when replacing Horus with Set
and Osiris with Horus. I especially appreciate the inclusion of the
(Jungian) Shadow represented by Set.
I do have a small quibble still re: your reference to "paganism" and
Osiris as the "green man" or vegetation god. The emasculation of
Osiris is consonant with Christian myth, as you bolted, but it is
certainly not the paradigm for all pagan religions. See, for instance,
Tamuuz / Dumuzi -- a vegetation god and shepherd god (two in one)
whose penis was not ever chopped off but was said to spring up like a
bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water. Sure, he dies and goes to
become king of the underworld (playing on his carnelian flute to
please the women there), but there is no way to correlate either his
lettuce stalk or his flute with the Osirian cock-less wonder. As far
as i know, Osiris is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard. Even Jesus
was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen, thus giving rise to the
Merovingian kings of France!
I am not denying the valid interest you have in retaining the paganist
elements in the HOGD, which were rescinded for the initiate who joined
the Christianized RR+AC -- just pointing out that you might have
chosen another godform than Horus for the East. What about Min, for
instance. There was guy who knew how to wield his staff!
Yours from the sidelines,
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
> Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> (Women of the Golden Dawn
> by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it. I would augment it
with one other item, the lengthy and well illustrated essay on Pamela
Colman Smith's life and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
interest, then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
you from the book and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith
(which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
Cordially,
cat yronwode
52-week interactive online Hoodoo Rootwork Correspondence Course
http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocourse.html
Fr. A.o.C.
> aethyr wrote:
> >
> > Hey, is the Women of the Golden Dawn book
> > (Women of the Golden Dawn
> > by Mary K. Greer 1994) readable?
>
> Yes it is, quite so, and i highly recommended it.
So do I. An excellent history with a lot of information not available in
one place otherwise. I found he astrological digressions a wee bit
distracting though, and started skimming over them about halfway through
the book.
> I would augment it
> with one other item, the lengthy and well illustrated essay on Pamela
> Colman Smith's life and art that appears in the third volume of Stuart
> Kaplan's illustrated "Encyclopedia of Tarot". If tarot is not your
> interest, then see if someone will photocopy Kaplan's bio of Smith for
> you from the book and use it to supplement your copy of Greer's book.
I was dissapointed that there wasn't more about Smith in Greer's book.
It was nice to finally see a picture of the woamn! And honestly, looking
just as she did in the photo, she could have walked through the East
Village today and no one would look at her twice. A woman out of time.
> For a 1999-era peek into the depth of Kaplan's researches on Smith
> (which were published after Greer published her book in 1994 and so
> are not part of her work) see this interview with Kaplan:
>
> http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/1999/June/699-02.htm
Thanks for the reference!
- Fr. A.o.C.
Gnome d Plume
>Thank you, Frater.
>
>Let me point out that your book on the Ciphers is the reference we use
>when working on our redacted rituals. (You bumped Darcy K. from that
>exalted position!) Your insights in the footnotes, as well as the
>chapters of history and analysis, have been a highly valuable resource
>for us, and we recommend your book highly.
>
>- Fr. A.o.C.
>
****Thanks much for the recommendation. Darcy's book is good and I
would recommend it also. He reprints the first Gilbert article on the
origin of the Cypher MS. which is otherwise hard to find. As you know
we asked Gilbert to write an updated article with later data
especially for *Secrets* with the facsimiles from Westcott's note
book, but both Gilbert pieces are worth studying.
Please understand I have great respect for the Horus myth and
its modern proponents, I just like to give Osiris a little credit for
old times' sake. ****
SwAmI
> SwAmI wrote:
>
> > "Fr. A.o.C." <ma...@slip.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E1C5871...@slip.net...
> >
> > > But seriously folks... one is an admonishment given to an Aspirant
> > > during Initiation: "Remember to treat all religions with reverence,
for
> > > there is none that does not contain a ray of the ineffable Light you
are
> > > seeking", which was Westcott's rendering of the line from Cipher Folio
> > > 8: "Never condemn others religion."
> >
> > This is something i've been thinking about and having a hard time with.
What
> > if parts of a Religion condemn other religions and/or blinds people to
the
> > Light?
>
> It may be possible that you are misunderstanding it, as you are doing in
> this case. Hence the admonishment.
Would you mind helping me to understand it then?
>
> > > The other statement is a transcript of a godform
> >
> > I have grave doubts about wether the Entity in Liber Al is what it
claims it
> > is. If Crowley didnt just make it up of course.
>
> Which really doesn't matter.
I prefer to go by the advice to "test your spirits". If the entity in
question is lying i would want to know why and for what purpose.
Any mythology is a story that enlightens,
> whether the events actually happened or not.
Well i guess i do have to admit that Liber Al has made me think.
>
> > > speaking only for
> > > itself. The godform does not ask anyone else to join it in its
spitting
> > > upon the crapulous creeds.
> >
> > Are you saying that Liber AL hasn't encouraged people to do this? What
is
> > the saying, "Lead by example".
>
> Then those people are misunderstanding it, the same way you are.
I think most Christians would wonder about folks who work with a god that
attacks thier god.
Many
> Christians believe that they should murder Jews, homosexuals and
> abortion doctors (among other examples), based on their 'reading' of
> Christian scripture.
Well theyre idiots then aren't they?
>Do we blame the scripture, or those that
> misunderstand it and use it as an excuse to commit atrocities?
>
> > > So they are not comparable in context or
> > > application, therefore no "reconciliation" is needed.
> >
> > So you are expecting your Aspirants to take a serious and solemn oath in
the
> > presence of a god-form [1] that does not respect that oath? How odd.
>
> What does that have to do with it?
A lot IMO. I can only speak for myself but i wouldn't take an oath in the
presence of an entity that has attacked the Light i see within the various
religions. By working with the entity in Liber Al you are aligning
yourselves with It and its actions IMO. One would think a new religion would
attempt to bring all religions together rather than causing more of the
same.
Unless you're also a wrathful god,
> you can't be expected to act like one -- not even by a wrathful god.
>
> > [1] I doubt very much that the Entity speaking in Liber AL is the same
> > god-form used by the original Golden Dawn somehow.
>
> Of course not. They were Christians.
Not your normal everyday kind of Christian though eh? I see you call
yourselves Pagan and yet you still have Christian symbolism in your Neophyte
ritual.
>
> > <snips red herring>
>
> Heh. No answer for that one, eh?
I didnt see the point in following a detour.
>
> > The Entity in Liber Al also says something like "I scratch out the eyes
of
> > Jesus while on the cross" (I've only read the document once so my quotes
may
> > not be exact.)
>
> So much for any claim of understanding it -- "I read it once,
> superficially, so now I am qualified to comment on its esoteric meaning."
>
Heh. I read it once because that is what the commentary suggests. Plus the
energy of it made me feel ill. I didnt say i read it "superficially". And i
can comment on it if i wish to.
> It's "peck at".
OK thanks.
If you're going to critique something you ought to quote
> from it directly. There's plenty of on-line sources. That you can't be
> bothered to look them up doesn't add credence to your analysis.
*Erm, its not about "cant be bothered". I hold my memory sacred and am
trying to be careful what i allow in there. I am too busy banishing memes i
have aqcuired throughout my life to allow more bullshit to get cluttered in
my head.
Unless i consider it of importance of course.
>
> > An esoteric explanation of a body on the cross is that it symbolises the
> > Soul crucified on/in the body. The unfolded cube. And the eyes symbolise
> > ones ability to see and seek the Light.
>
> Well, Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is...?
You missed it? Heres another attempt, a quote from the Zohar regarding
creation;
"the face of God, crowned with Light, rose over the vast sea and was
reflected in the waters thereof. His two eyes were manifested, radiating
with splendour, darting two beams of light which crossed with those of the
reflection. The brow of God and his eyes formed a triangle in heaven, and
its reflection formed a second triangle in the waters."
So is your entity pecking at the Light emanating from the eyes of God? Why
does it peck at the eyes?
>
> > The story of Jesus healing the blind man is, to me at least, symbolic of
> > Initiation. Like taking off the blindfold once inside the Temple. On the
> > other hand though, we have the Entity in Liber AL that prefers to blind
the
> > Aspirant by straching out the eyes.
>
> Pecking at. No indication that the eyes were "scratched out."
I explained that my quotes might not be exact. You're clutching at straws.
And again,
> you're twisting the text that you don't bother to read, taking it out of
> context and applying it in an inappropriate manner.
I am? How?
Why would you assume
> that Ra-Hoor-Khuit is referring to "the Aspirant"? Where does it say
> that?
It is in the Esoteric symbolism of it pecking at the eyes of Jesus on the
cross. The Archetypal Man on the cross of the elements, LBRP etc. "Christ in
you". Look within, thou art Christ. Would your opinion change if it was
Buddhas eyes it was pecking at?
It's very specific, and misquoting it to "prove" some esoteric
> meaning that isn't there
Well, my interpretation may or may not be what was originally intended but
the symbolism is definitely there. I have tried to get a more positive
interpretation from it but don't see it. If you can come up with something
positive about pecking at the eyes of Jesus on the cross i'm all ears.
>just makes you look silly.
Heh. I'm used to that. Maybe i will write a book titled "The Art of
Silliness" or some such. When i can say 100% that i dont care if you or
anyone else thinks i look silly, then maybe i will have achieved something
of value. The fact you think i would care tells me a little something about
yourself.
>
> > I have absolutely nothing against you or your order, just
> > sharing a pov.
>
> Could have fooled me.
Heh.
>But I accept your rude comments as a manifestation
> of your soul crying out for enlightenment.
Well, of course i long for enlightenment. Don't you?
<snips other interesting stuff>
So you think a Buddhist deity would criticize and/or attack other religions?
Could you show me one example of this?
SwAmI D'Artagnan
---
All is One and One is All.
David R. Jones
The R.R. et
>A.C.'s candidate crucifixion is not an exercise in Christianity.
>Christians cannot become Christ, they can only b
This is an awfully protestant POV. The point of the Mass is for the
Priest to become Christ. It has no essential efficacy without this
transformation. Gnostic and other more heretical Christians do indeed
become Christ, for real Christians Christianity is meaningless without
this identity.
Love Jones
Odysseus
>
> I do have a small quibble still re: your reference to "paganism" and
> Osiris as the "green man" or vegetation god. The emasculation of
> Osiris is consonant with Christian myth, as you bolted, but it is
> certainly not the paradigm for all pagan religions. See, for instance,
> Tamuuz / Dumuzi -- a vegetation god and shepherd god (two in one)
> whose penis was not ever chopped off but was said to spring up like a
> bolting lettuce stalk growing by the water. Sure, he dies and goes to
> become king of the underworld (playing on his carnelian flute to
> please the women there), but there is no way to correlate either his
> lettuce stalk or his flute with the Osirian cock-less wonder. As far
> as i know, Osiris is somewhat of an anomaly in that regard.
I imagine that some of Osiris's 'anomalous' characteristics in
comparison with other agricultural gods might have to do with his
association with the Nile, whose annual floods played at least as
great a role in the fertility cycles of Egyptian farmlands as did the
solar cycle.
The "Fisher King" from the Arthurian / troubadour legends is another
'mutilated god'; he doesn't fit the "John Barleycorn" pattern very
well either.
> Even Jesus was said to have boffed Mary Magdalen, thus giving rise to the
> Merovingian kings of France!
>
That's indeed been said, but that doesn't make it a genuine myth, let
alone a plausible claim. ;)
--Odysseus
SwAmI
"David R. Jones" <drj...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:3e22c1c8....@news.uci.net...
Yay, someone i agree with for a change.