Pronouncing A Word
Tehiru
to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't
seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or
even postings like this.
The Magus synthesizes his new understanding of the universe into a
whole. To the Magus, this Word (or system of magick, or whatever the
Magus chooses to encapsulate the essence of their new understanding),
is then passed to others. This Word to others is only a symbol, and
not the awareness of the Master. When the Magus was starting their
magical career, they used magical seals, correspondences and other
symbols to bring about developments in their consciousness, and the
Magus returns the favor by providing new symbols to the emerging
generation.
The advantage of this approach is that the symbols presented to
students change over time, staying current with the times, and are
more readily acceptable to modern minds. This in part explains why the
Chaos Magick paradigm is more popular than the ceremonial traditions
of the past or even the modern resurrections of older religions. the
mentality of man changes over time, and symbols once of great value
must be re-interpreted and new symbols defined that will be
understood.
Comments?
Meltdarok
Sit down and have a coffee while you wait.
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
Evergreen
And here you have another clown who can talk the talk but can't
walk the walk.
I have 10 kilobucks that says this fellow can demonstrate no
magickal skills at all.
What he calls 'magick' is useful only for playing the role in
a C fantasy flick.
Lot of this going around.
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Tom
> Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is
> to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't
> seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or
> even postings like this.
My goodness! How could you even know about "the task of the Magus" or
the "Word of the Aeon" without having read any essays or books or
posts on the subject?
Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
Aleister Crowley.
http://www.astronargon.us/word_of_aeon.html
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Abrahadabra
bassos
"Tehiru" <tehiru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:104b7ea6-c8b3-4144...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Sure.
Here is the current word :
Transformation.
(it is an approximate rendering)
Alrah
> "Tehiru" <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
*half smile*
Alrah
Tehiru
concede that I cannot demonstrate the same ... qualities you have over
the years. So you want to bet 10,000 that I can demonstrate no
magickal skills at all? Golly, I'm going to hop onto my flying carpet,
summon Arioch for backup and hit you with my +3 wand of mighty pimp-
slapping.
If you recognized that Dungeons & Dragons was a game and not a path of
initiation, you would not be the subject of hilarity that you have
consistently been over the years.
Tehiru
literature. I believe Frater Achad discussed this somewhat in his
letters, but that appears to be it. Are there other references out
there that are worth reviewing, because I have had little success in
finding more on the particular points I mentioned.
Alrah
> If you recognized that Dungeons & Dragons was a game and not a path of
> initiation, you would not be the subject of hilarity that you have
> consistently been over the years.
*muffled laughter*
A flim flam A.:A.: on Lashtal by the name of Draconuit once said I
could not fend off a level 3 demon. This was 'before' he faked his
own death btw;-)
*walks down the hall*
*echo's of laughter in the maze* :-)
Tehiru
don't go great together...
Tehiru
few from time to time. Do you Xeper often? I might respectfully
suggest that the "transformation" is implicit, and a better rendering
would be "Becoming".
Tehiru
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kairos was attributed to Horus the child at a time in the Greek empire
where everything was as relativistic as it is now.
You have to work with Kairos in your daily life just as you do
Thelema. When Crowley became magus, he invited our laughter, and the
sound of my laughter is kairos.
You don't understand the word, you don't know the word, and you don't
interpret the word! You live it - or it counts for nothing but daath
and your own self reflection.
Best I can do now.
Tehiru
Alrah
> The Seer is not the Seen
*not*
Evergreen
Well, it says "Apprentice Magician" in my sig, but don't let
reality get in your way here. No need to change your ways this
late in the game.
> I must concede that I cannot demonstrate the same ... qualities
> you have over the years. So you want to bet 10,000 that I can
> demonstrate no magickal skills at all? Golly, I'm going to hop
> onto my flying carpet, summon Arioch for backup and hit you
> with my +3 wand of mighty pimp- slapping.
I'm sure you think you are very amusing.
> If you recognized that Dungeons & Dragons was a game and not a
> path of initiation, you would not be the subject of hilarity
> that you have consistently been over the years.
If you respected me I would be appalled.
And once again you have ignored reality. I have been on the Usenet
for barely over a year.
>
> Evergreen wrote:
>
>> And here you have another clown who can talk the talk but
>> can't walk the walk.
>>
>> I have 10 kilobucks that says this fellow can demonstrate no
>> magickal skills at all.
>>
>> What he calls 'magick' is useful only for playing the role in
>> a C fantasy flick.
>>
>> Lot of this going around.
>>
>> Sid
Notice that he did not even deny my assertion.
Another bitch-mouthed charlatan playing the role on the
Internet.
What a big YAWN.
Tehiru
> And once again you have ignored reality. I have been on the Usenet
> for barely over a year.
Yes, and even surveying last September on Usenet I was amazed at the
sheer volume of references to you as a troll. That and of course
references to other aliases.
> Notice that he did not even deny my assertion.
Why bother?
> Another bitch-mouthed charlatan playing the role on the
> Internet.
Have you ever noticed people with insecure personalities absolutely
cannot stand being revealed as a pop-tart? Unfortunately, probably
not. Quiet now Spanky, the adults are talking.
Alrah
> On alt.magick, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Notice that he did not even deny my assertion.
Yeah. We did.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
> The Seer is not the Seen
By whom?
>
>
> Alrah wrote:
>
> >You don't understand the word, you don't know the word, and you don't
> >interpret the word! You live it - or it counts for nothing but daath
> >and your own self reflection.
>
>
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Alrah
wrote:
> Tehiru wrote:
> > The Seer is not the Seen
>
> By whom?
I dunno. Plat grass. Weave cotton. Make complex music with atoms.
.same DifferenCe
Tehiru
now...
Does anyone care to present expansions to my thoughts on the nature of
the Word of the Magus? Alternate interpretations? Non-Crowley
references that might provide additional clarity?
Alrah
> So, in the hope that this thread hasn't been completely sidetracked by
> now...
>
> Does anyone care to present expansions to my thoughts on the nature of
> the Word of the Magus?
The tipping point is not yet, cannot be engineered by any other. When
they all live Maat in an event that is a hundred years and 20 in it's
passing, then ...maybe.
Alternate interpretations? Non-Crowley
> references that might provide additional clarity?
Not today. :-)
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Are you familiar with the chapters in Liber Aleph, The Book of Wisdom or
Folly, concerning the Magus and their words?
You are of course aware that Crowley extends the deffinition of Magus to
people who have a proufound effect on the culture out side of any
mystical, spiritual or relgious sense, Pasture for example?
When discussing Magick as metaphore such people are even more
interesting, at least to me, than the more typical type of Magus of a
relgious sort.
Tehiru
wrote:
> Are you familiar with the chapters in Liber Aleph, The Book of Wisdom or
> Folly, concerning the Magus and their words?
Off the top of my head, I don't believe I recall. Would it be possible
to give me the chapters so I can review them tonight?
Tehiru
Just found what you referenced online. I have only scanned them, and
in particular De Magis Ordinis A∴ A∴ quibus Caro fit Verbum seems to
fit my assessment. I will have to review them in more detail this
evening. I was wondering if you are aware of any material that is not
Crowley-based? Not everyone here is a A.A. devotee or a follower of
Thelema.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
> On Oct 30, 3:19ÔøΩpm, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq."
> wrote:
>
> >Are you familiar with the chapters in Liber Aleph, The Book of Wisdom or
> >Folly, concerning the Magus and their words?
>
>
> Off the top of my head, I don't believe I recall. Would it be possible
> to give me the chapters so I can review them tonight?
Roughly "chapters" 64 - 74 or there abouts.
Iirc his comments on Pasteur and his like are in Liber ABA Book IV.
bassos
> Fair enough. I am not a Setian myself although I do correspond with a
> few from time to time.
I am Bassos.
Labelling yourself as setian seems far too restrictive.
> Do you Xeper often?
I did.
Now i transform what was xepered.
> I might respectfully
> suggest that the "transformation" is implicit, and a better rendering
> would be "Becoming".
For xeper.
Not for the current word.
(it was not a reference)
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:116b59d2-c3e4-4a3b...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It is not a joke.
Tom
>
> I have 10 kilobucks that says this fellow can demonstrate no
> magickal skills at all.
Sid doesn't have ten thousand dollars. I strongly doubt Sid could
raise ten thousand dollars if his life depended upon it.
And the guy he's referring to made no claims at all of having any
"magickal skills". Nor does Sid have any demonstrable "magickal
skills" himself.
> What he calls 'magick' is useful only for playing the role in
> a C fantasy flick.
>
> Lot of this going around.
It makes Sid jealous. His own fantasies don't even make it to C flick
level.
Tom
> So I have the pleasure of addressing Sid, the Master magician?
No, you have the pleasure of addressing Sid the self-proclaimed
apprentice who has stated that he has no demonstrable powers
whatsoever but is quite sure that he will have someday.
Tom
>
> but don't let
> reality get in your way here.
Certainly Sid doesn't.
> If you respected me I would be appalled.
So would just about anybody.
> And once again you have ignored reality.
By which Sid means that you have ignored his fantasies about what
magick is and how it works.
> I have been on the Usenet
> for barely over a year.
If you don't count any of his other identities, like Tom Newton,
Farley Benn, and Alan Connor, among others.
> Another bitch-mouthed charlatan playing the role on the
> Internet.
Yeah, that's Sid's job. He hates competition.
Tom
I'm sorry. I hadn't commented on your thoughts, just your question.
As far as I can tell, there are no non-Crowley references to "the Word
of the Aeon" at all. It was pretty much his invention, although it
was based on more than a few things he'd learned from childhood on.
For example, the notion of the Magus uttering the Word is a reference
to the sephirah of Chokmah. Chokmah is active expression of the Will
of God. It's easy to conceptualize Chokmah as the Word spoken and
Binah as the Word received. Thus the Magus, assigned to the sephirah
of Chokmah, utters the Word that creates reality, while the Master of
the Temple receives the Word and passes it into manifestation.
Trying to apply this conceptualization to actual events of situations
in the physical world is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. Crowley
himself didn't seem to have made up his mind which "Word of the Aeon"
he liked best. The notion that you can pin this down to something
definite is pretty much a wild goose chase.
As for Chaos Magick being more popular than the ceremonial system it
sprang from, that's more likely a function of Chaos magick being much
simpler than of Chaos magick being more esoterically sound. You can
invent most of it for yourself as you go along. No tedious
scholarship is involved so there's no chance of being shown up as
somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about. There are only a
couple of seminal books to read and everything else is optional and
improvisational. Only Rosicrucian antiquarians and people who like to
parade around with one another while dressed up as Anglican bishops
prefer the Golden Dawn type thing.
Alrah
> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
My apologies for posting half slewed then.
bassos
> On 31 Oct, 01:39, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "Alrah" <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:116b59d2-c3e4-4a3b...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 30 Oct, 18:10, "bassos" <zebazz_nope at zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here is the current word :
>>
>> >> Transformation.
>> >> (it is an approximate rendering)
>>
>>
>> It is not a joke.
>
> My apologies for posting half slewed then.
Nature abhors apologies.
It imp-lies something else could have happened.
Ludwig Prinn
> On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> Aleister Crowley.
>
Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
right?
Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
to remind you.
It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
originally in Crowley's works or not, because the experience is common
to ALL spiritual traditions. Yes, even the Abrahamic ones. So your
contribution to the thread, once again, is to just piss all over the
comments of everyone who happens to have had a very common experience
which still eludes you.
You suck. Enjoy your day.
Absorbed
> On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
>> Aleister Crowley.
>>
>
> Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> right?
>
> Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> to remind you.
>
> It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> originally in Crowley's works or not,
It's funny how you accuse Tom of being a douchebag, but then go on to
echo what he said. All Tom said was that the language used was derived
from Crowley. I would say that the place that a phrase is first coined
is a reasonable place to piece together what people mean when they use it.
> You suck. Enjoy your day.
This attack on Tom appears to have very little to do with what Tom said,
and much to do with the fact that Tom said it.
HG
> On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > Aleister Crowley.
> >
>
> Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> right?
Hey, it's Ludwig! How are you? What have you been up to?
(By the way, have you learned yet how negative definitions work?)
> Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> to remind you.
And the very second sentence you write is just dead, dead wrong.
If you had paid *any* attention to the conversations in this newsgroup
lately, you'd have found out that Voyd, Joseph Littleshoes, and Sid
("Evergreen") have been howling their throats sore about how Tom is a
horrible person with no redeeming qualities.
(Oh, and Alrah and Bassos have also been saying that Tom is a douchebag, but
that he has a redeeming quality of sometimes posting valuable information.)
That's what you would have found out, if only you had paid attention to the
reality of this newsgroup. Instead, you're obviously referring to the
imaginary alt.magick that only exists between your ears.
> It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> originally in Crowley's works or not, because the experience is common
> to ALL spiritual traditions. Yes, even the Abrahamic ones. So your
> contribution to the thread, once again, is to just piss all over the
> comments of everyone who happens to have had a very common experience
> which still eludes you.
One of the constantly recurring topics of conversation in here is: can you or
can't you tell if someone has attained something? And if yes, then how? And
if no, then why not?
You seem to have found a sure-fire, foolproof, ironclad rule that works 100%
of the time.
Ladies and gentlemen! I have the honor to present to you:
Ludwig's Rule of Attainment:
If Ludwig does not like someone, that person has not attained anything.
> You suck. Enjoy your day.
Oh, I bet he will enjoy his day. And so have I. :-)
HG
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> >> Aleister Crowley.
>
> > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > right?
>
> > Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> > douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> > to remind you.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> > originally in Crowley's works or not,
>
> It's funny how you accuse Tom of being a douchebag, but then go on to
> echo what he said.
Go read it again, and this time....read it.
> All Tom said was that the language used was derived
> from Crowley.
No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
false.
> I would say that the place that a phrase is first coined
> is a reasonable place to piece together what people mean when they use it.
Not at all. Crowley only presented a modernized version of a concept
present in every spiritual tradition back through recorded history.
The fact that neither you nor tom has managed to comprehend even this
very very simple fact highlights your inability to argue the point at
all.
The concept of Mastery did not originate with Crowley. That's a stupid
thing for you to present, and I'm that upon further reflection you'll
agree how stupid it was for you and tom to even hint so.
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> writes:
> > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > > Aleister Crowley.
>
> > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > right?
>
> Hey, it's Ludwig! How are you? What have you been up to?
Living the life. Walking the talk. All that jazz. Yourself?
> (By the way, have you learned yet how negative definitions work?)
>
> > Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> > douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> > to remind you.
>
> And the very second sentence you write is just dead, dead wrong.
Well, I'm sure tom gets his fair share of comeuppance on a regular
basis. In fact, each and every time the concept of Crossing the Abyss
comes up in this forum, tom seems to feel the need to get his soul
spanked so he opens his mouth to demonstrate his ignorance of all
relevant material.
> If you had paid *any* attention to the conversations in this newsgroup
> lately, you'd have found out that Voyd, Joseph Littleshoes, and Sid
> ("Evergreen") have been howling their throats sore about how Tom is a
> horrible person with no redeeming qualities.
To which I would disagree - tom would likely make an excellent
compost.
> (Oh, and Alrah and Bassos have also been saying that Tom is a douchebag, but
> that he has a redeeming quality of sometimes posting valuable information.)
Yeah, but a broken clock is right TWICE.
> That's what you would have found out, if only you had paid attention to the
> reality of this newsgroup. Instead, you're obviously referring to the
> imaginary alt.magick that only exists between your ears.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of the newsgroup, or even the
thread. Didn't need to - tom doesn't learn lessons, and there is zero
chance that after fifteen years he'd have actually pulled his head out
of his ass enough to understand the Crossing.
> > It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> > originally in Crowley's works or not, because the experience is common
> > to ALL spiritual traditions. Yes, even the Abrahamic ones. So your
> > contribution to the thread, once again, is to just piss all over the
> > comments of everyone who happens to have had a very common experience
> > which still eludes you.
>
> One of the constantly recurring topics of conversation in here is: can you or
> can't you tell if someone has attained something? And if yes, then how? And
> if no, then why not?
Yes, you can.
> You seem to have found a sure-fire, foolproof, ironclad rule that works 100%
> of the time.
It's actually fairly straightforward. If you understand something, you
will be able to explain it. If you can explain it, others who
understand the same concept will recognize your understanding. If you
cannot explain it, you don't understand it. If you can pull the sword
from the stone, you *are* the King of England whether of royal birth
or not.
> Ladies and gentlemen! I have the honor to present to you:
>
> Ludwig's Rule of Attainment:
>
> If Ludwig does not like someone, that person has not attained anything.
>
Overly simplified - there are plenty of people I like who have not
attained, and many I dislike strongly who have attained All.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
HG wrote:
> Ludwig Prinn <pathfind...@aol.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Oct 30, 11:08 am, "Tom" wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru wrote:
>>
>>>Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
>>>Aleister Crowley.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
>>right?
>
>
>
> Hey, it's Ludwig! How are you? What have you been up to?
>
> (By the way, have you learned yet how negative definitions work?)
>
>
>
>>Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
>>douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
>>to remind you.
>
>
>
> And the very second sentence you write is just dead, dead wrong.
>
> If you had paid *any* attention to the conversations in this newsgroup
> lately, you'd have found out that Voyd, Joseph Littleshoes, and Sid
> ("Evergreen") have been howling their throats sore about how Tom is a
> horrible person with no redeeming qualities.
Your flair for exaggeration does not redeem your basic inaccuracy.
You obviously have not been following the conversation very closely, i
publicly, here admitted the "Tom" has at least 1 redeeming quality, he
lives in Oregon.
Granted its a subjective assessment and hardly indicative of the
'rigorous logic' the "Tom" so prides itself on but fails to exercise.
Preferring, instead, as he does, some ersatz 'dojo' mentality of
'pissing people off' which again, i think is a knee jerk (emphasis on
the "jerk") aspect of the "Tom" rather than a considered and conscious,
rational choice the "Tom" has made.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://mac.easthouston.net/thehound/19881029/mp3s/start12.mp3
Tom
> On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > Aleister Crowley.
>
> Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> right?
No, all of science is derived from the careful investigation of
observable phenomena. The whole "Word of the Aeon" idea is a
conceptualization of Al Crowley and not based on any observable
phenomena at all.
> Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> to remind you.
Feel free to keep reminding me of how upset you are with me. It
always amuses me.
> It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> originally in Crowley's works or not,
Not to you, because you're only interested in expressing your outrage
at whatever I say that happens to offend you, which is pretty much
anything I say.
> because the experience is common
> to ALL spiritual traditions.
What "experience", you puling idiot?
Evergreen
[delete]
>
> Well, I'm sure tom gets his fair share of comeuppance on a
> regular basis. In fact, each and every time the concept of
> Crossing the Abyss comes up in this forum, tom seems to feel
> the need to get his soul spanked so he opens his mouth to
> demonstrate his ignorance of all relevant material.
Tom thinks he has a firm handle on the nature of reality,
given him on a platter by the priests of physical science.
His mind his closed.
I can't believe you waste your time reading his articles.
Don't you know that there is no point in trying to reason
with religious fanatics?
By definition, religious fanatics think their beliefs are
facts.
Don't ask Tom to provide real evidence supporting his beliefs.
He can't. Back him into a corner and all he can do is say: "It's
true because people smarter than you are who are someplace else
say it is!".
[OT: Who are the feebs who follow me around posting garbage I
don't even read? Their purpose is to make me look smarter than I
am. You'll have to admit that they do a wonderful job of it.]
[delete]
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
Tom
> On Oct 31, 12:03 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > >> Aleister Crowley.
>
> > > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > > right?
>
> > > Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> > > douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> > > to remind you.
>
> > > It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> > > originally in Crowley's works or not,
>
> > It's funny how you accuse Tom of being a douchebag, but then go on to
> > echo what he said.
>
> Go read it again, and this time....read it.
>
> > All Tom said was that the language used was derived
> > from Crowley.
>
> No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
> false.
Luddie demonstrates once again that he is incapable of discerning any
difference between actual events and his fantasies. What I wrote was
"Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
Aleister Crowley" as indeed it is.
> Not at all. Crowley only presented a modernized version of a concept
> present in every spiritual tradition back through recorded history.
Where, exactly? Luddie waves vaguely at "recorded history" without
giving even a single example of his sweeping generalization that the
task of a magus is to utter a "Word of the Aeon" is a universal truth
in all spiritual traditions.
> The concept of Mastery did not originate with Crowley.
Nobody but Delude-wig thinks that "Mastery" is even the topic of this
thread.
Tom
wrote:
> HG wrote:
>
> > If you had paid *any* attention to the conversations in this newsgroup
> > lately, you'd have found out that Voyd, Joseph Littleshoes, and Sid
> > ("Evergreen") have been howling their throats sore about how Tom is a
> > horrible person with no redeeming qualities.
>
> Your flair for exaggeration does not redeem your basic inaccuracy.
>
> You obviously have not been following the conversation very closely, i
> publicly, here admitted the "Tom" has at least 1 redeeming quality, he
> lives in Oregon.
I was going to point out that you had in fact noted that I
occasionally say things you find interesting, but I see you have leapt
to your own defense already. Voyd seems to have settled down a
little, too. It's really only Sid and Luddie who have so narrow a
view. However, you have to admit that saying anything positive about
such an outrageous character as me is pretty rare for you. So, while
there are a few exceptions, for the most part HG is pretty accurate.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Tom wrote:
> puling?
Well that's a bit harsh.
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
> On Oct 31, 4:38ÔøΩpm, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq."
Its not "pretty".
:)
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
Meltdarok
[Stuff.]
Hi Ludwig.
--
meltdarok
The careless mind makes problems where
there actually aren't any.
Then it struggles to change the world,
and not the mind itself.
Tom
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
> > puling?
>
> Well that's a bit harsh.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. DeLude Wig has been crying for years
because I don't buy his claim to be a "Master of the Temple" simply
because he has a certificate on his wall.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
> "Tom" wrote:
>
> ÔøΩ> puling?
>
> Well that's a bit harsh.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Alrah
Hi Ludwig. :D
Absorbed
> On Oct 31, 12:03 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> All Tom said was that the language used was derived
>> from Crowley.
>
> No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
> false.
So you consider "Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the
works of Aleister Crowley" to be the same as saying "the entire concept
originated with Crowley"?
As I said, this has little to do with what Tom said, and much to do with
Absorbed
> On Oct 31, 2:48 pm, HG <h...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> Hey, it's Ludwig! How are you? What have you been up to?
>
> Living the life. Walking the talk.
Welding.
Alrah
Aren't you some type of minor bureaucratic functionary Nigel? (Is it
Nigel? I forget.)
Alrah
afraid I may not have helped that.
I heard of a psychologist who placed two people who both thought they
were Jesus in a room together. There was a hell of a battle, but I
thought that perhaps... that tactic would be ultimately beneficial if
one of them realised and saw their own insanity reflected in the other
one. Having been a victim of DoG (woof) and been bitten by it in the
past, I have extensive memories of this state (easily simulated) and I
allowed D to join me up to his flim flam A.:A.: and then 'reflected'
his delusions right back at him.
It doesn't appear to have helped matters, even when I told him what I
was up to and he was not in any danger from me and advised him to talk
the matter over with his psychologist. In fact - judging simply by
his level of paranoia (demons everywhere attacking everyone, covens of
witches, friends and family dead through magickal battles, and a
mysterious man from wales who he was frightened of - etc) I think what
I did was extremely ill advised and harmful. I have more than a
soupcon of guilt about the matter - which angers me (and which I then
laugh off). Experimental, but not very enlightened... and I was even
warned off that course of action by another. Shame I didn't listen to
him, but D was very good at hiding his deficiencies and was attempting
to teach others (who were young, and who didn't know that the dark
side of cults can be carried over into an abusive one to one
relationship as well as in a group). I briefly talked to one of D's
other sudents - who was ecstatic to finally be a member of the A.:A.:
and almost childishly eager to abandon all good sense and judgement to
be 'in'. Dangerous! In retrospect - this was my excuse for a course
of action that wasn't rooted in love.
And that's the crux of the matter really. Even if my little
experiment had worked, it wouldn't have worked for me. I would have
been right and justified and he would have been better. Is that why
psychologists sometimes seem so insufferably arrogant?
What do you think Tom?
On 30 Oct, 19:12, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Draconuit? Unlike a Reese's, that appears to be two great tastes that
> don't go great together...
>
>
>
> Alrah wrote:
> > On 30 Oct, 18:46, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you recognized that Dungeons & Dragons was a game and not a path of
> > > initiation, you would not be the subject of hilarity that you have
> > > consistently been over the years.
>
> > *muffled laughter*
>
> > A flim flam A.:A.: on Lashtal by the name of Draconuit once said I
> > could not fend off a level 3 demon. This was 'before' he faked his
> > own death btw;-)
>
> > *walks down the hall*
>
> > *echo's of laughter in the maze* :-)- Hide quoted text -
Alrah
> > My apologies for posting half slewed then.
>
> Nature abhors apologies.
> It imp-lies something else could have happened.-
Ah Bassos. You are a man. You have never had the pleasure of having
a gallant dark eyed Spanish paragon of manly virtue murmer softly in
your ear, in his beautiful voice - Lo Siento. Nature does not abhor
apologies, unless they are without passion.
Tehiru
believe that only two or perhaps three comments in any way reflected
the core question that I posted. Let me re-post in the hopes that we
can return to the original idea:
"Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is
to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't
seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or
even postings like this.
The Magus synthesizes his new understanding of the universe into a
whole. To the Magus, this Word (or system of magick, or whatever the
Magus chooses to encapsulate the essence of their new understanding),
is then passed to others. This Word to others is only a symbol, and
not the awareness of the Master. When the Magus was starting their
magical career, they used magical seals, correspondences and other
symbols to bring about developments in their consciousness, and the
Magus returns the favor by providing new symbols to the emerging
generation.
The advantage of this approach is that the symbols presented to
students change over time, staying current with the times, and are
more readily acceptable to modern minds. This in part explains why the
Chaos Magick paradigm is more popular than the ceremonial traditions
of the past or even the modern resurrections of older religions. the
mentality of man changes over time, and symbols once of great value
must be re-interpreted and new symbols defined that will be
understood. "
To which I continued:
Tom
The book "The Three Christs of Ypsilanti" by psychiatrist Milton
Rokeach chronicles the interaction of three mental patients, each of
whom believes he is Jesus Christ. Dr. Rokeach wanted to see what
happened when they confronted one another. In fact, their beliefs did
alter a little, but the fundamental conviction that each was in fact
the "real" Jesus Christ did not change.
Delusions tend to be quite persistent and resist all sorts of
evidenciary contradictions. The power of feelings to trump
rationality is well known.
One very interesting delusion follows certain kinds of brain
injuries. The delusion, called Capgras Syndrome, is a firm conviction
that one's significant others have been replaced by identical
impostors. What seems to be happening is that the emotional responses
to the loved one have been impaired, such that the patient no longer
reacts to them as before. The internal reaction becomes part of the
loved one's identity in the mind of the patient, so that a change in
the patient's feelings is reinterpreted as a change in the identity of
the loved one. No amount of rational argument helps because the
problem isn't one of facts but of feelings. We believe what we feel
to a much greater degree than we ever believe what we logically infer
or deduce.
That's why people who suffer from delusions have such strong emotional
reactions to any challenge to them. People who are merely theorizing,
who are not emotionally attached to their beliefs, don't react so
strongly to such challenges and can tolerate disconfirmation more
easily.
Alrah
> This is been a somewhat breathtaking example of thread degeneration. I
> believe that only two or perhaps three comments in any way reflected
> the core question that I posted. Let me re-post in the hopes that we
> can return to the original idea:
I admire your tenacity, but do you completely abandon your awareness
of the seasons in your eagerness to pursue the question? It's winter
here. For a complete analysis - Ask each month of year. Come to a
rounded conclusion after a long term study. I know that long term
thinking is not encouraged by todays cultural immediate mileu, but it
would seem to be essential to the task you are pursuing.
> "Part of the task of the Magus (perhaps arguably the central task) is
> to formulate a Word of the Aeon. Nice and evocative, but I haven't
> seen any real material on the subject in terms of essays, books or
> even postings like this.
Every Magus has a different word, and they will be in accord with the
Aeon or... just be a word. :-)
> The Magus synthesizes his new understanding of the universe into a
> whole.
The Magus knows (and loves - his action is that of the star (upon his
soul) - that fleeting impulse from the angel that directs and demands
from us action from our soul)
The MT understands (do I need to explain the workings of the triad?)
> To the Magus, this Word (or system of magick, or whatever the
> Magus chooses to encapsulate the essence of their new understanding),
> is then passed to others.
Not always. There is much that is not passed on. You don't sow seeds
in barren ground. You wait, a thousand years, ten thousand, a
million, until the soil is ripe.
:-)
> This Word to others is only a symbol, and
> not the awareness of the Master. When the Magus was starting their
> magical career, they used magical seals, correspondences and other
> symbols to bring about developments in their consciousness, and the
> Magus returns the favor by providing new symbols to the emerging
> generation.
Nope. Not necessarily. They could use a living flower. The Buddha
did.
We use meditation, ritual, and strange drugs to change consciousness,
but the living jewel is always living in the heart. And that's the
same across the universe and not unique to the human species.
> The advantage of this approach is that the symbols presented to
> students change over time, staying current with the times, and are
> more readily acceptable to modern minds. This in part explains why the
> Chaos Magick paradigm is more popular than the ceremonial traditions
> of the past or even the modern resurrections of older religions. the
> mentality of man changes over time, and symbols once of great value
> must be re-interpreted and new symbols defined that will be
> understood. "
People will always seek continuity in a paradigm shift.
Look at Thelema - because in the old aeon it was natural to think of a
female archetype in consanguinal realtions with a male counterpart,
they have persisted in an old aeon mentality that makes Therion the
partner of Babalon, when infact the relationship is one of Babalon and
Horus the child (her son).
[confirmed and explicit]
> To which I continued:
>
> "Does anyone care to present expansions to my thoughts on the nature
> of
> the Word of the Magus? Alternate interpretations? Non-Crowley
> references that might provide additional clarity? "
Throw your books away. They are for inspiration only and not for you
to be a slave to!
If you cannot make that discrimination then all your books are only
fit for the bin.
Tom
> This is been a somewhat breathtaking example of thread degeneration. I
> believe that only two or perhaps three comments in any way reflected
> the core question that I posted.
Then the obvious answer is to concentrate your attention on those.
The rest are irrelevant to you.
HG
> This is been a somewhat breathtaking example of thread degeneration. I
> believe that only two or perhaps three comments in any way reflected
> the core question that I posted.
Unfortunately, such is the nature of the beast. It's just something you have
to put up with if you want to discuss magick in an unmoderated newsgroup.
I give you this great quote from Tom:
"The hallmark of the serious occultist is a willingness to wade through
incredible amounts of trash in the hopes of receiving just a little
worthwhile information."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/588ac589abf58861
That's the downside. The upside is that sometimes the heat and pressure of
the flame war produces diamonds, such as Erwin's Khabs and Khu post.
"This is what I always say to people. All this "can't we all just get
along" shit is a waste of time. The good stuff always comes out of the
trouncings."
-Erwin Hessle, in
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/54a01c3e5757b6a8
Hope this helps you.
(As for your original question, I'm not answering it because I simply don't
know.)
HG
bassos
"Alrah" <alrah-...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ba1fb3e-61ef-4055...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> To the Magus, this Word (or system of magick, or whatever the
>> Magus chooses to encapsulate the essence of their new understanding),
>> is then passed to others.
>
> Not always. There is much that is not passed on. You don't sow seeds
> in barren ground. You wait, a thousand years, ten thousand, a
> million, until the soil is ripe.
>
> :-)
That is why i call it the difference between tending and tenderizing one's
garden.
Barren soil ? nothing some plowing and fertilization cannot cure.
Thus : transformation.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
La Gitana
Your hair was full of roses in the dewfall as we danced,
The sorceress enchanting and the paladin entranced,
In the starlight as we wove us in a web of silk and steel
Immemorial as the marble in the halls of Boabdil,
In the pleasaunce of the roses with the fountains and the yews
Where the snowy Sierra soothed us with the breezes and the dews!
In the starlight as we trembled from a laugh to a caress
And the god came warm upon us in our pagan allegresse.
Was the Baile de la Bona too seductive? Did you feel
Through the silence and the softness all the tension of the steel?
For your hair was full of roses, and my flesh was full of thorns,
And the midnight came upon us worth a million crazy morns.
Ah! my Gipsy, my Gitana, my Saliya! were you fain
For the dance to turn to earnest?ÔøΩ O the sunny land of Spain!
My Gitana, my Saliya! more delicious than a dove!
With your hair aflame with roses and your lips alight with love!
Shall I see you, shall I kiss you once again? I wander far
From the sunny land of summer to the icy Polar Star.
I shall find you, I shall have you! I am coming back again
From the filth and fog to seek you in the sunny land of Spain.
I shall find you, my Gitana, my Saliya! as of old
With your hair aflame with roses and your body gay with gold.
I shall find you, I shall have you, in the summer and the south
With our passion in your body and our love upon your mouthÔøΩ
With our wonder and our worship be the world aflame anew!
My Gitana, my Saliya! I am coming back to you!
Aleister Crowley
Ludwig Prinn
> On Oct 31, 10:53 am, Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > > Aleister Crowley.
>
> > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > right?
>
> No, all of science is derived from the careful investigation of
> observable phenomena.
By scientists. QED, dipshit.
> The whole "Word of the Aeon" idea is a
> conceptualization of Al Crowley and not based on any observable
> phenomena at all.
No, the whole idea of cyclical aeons in the spiritual evolution of Man
goes back throughout every spiritual tradition in recorded history.
See, this is why you fail, stupidass - you never do your homework.
> > Tom, on a regular basis you seem to forget what an unspeakable
> > douchebag you are, and I seem to be the only person who feels the need
> > to remind you.
>
> Feel free to keep reminding me of how upset you are with me. It
> always amuses me.
It IS amusing, but not for the reason you suspect. Even a baby
understands attention when he poops himself, and does more to get it -
which brings us to you. You've learned that if you get online and shit
on your own face, people will give you attention. I just enjoy
expounding on magical ideas, and since you're wrong pretty much every
time you open your flapping gums you've become my favorite soapbox to
step on when I feel like elucidating on concepts magical.
> > It doesn't matter if the phrase "Task of the Magus" is found
> > originally in Crowley's works or not,
>
> Not to you, blah blah blah de blah blah de derp de derpitty doo.
So then you concede the point. I win.
> > because the experience is common
> > to ALL spiritual traditions.
>
> What "experience", you puling idiot?
Uh, the experience of making one's Crossing .... to become a
Magister ... and then a Magus ... and speak the Word ... you know,
like the title of the fucking thread....
Jesus tom, put DOWN the crack pipe and step away. You're so fixated on
being a slobbering blowhole that you can't even keep track of your own
conversations.
Ludwig Prinn
Not.
Not even close. Go live up to your surname and do your homework,
schoolboy.
Ludwig Prinn
> On 31 Oct, 17:53, Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ludwig. :D
Hey pretty. How're yez?
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 12:03 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> All Tom said was that the language used was derived
> >> from Crowley.
>
> > No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
> > false.
>
> So you consider "Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the
> works of Aleister Crowley" to be the same as saying "the entire concept
> originated with Crowley"?
Seeing as there is a vast continent of information on Aeonics which
predates Crowley, the idea that "virtually all of it" is based on
nothing more than Crowley's work displays a profound ignorance of a
great many subjects. I called him on it, and as usual he's dancing
around pointing desperately at the word "virtually" as if that excuses
his colossal stupidity. It's like O.J. saying "I'm virtually innocent
of murdering Nicole." - literary scapegoating is tom's stock in trade,
but it never manages to completely disguise his idiocy.
> As I said, this has little to do with what Tom said, and much to do with
> the fact that Tom said it.
Hey look, if ANYONE were running around with their underwear on
outside their pants, I'd point and laugh. However, it only ever seems
to be tom who rises to the challenge of breaking the Guiness record
for douchebaggery. It's not "that tom said it" - it's just that tom's
the only one *stupid* enough to say it.
Ludwig Prinn
Welding? I own a bookstore - there isn't much you CAN'T do in here,
but welding's pretty high up on the list.
Ludwig Prinn
> "Does anyone care to present expansions to my thoughts on the nature
> of
> the Word of the Magus? Alternate interpretations? Non-Crowley
> references that might provide additional clarity? "
I would go one further and state that the Magus himself becomes
somewhat of a symbol. Having formulated his Word and (previously)
created a discrete system of attainment, the Magus essentially has the
potential to become his own paradigm (without the inconvenience of
actually having to be a god or even a saint) by giving the uninitiated
a worldview, a goal, and a system whereby to obtain the same.
The best part of Aeonics is the built-in obsolescence of each system -
as the spiritual evolution of Mankind progresses, each Aeon is
eventually outdated and becomes less and less useful until it becomes
nothing more than a hindrance and is discarded in favor of a new Aeon.
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Ludwig Prinn wrote:
Or at least a new vocabulary, sociology and psychology rather than
religion and mysticism to explain mankind's evolution in consciousness?
Though i always like Crowley's Equinox motto: The method of science the
aim of religion.
I accidentally stumbled across some christian apologetics the other day
trying to incorporate the "fossil record" into their creation myth.
By postulating 2 creations, the first, from beginning of the universe to
Noah's flood took the billion's and billions of years "Science" claims
and then a second creation after the flood that is then the beginning of
the biblical narrative that follows and this second creation we now live
in is only about 6 - 7 thousand years old iirc.
I was less amused by that then i was about the "Christian" lady, in
England who wrote a letter of protest about a gay rights parade in her
small town and got investigated for a hate crime.
She was only investigated because she called homosexuality a sin and
abomination and urged the parade not be allowed to promote that obscenity.
The interview i saw of her was amusing because it was a "Christian"
whining about "thought control" and not being allowed freedom of speech
and expression of her dearly held biblical beliefs.
What i find amusing is poetic justice, the christians, for so long
imposed draconian orthodoxy at the point of a sword, prosecuted 'thought
crimes' with death and now are whining about a lesser form of political
correctness.
Even if i take the incident as a 'canary in the mine' metaphor, its
still amusing that a christian would whine about it.
I don't like to find peoples suffering amusing but sometimes its just
instinctual, i cant help it, its just so very ironically amusing.
Tom
> On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 10:53 am, Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > > > Aleister Crowley.
>
> > > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > > right?
>
> > No, all of science is derived from the careful investigation of
> > observable phenomena.
>
> By scientists. QED, dipshit.
Observable phenomena, fuckwad. Just because a person with a
certificate on his wall says so isn't good enough. If you want to
believe that "Word of the Aeon" crap, it's because you are deriving
your view of reality not from careful observation of reality but from
your credulous acceptance of whatever one of your occult heroes says.
> > The whole "Word of the Aeon" idea is a
> > conceptualization of Al Crowley and not based on any observable
> > phenomena at all.
>
> No, the whole idea of cyclical aeons in the spiritual evolution of Man
> goes back throughout every spiritual tradition in recorded history.
I've already challenged you on this claim of yours and, as usual when
it comes to my cheallenges of your bullshit, you ducked it. There is
no evidence at all that the idea of a "Word of the Aeon" being
uttered by some "Magus" exists in any spiritual tradition that goes
back any further than Crowley.
> > Feel free to keep reminding me of how upset you are with me. It
> > always amuses me.
>
> It IS amusing,
Yes, it is. Keep japing, you silly ass.
> blah blah blah de blah blah de derp de derpitty doo.
Here DeLudeWig shows us his idea of a logical argument.
> > > because the experience is common
> > > to ALL spiritual traditions.
>
> > What "experience", you puling idiot?
>
> Uh, the experience of making one's Crossing .... to become a
> Magister ... and then a Magus ... and speak the Word ... you know,
> like the title of the fucking thread....
You're gibbering. Did you even bother to read what the original
poster wrote? It has nothing whatsoever to do with your obsession
with proving you're some kind of super-powered magician.
Like I've told you before, idiot, a certificate given you by another
ignorant occult fuckwad like yourself is not evidence of any spiritual
attainment at all.
Tom
> On Nov 1, 2:07 am, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 12:03 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> All Tom said was that the language used was derived
> > >> from Crowley.
>
> > > No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
> > > false.
>
> > So you consider "Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the
> > works of Aleister Crowley" to be the same as saying "the entire concept
> > originated with Crowley"?
>
> Seeing as there is a vast continent of information on Aeonics which
> predates Crowley,
The word "aeonics" did not exist until after Crowley. It's nothing but
a desperate retrofitting of badly misinterpreted Hindu literature,
Native American legends, Mayan 2012 hysteria, and so forth into a
crackpot newage pseudohistorical cult myth for wankers like yourself.
Tehiru
> The word "aeonics" did not exist until after Crowley. It's nothing but
> a desperate retrofitting of badly misinterpreted Hindu literature,
> Native American legends, Mayan 2012 hysteria, and so forth into a
> crackpot newage pseudohistorical cult myth for wankers like yourself.
That's only true in the sense that it still isn't a real word. Aeon
means "age", "forever" or "for eternity". In Homer it typically refers
to life or lifespan, but by at least Hesiod it could refer to ages or
generations. (yes, wikipedia).
Yes, it's been bandied about that the Aeon of Horus or any of the
others are 2,000 years in length. Great, but there is no basis for
that. It sounds impressive and coincided with the rough interval
Christianity was around is in all probability that particular number
was broached by Crowley, and the notion that it is some fixed number
is hilarious.
Absorbed
It's only ever Tom, is it? Funny that.
Absorbed
Well, I guess that proves you're a master magician. You and HGA can have
a little congratulatory party.
Tehiru
> > Welding? I own a bookstore - there isn't much you CAN'T do in here,
> > but welding's pretty high up on the list.
>
> Well, I guess that proves you're a master magician. You and HGA can have
> a little congratulatory party.
Wow, that made perfect sense. Because he can't weld in a bookstore?
You must be right - nobody who can't do a simple and straightforward
task like welding in a place filled with paper must be an imposter.
I'm sorry masterprinn, you can't be a Master and have an HGA-only
party unless you are willing to fire that oxyacetylene right up and
start welding while surrounded with paper and scented oils.
Patrick Schaaf
So are you suggesting, just like Ludwig himself, that Ludwig is
not capable of detachment, forever bound to his precious possession,
his bookstore, and bound to action that's compatible with his chosen
place of incarceration?
Just like he seems bound to, roughly half a year, appear here to
make yet another lame attempt at pissing into Tom's boots?
Poor Ludwig! But don't fear! The current word is Transformation!
Tehiru
I am truly, truly impressed. I can only surmise that either you read
English as a second language, you are only partially literate or
perhaps you simply don't actually bother reading what is after all a
short selection of text before deciding to thrust your thoughts into
the Ether. Take a minute to read. You are actually attempting to
deride someone for not wanting to WELD while being inside a bookstore?
Poor Patrick! But don't fear! The current word is Cognition!
Patrick Schaaf
>I am truly, truly impressed. I can only surmise that either you read
>English as a second language, you are only partially literate or
>perhaps you simply don't actually bother reading what is after all a
>short selection of text before deciding to thrust your thoughts into
>the Ether.
Well, I actually am reading English as a second language, so congratulations,
you got something right!
>You are actually attempting to deride someone for not wanting to WELD
>while being inside a bookstore?
No. If you actually read what I wrote, you would have recognized
that I'm deriding someone for suggesting their own inability to
leave their bookstore. Staying inside was never posed as a requirement,
it's just a stupid excuse.
>Poor Patrick! But don't fear! The current word is Cognition!
Yeah, right.
Absorbed
Ludwig has posted in alt.magick before, and my post is taking the piss
out of his various looney beliefs. He considers himself to be some sort
of master magician and that he believes he has real conversations with
his HGA.
You can check his dimwittedness for yourself:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/browse_frm/thread/1b0f3bdf665afe60
Here is the start of an exchange I had with Ludwig in that thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/a72cabe763a9569f
For whatever reason, that thread appears to be broken, as only 400 odd
posts of the 1000 posts appear, but you can see all 1000 by "view by
tree" and then clicking "sort by date".
Alrah
I moved into a little place in the countryside and I've been busy with
a thelemic canvas for months. Then I've got a few essays to write
about it. So I'm happy. :-)))
Hows you? :-)
Alrah
(ps - it's a very large and detailed canvas btw... lol)
Tehiru
enough that you needed to invest the time to pull it up again? That
sounds like the problem is yours, not his. By "taking the piss out of
his various looney beliefs" it would appear you instead mean to
attempt to restart an argument that should remain dead and buried.
And if he confesses he doesn't like to light the hair on his arm on
fire with a butane lighter because of the pain and the smell you will
tell him he's a coward?
Absorbed
> Relevance?
I was attempting to help you make sense of what I was saying, since you
appear to be new to alt.magick.
> You had an argument almost a year ago and it was important
> enough that you needed to invest the time to pull it up again?
It didn't take long; it only took a minute.
> That
> sounds like the problem is yours, not his. By "taking the piss out of
> his various looney beliefs" it would appear you instead mean to
> attempt to restart an argument that should remain dead and buried.
It wasn't my intention to resurrect an old argument, although I'm not
particularly bothered if it does.
> And if he confesses he doesn't like to light the hair on his arm on
> fire with a butane lighter because of the pain and the smell you will
> tell him he's a coward?
This is one of the weirdest questions I've come across in alt.magick.
That's quite a feat.
Alrah
Lol - Tehiru's got you A. He saw through you. You were doing a
classic Malfoy impression. i.e. "Listen Potter - you'll soon learn
that some wizards are better than others. I can help you there!"
Tehiru
sent him a note on 0=2 and I thought you might appreciate his answer:
"I have written it out that way, but also:
0=(+1)-(-1)
That implies annihilation, Perfect balanced against its Negative,
which however results in the binary. Again both elements present but
the operation actually matches the formula, 0=2.
Perhaps the better way to write it, taking into consideration the
operator is going to in some way express nonsense (rightly so), would
be this:
0=(+1)±(-1), understanding ± to mean "plus and minus". "
I responded with the observation that union of opposites does not
imply the annhilation of them.
Tehiru
made a comment to him about 0=2. His reply was:
"I have written it out that way, but also:
0=(+1)-(-1)
That implies annihilation, Perfect balanced against its Negative,
which however results in the binary. Again both elements present but
the operation actually matches the formula, 0=2.
Perhaps the better way to write it, taking into consideration the
operator is going to in some way express nonsense (rightly so), would
be this:
0=(+1)±(-1), understanding ± to mean "plus and minus". "
I replied that in my understanding the union of opposites is not the
annihilation of them.
mika
> And if he confesses he doesn't like to light the hair on his arm on
> fire with a butane lighter because of the pain and the smell you will
> tell him he's a coward?
Yes.
mika
>
> Lol - Tehiru's got you A. He saw through you.
No he doesn't, and no he didn't.
Alrah
Aha! I see Tehiru!
You're playing with the upper part of the tree a little too much here.
See how far the dualism pervades... :-) See if you can find any
monisms in Malkuth. It's there - I set you the unanswerable task.
Alrah
Yes he did, and sheep never make good students. You can instruct A in
perpetuity for all I care. He's yours.
Tehiru
part of the tree is acceptable?
Incidentally, I am curious as to since I am playing in the "upper part
of the tree" is your specific beef, why would you bother to throw down
a gauntlet about Malkuth? One might wonder if you weren't feeling
comfortable enough in the upper part of the tree to be okay talking
about it.
Ludwig Prinn
> On Nov 2, 11:23 am, Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 10:53 am, Ludwig Prinn <pathfindersbo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 30, 11:08 am, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 30, 10:10 am, Tehiru <tehiru.cha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the works of
> > > > > Aleister Crowley.
>
> > > > Yeah, and all of science is derivative of the work of scientists,
> > > > right?
>
> > > No, all of science is derived from the careful investigation of
> > > observable phenomena.
>
> > By scientists. QED, dipshit.
>
> Observable phenomena, fuckwad.
Observed by scientists, just like I said. QED, dipshit.
> > > > because the experience is common
> > > > to ALL spiritual traditions.
>
> > > What "experience", you puling idiot?
>
> > Uh, the experience of making one's Crossing .... to become a
> > Magister ... and then a Magus ... and speak the Word ... you know,
> > like the title of the fucking thread....
>
> You're gibbering.
You asked the question and I answered it. It's neither my fault nor my
problem if you can't handle the answer.
The experience of making one's Crossing is common to ALL spiritual
traditions. You claimed the idea originated with Crowley and you were
easily proven wrong. Deal with it, loser.
> Did you even bother to read what the original
> poster wrote? It has nothing whatsoever to do with your obsession
> with proving you're some kind of super-powered magician.
I know. That's why this isn't about me.
Ludwig Prinn
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 2:07 am, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 12:03 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> All Tom said was that the language used was derived
> > > >> from Crowley.
>
> > > > No, he said the entire concept originated with Crowley, which is
> > > > false.
>
> > > So you consider "Virtually all of this sort of talk is derivative of the
> > > works of Aleister Crowley" to be the same as saying "the entire concept
> > > originated with Crowley"?
>
> > Seeing as there is a vast continent of information on Aeonics which
> > predates Crowley,
>
> The word "aeonics" did not exist until after Crowley.
But the concept did. Even Crowley acknowledged that, and YOU would if
you had even a passing familiarity with Crowley's writings.
So once again, QED dipshit.
Ludwig Prinn
Sometimes it's you.
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 3:29 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 1 Nov, 10:07, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Ludwig Prinn wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 31, 2:48 pm, HG <h...@iki.fi> wrote:
> >>>>> Hey, it's Ludwig! How are you? What have you been up to?
> >>>> Living the life. Walking the talk.
> >>> Welding.
> >> Aren't you some type of minor bureaucratic functionary Nigel? (Is it
> >> Nigel? I forget.)
>
> > Welding? I own a bookstore - there isn't much you CAN'T do in here,
> > but welding's pretty high up on the list.
>
> Well, I guess that proves you're a master magician.
Golly, I had no idea that was in doubt, OR that you're so easily
swayed to belief. You're silly.
Ludwig Prinn
> So are you suggesting, just like Ludwig himself, that Ludwig is
> not capable of detachment, forever bound to his precious possession,
> his bookstore, and bound to action that's compatible with his chosen
> place of incarceration?
Wow. SOMEONE'S jealous of success.
Settle down, patrick. Just because I'm living every magician's dream
doesn't mean you need to put off going outside to play Hide And Go
Fuck Yourself.
Ludwig Prinn
> Ludwig has posted in alt.magick before, and my post is taking the piss
> out of his various looney beliefs. He considers himself to be some sort
> of master magician and that he believes he has real conversations with
> his HGA.
I feel a deep swell of pity for you, because you're apparently NOT a
master magician and DON'T have real conversations with your HGA.
Your failures may produce urges of mockery in you, but you mock only
yourself for being inadequate.
Ludwig Prinn
The store's doing well. We just had our annual Magic Fair and, despite
the miserable North Coast weather we did okay.
Ludwig Prinn
Reposted for Teh Funnay.