Runyon's Ideas Stolen by DMKraig? (was Runyon Plagiarized?)
nagasiva
Dear Mr. Kraig,
I posted the following in usenet and I welcome any (public) response
you would care to provide. your reaction to the following and to the
contentions of Mr. Carroll 'Poke' Runyon (whose post I've appended)
would be appreciated and archived. thank you for your time.
post from usenet follows -------
50010809 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Yes!
"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com>:
>>> ...Kraig stole portions of the book from one Carol (Poke, Gnome) Runyon's
>>> work and that he, Kraig, is mostly chased away when he shows his face here.
nagasiva:
>> please provide some relevant quotations from each and their copyright
>> dating in support of this claim. I haven't heard this charge yet and
>> what I saw in Kraig's "Modern Magick" seemed rather conventional
>> Thelemic/Golden Dawn such that I wonder what was "stolen".
"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com>:
> ...You know that there is a running beef in which Poke says a student gave
> Kraig the skrying material for his book, and that Poke was the inventor of
> the method and went un-credited.
I didn't know this. thank you for making it clear to me. I don't see every-
thing posted to alt.magick, so please excuse me if I am somewhat unaware
of these historical "beefs". if it is "running", then it sounds like it is
wanting some attention. I'm giving it some (critical but fair) attention.
cat just pointed me to Runyon's post to this thread and that seems to have
cleared up this particular portion of the accusation and its content: i.e.
that the material is in Chapter Nine of "Modern Magick". we have Poke's
word that the concepts were stolen, but not the name of the individual who
passed on the information or a confirmation that Kraig received it from
the source Poke mentions. the path to chasing down the accusation seems to
be aimed toward the unnamed person that passed on the information as well
as corroboration from Kraig/Llewellyn.
> Poke had nothing published at the time so there is no copyright to point
> to, and while that is not plagiarism, that was not what I claimed Naga,
> only that he stole from Poke's work.
have you talked with Kraig about this and got his side of the story?
if you are going to repeat the accusation in this public forum, you can
hardly blame me if I ask followup questions, digging a little deeper.
after all if, it is true what you are saying, then I'd like Kraig to
be held accountable and provided with the reputation which he actually
*deserves* rather than merely that provided him by his fans and enemies.
I am sending a copy of this and Poke's post to Mr. Kraig for comment.
> Perhaps Kraig was unaware at the time, but I don't know that he has
> given the credit.
it sounds like Runyon is asserting that Kraig knowingly stole the ideas
and then rejected Runyon's explanation as false in a fit of jealousy or
in order to protect his own publishing interests with Llewellyn, adding
fictional elements to his account of the situation and making impossible
Runyon's publishing through Llewellyn.
> Or perhaps Poke made this all up, in all honesty, how am I to know.
well you're the one repeating the story. I'd like it if you looked more
deeply and became convinced of the matter one way or another if you're
going to be promoting one side of it in the newsgroup. I enjoy the
critical approach we bring to alt.magick and prefer not to leave one-
sided contentions (about the value of a particular book, for example,
or the way a particular part of occult (even occult publishing) history
actually took place) go unaddressed by a fair-minded appraisal from
someone unbiased due to their proximity to the events or to those who
bring the matter to us.
> And yes it is a "pedestrian" book, but I have given a couple away,
> just as a decent starter.
I think it is popularly known as a good starter for GD- and Thelema-
related magic. if it contains stolen ideas, I think this should become
known about the book also. if it does not and there is something amiss
in Runyon's account, I'd like to know that as well. it wouldn't be my
business except that taking it to alt.magick *makes* it my business. :>
David Cantu:
>>> But you will not find "truth" in books or tools or any bullshit except your
>>> own mind and spirit. You must learn to discern. One way of doing this is
>>> to take on a model for reality like Kabbalah, or physics for that matter,
>>> and learn to see the world from the point of view of this model. Many new
>>> connections and ways of manipulating your inner and outer reality will
>>> become more apparent as you go through an interpretive drift toward your
>>> chosen model. Any model will due, and like LSD, the real lesson is not the
>>> particular model but the malleability of the world you experience.
>>
>> sounds like magic is, to you, 'the change of consciousness in conformity
>> with will' which Crowley did not accept.
>
> Not necessarily. I will admit that what I perceive is all I can ever really
> know and that these perceptions are conditioned by state of consciousness,
> however this does not rule out the manipulations of reality that can be
> performed from a given state. The strings of manipulation become clear and
> workable within the context of some model or another. Outside the model
> such "pull-threads" are invisible, or occult.
>
> My experience suggests the possibility of deliberate workings and even
> entities independent of the human mind, but I cannot prove that such is the
> case. Pragmatically, a choice of view can be made in this dilemma, but
> doing so is just taking on another model. My own choice has been to treat
> such things as "real", but I am aware of the choice.
thanks for explaining that more fully. :>
nagasiva
====================================================================
copies of this and Poke's post have been cc'd to DMKraig with a
request for comment
--
emailed replies may be posted ----- "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" -----
"that which liberates is ignorance" http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catal...@luckymojo.com
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
*******I don't make things up. Everything I posted is documented in
correspondence between myself, Kraig and Llewellyn is true and even
understated. It's quite a large file. Kraig, a lifetime resident of
Los Angeles, has tried to claim that he didn't really know about the
O.T.A. and our mirror method, but Nelson White's book made it obvious
that the concept and method was an "Initiatory Secret" White was
"Revealing." How Kraig, a keen student of magick, could totally miss
the following documentation is frankly ludicrous: -----
From: Mysticism and Religion
by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr., Ph.D.
Prentice-Hall, 1980
reprinted in:
Religious and Spiritual Groups
in Modern America, 2nd Edition
by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. & Harry B. Partin
Prentice-Hall , 1988
"On May 6, 1977, I attended an evocation of Astarte, the
ancient Canaanite goddess of love, performed by the Ordo Templi
Astartes. The rite exemplified how the intensive ritual work in a
close-knit group can arouse psychic energy leading to strong ecstatic
or religious experience…..
…..The principal parts in the rite were those of the Receiver
and Operator. The Receiver (a woman since the deity was female),
stood before the mirror with a candle in each hand. In her it was
believed that the goddess would manifest her personality and power.
Also a glimpse might be caught of the passing glory in the mirror.
The Operator or Magus stood within the circle facing the
Receiver. His function, supported by the concentrated energies of the
entire group, was by the force of his will and magical words to summon
up Astarte into the woman's body and the mirror. Thus, he repeated
over and over an invocation of Astarte in a chanting tone, his voice
full of concentrated power. The emphasis was on his command to the
ancient goddess in the name of Elohim (God).
Breaking the mood, he quietly asked the Receiver if Astarte
was now here. She said in a low voice, "One more time." The Magus
called out the invocation once more. The Receiver shook; the candles
moved, making dim patterns in the mirror. Then suddenly the Receiver
laughed, a lilting, sexual, musical laugh quite different from the
woman's ordinary tone. At this point I myself felt a surge of
tremendous tingling excitement…..
Note: The Magus was Carroll "Poke" Runyon, the Receiver was Jeanette
Runyon. This publication appeared two years previous to the first
release of Nelson H. White's SECRET MAGICK REVEALED.
From: The New Pagans
by Hans Holzer
Doubleday, 1972
reprinted in :
Pagans and Witches
by Hans Holzer
Manor Books, NY 1978
In Search of Magic and Witchcraft
by Alan Landsburg
Bantam Books, 1977
"All of the artistic work and theories behind this brotherhood (The
OTA) are the brainchild of an extremely talented young man by the
occult name of Frater Aleyin (Carroll "Poke" Runyon). He is aided and
abetted by another young man named Frater Khedemel (Nelson H. White),
a part time teacher and peace officer…..
…..On February 4, 1971, I was to find out for myself what exactly the
O.T.A. kind of magic was like. The boys picked me up at my hotel , and
as early as 7 p.m. we arrived at the temple in Pasadena. This gave me
ample time to look around and inspect the premises…..
…..In an adjoining room , which is somewhat larger than the first one,
the inner temple had been established. Painted in black it is
illuminated in stage lights in various colors that give it an almost
psychedelic effect. In the center there is a circle consisting of a
slightly raised narrow wooden platform. Further back outside the
circle there is a gong, and facing forward just outside the circle, a
large mirror on a stand. When I first inspected the temple that mirror
was covered, since it played a major part in the ritual that was to
follow shortly……
…..I was to "scrye" in the great mirror - to do some crystal gazing
in the hope that Baal might appear to me…..The Master thrust two long
candle sticks into my hands and motioned me to hold them up so that I
could see the mirror more clearly. What I saw was merely my face, but
in time I might conceivably see someone lurking behind me….
…..As I stood there staring into the half darkened mirror I thought I
felt some presence hovering over my shoulder. I did not see the
clearly defined face of King Baal next to me in the glass but I felt
something.
(Note: this account was first published in 1972, seven years before
the publication of SECRET MAGICK REVEALED.)
And in addition to this we demonstrated the technique (Mirror on the
upraised Triangle with the receiver holding the evocation candles) on
the Tom Snyder Show NBC network television in October 1974, and again
(re-run) on Halloween the following year. If anyone doubts this, we
have plenty of VHS copies of the old Tom Synder Show that will totally
confirm it. If Kraig didn't know where the Dark Mirror method came
from by the early 1980s he must have been the most out-of-touch
magician in the whole Western World! ******
The Old Original Gnome d Plume
accept no substitutes!
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
catherine yronwode
>
> nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote:
> >"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com>:
> >> Poke had nothing published at the time so there is no copyright
> >> to point to, and while that is not plagiarism, that was not what
> >> I claimed Naga, only that he stole from Poke's work.
David Cantu's claim that Poke had "nothing published" is not exactly
accurate -- for although Poke HIMSELF had not yet published the
material, below we find that he supplies THREE published references
predating Kraig's book --
* the 1980 Robert S. Ellwood book, reprinted in 1988;
* the 1972 Hans Holzer book, reprinted in 1977 and 1978;
* the 1974 Tom Snyder Show video, re-broadcast in 1975
-- EACH OF WHICH clearly identified Carroll "Poke" Runyon and the O.T.A.
as the source and originator of this form of dark-mirror working.
As i understand it, what is at issue is not plagiarism per se, but
rather the theft of intellectual property. Ironically, Poke would
probably have given permission for the use of the material to Kraig, as
he previously had given it to three others, had only he been properly
CREDITED by Kriag as he was by the others.
> >> Perhaps Kraig was unaware at the time, but I don't know that he
> >> has given the credit.
> >
> >it sounds like Runyon is asserting that Kraig knowingly stole the
> >ideas and then rejected Runyon's explanation as false in a fit of
> >jealousy or in order to protect his own publishing interests with
> >Llewellyn, adding fictional elements to his account of the
> >situation and making impossible Runyon's publishing through
> >Llewellyn.
> >
> >> Or perhaps Poke made this all up, in all honesty, how am I to
> >> know.
> >
> I don't make things up. Everything I posted is documented in
> correspondence between myself, Kraig and Llewellyn, is true, and
> even understated. It's quite a large file. Kraig, a lifetime
> resident of Los Angeles, has tried to claim that he didn't really
> know about the O.T.A. and our mirror method, but Nelson White's book
> made it obvious that the concept and method was an "Initiatory
> Secret" White was "Revealing." How Kraig, a keen student of magick,
> could totally miss the following documentation is frankly ludicrous:
>
> From: Mysticism and Religion
> by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr., Ph.D.
> Prentice-Hall, 1980
>
> reprinted in:
> Religious and Spiritual Groups
> in Modern America, 2nd Edition
> by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. & Harry B. Partin
> Prentice-Hall , 1988
>
> "On May 6, 1977, I attended an evocation of Astarte, the
> ancient Canaanite goddess of love, performed by the Ordo Templi
> Astartes. The rite exemplified how the intensive ritual work in a
> close-knit group can arouse psychic energy leading to strong
> ecstatic or religious experience.
> "The principal parts in the rite were those of the
> Receiver and Operator. The Receiver (a woman since the deity was
> female), stood before the mirror with a candle in each hand. In her
> it was believed that the goddess would manifest her personality and
> power. Also a glimpse might be caught of the passing glory in the
> mirror.
> "The Operator or Magus stood within the circle facing the
> Receiver. His function, supported by the concentrated energies of
> the entire group, was by the force of his will and magical words to
> summon up Astarte into the woman's body and the mirror. Thus, he
> repeated over and over an invocation of Astarte in a chanting tone,
> his voice full of concentrated power. The emphasis was on his
> command to the ancient goddess in the name of Elohim (God).
> "Breaking the mood, he quietly asked the Receiver if Astarte
> was now here. She said in a low voice, "One more time." The Magus
> called out the invocation once more. The Receiver shook; the candles
> moved, making dim patterns in the mirror. Then suddenly the
> Receiver laughed, a lilting, sexual, musical laugh quite different
> from the woman's ordinary tone. At this point I myself felt a surge
> of tremendous tingling excitement..."
>
> (Note: The Magus was Carroll "Poke" Runyon; the Receiver was
> Jeanette Runyon. This publication appeared two years previous to the
> first release of Nelson H. White's SECRET MAGICK REVEALED.)
>
> From: The New Pagans
> by Hans Holzer
> Doubleday, 1972
>
> reprinted in :
> Pagans and Witches
> by Hans Holzer
> Manor Books, NY 1978
>
> In Search of Magic and Witchcraft
> by Alan Landsburg
> Bantam Books, 1977
>
> "All of the artistic work and theories behind this brotherhood
> (The OTA) are the brainchild of an extremely talented young man by
> the occult name of Frater Aleyin (Carroll "Poke" Runyon). He is
> aided and abetted by another young man named Frater Khedemel
> (Nelson H. White), a part time teacher and peace officer..."
> "...On February 4, 1971, I was to find out for myself what
> exactly the O.T.A. kind of magic was like. The boys picked me up
> at my hotel, and as early as 7 p.m. we arrived at the temple in
> Pasadena. This gave me ample time to look around and inspect the
> premises."
> "...In an adjoining room , which is somewhat larger than the
> first one, the inner temple had been established. Painted in black
> it is illuminated in stage lights in various colors that give it an
> almost psychedelic effect. In the center there is a circle
> consisting of a slightly raised narrow wooden platform. Further back
> outside the circle there is a gong, and facing forward just outside
> the circle, a large mirror on a stand. When I first inspected the
> temple that mirror was covered, since it played a major part in the
> ritual that was to follow shortly."
> "...I was to "scrye" in the great mirror -- to do some crystal
> gazing in the hope that Baal might appear to me ... The Master
> thrust two long candle sticks into my hands and motioned me to hold
> them up so that I could see the mirror more clearly. What I saw was
> merely my face, but in time I might conceivably see someone lurking
> behind me."
> "...As I stood there staring into the half darkened mirror I
> thought I felt some presence hovering over my shoulder. I did not
> see the clearly defined face of King Baal next to me in the glass
> but I felt something.
>
> (Note: this account was first published in 1972, seven years before
> the publication of SECRET MAGICK REVEALED.)
>
> And in addition to this we demonstrated the technique (Mirror on the
> upraised Triangle with the receiver holding the evocation candles)
> on the Tom Snyder Show, NBC network television, in October 1974, and
> again (re-run) on Halloween the following year. If anyone doubts
> this, we have plenty of VHS copies of the old Tom Synder Show that
> will totally confirm it. If Kraig didn't know where the Dark Mirror
> method came from by the early 1980s he must have been the most
> out-of-touch magician in the whole Western World!
>
> The Old Original Gnome d Plume
> accept no substitutes!
> http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
Thanks Poke, for your patient recitation and documentation. Of course
all these usenet posts are archived at google, but i believe it is
siva's plan to archive the material in a more convenient compilation
form at one URL, making it easily available through the web when these
matters are raised again, as they probably will be. In that weay, a
single URL could be given to anyone who requests information.
I have only one question, for clarification of dates:
You wrote two notes above which give contradictory information:
Of the 1980 Ellwood book, you wrote: "This publication appeared two
years previous to the first release of Nelson H. White's SECRET MAGICK
REVEALED."
Of the 1972 Holzer book, you wrote: "This account was first published in
1972, seven years before the publication of SECRET MAGICK REVEALED."
The first note implies that White's "Secret Magick Revealed" was
published in 1982. The second note implies that White's book was
published in 1979. Could you do us a favour and look up the actual
publication date of the White's "Secret Magick Revealed," so we can
correct what is obviously just a math error on your part when we archive
this post? Thanks.
So far, Kraig has not responded, by the way. If he does, i expect siva
will post his reply.
cat yronwode
The Esoteric Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric.html
Gnome d Plume
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>>
>> nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote:
>
>> >"David Cantu" <dc...@houston.rr.com>:
>
>> >> Poke had nothing published at the time so there is no copyright
>> >> to point to, and while that is not plagiarism, that was not what
>> >> I claimed Naga, only that he stole from Poke's work.
>
>David Cantu's claim that Poke had "nothing published" is not exactly
>accurate -- for although Poke HIMSELF had not yet published the
>material, below we find that he supplies THREE published references
>predating Kraig's book --
> * the 1980 Robert S. Ellwood book, reprinted in 1988;
> * the 1972 Hans Holzer book, reprinted in 1977 and 1978;
> * the 1974 Tom Snyder Show video, re-broadcast in 1975
>-- EACH OF WHICH clearly identified Carroll "Poke" Runyon and the O.T.A.
>as the source and originator of this form of dark-mirror working.
>
>As i understand it, what is at issue is not plagiarism per se, but
>rather the theft of intellectual property. Ironically, Poke would
>probably have given permission for the use of the material to Kraig, as
>he previously had given it to three others, had only he been properly
>CREDITED by Kriag as he was by the others.
********You're absolutely right. I would have been more than happy to
cooperate. And I strongly suspect that Carl Weschecke suggested that
to Kraig.********
>
>> >> Perhaps Kraig was unaware at the time, but I don't know that he
>> >> has given the credit.
********No. He has never apologized to me or acknowledged my
contribution to Dark Mirror evocation methodology. *******
>> >
>> >it sounds like Runyon is asserting that Kraig knowingly stole the
>> >ideas and then rejected Runyon's explanation as false in a fit of
>> >jealousy or in order to protect his own publishing interests with
>> >Llewellyn, adding fictional elements to his account of the
>> >situation and making impossible Runyon's publishing through
>> >Llewellyn.
********That's the gist of it.*******
>> >
>> >> Or perhaps Poke made this all up, in all honesty, how am I to
>> >> know.
>> >
>> I don't make things up. Everything I posted is documented in
>> correspondence between myself, Kraig and Llewellyn; it's true, and
********No. That is my error. The operation occurred two years before
Nelson's publication of *Secret Magick Revealed* in 1979, but
Ellwood's book was published in 1980, two years following Nelson's
publication. I was looking at the operation date. I stand corrected.
But Ellwood's book was published EIGHT years before Kraig's, and
dated the operation previous to Nelson's publication. That is the most
important point. Ellwood's and Holzer's books were a great deal more
important and well known than Nelson's. Kraig's ignorance of them is
remarkable.*******
*******My error. * Secret Magick Revealed* was first published in
1979. (See above.) *********
>
>So far, Kraig has not responded, by the way. If he does, i expect siva
>will post his reply.
*******He will probably make a big deal out of that minor error. He
doesn't have much else to use as a defense. ********
Gnome
catherine yronwode
source of a specific scrying method described in Chapter Nine of Donald
Michael Kraig's book "Modern Magick."
David Cantu (dc...@houston.rr.com):
Kraig stole portions of the book ["Modern Magick," specifically Chapter
Nine] from one Carol (Poke, Gnome) Runyon's work [...] Poke says a
student gave Kraig the skrying material for his book, and that Poke was
the inventor of the method and went un-credited.
nagasiva (naga...@yronwode.com):
please provide some relevant quotations from each and their copyright
dating in support of this claim. I haven't heard this charge yet and
what I saw in Kraig's "Modern Magick" seemed rather conventional
Thelemic/Golden Dawn such that I wonder what was "stolen".
David Cantu (dc...@houston.rr.com):
Poke had nothing published at the time [of Kraig's publication
of "Modern Magick" in 1989] so there is no copyright to point to, and
while that is not plagiarism, that was not what I claimed, Naga, only
that he stole from Poke's work.
catherine yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com):
David Cantu's claim that Poke had "nothing published" is not
exactly accurate -- for although Poke HIMSELF had not yet
published the material, below we find that he supplies THREE
published references predating Kraig's book --
* the 1980 Robert S. Ellwood book, reprinted in 1988;
* the 1972 Hans Holzer book, reprinted in 1977 and 1978;
* the 1974 Tom Snyder Show video, re-broadcast in 1975
-- EACH OF WHICH clearly identified Carroll "Poke" Runyon and the
O.T.A. as the source and originator of this form of dark-mirror
working.
Furthermore, Runyon states that he alone originated that specific
mirror-method, in 1969. This bears examining:
Nelson White, whom Donald Michael Kraig sourced as the originator of the
mirror-method, was said by Hans Holzer, in 1972, to have been Runyon's
assistant. In fact, Holzer specifically makes it clear that he met both
White and Runyon and that "all of the artistic work and theories ... are
the brainchild of ...Frater Aleyin (Carroll "Poke" Runyon)." Holzer saw
the operation performed by Runyon and his wife Jeanette, not by White,
who merely "aided and abetted." (See below.)
This independent documentation of the respective roles of Runyon and
White, given by Holzer in 1972 -- seven years before White published his
one-paragraph account of the method -- makes it untenable for Kraig to
*persist* in stating that White was the originator of the material.
In my opinion, based on a reading of the documentation, Kraig may have
made a simple error of ascription when he first published "Modern
Magick" in 1989, but when called to account, as a responsible scholar,
he should have credited Runyon in subsequent reprintings of his book.
As i understand it, what is at issue is not plagiarism per se, but
rather the theft of intellectual property and/or repeated failure to
credit a colleague in one's field -- and Runyon's charge is not only
aimed at Donald Michael Kraig, but at Nelson White, from whom Kraig
claims to have received the material.
White's personal animosity toward Runyon is sufficent explanation for
his behaviour -- but Kriag's continuing refusal to credit Runyon,
despite the evidence, is surprising, as Kraig was never personally
involved in O.T.A. group dynamics, and he is also demonstrably
reasonable and fair about giving credit to other individuals (such as
Dion Fortune) whose writings he interpreted in "Modern Magick."
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
Just to set the record straight on this: I've never accused Don
Kraig of plagiarism. He came close but not over the line. What
happened was this: one of my students [Nelson White] had a falling out
with me -- mostly instigated by his wife -- and, after leaving the
O.T.A., he circulated a Xerox, Acco binder "book" in which he briefly
explained the facial reflection/distortion method of Goetia evocation
I had developed back in 1969. He admitted that he was "Revealing"
someone else's "Secret Magick." [The book was "Secret Magick Revealed"
by Nelson White and his wife.] This was a marginal, underground
publication and the method itself was only presented in one paragraph. I
decided to ignore it. Kraig, however, praised it, calling the authors
"two excellent occultists," and cited it as his major source for Chapter
Nine in *Modern Magick,* He then came as close as he dared to showing
exactly how the O.T.A. method was done.
Just a few months before Kraig's book hit the stands, Carl
Weschecke [the publisher of Llewellyn books] was anxious to introduce me
to Don Kraig at the ABA convention in Los Angeles. He wanted "To get us
together." Kraig was also ingratiating. He had heard I was working on
the G.D. [Golden Dawn] cyphers and he wanted to give me a copy of
McGee's pamphlet version in exchange for a set of our 7th Ray journals.
I agreed.
A month or so later, his letter arrived with the McGee
pamphlet and a money order for $15.00. I shelved it until I could get
a set of Rays ready for him (some had to be re-copied). In less than a
week his book was out and I had my first look at it.
I must admit I was furious. I'd been ripped off and there
was nothing I could do about it. Weschecke had known very well that I
would be furious, and so had Kraig. The ABA courtship was a slimy move
by both of them. I shoved Kraig's letter with the money order into a
cubby hole and tried very hard to put the whole rotten business out of
my mind.
Seven years later, at Pat Zalewiski's urging, I got back to
work on the G.D. cyphers. I used the McGee pamphlet (one of several
versions of the cyphers) as one of my cross references (It was
available in two copyrighted re-prints), but I still gave Don Kraig
thanks in the acknowledgements to my book for having sent me a copy.
Carl Wescheke wrote that he liked my book and we signed a
contract. Everything seemed to be going well with the project at
Llewellyn until Don Kraig circulated a letter to the whole staff
accusing me of "stealing his work," (his exact words!) without
explaining himself further. In other words, he accused me of
plagiarism! I sent a five page letter to Llewellyn detailing the
background of the situation and asking for an apology.
Kraig tried to justify his accusation by claiming that he
had had to "work" to "earn the money" to buy the pamphlet from McGee,
and therefore I had "stolen his work" (I have this incredible
statement over his signature!) -- and of course there was the $15.00
money (which had grown to $25.00 in his mind) that I had also
"stolen". This didn't work very well either because I'd never cashed
it and had managed to find the original buried in my desk.
The upshot of all this was that Llewellyn dragged their feet
on my book for a year until Darcy Kuntz's version of the cyphers came
out and then used that as an excuse to break their contract. Of course
I had grounds for a lawsuit against Kraig and Llewellyn but suing
authors and their publishers is not a wise thing to do if you are a
writer yourself.
So, in my opinion Mr. Kraig is not a very honorable or even
an honest gentleman, but I can't call him a plagiarist----even though
he certainly called me one.
catherine yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com):
Ironically, Poke would probably have given permission for the use of the
material to Kraig, as he previously had given it to three others, had
only he been properly CREDITED by Kriag as he was by the others.
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
You're absolutely right. I would have been more than happy to
cooperate. And I strongly suspect that Carl Weschecke suggested that
to Kraig.
David Cantu (dc...@houston.rr.com):
Perhaps Kraig was unaware at the time, but I don't know that
he has given the credit [since].
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
No. He has never apologized to me or acknowledged my
contribution to Dark Mirror evocation methodology.
nagasiva (naga...@yronwode.com):
it sounds like Runyon is asserting that Kraig knowingly stole
the ideas and then rejected Runyon's explanation as false in a
fit of jealousy or in order to protect his own publishing
interests with Llewellyn, adding fictional elements to his
account of the situation and making impossible Runyon's
publishing through Llewellyn.
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
That's the gist of it.
David Cantu (dc...@houston.rr.com):
Or perhaps Poke made this all up, in all honesty, how am I to
know.
nagasiva (naga...@yronwode.com):
well you're the one repeating the story. I'd like it if you looked more
deeply and became convinced of the matter one way or another if you're
going to be promoting one side of it in the newsgroup. I enjoy the
critical approach we bring to alt.magick and prefer not to leave
one-sided contentions (about the value of a particular book, for
example, or the way a particular part of occult (even occult publishing)
history actually took place) go unaddressed by a fair-minded appraisal
from someone unbiased due to their proximity to the events or to those
who bring the matter to us.
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
> >> Jeanette Runyon. Ellwood's book was published in 1980, one year
> >> following Nelson's publication of "Secret Magick Revelaed," but > >> EIGHT years before Kraig's, and it dated the operation previous
> >> to Nelson's publication. That is the most important point.
> >> Ellwood's and Holzer's books were a great deal more important
> >> and well known than Nelson's. Kraig's ignorance of them is
> >> remarkable.)
nagasiva (naga...@yronwode.com):
if it is true what you are saying, then I'd like Kraig to be held
accountable and provided with the reputation which he actually
*deserves* rather than merely that provided him by his fans and enemies.
I am sending a copy of this and Poke's post to Mr. Kraig for comment.
[note by cat: Kraig did reply to nagasiva in private e-mail but he
refused to allow siva to post or even archive his letters.]
catherine yronwode (c...@luckymojo.com):
Thanks, Poke, for your patient recitation and documentation. Of
course all these usenet posts are archived at google, but i
believe it is siva's plan to archive the material in a more
convenient compilation form at one URL, making it easily available
through the web when these matters are raised again, as they
probably will be. In that way, a single URL could be given to
anyone who requests information.
cat yronwode
Gnome d Plume
*******Cat:
To some degree I do appreciate this effort of yours to get to the
bottom of this murky mess, as I am equally sure Mr. Kraig does not
appreciate it --- but I think it is important to note that Nelson
White and I have buried the hatchet and have been friends for several
years now. Nelson even gave *The Magick of Solomon* and *The Book of
Solomon's Magick* favorable reviews. Dredging up this business does
tend to embarrass Nelson and I want him to know that I did not
instigate this present inquiry. All that would be necessary for Mr.
Kraig to do in order to reconcile this issue----even after all this
time---would be to re-write his Chapter Nine for the next reprint of
*Modern Magick*, and give credit where credit is due. This would
satisfy me, and make him look better in the eyes of his readership. If
I were in his position, giving public lectures as he does, I would
dread the question periods following my talks until this redress is
finally taken care of. *********
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html
tyaginator
questions that I asked regarding the mirror-scrying technique he
described in Chapter 9 of "Modern Magick":
"Modern Magick" was the result of ten years of teaching classes
which followed a decade of my own private work. In the section
on evocation I fully describe how I came to a conclusion about
the way evocation works and I clearly and explicitly name the
sources I used. I will not get into an argument over this.
Instead, I would encourage people to find a system that works
for them and use it.
Donald Michael Kraig, private email
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't happen to have my copy of "Modern Magick", so if someone would
like to key in the pertinent text that describes his sourcing for the
mirror-scrying techniques, I'd be happy to add that material to the
archival concerning this issue. thanks.
naga...@luckymojo.com (tyaginator)
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> here is DMKraig's response to the material I presented him and the
> questions that I asked regarding the mirror-scrying technique he
> described in Chapter 9 of "Modern Magick":
>
> "Modern Magick" was the result of ten years of teaching classes
> which followed a decade of my own private work. In the section
> on evocation I fully describe how I came to a conclusion about
> the way evocation works and I clearly and explicitly name the
> sources I used. I will not get into an argument over this.
> Instead, I would encourage people to find a system that works
> for them and use it.
> Donald Michael Kraig, private email
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't happen to have my copy of "Modern Magick", so if someone would
> like to key in the pertinent text that describes his sourcing for the
> mirror-scrying techniques, I'd be happy to add that material to the
> archival concerning this issue. thanks.
>
> naga...@luckymojo.com (tyaginator)
Charter 9 sources listed are
"Anon., Lesser Key of Solomom: GOETIa, The, de LAurence, 1916.
Crowley, Aleister, Magick, Weiser, 1973
Feldman, Danial Hale, Clear Mafic, Garden of YH-Light, 1984
Fortune, Dion, Aspects od Occultism, Aquarian Press, 1962
Mathers, S.L.M. (transalator), Greater Key of Solomon, The, deLaurence,
1914
Grimoire of Armadel, The, Weiser, 1980.
McIntosh, Phineas, Origin of Letters and Numerals Acording to the Sefer
Yetzirah, The, Weiser, 1975.
Turner, Robert, (translator), Arbatel of Magick, Heptangle, N.D.
White, Nelson and Anne, Lemegeton; Clavicula Salomonis, The Technology
Group, 1979. (This is the complete Lessor Key).
Secret Magick Revealed, Thr Technology Group. 1979"
There might be a few typos, but the above are listed references for that
chapter .
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
catherine yronwode
In Donald Michael Kraig's "Modern Magic," Charter 9,
the sources listed are:
Anon.,
Lesser Key of Solomom: Goetia, The,
DeLaurence, 1916.
Crowley, Aleister,
Magick,
Weiser, 1973
Feldman, Daniel Hale,
Clear Magic,
Garden of YH-Light, 1984
Fortune, Dion,
Aspects of Occultism,
Aquarian Press, 1962
Mathers, S. L. M. (transalator),
Greater Key of Solomon, The,
DeLaurence, 1914
Grimoire of Armadel, The,
Weiser, 1980
McIntosh, Phineas,
Origin of Letters and Numerals Acording to the Sefer Yetzirah, The,
Weiser, 1975.
Turner, Robert, (translator),
Arbatel of Magick,
Heptangle, N.D.
White, Nelson and Anne,
Lemegeton; Clavicula Salomonis,
The Technology Group, 1979. (This is the complete Lessor Key).
Secret Magick Revealed,
The Technology Group, 1979
Thanks, bard -- i have added this to the bottom of the archived
post-compilation and, unless new material surfaces, that will finish
that document. The URL is ungodly long:
http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric/occultism/magic/ceremonial/var200108evocationmirrortechniques.txt
so i am also adding a direct link to it to the ref/faq short-cut list at
Lucky Mojo:
http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs.html
because the topic seems to have come up repeatedly, and it is good to
have the entire file all in one place.
cat yronwode
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
<snip>
>
> Thanks, bard -- i have added this to the bottom of the archived
> post-compilation and, unless new material surfaces, that will finish
> that document. The URL is ungodly long:
>
Oh one piece at data you might want to add, the list I copied was from
First Edition
Eight Printing, 1993
It might be posible Second Edition list changed, I do not have Second
Edition.
catherine yronwode
>
> Oh one piece at data you might want to add, the list I copied was
> from First Edition
> Eight Printing, 1993
Thanks.
> It might be posible Second Edition list changed, I do not have
> Second Edition.
Comment, anyone?
cat (time to groom the Doggess of Discord) yronwode
nagasiva
re occult history and proper accreditation for innovation and style
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>This is an updated and edited version of the compiled posts on the
>source of a specific scrying method described in Chapter Nine of Donald
>Michael Kraig's book "Modern Magick."
>
> ...although Poke HIMSELF had not yet published the material, below
> we find that he supplies THREE published references predating
> Kraig's book --
> * the 1980 Robert S. Ellwood book, reprinted in 1988;
> * the 1972 Hans Holzer book, reprinted in 1977 and 1978;
> * the 1974 Tom Snyder Show video, re-broadcast in 1975
> -- EACH OF WHICH clearly identified Carroll "Poke" Runyon and the
> O.T.A. as the source and originator of this form of dark-mirror
> working.
none of them classics in the study of "Magick".
> This independent documentation of the respective roles of Runyon and
> White, given by Holzer in 1972 -- seven years before White published his
> one-paragraph account of the method -- makes it untenable for Kraig to
> *persist* in stating that White was the originator of the material.
not if he wants updated information, it seems. quotes from MM that
indicate Kraig is stating that White originated it?
> ...when called to account, as a responsible scholar, he should have
> credited Runyon in subsequent reprintings of his book.
what makes a person a scholar these days? are responsible scholars
really interested in *practicing* magicK? one of my friends has
gone the academic route and says that being known as a practitioner
can quickly get one booted from scholarly consortium on magic and
the occult.
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
> ...the facial reflection/distortion method of Goetia evocation
it would be k00l to see what various authors said about the methods
they suggested for evocation or even invocation; compare and contrast
them over time. we could make a kind of table.
Poke re Whites' publication of it:
> ...the method itself was only presented in one paragraph.
could we get a copy of that text?
> I decided to ignore it. Kraig, however, praised it, calling the authors
> "two excellent occultists,"
is his claim false?
> and cited it as his major source for Chapter Nine in *Modern Magick,*
citation from MM? so far we've only seen a list of titles.
> He then came as close as he dared to showing exactly how the O.T.A.
> method was done.
what does this mean? quote from MM which illustrates your point?
> Carl Wescheke wrote that he liked my book and we signed a
> contract. Everything seemed to be going well with the project at
> Llewellyn until Don Kraig circulated a letter to the whole staff
> accusing me of "stealing his work," (his exact words!) without
> explaining himself further. In other words, he accused me of
> plagiarism! I sent a five page letter to Llewellyn detailing the
> background of the situation and asking for an apology.
wow, never explained?
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
> I don't make things up. Everything I posted is documented in
> correspondence between myself, Kraig and Llewellyn;
online somewhere?
> ...How Kraig, a keen student of magick, could totally miss the
> following documentation is frankly ludicrous:
>
>>>> From: Mysticism and Religion
>>>> by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr., Ph.D.
>>>> Prentice-Hall, 1980
not about Magick per se, easily omittable unless one is doing a
broad-based sociological study.
>>>> reprinted in:
>>>> Religious and Spiritual Groups
>>>> in Modern America, 2nd Edition
>>>> by Robert S. Ellwood, Jr. & Harry B. Partin
>>>> Prentice-Hall , 1988
again, reference, not central to a study on Magick per se.
>>>> ...Ellwood's book was published in 1980, one year following Nelson's
>>>> publication of "Secret Magick Revelaed," but EIGHT years before
>>>> Kraig's, and it dated the operation previous to Nelson's publication....
>>>> That is the most important point.
dunno, it also seems important that the title "Secret Magick Revealed"
implies a central focus on magick, whereas those above do not.
>>>> Ellwood's and Holzer's books were a great deal more important
>>>> and well known than Nelson's. Kraig's ignorance of them is
>>>> remarkable.)
I'm not sure that this is true. to the practicing mage, reading
about Neopaganism (Holzer) or religion and mysticism (Ellwood)
may not be important at all. sticking closer to the subject such
as by reading Crowley, Regardie, Cicero, etc., even Bonewits,
would seem valuable. I'm not sure the 'remarkable' is suitable here.
>>>> From: The New Pagans
>>>> by Hans Holzer
>>>> Doubleday, 1972
>>>> reprinted in :
>>>> Pagans and Witches
>>>> by Hans Holzer
>>>> Manor Books, NY 1978
>>>>
>>>> In Search of Magic and Witchcraft
>>>> by Alan Landsburg
>>>> Bantam Books, 1977
again, not necessarily imperative to a study of Magick.
>>>> And in addition to this we demonstrated the technique (Mirror on
>>>> the upraised Triangle with the receiver holding the evocation
>>>> candles) on the Tom Snyder Show, NBC network television, in
>>>> October 1974, and again (re-run) on Halloween the following year.
someone doing research for a book might overlook television as
a resource for obtaining information about MagicK.
we're talking about Llewellyn here. thorough research is not the
standard of that publisher's texts.
blessed beast!
nagasiva
nagasiva
ba...@digital-marketplace.net:
>Charter 9 sources listed are
>"Anon., Lesser Key of Solomom: GOETIa, The, de LAurence, 1916.
>Crowley, Aleister, Magick, Weiser, 1973
>Feldman, Danial Hale, Clear Mafic, Garden of YH-Light, 1984
>Fortune, Dion, Aspects od Occultism, Aquarian Press, 1962
>Mathers, S.L.M. (transalator), Greater Key of Solomon, The, deLaurence,
>1914
> Grimoire of Armadel, The, Weiser, 1980.
>McIntosh, Phineas, Origin of Letters and Numerals Acording to the Sefer
>Yetzirah, The, Weiser, 1975.
>Turner, Robert, (translator), Arbatel of Magick, Heptangle, N.D.
>White, Nelson and Anne, Lemegeton; Clavicula Salomonis, The Technology
>Group, 1979. (This is the complete Lessor Key).
> Secret Magick Revealed, Thr Technology Group. 1979"
>
>There might be a few typos, but the above are listed references for that
>chapter .
thanks. if there is anything in Chapter 9 about sources, such as the
Whites, or an anecdote or emphasis indicating reference on mirrors,
evocation techniques, etc., getting that in ASCII might be valuable
also, for the interested.
blessed beast!
catherine yronwode
>
> Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
> >>>> Ellwood's and Holzer's books were a great deal more important
> >>>> and well known than Nelson's. Kraig's ignorance of them is
> >>>> remarkable.)
>
> I'm not sure that this is true.
I am sure that this is true. Nelson White's book was a home-made little
thing. The other books cited were published by Doubleday, Manor, Bantam,
etc. -- all MAJOR houses at the time. Nelson White published what was in
essence a small-press item or fanzine. Holzer was what my mother used to
call "A Nauthor with a capital N," meaning a writer who made a personal
spectable of him or herself as well as writing books. You were 11 years
old when Holzer's account of Poke's evocation came out the first time --
no offense, but you hadn't a clue. EVERYBODY read it whom i knew. I was
25 at the time -- it was a HIT.
> to the practicing mage, reading about Neopaganism
> (Holzer) or religion and mysticism (Ellwood)
> may not be important at all.
You weren't in the field then; you are not familiar with the material
then being offered by publishers. Anything remotely connected with the
hippie revival of hermetic occultism was known to the community -- which
at that time was not so firmly delineated into camps calling themselves
"neopagan" versus "magickal." People in those days freeely straddled
what is now seen as a fence between those two communities. Examples:
Glenn Turner both operated Ancient Ways (an eclectic occult
store catering to goddess-worshipping wiccans and African-
American root workers AND was a mover-and-shaker in the
Calfornia versions of the reformed / revived GD
Poke Ryunyon of the OTA started off with goetic evocation
and by the mid 70s was, in his own words, running a "coven"
that celebrated neopagan rituals at the season-quarters.
Aidan Kelly detailed the California scene, makes a good
case for the 1970s-era blurring of neopagan and hermetic
groups.
So what you see NOW as a distinct difference -- neopagans on the one
hand and hermetics on the other -- was at that time, when you were a
child -- all mixed and mingled. During the 1970s there were few of us in
the world and equally few books on the subject were released. Hans
Holzer may be forgotten now by you, but he was big potatoes then -- he
appeared on television talk shows, wrote ponderous magazine articles
illustrated with photos of scantily-clad hippie chicks -- i mean, it was
a three-ting circus! Poke can attest to that, i am sure -- and the very
fact that Poke was on the Tom Snyder Show on NBC (then a very popular,
nationally syndicated show), testifies to the power of Holzer's having
written him up.
My point here is that
* Poke is telling the truth when he says Holzer's and Ellwood's books
were "a great deal more important and well known than Nelson's."
* Poke is speaking from a shared generational perspective when he
asserts that those books -- which were about neopaganism AND the revival
of hermeticism, where incredibly well-known in the then mingled neopagan
and hermetic communities.
> sticking closer to the subject such
> as by reading Crowley, Regardie, Cicero, etc., even Bonewits,
> would seem valuable. I'm not sure the 'remarkable' is suitable here.
Poke calls it "remarkable" that Kriag was unaware of these books -- but
perhaps he gives Kraig more credit as a scholar than Kraig deserves, or
perhaps Kraig was too young to have witnessed the carnival that
accompanied their publication. I mean, i'm not saying it's
"remarkable," but ... it is odd to me. No reason to think Kraig is
lying, of course. Kraig came along later, after all the hoopla had died
down, maybe he was too young to recall, maybe he never talked to anyone
older than himself, maybe he didn't get out much, had few friends? It's
possible.
> >>>> From: The New Pagans
> >>>> by Hans Holzer
> >>>> Doubleday, 1972
> >>>> reprinted in :
> >>>> Pagans and Witches
> >>>> by Hans Holzer
> >>>> Manor Books, NY 1978
> >>>>
> >>>> In Search of Magic and Witchcraft
> >>>> by Alan Landsburg
> >>>> Bantam Books, 1977
>
> again, not necessarily imperative to a study of Magick.
A book titled "In Search of Magic and Witchcraft" is not "necessarily
imperative to the study of Magick" (no one book is) -- but it was a BIG
SELLER and it had the words MAGIC and WITCHCRAFT right on the cover!
By that time -- the Holzer account's 3rd printing, in 1977 -- you were
16 years old and still in high school. Again, no offense, but you
weren't part of the community. BANTAM published "In Search of Magic and
Witchcraft," and -- well, that made it very well distributed in the
sf/fantasy/magical community. Sure, Kraig might have missed it. I guess
he did.
> we're talking about Llewellyn here. thorough research is not the
> standard of that publisher's texts.
Well, on that, at least, we do agree.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
Lucky Mojo Spells Archive ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html
Karezza and Sacred Sex ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredsex.html
The Esoteric Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric.html
The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
The Mage's Guide to the Internet ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/magi
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
Copyright (c) 2001 catherine yronwode. All rights reserved.
ba...@digiral-marketplace.net
wrote:
>
>thanks. if there is anything in Chapter 9 about sources, such as the
>Whites, or an anecdote or emphasis indicating reference on mirrors,
>evocation techniques, etc., getting that in ASCII might be valuable
>also, for the interested.
Well went looking I do find this,
"And I laughed, too - until I started some reseach, I discovered that
three Crowley oriented groups (one now defunct) believed and practiced
magickal evocations only to the astral plane. I found a book, _Secret
Magick Revealed_ by two excellent occultist, Nelson and Anne White,
who agree with this idea. Finally, really making my understanding
sure, I read in _Assects of Occultism_ by Dion Fortune."
page374 my copy.
I am not included the quote from Fortune, I can type it if you want,
but it is not foot noted so I can not provide page reference.
_text_ = book names, I added the _ as oposed to italics.
I am not sure what else you might be interested in, Fortune is
referred to a few more times, the chapter does describe a methord of
making a magick mirror and describes a methord for envoking,
references are make to _Goetia_ and _The Greater Key of Solomon_ in
that section of the chapter.
>
>blessed beast!
>
>naga...@luckymojo.com
>--
>emailed replies may be posted ----- "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" -----
>"that which liberates is ignorance" http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
> hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catal...@luckymojo.com
--
Blue Rajah
"nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote in message
news:9ldi03$3...@bolt.sonic.net...
>
> > ...when called to account, as a responsible scholar, he should have
> > credited Runyon in subsequent reprintings of his book.
>
> what makes a person a scholar these days? are responsible scholars
> really interested in *practicing* magicK? one of my friends has
> gone the academic route and says that being known as a practitioner
> can quickly get one booted from scholarly consortium on magic and
> the occult.
Reading and writing books about magick is scholarship, or, at least the
pretense of it. Writing books about magick is not the same as practicing
"Western Tradition" ceremonial magick.
I find it interesting that Mr. Runyon disparages the scholarship of Mr.
Kraig for the lack of accurate citation in a footnote.
However, as has been pointed out recently, Mr. Runyon, in his published
essay "Magick and Hypnosis", has committed two factual errors in a footnote
to which he has admitted. He has so far refused to correct these errors,
although he continues to promote this essay on his web site. His only
reason for doing so is that he has "more important" things to do.
If that's sufficient for Mr. Runyon, then I would think that Mr. Kraig
could legitimately argue that he has "more important" things to do, as
well. If Mr. Runyon feels that inaccurate footnotes are indicative of
irresponsible scholarship, then Mr. Runyon, by his own standards, is an
irresponsible scholar.
Gnome d Plume
*******Tom:
As usual, you are petty fogging and twisting facts to grind your own
little hatchet (you're not big enough to wield an axe!)
There is no "footnote" in Kraig's book that I consider "inaccurate."
I have asked my web master to rewrite the footnote in *Magick and
Hypnosis* to indicate case research rather than lab research, and
qualify the 100 Monkey Theory as controversial. For the record (and a
few chuckles at your expense) here is the background for your pompous
demands: ----
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:06:22 -0700, "Blue Rajah"
<danto...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:3b5db215....@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
>>
>> *******Well, I did check Sheldrake, and unfortunately, I wasn't as
>> wrong as you seem to think. Sheldrake, a biologist himself, analysed
>> the rat experiments of several workers in the field over many years
>> and did a creditable comparative study of their published results.
>
>You said "Sheldrake's experiments with rats in mazes". You were wrong and
>you simply don't want to admit it. Playing semantic games about his having
>read about the research of others and compared it isn't equivalent to
>having done the experiments himself.
>
>The whole point of this is that Sheldrake was superimposing his own
>speculations on research that wasn't designed to test them. While he might
>want to say the results are somewhat suggestive of possible research that
>could be done on his hypothesis, they don't pertain to his speculations at
>all. They are absolutely not "hard evidence for the Morphic Resonant Field
>'s existence", as you claim. No responsible biologist would make that
>claim, and I don't think even Sheldrake has done so, but a careless clown
>like you would and did.
>
>> That is "doing your own research," especially if you are already
>> qualified in the field.
>
>That's a lie. You didn't say he was doing library research, you said he'd
>run the experiments. You just can't bring yourself to admit your error, so
>now you're wriggling. I've called your bluff. You have a busted flush and
>you lose. Pay up.
>
>> If I said he did "his own rat experiments",
>> then I was in error. You collect that sort of minutia, so what
>> did I say?
>
>Read your own essay, you hypocrite.
>
>"Sheldrake's experiments with rats in mazes is his primary hard evidence
>for the Morphic Resonant Field's existence. This is also corroborated by
>the famous "100 Monkey" experiments in primeatology. (See A New Science of
>Life, by Rupert Sheldrake, 1981.)"
>
>Both these sentences are utterly false and you know it. The rats in mazes
>experiments weren't "Sheldrake's experiments" nor did the actual
>experiments he referred to even address his hypothesis at all. The "famous
>'100 Monkey' experiments" weren't mentioned in "A New Science of Life",
>although by your citation you are indicating that they were, nor were the
>actual experiments supportive of Sheldrake's speculations at all, although
>the fictionalized version of them has often been cited as supportive by
>people too gullible and careless to pay attention to accuracy, like Poke
>Runyon.
>
>Are you going to retract these false statements or continue to knowingly
>publish lies?
>
*******Mea Culpa!!!!!!!! Yes, you are right! I was wrong! And I will
not use the Washington D.C. defense of saying: "No, I didn't lie, I
just mis-spoke myself." (but I will not enjoin others from reaching
that conclusion). I will accept full responsibility for this
deplorable misrepresentation of "the facts." I will not try to weasel
out of it. I will own up to it. I will bite the bullet. I will walk
naked through the village flagellating myself. I will put myself in
the stocks under a sign that reads: "Rat Experiment Prefabricator!"
And I will (eventually) correct the footnote in *Magick & Hypnosis.*
.......And, most importantly, I will also apologize for once again
manipulating you into making a pompous fool of yourself. ******
Gnome the Perfidious
Gnome d Plume
*******Cat:
Thanks, but I'm beginning to wonder who is the Ring Master of this
three ring circus? Are you two doing the "Mutt and Jeff" routine?
(that's "good cop/bad cop" for you non-spooks out there) or is this
the beginning of domestic strife? I hope not. Let us have peace
profound on the home front ---and then we can all jump on Blue Rajah
Schuler! (He seems to enjoy it.) *********
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
(The old original "Candyman" magician.)
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/temple.html
Rick
> ... I will walk
> naked through the village flagellating myself.
Now then, that's a video I would buy.
--
Rick
Gnome d Plume
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>
>> ... I will walk
>> naked through the village flagellating myself.
>
>Now then, that's a video I would buy.
*******For me that's torture.....
For you that's Goetic Evocation.
Different strokes for different folks.*******
Gnome the Perceptive
Rick
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:39:38 GMT, Rick <io...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> ... I will walk
> >> naked through the village flagellating myself.
> >Now then, that's a video I would buy.
> *******For me that's torture.....
> For you that's Goetic Evocation.
Naw. I abandoned the goetic pantheon some time ago for the less refined,
more primal creatures. They seem to respond better to by brutish
methods.
> Different strokes for different folks.*******
As long as there's plenty of strokes.
--
Rick
Blue Rajah
>
> As usual, you are petty fogging and twisting facts to grind your own
> little hatchet (you're not big enough to wield an axe!)
Mr. Runyon feels that it's important that he appear bigger than his
opponent. Bullies often resort to this sort of attempt at intimidation.
He tried this same tactic when he tried to assert that he sold more books
that Mr. Kraig and was, therefore, more important.
Mr. Runyon may be bigger than I am, possibly in girth, if not in height,
but that doesn't mean his arguments are correct. I wonder who Mr. Runyon
is attempting to impress with this tactic.
> There is no "footnote" in Kraig's book that I consider "inaccurate."
There is one missing, in your estimation. The one that kowtows to you,
personally.
> I have asked my web master to rewrite the footnote in *Magick and
> Hypnosis* to indicate case research rather than lab research,
The issue is that Sheldrake has done no experiments to confirm or
disconfirm his hypothesis at all, whereas you have misrepresented others'
research as his. The "case research" you refer to was not designed to test
his hypothesis and certainly doesn't provide any "hard evidence" for
morphic resonance, as you claim.
> and qualify the 100 Monkey Theory as controversial.
Using one unsupported speculation as evidence for believing another
unsupported speculation is very poor reasoning. There were no "100 Monkey
experiments" that support the claims of the promoters of the "100 Monkey
Theory" (Lyall Watson and Ken Keyes) at all. The actual research results
of the Japan Monkey Center, whose primatologists did the Koshima monkey
studies that Watson and Keyes claim were so miraculous, showed no
spontaneous learning or any other mysterious transmission of knowledge.
> For the record (and a few chuckles at your expense) here is
> the background for your pompous demands: ----
What "pompous demands"? I wrote that it would be a good idea for you to
eliminate this misinformation from what I described as an otherwise
admirable essay. You said you would correct any errors of fact that could
be demonstrated and I did just that. Is it a "pompous demand" to expect
you to keep your word?
And I notice that what you call "background" includes selected comments
from the very end of the discussion, which omits your denials of your error
and the many personal insults you directed at me to deflect attention away
from the issue of your errors.
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 09:06:22 -0700, "Blue Rajah"
> <danto...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Gnome d Plume" <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b5db215....@trialnews.peoplepc.com...
> >>
> >> *******Well, I did check Sheldrake, and unfortunately, I wasn't as
> >> wrong as you seem to think. Sheldrake, a biologist himself,
> >> analysed the rat experiments of several workers in the field over
> >> many years and did a creditable comparative study of their
> >> published results.
> >
> >You said "Sheldrake's experiments with rats in mazes". You were
> >wrong and you simply don't want to admit it. Playing semantic games
> >about his having read about the research of others and compared it
> >isn't equivalent to having done the experiments himself.
I was absolutely correct in my statement that you were wrong and exactly
how you were wrong. In no way did I exaggerate your error.
> >> That is "doing your own research," especially if you are
> >> already qualified in the field.
> >
> >That's a lie. You didn't say he was doing library research, you
> >said he'd run the experiments.
Indeed. It is exactly correct that you were lying about what you had
written. You did not write that he did his own "research". You wrote that
they were "Sheldrake's experiments".
> *******Mea Culpa!!!!!!!! Yes, you are right! I was wrong! And I will
> not use the Washington D.C. defense of saying: "No, I didn't lie, I
> just mis-spoke myself." (but I will not enjoin others from reaching
> that conclusion). I will accept full responsibility for this
> deplorable misrepresentation of "the facts." I will not try to weasel
> out of it. I will own up to it. I will bite the bullet. I will walk
> naked through the village flagellating myself. I will put myself in
> the stocks under a sign that reads: "Rat Experiment Prefabricator!"
> And I will (eventually) correct the footnote in *Magick & Hypnosis.*
You have not yet done so. All that you'd need to do is eliminate the
footnote altogether, since it has nothing to do with the point of your
essay anyway. What's so hard about that?
> .......And, most importantly, I will also apologize for once again
> manipulating you into making a pompous fool of yourself. ******
It's just not in you to admit an error in humility. You feel absoutely
compelled to insult anyone who criticizes anything you do, whether it is
deserved criticism or not.
Gnome d Plume
<danto...@qwest.net> wrote:
*******Oh, Tommy! I'm so sorry I've made your life in the school yard
so miserable with this intimidating, threatening footnote. I didn't
realize what a bully and a big, mean kid I've been. We will work on
this horrible footnote tonight! We'll have it fixed by tomorrow
morning, so you can come back to school and not have to worry about
being subjected to reading the obnoxious footnote at recess. I know
it's kids like me who cause kids like you to shoot up the school, so
don't steal your daddy's gun. I promise I'll be good. I'll fix it.
Honest I will. Cross-my-heart.******
Gnomey
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
Blue Rajah wrote:
>>It's just not in you to admit an error in humility. You feel absoutely
>>compelled to insult anyone who criticizes anything you do, whether it is
>>deserved criticism or not.
Gnome replied:
>*******Oh, Tommy! I'm so sorry I've made your life in the school yard
>so miserable with this intimidating, threatening footnote. I didn't
>realize what a bully and a big, mean kid I've been. We will work on
>this horrible footnote tonight! We'll have it fixed by tomorrow
>morning, so you can come back to school and not have to worry about
>being subjected to reading the obnoxious footnote at recess. I know
>it's kids like me who cause kids like you to shoot up the school, so
>don't steal your daddy's gun. I promise I'll be good. I'll fix it.
>Honest I will. Cross-my-heart.******
>
>Gnomey
*******Now, belly button lint collectors, this is your last chance to
read the horrible footnote in its original form before it is forever
changed, rectified, corrected, qualified, & etc. This is an
hysterical ( I mean historical ) opportunity you won't want to miss.
You can download *Magick and Hypnosis* free of charge at:
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html
Blue Rajah
> >
> *******Oh, Tommy! I'm so sorry I've made your life in the
> school yard so miserable with this intimidating, threatening
> footnote. I didn't realize what a bully and a big, mean kid
> I've been. We will work on this horrible footnote tonight! We'll
> have it fixed by tomorrow morning, so you can come back to
> school and not have to worry about being subjected to
> reading the obnoxious footnote at recess. I know
> it's kids like me who cause kids like you to shoot up the school,
> so don't steal your daddy's gun. I promise I'll be good. I'll fix it.
> Honest I will. Cross-my-heart.******
Why Mr. Runyon feels it necessary to posture like this is difficult to
understand.
Again I ask, who is he trying to impress?
Psyche
alt.pagan.magick.
--Psyche
X MCH S* W++(--) N+++ PDI/PPA/PEC D* X
X "Science speaks to the Universe X
X in terms it already understands, X
X while Magick speaks in terms it X
X cannot ignore." X
X X
X --Anonymous X
X X
X http://www.spiralnature.com X
X Dd Dr+ A a+ C+++(42) G+ Q 666- Y+ Z X
David Cantu
Very good, now if we can just get Nelson to put that errata note in his
book;-)
>
catherine yronwode
>
> Thanks, but I'm beginning to wonder who is the Ring Master of this
> three ring circus?
P. T. Bridgeport
> Are you two doing the "Mutt and Jeff" routine?
I'm only allowed to answer that on a "need to know" basis.
> Let us have peace profound on the home front
Deck us all with Boston Charlie!
cat yronwode
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
nagasiva
Poke Runyon (Gnome...@aol.com):
>>>>>> Ellwood's and Holzer's books were a great deal more important
>>>>>> and well known than Nelson's. Kraig's ignorance of them is
>>>>>> remarkable.)
nagasiva:
>> I'm not sure that this is true.
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> I am sure that this is true.
sorry for any unclarity, what I meant was I wasn't sure if the
ignorance was remarkable. you seem to have similar ideas,
especially in an analysis of age and exposure.
> Nelson White's book was a home-made little
> thing. The other books cited were published by Doubleday, Manor, Bantam,
> etc. -- all MAJOR houses at the time. Nelson White published what was in
> essence a small-press item or fanzine. Holzer was what my mother used to
> call "A Nauthor with a capital N," meaning a writer who made a personal
> spectable of him or herself as well as writing books.
does seem a tad unbalanced by including White with the classics,
yet perhaps White had a clear exposition that many classic texts
to which Kraig had access lacked. I'd suggest that he was
presenting his own style of magick, rather than attempting to be
exceedingly thorough in presenting that of others.
>> to the practicing mage, reading about Neopaganism
>> (Holzer) or religion and mysticism (Ellwood)
>> may not be important at all.
> ...Anything remotely connected with the hippie revival of
> hermetic occultism was known to the community -- which
> at that time was not so firmly delineated into camps calling
> themselves "neopagan" versus "magickal."....
I was only trying to focus on the essentials of an overview on
goetic evocation. Kraig's references seem pretty standard,
perhaps with a minor local slant (because of his inclusion of
White's material).
> ...Hans Holzer may be forgotten now by you....
didn't forget the guy, but I wasn't sure how far I could trust
his material, especially when I was told by Wiccans that his
books were trash and by Thelemites that grimoires were far more
important to goetic research than most modern (especially pop-
occult) authors.
> * Poke is telling the truth when he says Holzer's and
> Ellwood's books were "a great deal more important and
> well known than Nelson's."
never disputed that. sorry for any unclarity.
> * Poke is speaking from a shared generational perspective when he
> asserts that those books -- which were about neopaganism AND the revival
> of hermeticism, where incredibly well-known in the then mingled neopagan
> and hermetic communities.
but not classics such as were with exceptions noted, listed.
> Poke calls it "remarkable" that Kriag was unaware of these books --
> but perhaps he gives Kraig more credit as a scholar than Kraig
> deserves, or perhaps Kraig was too young to have witnessed the
> carnival that accompanied their publication. I mean, i'm not
> saying it's "remarkable," but ... it is odd to me. No reason to
> think Kraig is lying, of course. Kraig came along later, after
> all the hoopla had died down, maybe he was too young to recall,
> maybe he never talked to anyone older than himself, maybe he
> didn't get out much, had few friends? It's possible.
did he miss any of the classic sources on evocatory magic? would
Levi or Dee or Waite have been reasonable additions? if you want
to talk about scholarship, I think you'd first have to assemble a
list of classic texts on the subject, see how Kraig's compares in
terms of upon what he is drawing to write his text, and then,
given the publisher and his level of expertise, consider whether
it is really so odd.
>>>>>> In Search of Magic and Witchcraft
>>>>>> by Alan Landsburg
>>>>>> Bantam Books, 1977
>>
>> again, not necessarily imperative to a study of Magick.
>
> A book titled "In Search of Magic and Witchcraft" is not "necessarily
> imperative to the study of Magick" (no one book is)
probably Book Four is, for purists. don't forget we're talking
about a specific chapter on the evocation of spirits.
> -- but it was a BIG SELLER and it had the words MAGIC and
> WITCHCRAFT right on the cover!
insufficient by my standards, especially as a focussed source on
evocatory magic(k).
>> we're talking about Llewellyn here. thorough research is not the
>> standard of that publisher's texts.
> Well, on that, at least, we do agree.
we'd probably also agree that there have been few instruction books
on how to evoke spirits. the directories (grimoires) would be the
most important, then would come the classic commentaries or
presentations, such as Shah, Waite, maybe even Crowley, then the
more modern commentaries on the classics. the works of magicians
would be valuable as supplementary to fill in practical gaps. as
Kraig was a practicing magician himself, was working with many
others near to him, and seems to have felt he could fill in these
gaps himself, it seems reasonable that an explication on his own
kind of magick would include no additional references to those who
were not a direct influence upon him (through text or practice).
how does the list I provide above compare to what he's got at the
end of Chapter 9? does the level of research indicated by the list
he provides indicate to you a level of scholarship by which such
minor glitches as a flimsy source might necessitate a revision?
nagasiva
nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.com>:
[some shuffling of contents has occurred]
>ba...@digital-marketplace.net:
>>Charter 9 sources listed are
>>"Anon., Lesser Key of Solomom: GOETIa, The, de LAurence, 1916.
>>Mathers, S.L.M. (transalator), Greater Key of Solomon, The, deLaurence,
>>Grimoire of Armadel, The, Weiser, 1980.
>>Turner, Robert, (translator), Arbatel of Magick, Heptangle, N.D.
>>White, Nelson and Anne, Lemegeton; Clavicula Salomonis, The Technology
>>Group, 1979. (This is the complete Lessor Key).
reasonable for any research on spirit evocation.
>>Crowley, Aleister, Magick, Weiser, 1973
>>Fortune, Dion, Aspects od Occultism, Aquarian Press, 1962
>>McIntosh, Phineas, Origin of Letters and Numerals Acording to the Sefer
>>Yetzirah, The, Weiser, 1975.
these seem reasonable for supplementary sources also considering
Kraig's biases.
>>Feldman, Danial Hale, Clear Mafic, Garden of YH-Light, 1984
>>1914
>> Secret Magick Revealed, Thr Technology Group. 1979"
until this discussion I'd never heard of either of these.
dunno their value. apparently that's "Clear Magic", don't
remember Feldman. what's his background?
Psyche
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:28:12 GMT, Psyche <psy...@spiralnature.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This thread is boring. Please stop crossposting it to
> >alt.pagan.magick.
> >
> >--Psyche
>
I love you too honey.
This wasn't a direct response to you, don't get your panties
in a bunch. Your's was merely the most recent post to have
been clicked on.
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
<snip>
>
> until this discussion I'd never heard of either of these.
> dunno their value. apparently that's "Clear Magic", don't
> remember Feldman. what's his background?
Doing a seach I can not find out much about him. Oh had a typo of name,
Daniel Hale Feldman is correct spelling. He appears to be still alive
and had a book puplished 2000.
From: http://www.onewitch.com/shopping/book27.html
"The author, who is one of this mystic's students, was
directed to record those teachings, which were
transmitted in private meetings during the 1970's and
early 1980's through the Work of Chariot Trust."
Sznog
Joel Biroco wrote:
> You're absolutely right. This is extremely important, people could die
> over this erroneous footnote just as surely as the wrong dose being
> given in a hospital. Has he no sense of shame. The footnote is the
> foundation upon which the scholarly tradition rests and should not be
> treated with such lackadaisical disregard. I am appalled.
I am too. All we need is one hundred people like Gnomey and the scholarly
tradition will be wasted. Thank god for scholar vigilantes like Blue Raja.
May Allah bless his soul.
Sznog
"I have found that most Abyss type experiences can be banished with a good
antacid and a high colonic"
From the "Book of Sznog." Magickal wisdom of the high holy one.
Blue Rajah
"Joel Biroco" <bir...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he2mntso0qgp366ui...@4ax.com...
>
> You're absolutely right. This is extremely important, people
> could die over this erroneous footnote just as surely as the
> wrong dose being given in a hospital. Has he no sense of
> shame. The footnote is the foundation upon which the
> scholarly tradition rests and should not be
> treated with such lackadaisical disregard. I am appalled.
Big assumptions often come in tiny packages, Joel.
What appears as ann incidental footnote is actually a basic assumption Poke
has about the way the world works. If Poke considered it unimportant, he
wouldn't have defended his error so desperately. He'd simply have said
"oops" and made a correction. Instead, he's carried on a huge, bombastic
campaign of self-justification and denial.
Here's why.
Poke was hoping that there was some scientific evidence to support his
notion that what he's contacting through Goetic evocation is not just a
distorted reflection of himself in a dark mirror but some holy revelation
of truth from some higher power.
His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a distorted reflection
after all and not the scientific vindication he'd thought it was.
Gnome d Plume
********Tom:
Just a bit of a corrective here: Sheldrake's comparative study of rat
research has, to my knowledge, never been formally discredited
--except by you in the astounding assertion that one scientist cannot
draw valid conclusions from a comparative study of the published
work of others in his field. (100,000 doctoral dissertations and
master's theses go up in smoke! ) (But I'll concede that you can pull
out a paper by some Ph.D. trashing Sheldrake, so please don't bore us
with it.)
Also, as I told you earlier, the 100 Monkey Theory was
originally taken seriously by primatologists (I was in anthro graduate
school at the time) until it came under the inevitable scrutiny of the
uncreative reductionalists who guard the sanctified mediocrity of
science. Sure, it probably was flawed, but it was not a "New Age" hype
to begin with, as you tried to imply. Also, Sheldrake's Morphic
Resonance theory itself has never been (to my knowledge) disputed by
serious contrary evidence. It has been "discredited" by The Holy
Inqusition on grounds that it is heresy and that there is not enough
hard evidence for it to overcome the massive dislike for such new and
career endangering ideas.
Levi Strauss got away with a similar theory in anthropology
because he was in a softer science, had the right connections and
didn't step on the wrong toes. Think about that.
If the truth be known, many really creative and thoughtful
scientists are often quite mystical and far reaching in their
thinking. The late Jack Parsons (a scientist/magician) was an
extreme example, but the late Albert Einstein was as much of a
philosopher regarding the nature of God as he was a scientist
regarding the nature of nature.
If Einstein was posting his mystic-scientific views anonymously
on this news group I guarantee that you would have no more respect for
his speculations than you do for ours. *******
Good Magick!
(Good philosophy too)
Gnome d Plume
Blazin' Tommy D.
I also like Poke's comments on the human mind (paraphrase)
as a model of the universe and the greatest software, &c
Very beautiful sentiments
Thoughts like these enhance our astral visions
Render our lives more pleasant and agreeable
Tanks Poke:)
Gnome d Plume <Gnome...@aol.com> wrote in article
<3b7bf749...@trialnews.peoplepc.com>...
Gnome d Plume
*******Thanks Tommy!
Actually I kinda like Tom sometimes--but way down at his core lies
(IMO) a similar psychological dynamic to that which drove Ellic Howe
to accuse poor old Wynn Westcott of being a con artist when Westcott
was only spinning a harmless web of glamour to protect his magical
child, The Golden Dawn. When Howe was a little boy he had a
domineering uncle, whom he apparently hated, who fancied himself a
"Rosicrucian" and believed six impossible things before breakfast.
This is no excuse for trashing a brother Mason (even a dead one) the
way Howe did with Westcott. In Tom's case I would not be surprised if
the same, or a similar, background situation applies. If so, he really
needs to out grow it. Alt.magick is the last place in the world where
a person who despises the uncommon is welcome. *******
Gnome the Understanding
(and the sympathetic)
Sznog
Blue Rajah wrote:
>
>
> His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a distorted reflection
> after all and not the scientific vindication he'd thought it was.
Scientific vindication for a Goetia conjurer may be a long time in coming.
Thoughts of hell getting cold come to mind.
Sznog
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>Big assumptions often come in tiny packages, Joel.
>
>What appears as ann incidental footnote is actually a basic assumption Poke
>has about the way the world works. If Poke considered it unimportant, he
>wouldn't have defended his error so desperately. He'd simply have said
>"oops" and made a correction. Instead, he's carried on a huge, bombastic
>campaign of self-justification and denial.
>
>Here's why.
>
>Poke was hoping that there was some scientific evidence to support his
>notion that what he's contacting through Goetic evocation is not just a
>distorted reflection of himself in a dark mirror but some holy revelation
>of truth from some higher power.
>
>His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a distorted reflection
>after all and not the scientific vindication he'd thought it was.
Rajah, grow up.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Get off your crusade and actually read for comprehension.
You're completely misrepresenting what has occurred in this thread and
if you were capable of thinking about it you'd see that.
All that was "distorted" was the claim that Sheldrake had conducted
the field work himself, rather than somebody else having done it.
A fairly minor error (in terms of it's implications) which Poke
immediately and publicly admitted to.
What color is the sky in your world Rajah? Is it blue, like ours?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I wouldnt mind finding Bob Dean's tongue in my mouth, as long as the rest of
him wasn't attached to the end of it.
- shizoor
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
Greg Cameron
wrote:
>sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>>
>> Nelson White's book was a home-made little
>> thing. The other books cited were published by Doubleday, Manor, Bantam,
>> etc. -- all MAJOR houses at the time. Nelson White published what was in
>> essence a small-press item or fanzine. Holzer was what my mother used to
>> call "A Nauthor with a capital N," meaning a writer who made a personal
>> spectable of him or herself as well as writing books.
>
>does seem a tad unbalanced by including White with the classics,
>yet perhaps White had a clear exposition that many classic texts
>to which Kraig had access lacked.
Of White's "Lemegeton: Clavicula Salomonis" Kraig says:
"Although of poor production value, valuable as the only known
complete version of this book."
Of "Secret Magic Revealed" he says:
"Overpriced but excellent introduction to magic. However, the flashing
colors are not made with glow-in-the-dark paints!"
Greg Cameron
______________________________________________
A_Star, ?=? cloudso...@yahoo.com
Psyche
<<snip dull thread>>
So Greg, how's the website coming along? I've lost the url, so
I haven't been able to keep tabs on it, but it sounded like an
interesting idea.
Any news?
Psyche
>
> Well I've never personally added alt.pagan.magick to the cross-post
> list. I rarely cross post when originating a thread. The presence of
> tyagi usually indicates who is responsible for originating a thread
> and its many crosspostings. It's an infantile desire for attention.
Understood - that's how most of the useless, unrelated threads
get taken over here. But I would really appreciate it if it
was dropped from this newsgroup.
Thanks.
Greg Cameron
wrote:
>So Greg, how's the website coming along? I've lost the url, so
>I haven't been able to keep tabs on it, but it sounded like an
>interesting idea.
You must have me confused with Greg Wotton.
The Librarius Occulta url is :
http://gregw.thot.net/library/
(Thanks for reminding me of it - what a kickass site!)
>Any news?
Tonnes, but I'm not the guy that you had in mind and most of my news
wouldn't be on-topic.
David Cantu
"Psyche" <psy...@spiralnature.com> wrote in message
news:3B7C5E98...@spiralnature.com...
> Joel Biroco wrote:
> >
> > Well I've never personally added alt.pagan.magick to the cross-post
> > list. I rarely cross post when originating a thread. The presence of
> > tyagi usually indicates who is responsible for originating a thread
> > and its many crosspostings. It's an infantile desire for attention.
>
> Understood - that's how most of the useless, unrelated threads
> get taken over here. But I would really appreciate it if it
> was dropped from this newsgroup.
>
> Thanks.
It is such a grumpy response when a thread you don't like comes around, so
far I guess that has been its use, to cause grumpiness.
But what about your marriage?
All good?
Blue Rajah
> >
> >Poke was hoping that there was some scientific evidence to
> >support his notion that what he's contacting through Goetic
> >evocation is not just a distorted reflection of himself in a dark
> >mirror but some holy revelation of truth from some higher power.
> >
> >His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a distorted
> >reflection after all and not the scientific vindication he'd thought
> >it was.
> >
> ********Tom:
>
> Just a bit of a corrective here: Sheldrake's comparative study of rat
> research has, to my knowledge, never been formally discredited
No one, including Sheldrake, has put his speculations to the test. You
can't scientifically credit or discredit an idle speculation until you do
some careful testing.
All Sheldrake has done is engage in a bit of idle speculation about what
might have caused what he felt were some unusual aspects of the results of
a few other experiments he'd read about.
You want to declare that idle speculation to be "hard evidence". Well,
it's not.
> --except by you in the astounding assertion that one scientist
> cannot draw valid conclusions from a comparative study of the
> published work of others in his field.
That's not what I asserted. Don't erect straw men.
I have said that Sheldrake's speculation about the cause of the results he
read about can't be considered "hard evidence" of anything, because the
experiments weren't controlling for his notion of "morphic resonance".
Therefore, any of a number of confounding variables might account for the
numbers. If you or Sheldrake want to experimentally demonstrate morphic
resonance scientifically, you'll have to do experiments specifically
designed for that purpose.
> Also, as I told you earlier, the 100 Monkey Theory was
> originally taken seriously by primatologists (I was in anthro graduate
> school at the time) until it came under the inevitable scrutiny of the
> uncreative reductionalists who guard the sanctified mediocrity of
> science.
Who, as it happened, were absolutely correct and that whole myth of the
so-called "Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" was exploded.
> Sure, it probably was flawed, but it was not a "New Age" hype
> to begin with, as you tried to imply.
In fact, that's exactly what it was. As I've mentioned several times,
Lyall Watson first published the story of the Koshima Island monkey study,
in which "spontaneous learning" supposedly took place, in his book
"Lifetides", published by Bantam New Age Books.
Watson has admitted to "improvising details", despite the very precise (and
quite different) reports published by Dr. Kawai and his team from the Japan
Monkey Center, who actually did the research Watson cited as his source.
He also claimed later, when the inconsistencies between his claims about
the research and the actual research, that he based his story on rumors he
had heard and not on any published reports.
> Also, Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance theory itself has never
> been (to my knowledge) disputed by serious contrary evidence.
That's a poor argument, too. A lack of disconfirmation isn't confirmation.
That no one has disproved the existence of God doesn't mean that the
existence of God is proven.
No one takes Sheldrake seriously enough to spend any of their hard-won
research dollars discrediting his guesswork. Come up with some serious
positive evidence and then make your claim. So far, your arguments leak
like a sieve.
Blue Rajah
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b7c1d55...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> Rajah, grow up.
>
> Pull your head out of your ass.
Ah, more rational arguments from the Cosby kid.
> All that was "distorted" was the claim that Sheldrake had conducted
> the field work himself, rather than somebody else having done it.
No, that wasn't all. I don't expect you to understand that, though, or
even care about it, since you aren't interested in facts. Only in
ammunition.
nagasiva
"Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net>:
> Poke was hoping that there was some scientific evidence to
> support his notion that what he's contacting through Goetic
> evocation is not just a distorted reflection of himself in
> a dark mirror but some holy revelation of truth from some
> higher power.
what kinds of "higher power" are you talking about that Poke
thinks he might be contacting?
> His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a
> distorted reflection after all and not the scientific
> vindication he'd thought it was.
but you said his was an otherwise admirable essay. what do
you find valuable in it, aside from these footnotes he may
be resisting changing? could you restate the URL?
blessed beast!
nagasiva
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> laughed madly,
then wrote:
Well I'm flattered, Rajah.
You've been studying me closely.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one
because they're the devil.
- Emo
Gnome d Plume
<danto...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
*****Tom:
You have descended to the most obvious psychological projection yet.
I've been trying to "let go" but you can't give it up even though you
won! Can't you understand that I (and I think everyone else) is bored
and underwhelmed with this argument you think is so important. I
deleted the monkeys and the rats from the footnote, little boy---now
please go off and create another sock puppet. Blue Rajah has lost it.
Try again.********
Gnome d Plume
Psyche
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:53:08 GMT, Psyche <psy...@spiralnature.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So Greg, how's the website coming along? I've lost the url, so
> >I haven't been able to keep tabs on it, but it sounded like an
> >interesting idea.
>
> You must have me confused with Greg Wotton.
> The Librarius Occulta url is :
> http://gregw.thot.net/library/
Oh, sorry. I forgot which Greg it was, only that the
dude's first name was Greg. Thanks though :)
> (Thanks for reminding me of it - what a kickass site!)
>
> >Any news?
>
> Tonnes, but I'm not the guy that you had in mind and most of my news
> wouldn't be on-topic.
Thanks again, and if you feel like sharing, what the hell?
Why not? None of this thread is on topic in this newsgrop.
I'm posting from alt.pagan.magick. I've left AM quite
possibly for good. It's far too noisy for me and not worth
the effort of sorting through the BS before I get to anything
worthwhile.
Psyche
>
> > Understood - that's how most of the useless, unrelated threads
> > get taken over here. But I would really appreciate it if it
> > was dropped from this newsgroup.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> It is such a grumpy response when a thread you don't like comes around, so
> far I guess that has been its use, to cause grumpiness.
Well there *is* a reason I stopped reading alt.magick
and it's rather annoying to see a thread unrelated to
the subject matter appropriate for alt.pagan.magick
(where I'm reading this from) where I came to get away
from this sort of useless snivling. What is WITH
nagasiva and this retarded crossposting business?
> But what about your marriage?
> All good?
Wonderful, thank-you.
Work's a bitch though.
Greg Cameron
wrote:
>Greg Cameron wrote in alt.pagan.magick:
>> You must have me confused with Greg Wotton.
>> The Librarius Occulta url is :
>> http://gregw.thot.net/library/
>
>Oh, sorry. I forgot which Greg it was, only that the
>dude's first name was Greg.
No problem.
It happens to the best of us :-)
>Thanks though :)
You're welcome.
>> (Thanks for reminding me of it - what a kickass site!)
>>
>> >Any news?
>>
>> Tonnes, but I'm not the guy that you had in mind and most of my news
>> wouldn't be on-topic.
>
>Thanks again, and if you feel like sharing, what the hell?
>Why not?
I forgot to mention that it would most likely bore you to death.
>None of this thread is on topic in this newsgrop.
It's full of references to magickal figures.
It could be worse ;-)
>I'm posting from alt.pagan.magick. I've left AM quite
>possibly for good. It's far too noisy for me and not worth
>the effort of sorting through the BS before I get to anything
>worthwhile.
[Just 3 days ago, Desmontes posted to alt.magick:
"If anyone is interested in the serious discussion of esoteric
subjects without the spam, flamewars, and other rediculousness that
goes on here, I suggest exploring the various Yahoo!Groups and
Yahoo!Clubs communities. The following is a list of several groups and
clubs that may be of interest: "]
I understand.
I have my newsreader set to mark any threads that certain people's
names show up in. I make sure that I read thier messages, no matter
what the topic. Then I read threads of interest, usually marking any
messages in off-topic branches as read. I kill any threads that don't
interest me, and set my newsreader to ignore any threads that have
certain words in the title. Oh, and I killfile posters too from time
to time.
I spend less time on alt.magick than I used to, but I do genuinely
enjoy some of the personalities here. Still, its value as a resource
is certainly questionable at times and I would never criticise anyone
for leaving.
Blue Rajah
>
> You have descended to the most obvious psychological projection yet.
> I've been trying to "let go" but you can't give it up even though you
> won! Can't you understand that I (and I think everyone else) is bored
> and underwhelmed with this argument you think is so important. I
> deleted the monkeys and the rats from the footnote, little boy---now
> please go off and create another sock puppet. Blue Rajah has lost it.
> Try again.********
I see that you deleted every single point in the debate and have focussed
exclusively on a personal attack.
Since you have no rational arguments that can refute what I've said (if you
had some, you would have presented them by now), it's reasonable to
conclude that you are conceding the debate and throwing another juvenile
tantrum instead.
Blue Rajah
"nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote in message
news:9lid7t$a...@bolt.sonic.net...
> 50010816 VI! om Hail Satan! Hail Yes!
>
> "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net>:
> > Poke was hoping that there was some scientific evidence to
> > support his notion that what he's contacting through Goetic
> > evocation is not just a distorted reflection of himself in
> > a dark mirror but some holy revelation of truth from some
> > higher power.
>
> what kinds of "higher power" are you talking about that Poke
> thinks he might be contacting?
From "Magick and Hypnosis":
"Am I saying that angels, demons, Goddesses and Gods of old are only
figments of the individual imagination? Certainly not! The Gods are real
and their power is awesome. Hypnosis is the key to entering their kingdom,
the Olam Yetzirah, or astral plane; but we must realize that this other
dimension begins within ourselves, in our subconscious mind. If we go deep
enough we venture beyond our own personal dreams into what Carl Jung called
the “collective unconscious”, that vast realm where the archetypal Gods
abide. Make no mistake about it, the collective unconscious is a reality
that goes beyond anyone’s individual conception of it. It contains the
entire history of the human race and probably the destiny of mankind as
well. It is certainly linked to the Anima Mundi, the
World-Soul-Earth-Goddess of the Renaissance magicians. I hold that its
sensitivities extend throughout the solar system, and I suspect that it is
intrinsically related to the DNA code."
> > His claims for Sheldrake turned out to be just such a
> > distorted reflection after all and not the scientific
> > vindication he'd thought it was.
>
> but you said his was an otherwise admirable essay. what do
> you find valuable in it, aside from these footnotes he may
> be resisting changing? could you restate the URL?
The main thrust of the essay is pointing out that magical operations,
especially Goetic evocations, are actually hypnotic inductions and have
always been intended to be such. This is a valuable point. One is not
properly performing a magical operation of the type Runyon concerns himself
with if the magician doesn't undergo a transformation of consciousness.
Just performing the rote actions and expecting some external force to
automatically respond is a grevious error.
Starlancer
>
> > Also, as I told you earlier, the 100 Monkey Theory was
> > originally taken seriously by primatologists (I was in anthro graduate
> > school at the time) until it came under the inevitable scrutiny of the
> > uncreative reductionalists who guard the sanctified mediocrity of
> > science.
>
> Who, as it happened, were absolutely correct and that whole myth of the
> so-called "Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" was exploded.
Oh dear. It is difficult to believe, but someone does seem to have used
the term "absolutely correct" in alt.magick.
If Tom/B.R.'s HGA were to suddenly appear to him, my guess is that his
first response would be to demand at least two forms of photo I.D.
Gnome's right. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, the
value of a magickal technique/approach stands or falls in the doing, not
in the footnotes. You caught him, he agreed, story over. No one else
cares.
Starlancer
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, Starlancer <starl...@bigfoot.com> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>If Tom/B.R.'s HGA were to suddenly appear to him, my guess is that his
>first response would be to demand at least two forms of photo I.D.
>
lol
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
To me, it's always a good idea to always carry two sacks of
something when you walk around. That way, if anybody says, "Hey,
can you give me a hand?," you can say, "Sorry, got these sacks."
- Jack Handey
Blue Rajah
"Starlancer" <starl...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3B7D6D42...@bigfoot.com...
>
> Oh dear. It is difficult to believe, but someone does seem to
> have used the term "absolutely correct" in alt.magick.
Is that a moral violation?
> If Tom/B.R.'s HGA were to suddenly appear to him, my guess
> is that his first response would be to demand at least two
> forms of photo I.D.
I suspect you don't know what an HGA is.
> Gnome's right. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's his mountain. I've merely leveled it.
> You caught him, he agreed, story over. No one else
> cares.
Then he should stop crying.
Gnome d Plume
*******You are mistaking my laughing for crying, but there is no
mistaking your kvetching as borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg.******
Gnome Van Winkle
(Yawn)
Blue Rajah
> >
> *******You are mistaking my laughing for crying,
No, I'm not. Nor am I mistaking your bombast for wisdom.
Gnome d Plume
*******If you were to develop a sense of humor, perhaps you might
recognize it in others. You don't seem to realize that we've been
chuckling at your pomposity and making light of your dogged
obsession for nearly a week now. But at this point it really is
getting boring. You "won" your concession. You've had your "triumph."
I confessed my sin. The monkeys and the rats are gone from the
footnote. What more do you want? An award? A citation of merit? A
testimonial? A letter of commendation? I'll draft one for you if
that's what you really feel you deserve----just tell me: what can I do
to please you now?********
Gnome the Very Penitent
wizzard
<<snip>>
> >> >Any news?
> >>
> >> Tonnes, but I'm not the guy that you had in mind and most of my news
> >> wouldn't be on-topic.
> >
> >Thanks again, and if you feel like sharing, what the hell?
> >Why not?
>
> I forgot to mention that it would most likely bore you to death.
Ah, ok, skip it then.
> >None of this thread is on topic in this newsgrop.
>
> It's full of references to magickal figures.
> It could be worse ;-)
None of them are pagan or neo-pagan though. If nagasiva
had crossposted to alt.magick.chaos it could have been
justified, but I don't really see the point here (and
thankfully he didn't try alt.magick.serious, or I would
have been really pissed).
<<snip>>
> [Just 3 days ago, Desmontes posted to alt.magick:
> "If anyone is interested in the serious discussion of esoteric
> subjects without the spam, flamewars, and other rediculousness that
> goes on here, I suggest exploring the various Yahoo!Groups and
> Yahoo!Clubs communities. The following is a list of several groups and
> clubs that may be of interest: "]
Which lists, or 'groups' (I'm irked about that whole thing)
did he mention?
> I understand.
>
> I have my newsreader set to mark any threads that certain people's
> names show up in. I make sure that I read thier messages, no matter
> what the topic. Then I read threads of interest, usually marking any
> messages in off-topic branches as read. I kill any threads that don't
> interest me, and set my newsreader to ignore any threads that have
> certain words in the title. Oh, and I killfile posters too from time
> to time.
>
> I spend less time on alt.magick than I used to, but I do genuinely
> enjoy some of the personalities here. Still, its value as a resource
> is certainly questionable at times and I would never criticise anyone
> for leaving.
My e-mail/newsgroup software doesn't have that option
and I'm not keen to change it. It wastes much less of
my time to just ignore. AMC, AMS, these newsgroups I
check regularly. Best of luck to you in your attempts
to filter though.
wizzard
Kindly bugger off. The lot of you.
You especially however, you've struck me as an irritating
twit, and I hope you're not really Tom, because that would
severely lower my opinion of him, and I rather liked the
bloke's attitude.
Blue Rajah
> >
> *******If you were to develop a sense of humor, perhaps you might
> recognize it in others.
People often hide their rage behind a facade they call "humor". You do
that a lot.
> I confessed my sin. The monkeys and the rats are gone from the
> footnote. What more do you want? An award? A citation of merit?
> A testimonial? A letter of commendation? I'll draft one for you if
> that's what you really feel you deserve----just tell me: what can I do
> to please you now?********
You can stop throwing your tantrum about it.
Gnome d Plume
*******Tom:
Now I think I finally understand what it is that you really want: you
want to have THE LAST WORD. That's it, isn't it? Okay. I'm going to
give it to you. Take it. You can have "The Last Word" on this
momentous, historical debate. The closing statement is yours. I
promise not to comment on it--not even a one-liner. I'll even restrain
my friend Dryad (difficult as that is!). So have at it! Take your best
shot. It's all yours. ********
Gnome the Truly Bored
>
>
Blue Rajah
>
> Now I think I finally understand what it is that you really want: you
> want to have THE LAST WORD. That's it, isn't it?
No, that's not it, but if it stops your tantrum, I'll accept it.
> Okay. I'm going to
> give it to you. Take it. You can have "The Last Word" on this
> momentous, historical debate. The closing statement is yours. I
> promise not to comment on it--not even a one-liner. I'll even restrain
> my friend Dryad (difficult as that is!). So have at it! Take your best
> shot. It's all yours. ********
Shut up.
Greg Cameron
wrote:
>Which lists, or 'groups' (I'm irked about that whole thing)
>did [Desmontes] mention?
Yahoo!Groups
------------
"ADEPTHOOD"
For the discussion of all aspects of the Western Mystery Tradition.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adepthood/
"THE HERMETIC ART"
For the discussion of various facets of Alchemy.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Hermetic_Art
"QABALAH STUDY"
For the discussion of Qabalah and kindred subjects.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QBLH_study
"RITUAL MAGIC"
For the discussion of Medieval and Rennaisance Magic and Occult
Philosophy.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ritual-magic
"A.'.A.'. MAGICK"
For the discussion of the teachings and practices of A.'.A.'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_A_Magick/
"GOLDEN DAWN MAGICK"
For the discussion of the teachings and practices of the Golden Dawn.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Golden_Dawn_Magick
"AURUM SOLIS MAGICK"
For the discussion of the teachings and practices of the Aurum Solis.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Aurum_Solis_Magick
"FRANZ BARDON MAGI"
For the discussion of the teachings and practices of Franz Bardon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FranzBardonMagi
"YOGI PHILOSOPHY"
For the discussion of the teachings and practices of Yogi Ramacharaka.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yogi_Philosophy
"RAMAKRISHNA"
For the discussion of the life and teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, Swami
Vivekananda and the Holy Mother.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ramakrishna
"CLASSICAL RAJA YOGA"
For the discussion of Raja Yoga as taught in the Yoga Sutra of
Patanjali.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Classical_Raja_Yoga
"MEDIEVAL HATHA YOGA"
For the discussion of Hatha Yoga as taught in the Shiva Samhita,
Hathayoga Pradipika and others.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Medieval_Hatha_Yoga
Cat added:
"THELEMA 93"
For the discussion of thelema
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l
Yahoo!Clubs
-----------
"THE GOLDEN DAWN FORUM"
For the discussion of Golden Dawn related topics
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/thegoldendawnforum
"REAL MAGICK"
For discussion of Real Magick and the Occult with practitioners of all
styles.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/realmagick
"MAGICK TOOLS"
For discussion on creating your own Magick Tools.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/magicktools
"WESTERN MYSTERY TRADITION"
For the discussion of all aspects of the Western Mystery Tradition.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/westernmysterytradition
"THE MAGICAL LIBRARY"
For the discussion of Occult Books and Antiquarian Book Collecting.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/themagicallibrary
"ALEISTER CROWLEY"
For the discussion of the life and works of Aleister Crowley.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/aleistercrowley
"FRANZ BARDON ROOM"
For the discussion of the works of Franz Bardon.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/franzbardonroom
"ELIPHAS LEVI SOCIETY"
For the discussion of the works of Eliphas Levi.
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/eliphaslevisociety
>...It wastes much less of my time to just ignore [alt.magick].
> AMC, AMS, these newsgroups I check regularly.
>Best of luck to you in your attempts to filter though.
Thanks.
Starlancer
Blue Rajah wrote:
>
> "Starlancer" <starl...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3B7D6D42...@bigfoot.com...
> >
> > Oh dear. It is difficult to believe, but someone does seem to
> > have used the term "absolutely correct" in alt.magick.
>
> Is that a moral violation?
Well no, but damned unusual. Mostly because it seems almost
fundamentally incompatible with magick. I know you practice, or used to
practice, magick. I just can't for the life of me understand why.
>
> > If Tom/B.R.'s HGA were to suddenly appear to him, my guess
> > is that his first response would be to demand at least two
> > forms of photo I.D.
>
> I suspect you don't know what an HGA is.
And you do?
> > Gnome's right. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
>
> It's his mountain. I've merely leveled it.
>
> > You caught him, he agreed, story over. No one else
> > cares.
>
> Then he should stop crying.
Well perhaps he would if you'd quit trying to beat him over the head
with it. OTOH, it does look a bit like a "chicken and egg" sort of thing
at this point with the disagreement having degenerated into
"lastwordism."
Blue Rajah
>
> Well no, but damned unusual. Mostly because it seems almost
> fundamentally incompatible with magick. I know you practice, or
> used to practice, magick. I just can't for the life of me understand
> why.
It's not important for you to understand my motivations.
> > I suspect you don't know what an HGA is.
>
> And you do?
Yes.
Starlancer
Blue Rajah wrote:
>
> "Starlancer" <starl...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3B7ED2B4...@bigfoot.com...
> >
> > Well no, but damned unusual. Mostly because it seems almost
> > fundamentally incompatible with magick. I know you practice, or
> > used to practice, magick. I just can't for the life of me understand
> > why.
>
> It's not important for you to understand my motivations.
Well of course not. It isn't "important" for us to be having this
discussion either. More a matter of occasional curiosity. For that
matter, it isn't "important" for you to decide what is "important" to me
either.
> > > I suspect you don't know what an HGA is.
> >
> > And you do?
>
> Yes.
Now we're possibly getting somewhere beyond idle nastiness. Even Crowley
seemed unable to decide for sure if the HGA and Higher Self were
entirely one and the same. So you "know" what an HGA is, then?
Great! Let's have a "scholarly and technical discussion of magick" about
it! What exactly then, in your view, is the nature of the HGA?
Starlancer
Blue Rajah
>
> Well of course not. It isn't "important" for us to be having this
> discussion either. More a matter of occasional curiosity. For
> that matter, it isn't "important" for you to decide what is
> "important" to me either.
I don't decide that. You do. I do offer you a bit of advice about it,
though.
> > > > I suspect you don't know what an HGA is.
> > >
> > > And you do?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Now we're possibly getting somewhere beyond idle nastiness.
> Even Crowley seemed unable to decide for sure if the HGA
> and Higher Self were entirely one and the same.
Crowley wasn't undecided about it. He just decided different things at
different times. Crowley was never indecisive. Delusional, perhaps.
Silly at times. But never indecisive.
> So you "know" what an HGA is, then?
Yes.
> Great! Let's have a "scholarly and technical discussion of
> magick" about it! What exactly then, in your view, is the
> nature of the HGA?
The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
interests.
nagasiva
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>>> Nelson White's book was a home-made little
>>> thing. The other books cited were published by Doubleday, Manor, Bantam,
>>> etc. -- all MAJOR houses at the time. Nelson White published what was in
>>> essence a small-press item or fanzine. Holzer was what my mother used to
>>> call "A Nauthor with a capital N," meaning a writer who made a personal
>>> spectable of him or herself as well as writing books.
nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.com>:
>> [this] does seem a tad unbalanced by including White with the classics,
>> yet perhaps White had a clear exposition that many classic texts
>> to which Kraig had access lacked.
Greg Cameron <cloudso...@REMOVE-TO-REPLYyahoo.com>:
> Of White's "Lemegeton: Clavicula Salomonis" Kraig says:
> "Although of poor production value, valuable as the only known
> complete version of this book."
is this at all true? is there a 'single complete version of this
book'? or is there a body of variations on what is described by
'Clavicula Salomonis' whose composite may be presented in a wide
variety of forms (from various 'Sloane documents', if memory of
reviewing some of these final products serves, held at various
European libraries, such as the British Museum)? if the latter is
the case, then when Kraig was publishing "Modern Magick" would he
have any justification for this claim based on what is contained
in White's text? what about Mathers' version? what about Waite's
offering? Shah's?
> Of "Secret Magic Revealed" he says:
> "Overpriced but excellent introduction to magic. However, the flashing
> colors are not made with glow-in-the-dark paints!"
here it would seem that we cannot accept an explanation that Kraig
is attempting to 'convey his own particular type of magick' within
his text, because this statement is representative of how 'it is
done' rather than 'how I would do it'. this may be inconsistent in
Kraig's text. I think I remember some personal quibble with his
text on this account last I reviewed it, so I wouldn't be surprised.
panoptes
"nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote > blessed beast!
What type of beast are you always blessing in your incessant posts?
Love,
Panoptes
Erwin Hessle
"Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:GvZf7.1720$W46.3...@news.uswest.net...
> > Great! Let's have a "scholarly and technical discussion of
> > magick" about it! What exactly then, in your view, is the
> > nature of the HGA?
>
> The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
> interests.
This deserves highlighting.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
madly, then wrote:
Is it true?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"You laugh at ME because I'm different. I laugh at YOU because YOU'RE ALL
THE SAME."
catherine yronwode
I don't know, but i have often thought he was referring to his curly
black dog Eris, a.k.a. Fluffy Foo, the Blessed Portuguese Water Doggess
of Discord -- although, come to think of it, he may be hailing the
entire panoply of fauna.
Praise Will Shade!
cat yronwode
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>panoptes wrote:
>>
>> "nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.com> wrote
>>
>> > blessed beast!
>>
>> What type of beast are you always blessing in your incessant posts?
>>
>> Love,
>>
>> Panoptes
>
>I don't know, but i have often thought he was referring to his curly
>black dog Eris, a.k.a. Fluffy Foo, the Blessed Portuguese Water Doggess
>of Discord -- although, come to think of it, he may be hailing the
>entire panoply of fauna.
>
>Praise Will Shade!
Praise the king of the cats. Get down out of the chimney.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
If you aren't happy, it's not my fault.
Renfield
> The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
> interests.
That isn't it.
-Renfield
Psyche
Wow. Quite a list. Thank-you for reposting it.
I'd like to add:
The Runic Ring
For the discussion of philosophy, spirituality, and
the occult.
More info:
http://www.spiralnature.com/runicring
--Psyche
X MCH S* W++(--) N+++ PDI/PPA/PEC D* X
X "Credo quia absurdum." X
X --Tertullian, 3rd century CE X
Blue Rajah
"Renfield" <barb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca6e731a.0108...@posting.google.com...
Come, be positive. What do you think the HGA is?
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> laughed madly,
then wrote:
:^)
>What do you think the HGA is?
I think yours is a good description, and the simplicity of the
explanation is wonderful, a welcome change from the typical
discussion.
And I think it's literally true, the HGA is the consciousness of the
magician.
But it makes me think of the discussions of the ego that have been
going on. What is the consciousness of the magician? What is
consciousness at all?
Can we localize it in a box?
I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
no more "I and Thou".
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"that's when i realized that you have to treat Windows like a retarded
spider monkey on crack."
- Esse E. Percepi
Erwin Hessle
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b815cfd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
> madly, then wrote:
>
> >
> >"Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:GvZf7.1720$W46.3...@news.uswest.net...
> >> > Great! Let's have a "scholarly and technical discussion of
> >> > magick" about it! What exactly then, in your view, is the
> >> > nature of the HGA?
> >>
> >> The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
> >> interests.
> >
> >This deserves highlighting.
>
> Is it true?
It's as close to true as you're likely to get.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
> "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> hunched over a computer, typing
> feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> laughed madly,
> then wrote:
>
> >
> >"Renfield" <barb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ca6e731a.0108...@posting.google.com...
> >> "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> >news:<GvZf7.1720$W46.3...@news.uswest.net>...
> >>
> >> > The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
> >> > interests.
> >>
> >> That isn't it.
> >
> >Come, be positive.
>
> :^)
>
> >What do you think the HGA is?
>
> I think yours is a good description, and the simplicity of the
> explanation is wonderful, a welcome change from the typical
> discussion.
>
> And I think it's literally true, the HGA is the consciousness of the
> magician.
It was a good post up to here.
> But it makes me think of the discussions of the ego that have been
> going on. What is the consciousness of the magician? What is
> consciousness at all?
>
> Can we localize it in a box?
>
> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
> think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
> same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
> consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
> consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
> no more "I and Thou".
This is fruitless mental chatter, a product of exactly the kind of "personal
interest" the consciousness of the magician should be devoid of, and
horribly distracts from the simplicity of the original explanation.
You won't find the HGA by intellectualising about it.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8290d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
>> think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
>> same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
>> consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
>> consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
>> no more "I and Thou".
>
>This is fruitless mental chatter, a product of exactly the kind of "personal
>interest" the consciousness of the magician should be devoid of, and
>horribly distracts from the simplicity of the original explanation.
>
>You won't find the HGA by intellectualising about it.
This is the kind of holier than thou puritanism that makes this NG so
funny.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
New message 2994
- Two times
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
> madly, then wrote:
>
> >
> >"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b8290d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> >> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
> >> think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
> >> same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
> >> consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
> >> consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
> >> no more "I and Thou".
> >
> >This is fruitless mental chatter, a product of exactly the kind of
"personal
> >interest" the consciousness of the magician should be devoid of, and
> >horribly distracts from the simplicity of the original explanation.
> >
> >You won't find the HGA by intellectualising about it.
>
> This is the kind of holier than thou puritanism that makes this NG so
> funny.
It's nothing to do with puritanism. It was a simple statement of fact.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
> >> "Blue Rajah" wrote
> >> > The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
> >> > interests.
> I think yours is a good description, and the simplicity of the
> explanation is wonderful, a welcome change from the typical
> discussion.
> And I think it's literally true, the HGA is the consciousness of the
> magician.
why did you leave out "devoid of any personal interests"?
> But it makes me think of the discussions of the ego that have been
> going on. What is the consciousness of the magician? What is
> consciousness at all?
> Can we localize it in a box?
> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
> think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
> same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
> consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
> consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
> no more "I and Thou".
it seems that "consciousness" is not a word that can be truly defined, or
analyzed, or intellectualized. rather than letting yourself get lost in a
fruitless mental maze about what consciousness is, why not meditate on the
other part of blue's definition, the part about being "devoid of any
personal interests"?
this definition contains instructions on part of the process of achieving
knowledge and conversation with the holy guardian angel. because, to me,
'personal interests' relates to attachments, which are side effects of
simply being human individuals. these attachments are what maintain the
illusion of separation between our ego-self and our holy guardian angel.
given that each person has their own experience, which cannot truly be
described in words... according to the qabalistic system in general, once
there is knowledge and conversation with one's holy guardian angel, the
person will return to being an individual with an ego and personal
interests, but those attachments will be a reflection of the person's true
will rather than being a reflection of one's
family/social/religious/whatever previous programming.
regarding these posts:
Joe Cosby wrote:
> "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
> madly, then wrote:
>
> >This is fruitless mental chatter, a product of exactly the kind of
> "personal
> >interest" the consciousness of the magician should be devoid of, and
> >horribly distracts from the simplicity of the original explanation.
> >
> >You won't find the HGA by intellectualising about it.
>
> This is the kind of holier than thou puritanism that makes this NG so
> funny.
though I've been using a lot of words the past, well, forever on alt.magick,
it's accurate to say that all these qabalistic concepts must be experienced
and can't really be explained or analyzed to the point of understanding.
however, (in my opinion) talking about them can be fun and helpful and can
give insights, as long as one keeps focused on the process, and always keeps
in mind that an intellectual map can distract from doing the real work.
personally I (obviously) enjoy talking about our personal experiences and
idealized visions of how the qabalistic system works, since it gives
perspective on where one might be going. and also as I am simultaneously
cultivating "no lust for results" it ultimately doesn't matter if things
don't end up exactly as expected (which of course they won't). there just
must be a balance between playing the mental game and doing the work.
sometimes the stop analyzing, this can only be experienced 'holier then
thou' attitude is a good and necessary slap in the face, but screw those
people who think that *any* conversation is fruitless, despite the inability
of words to express true reality. not everyone appreciates analytical
oriented people. (haven't you all heard the expression: two jews, three
opinions? qabala was designed for discussion.) just beware of the mental
trap, *have fun playing with words*, and sooner or later, shut up and do
actual work without lusting for results, and it won't matter how much you
talked about it beforehand.
mika
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, mika <mka...@envirometrics.com> laughed madly, then
wrote:
>Joe Cosby wrote:
>
>> >> "Blue Rajah" wrote
>> >> > The HGA is the consciousness of the magician devoid of any personal
>> >> > interests.
>> I think yours is a good description, and the simplicity of the
>> explanation is wonderful, a welcome change from the typical
>> discussion.
>> And I think it's literally true, the HGA is the consciousness of the
>> magician.
>
>why did you leave out "devoid of any personal interests"?
>
Brevity.
I agree with this.
True, I agree with this.
***
Shit.
Now I'm doing it.
Really though, I can't think of anything to say but "I agree".
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey butane in my veins and I'm out to get the junky
- Beck
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8299d5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> "Erwin Hessle" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b8290d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> >> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized. So I
>> >> think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician, but at the
>> >> same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite of the
>> >> consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which is not the
>> >> consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's true self, there is
>> >> no more "I and Thou".
>> >
>> >This is fruitless mental chatter, a product of exactly the kind of
>"personal
>> >interest" the consciousness of the magician should be devoid of, and
>> >horribly distracts from the simplicity of the original explanation.
>> >
>> >You won't find the HGA by intellectualising about it.
>>
>> This is the kind of holier than thou puritanism that makes this NG so
>> funny.
>
>It's nothing to do with puritanism. It was a simple statement of fact.
Certainly mental chatter is the enemy.
But first, you're saying "this is the product of the kind of 'personal
interest'" etc. Where does that come from? What does what I'm saying
have to do with personal interest?
Or is just talking in general a result of 'personal interest'? Is
that what you're saying?
That fits with 'intellectualizing about it'.
So where exactly is the line drawn? So often, the 'rule' seems to be
that saying anything is a 'sin', and a SURE SIGN that the person
talking is a DAMNED FOOL. So we get these 'duels' of people trying to
say less than the other. "My ego is more dissolved than yours" duels.
And if you say anything, you lose.
While I agree that chatter is chatter, I was saying something
meaningful. If you didn't understand it, I'm sorry. If you had a
particular problem with it, then you're hiding it well.
Sometimes one really does have to cut through the chatter. In this
case, Rajah asked a question and I answered it.
***
Some of my most profound 'mystical experiences' have come about simply
because I realized they were possible. Sometimes talking is good.
If you are trying to avoid talking, fine. Don't take part in
discussions.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
thirty eight ... thirty nine ... fourty
Erwin Hessle
"mika" <mka...@envirometrics.com> wrote in message
news:3B82BA58...@envirometrics.com...
> given that each person has their own experience, which cannot truly be
> described in words... according to the qabalistic system in general, once
> there is knowledge and conversation with one's holy guardian angel, the
> person will return to being an individual with an ego and personal
> interests, but those attachments will be a reflection of the person's true
> will rather than being a reflection of one's
> family/social/religious/whatever previous programming.
A more accurate description is that the "attachments" still remain, you just
aren't attached to them anymore. Their nature doesn't really change, they
just cease to control you, or to worry you.
KCHGA relies on *familiarity* with the "conscious will devoid of personal
interests" to use BR's phrase again. After experiencing such a state enough
times, the memories and bedrock of experience allow you to keep these
"attachments" in their proper perspective when they threaten to gain control
again. They don't go away, but you've seen them for the phantasms they are
with sufficient frequency that you simply don't get fooled by them any more.
Hence, "invoke often". Familiarity with that state (or "conversation with
your HGA") allows you to benefit without constantly being in that state
(which would be "becoming your HGA" I suppose).
That's about all there is to it. No amount of intellectualising can replace
this experience. Indeed, it is more likely to give fuel to such phantasms.
Talking about "personalised experience and idealized visions" is one thing,
but the moment you begin to mistake them for reality you're paddling through
your own shit. Reality comes from the outside in, not the other way round.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
mika
Erwin Hessle wrote:
> "mika" wrote
> > given that each person has their own experience, which cannot truly be
> > described in words... according to the qabalistic system in general, once
> > there is knowledge and conversation with one's holy guardian angel, the
> > person will return to being an individual with an ego and personal
> > interests, but those attachments will be a reflection of the person's true
> > will rather than being a reflection of one's
> > family/social/religious/whatever previous programming.
>
> A more accurate description is that the "attachments" still remain, you just
> aren't attached to them anymore. Their nature doesn't really change, they
> just cease to control you, or to worry you.
>
> KCHGA relies on *familiarity* with the "conscious will devoid of personal
> interests" to use BR's phrase again. After experiencing such a state enough
> times, the memories and bedrock of experience allow you to keep these
> "attachments" in their proper perspective when they threaten to gain control
> again. They don't go away, but you've seen them for the phantasms they are
> with sufficient frequency that you simply don't get fooled by them any more.
> Hence, "invoke often". Familiarity with that state (or "conversation with
> your HGA") allows you to benefit without constantly being in that state
> (which would be "becoming your HGA" I suppose).
thank you. that's very very useful for me.
> That's about all there is to it. No amount of intellectualising can replace
> this experience. Indeed, it is more likely to give fuel to such phantasms.
> Talking about "personalised experience and idealized visions" is one thing,
> but the moment you begin to mistake them for reality you're paddling through
> your own shit. Reality comes from the outside in, not the other way round.
ah, yes. what many don't understand, though, is that for me (and people like
me), the very act of talking, discussing, debating our experiences and idealized
visions helps illustrate that they are *not* reality, that reality is subjective
and must be experienced directly. for me, discussions of this nature are not
about "this is the way things are", they're about sharing different models of
the universe, none of which are 'really real', and they help remove tunnel
vision. perhaps one day my experiences will make me shut up for good rather
than profane my reality by trying to use words to describe it, but until then,
these toys are fun to play with.
mika
Blue Rajah
> been going on. What is the consciousness of the magician?
> What is consciousness at all?
The feeling of what happens.
> Can we localize it in a box?
What causes feeling? Put that in a box.
> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized.
Consciousness doesn't divide into true/false dichotomies. Explanations do.
> So I think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician,
> but at the same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite
> of the consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which
> is not the consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's
> true self, there is no more "I and Thou".
You're using too many words.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Blue Rajah" <danto...@qwest.net> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b8290d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> But it makes me think of the discussions of the ego that have
>> been going on. What is the consciousness of the magician?
>> What is consciousness at all?
>
>The feeling of what happens.
>
>> Can we localize it in a box?
>
>What causes feeling? Put that in a box.
>
And not even that, but the experience of feeling
>> I think when we find true consciousness, it isn't localized.
>
>Consciousness doesn't divide into true/false dichotomies. Explanations do.
>
>> So I think the HGA is the true consciousness of the magician,
>> but at the same time I think, in a way, that is the exact opposite
>> of the consciousness of the magician also: that it is all which
>> is not the consciousness of the magician, that seeing one's
>> true self, there is no more "I and Thou".
>
>You're using too many words.
To describe the road, or the end of the road?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
He's a ripoff artist. Let's not get anti-semitic here though. Let's just
suffice to say that the western world decided to make their ultimate
cosmic ruler the same race as the one race which they distrust the
most and have persecuted the most viciously and consistently.
Erwin Hessle
By building up your own opinions on the matter in your head, you are
creating a barrier for yourself. Attachment to the ideas in your head is one
of the "personal interests" BR was talking about. People are often more
interested in their ideas of things than in the things themselves.
> Or is just talking in general a result of 'personal interest'? Is
> that what you're saying?
>
> That fits with 'intellectualizing about it'.
See above.
> So where exactly is the line drawn? So often, the 'rule' seems to be
> that saying anything is a 'sin', and a SURE SIGN that the person
> talking is a DAMNED FOOL. So we get these 'duels' of people trying to
> say less than the other. "My ego is more dissolved than yours" duels.
>
> And if you say anything, you lose.
This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with posting to usenet.
Mental chatter is in your head.
> While I agree that chatter is chatter, I was saying something
> meaningful.
I don't agree. It sounded like particularly meaningless babble to me, all "i
think this" and "i think the opposite" and "it is all which is not the
consciousness of the magician". As far as I could see there was little in
the way of use, or coherence, or communication in any of it. It sounded like
you were just taking the opportunity to think out loud, and not very
sensibly at that. I therefore interpolated the presence of mental chatter in
your head from the evidence of your post. "This is fruitless mental chatter"
was referring to said mental chatter, not to your post. I assumed that using
the words "mental chatter" explicitly would have made that clear.
> If you didn't understand it, I'm sorry. If you had a
> particular problem with it, then you're hiding it well.
>
> Sometimes one really does have to cut through the chatter. In this
> case, Rajah asked a question and I answered it.
>
> ***
>
> Some of my most profound 'mystical experiences' have come about simply
> because I realized they were possible. Sometimes talking is good.
>
> If you are trying to avoid talking, fine. Don't take part in
> discussions.
You seem to be replying to posts that exist only in your mind. See above.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
hybiscus
> > And I think it's literally true, the HGA is the consciousness of the
> > magician.
>
> why did you leave out "devoid of any personal interests"?
what if your personal interest was a common interest attached to some
greater whole? Wouldn't that then be losing your overall HGA goal?
*me.. who has obviously not gotten her butt up the tree far enough for
this sort of thing, whose HGA must still be routing for her in the
darkness, but will still further give her 2 cents any ways - just below*
> perspective on where one might be going. and also as I am simultaneously
> cultivating "no lust for results" it ultimately doesn't matter if things
> don't end up exactly as expected (which of course they won't). there just
> must be a balance between playing the mental game and doing the work.
this sort of seems to me, like a good set up any ways. Like you are over
anticipating by trying to not get your hopes up, and not letting
yourself come for you.
Like I said.. I ain't there, so I don't know.
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b82bee8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
But that's what I'm saying.
Anything which anyone says about the subject shouldn't be said.
That's all you're really saying.
Why exactly do you think I am 'building up opinions'? Besides that
I'm saying anything at all? Why exactly do you think I am 'attached
to them' in some way?
>
>> While I agree that chatter is chatter, I was saying something
>> meaningful.
>
>I don't agree. It sounded like particularly meaningless babble to me, all "i
>think this" and "i think the opposite" and "it is all which is not the
>consciousness of the magician". As far as I could see there was little in
>the way of use,
I agree completely that what I said wasn't useful as pragmatic
instruction or helpful in reaching an experience. I didn't say it
was.
>or coherence, or communication in any of it. It sounded like
>you were just taking the opportunity to think out loud, and not very
>sensibly at that. I therefore interpolated the presence of mental chatter in
>your head from the evidence of your post. "This is fruitless mental chatter"
>was referring to said mental chatter, not to your post. I assumed that using
>the words "mental chatter" explicitly would have made that clear.
>
So if you don't understand what I say, it's 'mental chatter' in my
head?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"I'm from Venus. Can you spare a lemon?"
Erwin Hessle
That's what you are saying, maybe. It's nothing to do with what I was
saying.
> Why exactly do you think I am 'building up opinions'?
Because that's what you appear to be doing.
> Besides that
> I'm saying anything at all? Why exactly do you think I am 'attached
> to them' in some way?
It's all "me, me, me" with you, isn't it? I said:
'Attachment to the ideas in your head is one of the "personal interests" BR
was talking about. '
Note that I specifically avoided saying "you are attached to the ideas in
your head".
> >
> >> While I agree that chatter is chatter, I was saying something
> >> meaningful.
> >
> >I don't agree. It sounded like particularly meaningless babble to me, all
"i
> >think this" and "i think the opposite" and "it is all which is not the
> >consciousness of the magician". As far as I could see there was little in
> >the way of use,
>
> I agree completely that what I said wasn't useful as pragmatic
> instruction or helpful in reaching an experience. I didn't say it
> was.
>
> >or coherence, or communication in any of it. It sounded like
> >you were just taking the opportunity to think out loud, and not very
> >sensibly at that. I therefore interpolated the presence of mental chatter
in
> >your head from the evidence of your post. "This is fruitless mental
chatter"
> >was referring to said mental chatter, not to your post. I assumed that
using
> >the words "mental chatter" explicitly would have made that clear.
> >
>
> So if you don't understand what I say, it's 'mental chatter' in my
> head?
Clinging to your babble is just creating more chatter in your head.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Erwin Hessle" <equin...@btinternet.com> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3b82e139...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> Besides that
>> I'm saying anything at all? Why exactly do you think I am 'attached
>> to them' in some way?
>
>It's all "me, me, me" with you, isn't it? I said:
>
>'Attachment to the ideas in your head is one of the "personal interests" BR
>was talking about. '
>
>Note that I specifically avoided saying "you are attached to the ideas in
>your head".
>
I see where I went wrong. For some strange reason, I got the weird
impression that a response to something I said was probably related to
what I said. Guess it was all downhill from there.
>>
>> So if you don't understand what I say, it's 'mental chatter' in my
>> head?
>
>Clinging to your babble is just creating more chatter in your head.
I thank you for your kind and patient guidance.
I can only be grateful to have somebody available who understands what
I'm saying more than I do. Otherwise I might labor under the illusion
that I was actually thinking something, when indeed it's just babble,
as is so clear to you.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I've had this hammer 20 years.
I've replaced the handle three times and the head twice.
Blue Rajah
>
> And not even that, but the experience of feeling
The feeling of having feelings is a feeling, too.
> >You're using too many words.
>
> To describe the road, or the end of the road?
The road is itself a description.
k...@springhaven.org
>>creating a barrier for yourself. Attachment to the ideas in your head
>>is one of the "personal interests" BR was talking about. People are often
>>more interested in their ideas of things than in the things themselves.
>But that's what I'm saying.
>Anything which anyone says about the subject shouldn't be said.
>That's all you're really saying.
not really.
>Why exactly do you think I am 'building up opinions'? Besides that
>I'm saying anything at all? Why exactly do you think I am 'attached
>to them' in some way?
i don't know why erwin might, but think of it this way: if
you are told to let go of something (like an idea or thought or
word or like talking as much as you do) and you don't want
to let go or if you react poorly, then you are prolly attached.
also, you responded to something you heard in erwin's words,
and not to what erwin said.
>>> While I agree that chatter is chatter, I was saying something
>>> meaningful.
>>I don't agree. It sounded like particularly meaningless babble to me,
>>all "i think this" and "i think the opposite" and "it is all which is
>>not the consciousness of the magician". As far as I could see there was
>>little in the way of use,
>I agree completely that what I said wasn't useful as pragmatic
>instruction or helpful in reaching an experience. I didn't say it
>was.
hush.
>>or coherence, or communication in any of it. It sounded like
>>you were just taking the opportunity to think out loud, and not
>>very sensibly at that. I therefore interpolated the presence of
>>mental chatter in your head from the evidence of your post. "This
>>is fruitless mental chatter" was referring to said mental chatter,
>>not to your post. I assumed that using the words "mental chatter"
>>explicitly would have made that clear.
>So if you don't understand what I say, it's 'mental chatter' in my
>head?
lack of clarity often comes from the same place, mental chatter.
but it expresses itself in many way. often it comes across in
the perception that one understands what is being said, even if
one doesn't. the mental chatter fills in the lack of understanding.
and then the mental chatter manifests as words that demonstrate
that lack of understanding. the other thing the demonstrates
mental chatter is the inability of one to hear what is being
said.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Blue Rajah
"hybiscus" <hybi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B82E1FC...@home.com...
>
> what if your personal interest was a common interest attached
> to some greater whole? Wouldn't that then be losing your overall
> HGA goal?
So long as you maintain your personal interests, no matter of they are "for
the greater whole" or not, they distract one from the Knowledge and
Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
It's those personal attachments that form the Veil of Paroketh, also called
the Veil of Illusions. Tear the veil from top to bottom.
Joe Cosby
thunder crashed, k...@springhaven.org laughed madly, then wrote:
>i don't know why erwin might, but think of it this way: if
>you are told to let go of something (like an idea or thought or
>word or like talking as much as you do) and you don't want
>to let go or if you react poorly, then you are prolly attached.
>
No, you're wrong.
Completely.
And if you disagree, it's only because you're attached to what you're
saying.
In fact, all that you're saying is nothing but your mental chatter.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Bummelanten vereinigen!