TarotL, CoE and Euthanasia
SOD of the CoE
hi Jess,
nagasiva (R. bobo):
#> ...that kind of transparency is not always so
#> easily acquired.
Jess:
# You didn't sound very happy about the
# transparency a week or so ago,
it was the duplicity i found objectionable.
there was no question of transparency.
# ...the little rabbits on TarotL found out
# about your dark (sui)side
your ruse availed you not. had i been concerned
i would not have posted those URLs in my sigblock
during my discussions about the Devil and Tower,
for which they were excellently topical. :)
# So, did you and your wife assist this dolt's
# contribution to your Great Work?
they were assisted in a friendly manner
by helpful people with knowledge of magic.
# ...If the clerics of your faith help the
# aspirant kill themselves by stabbing
# them 25 times (or whatever),
saint Kevorkian wound up in prison for less
interactive methods (130 chosen deaths before
incarcerated, now he's about to die in prison).
# does that methodology corrupt the suicide
lack of competency, planning and grace
corrupts euthanasia. competency requires
non-coercive conditions.
# And like you told me, encouraging as many
# people to kill themselves as you can "is
# healthy and likely to lead to euthanasia
# (good death(s))."
self-empowerment is beneficial in matters
of life *and* death, yes.
# ....if you think death is healthy....
there are levels of consideration (species comparisons,
carrying capacity, and organism/ecosystem mesh).
death is of course never healthy for the organism.
that's a rudimentary distinction we weren't
considering, blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
"Ninth Scholar"'s Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
Feel free to send my words in this thread *anywhere* with attribution :)
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: http://ec.princeton.edu/ 1-800-584-9911
SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF!
taro...@jktarot.com
> 50060821 X! om -- SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF!
> hi Jess,
Hi Suicider. So, how come you and Cat haven't saved the planet?
>> nagasiva (R. bobo):
> > ...that kind of transparency is not always so
> > easily acquired.
> > You didn't sound very happy about the
> > transparency a week or so ago,
> it was the duplicity i found objectionable.
You mean your own? Well, then you shouldn't have found it objectionable
to have it revealed. But you whined like some child being forced to
save the planet.
> there was no question of transparency.
Not after the links were posted to TarotL that revealed you to be a
suicide-promoting Satanist, no.
Things got pretty transparent after that. But then I didn't post those
links. Michael Hurst did.
> >...the little rabbits on TarotL found out about your dark (sui)side
> your ruse availed you not.
What ruse are you talking about?
It wasn't about availing, but unveiling.
> had i been concerned i would not have posted those URLs in my sigblock---
You did that for kicks. But it was safe. You know nobody reads your
stupid postings, and especially not your dumb sigshit.
If you hadn't been concerned, you would have answered Michael's
questions to you in a forthright manner.
"Nagasiva: Professional use of Tarot in promoting suicide"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TarotL/message/50381
In fact, let's take a look at Michael's posting to you, the one which
so upset you---and certainly readers on TarotL who woke up to what you
are all about:
-------
Nagasiva: Professional use of Tarot in promoting suicide
Thu Aug 3, 2006 5:33 pm
Message #50381 of 50635
Hi, Nagasiva,
We've recently had some interesting posts from Brian about his use of
Tarot in clinical hypnotherapy. I was wondering if you could tell us
about the use of Tarot in your capacity as SOD of CoE. A little over a
year ago you wrote several posts with the following signature tag:
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
Ninth Scholar's Library (Satanism Archive):
http://www.satanservice.org/
There are some interesting topics associated with those pages, and also
an article in the Preston Evening Post, December 17, 2004. (FYI,
Preston is a city in Lancashire, U.K.)
Post exposes suicide web designer
This is the Internet Satanist who believes he is saving the world by
encouraging people to commit suicide.
http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1789&ArticleID=906834
Another interesting page, apparently created in your capacity as
Satanic Outreach Director for the Church of Euthanasia is the
pro-suicide FAQ.
Encouraging Suicide -- FAQ
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/suicide/yes/
So I was wondering if you could tell us about any particular value
Tarot might have in promoting suicide or, more generally, in promoting
the Four Pillars of the Church: Sodomy, Abortion, Suicide, and
Cannibalism.
boboroshi, SOD of the CoE
http://dmoz.org/profiles/boboroshi.html
Best regards,
Michael
----------------
Nagasiva's rambling nonresponse:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TarotL/message/50391
Note, he "redirects" Michael's plain and pointed question, because
Nagasiva doesn't wish to answer it.
The thing is, Suicider, if you want everybody dead, which you say you
do, then shouldn't people be reasonably concerned you would use that
mission as a justification to shade any "readings" you make of Tarot or
any other divinatory tool to aid that objective?
You know, part of the outrage that was directed at you, especially at
the notion that you were a moderator on TarotL, and thus a public
representative of what that group stands for, is that "eccentrics" or
frauds already cause the general public to disparage Tarot and the
people who professionally practice it.
Finding out Tarot is being wielded by a psychopath who wants humanity
to off itself for his pleasure and profit and his service to Satan,
doesn't exactly mend that wound. And finding out that person was in
charge of TarotL did concern a lot of people.
We might consider the argument that at least you are not fraudulent or
duplicitous, given your public declaration of your designs, except you
are so very selective in who gets to know what part of your activities.
You use a host of pseudonyms to cover your tracks, and then complain
about a lack of "transparency" when others do the same thing. Also, you
think it is a betterment of the world if everybody else kills
themselves, but you and your wife haven't seen a reason to show the
world the way to this salvation.
When asked about this, why YOU were still alive, you said: "I have
considered killing myself but I feel I have a role to do in promoting
suicide."
A role missioned to you by Satan. Conveniently pious.
Now, you're still a member of Ordo Templi Orientis, correct?
And you have in the past argued for a Satanic interpretation of
Crowley's teachings, and that Aleister Crowley was in fact a Satanist.
So, if Satan is guiding or inspiring your work, would you say this work
is consistent with a Thelemic ethic? If so, upon which ideas of
Crowley's would you base this?
Recall Crowley called suicide "putrefaction in its lowest form."
Echoing this idea, and pointing to one abject Englishman, he noted an
attempted suicide as a symptom of "his rottenness".
And then this:
"Less than a year later, I heard that he swallowed a bottle of
poison---not even a decent poison, such as a self-respecting suicide
might be expected to use. I forget the precise ingredients. I think it
was some sort of disinfectant, such as is sold without restriction
because legislatures had failed to imagine anyone asinine or abject
enough to make it a beverage."
And of course: "I would not stand by and see [Rose, Crowley's first
wife] commit suicide."
But you wouldn't merely stand by, but would promote and orchestrate the
coup de haine.
> > So, did you and your wife assist this dolt's contribution to your Great Work?
See: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/a92ad67aba500669
Also: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/18/voodoo.killer.ap/
Nagasiva Yronwode reveals:
> they were assisted---
"they"?
One perp, unless you're claiming to know otherwise, or credit as his
co-perp.
> in a friendly manner by helpful people with knowledge of magic.
Or did you mean to say Carrenard gave "friendly" assistance to his
victims by murdering them?
In any case, did you and/or your wife sell or otherwise provide any
assistance to Pierre Carrenard?
> >...If the clerics of your faith help the aspirant kill themselves by stabbing
> > them 25 times (or whatever),
> saint Kevorkian wound up in prison for less interactive methods---
The last one was a televised execution, quite interactive, and got the
"saint" 10 to 25 years, or as it seems, life.
Is that the sainthood you aspire to?
> (130 chosen deaths before incarcerated, now he's about to die in prison).
So?
> > does that methodology corrupt the suicide
> lack of competency, planning and grace corrupts euthanasia. competency requires
> non-coercive conditions.
Kevorkian's view of non-coercive was not to have the victim kill
himself, but to render that duty to Kevorkian, as the killer. His
enthusiasm for the work was quite convincing to the jury that convicted
him, an outcome he seems to have wanted.
Your object is not a style, a "good" death, but an outcome---the death
of humanity---or as many of them as you can talk into killing
themselves, which encouraged and facilitated self-slaughter you see as
the good.
But isn't "suicide" just another one of your sockpuppets? You know, for
Mr. Mass Murder?
> > And like you told me, encouraging as many people to kill themselves as you can "is
> > healthy and likely to lead to euthanasia (good death(s))."
> self-empowerment is beneficial in matters of life *and* death, yes.
Dead people don't have any power.
On the other hand, Death Eaters can have a lot of power when they tell
depressed and vulnerable people it is their duty to die.
Like Jim Jones said, while handing out the cynanide-koolaid to
children: "This is a revolutionary suicide. This is not a self
destructive suicide."
And, let's see, oh yeah, you have said about YOUR passion: "But what
about the sensualist-death cults? You see, that is what I, in my queer
CoE [Church of Euthanasia] involvement, want to see more of: consensual
human sacrifice, necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, perhaps
combining all of these things in a religious ritual."
See: http://www.satanservice.org/coe/suicide/guide/
Could be quite "revolutionary", huh? But healthy?
> > ....if you think death is healthy....
> there are levels of consideration---
Your motto:
"SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF!"
What levels are explicit in that commandment?
> death is of course never healthy for the organism.
And, by extension, neither for a species of those commanded to die.
So what you meant was healthy for the Satanic planet, post-humanitas.
Or A Better Earth through the extermination of humanity.
> that's a rudimentary distinction---
It would be a revealingly fundamental distinction to most people. I
think you will find they will happily and enthusiastically distinguish
your plan for them from anything they want for themselves or their
children.
And they will oppose you. Vigorously, I suspect.
(jk)
************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
jktarot.com Site Map:
http://jktarot.com/sitemap.html
************************************
Joseph Littleshoes
> SOD of the CoE [AKA Nagasiva Yronwode, boboroshi, etc.] wrote:
>
>
>>50060821 X! om -- SAVE THE PLANET, KILL YOURSELF!
>
>
>>hi Jess,
>
>
> Hi Suicider. So, how come you and Cat haven't saved the planet?
I suppose inconsistency is to be expected of the kkkarlin. I have lost
count of how many times he has urged me to commit suicide as a public
service.
---
JL
Bassos
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:733c$44ebc197$42359c4b$28...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
You have your attributions messed up.
jk
> I suppose inconsistency is to be expected of the kkkarlin. I have lost
> count of how many times he has urged me to commit suicide as a public
> service.
That count would be exactly zero.
I have encouraged you to do the Golden Gate Test, which is intended to
provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of your dogma
that "There is no truth". You have of course declined since your dogma
is a lie and you know it.
As noted earlier this week, Margaret Young created that test for you,
and she was adamantly opposed to suicide. In other words, she also knew
you were a liar and a coward.
Now, if you suddenly develop the testicular delusion to go take a whack
at it, well there is always natural selection to consider. But that is
a different issue, and certainly nobody will have preached to you that
it was your duty as a human being to be a fool.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>I suppose inconsistency is to be expected of the kkkarlin. I have lost
>>count of how many times he has urged me to commit suicide as a public
>>service.
>
>
> That count would be exactly zero.
Your semantic wiggles aside here is a quote from you about your "test"
"By the way, did you hear they are working on jump-proofing the Golden
Gate? Have you been lobbying them? Or is it that your predecessors in
the test have failed (or rather succeeded backwards) so consistently?
Anyway, it seems as though it may very well soon be too late for you, at
least to use the Golden Gate. (jk)"
>
> I have encouraged you to do the Golden Gate Test,
Read "jump off of"
which is intended to
> provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of your dogma
> that "There is no truth". You have of course declined since your dogma
> is a lie and you know it.
You conveniently read my response to your original accusation of me
being a liar and you possessing the "Truth" of the tarot the way you
want to in order to cater to your own prejudice, you know perfectly well
i was referring to what you claimed is the "Truth" of the tarot. But
even putting that aside for the nonce, even so called scientific "Truth"
is conditional and relative.
>
> As noted earlier this week, Margaret Young created that test for you,
> and she was adamantly opposed to suicide. In other words, she also knew
> you were a liar and a coward.
If you ever pull your head our of your ass long enough to to stop
adoring it, you might possibly see that everything i have written in
response to you is legitimate speculation regarding the propaganda of
dogmatic "Truth" you so adamantly adhere to.
I disagree with your opinion upon the nature of "Truth" why you take
this as a personal insult to you and an indictment of not only my
intelligence but every one else of all the people i have cited in
reference to support my assertion is rather obvious, you cant handle the
idea that you might not have everything locked up neat and tidy, that
your idea of "Truth" is just an opinion and no more demonstrable than
your accusations regarding people personal integrity or lack thereof.
>
> Now, if you suddenly develop the testicular delusion to go take a whack
> at it, well there is always natural selection to consider. But that is
> a different issue, and certainly nobody will have preached to you that
> it was your duty as a human being to be a fool.
If anybody around here is a "wind bag".....
---
JL
>
> (jk)
>
SOD of the CoE
hi Jess,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TarotL/message/50391
yes, i liked this post, and it is topical here, so i'll
reproduce from where it becomes pertinent:
...the subject of Tarot's usage in professional activities
is a good one ...and so i'll address it at length here,
perhaps to spark relevant discussion. Tarot is extremely
valuable to me in what i regard as my profession, and so
this will be a sort of summary of my usage to date on
account of this. typically where the intersection occurs
i merely provide orienting data to the TarotL readership,
but your query is wide-ranging and so the summary seems
more appropriate....
1) my profession is monk. my religio-political activities
as a Satanist are an outgrowth of my voluntary service
to Satan as a charitable endeavour. my spirituality
inspires this, which is a dedication wholly and utterly
to Kali Ma, Queen of Demons, prefacing all of it.
in my profession as a monk, Tarot functions VERY
well as a means by which i can orient to the cosmos
and my God. I like using oracles very much and have
been using a variety of divinatory methods to keep
this orientation strong.
reflectively-derived, consultation with Tarot
and a few other cartomantic decks, Yijing
(aka I Ching/Yi King/I King) especially within
the context of the expression of Master Huang's
translation of the Classic, Runes or other cast
objects in configuration, have been very helpful.
the relationship between games and divination has
always been compelling to me, and for this reason
i've created several game-divination sets for use
with conventional divinatory systems. I noticed
for example, the obvious numerical resonance
between the following 3 items:
* -- Hermetic Magic Square of Mercury
a board of 64 squares containing
numbers constructed so as to add
in all rows, columns, and main
diagonals to the same number.
* -- the Yi Ching and its 64 hexagrams
which are often numbered and
sometimes (as with Shao Yang)
set into square configuration.
* -- the game of Chess and its board
effectively the same as above but
without any numbers in the
64 individual squares.
I combined these into a divinatory oracle which
might bear some relation to ancient Chinese
oracle(s) from which Chess (or Xiquang, aka
Chinese Chess) may have derived. I studied the
Enochian Chess oracle-divination game created
by Mathers and Regardie and used this from the
basis of Four Seasons Chess to create the
Chess Divination Oracle, analyzing the finished
board in terms of elementary assignments to the
quartes and significance to the Chess pieces. [1]
another example was the Monopoly Oracle game
that i created, matching up its elements to
the sefirotic trees (there's 22 properties!).
its original spiritual instructive character
gave me additional reasons to fashion this.
I have not published this or explained any of
its details to the wide wonderful world.
it was natural, in learning more about the game
backdrop to Tarot, that i was intrigued and
excited about this. I'd been using the Harris-
Crowley 'Thoth' deck for years, gradually
'complementing' this with use of the Slinger-
Douglas 'Secret Dakini Oracle' deck for more
positive balance. as i learned more and more
about the way that Tarot was used in magical
pursuits, i set about the construction of a
completely new Tarot utilizing the imagery
of the past, tweaked at points by my newly-
acquired graphics skills on computers and its
novel technology. I set it upon a foundation
of a new sefirotic tree i'd derived in vision
through years of mediation on the matter, and
i understood this as from a different cosmologic
schema than presumed by the Lurianic mages and
mystics involved in the construction of modern
occult decks (emphasis on the Pythagorean).
not only did i discover a novel symbol-series
of Planetary character (one of only 3 possibles
and the other 2 are used extensively in magical
and conventional tradition, the third never
derived except by me, to my knowledge -- which i
called 'The Nigris Sequence', naturally enough) [2]
during this construction, but i understood the
implications of its craft and found therein its
proper name -- 'Plebeian', setting into place very
*conventional* symbolic and sequential elements.
my aim has been to make something truly universal,
or at least *potentially transformable by the
interested mage into a helpful universal Tarot
system*. this centers on the English language,
ordinal numbers 1-26, known Planets as i've been
instructed as to their names/positions from Sol
outward (astronomical rather than astrological),
simplifying and refining away from feudal
standards the contents of the card names/images.
it has as its interest the refocus on PERSONAL
Oracle construction after such figures as Case
and others who at least had people colouring
their new cards as they were being instructed.
beyond this wonderful developing project, which
has the potential to revolutionize Tarot and all
of magic and divination, there have been several
incidents for which Tarot has functioned as an
important catalyst in my magical career and
mystical development, some of which i mention
in the text below. :)
2) the only cross-over that i can imagine pertain to
Satanism specifically, beyond the "Devil's Picture
Book" reference and my understanding that magic and
the occult allow individuals to tap into their 'wild'
or intuitive side through its usage (and therefore
to connect with the Devil as SHe is the wild nature
within and without us all, demonized by conservatives)
is the DEVIL card, often XV, in the Plebeian
FOE-P-CAPRICORN. [3]
TarotL has had numerous references to this card for a
variety of reasons, including its use in magic early
on and my own experiences with it in association with
the World Trade Center incident (now referred to in a
strangely symbolic manner as '9-11'). [4]
3) my general activities for which i volunteer or am
paid include assisting in running an occult shop,
Lucky Mojo Curio Company, in which we sell numerous
card decks, including Tarots (and a variety of non-
Tarot cartomancy decks of oldstyle tradition such as
the LeNormand and Salon Oracle). the sales don't
really constitute a 'use', in the sense which you
probably meant, and i can't think of anything else
that would be pertinent except the occasional
referral we may give for Tarot readers for someone
that wants such a reading prior to or in association
with contractual magic work.
what is YOUR profession? how does Tarot function
for you as an assist to your career? :)
====================================================
NOTES
1 -- see The Classic of Magick Squares:
Research on I Ching and Magick Squares
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/dozen/clmgksqrs.tn
and Magic Squares: Arcane Speculation on
Mathematical Objects in Series
http://luckymojo.com/avidyana/plebe/magicsquares.txt
2 -- here is The Nigris Sequence along with the other 2:
===========================================================
===== (Planetary Order Talisman --- Skip-1 Formula!) =====
ANCIENTS : M-2-3-1-5-6-7 (mean terracentric motion order)
NIGRIS : 2-1-6-M-3-5-7 (a mysterious, hidden sequence!)
WEEKDAYS : 1-M-5-2-6-3-7 (weekdays in the solar calendar)
===========================================================
PLAN-KEY : 1-2-3-M-5-6-7 (Sun-Merc-Ven-Moon-Mars-Jup-Sat)
========== (Rotating Wisdom From The Ancients!) ===========
===========================================================
3 -- The Plebeian Tree
http://luckymojo.com/avidyana/graphics/tarotreektys.gif
4 -- Runnin' With the Devil! WTF (What the Fuck?) 666
http://luckymojo.com/avidyana/shaitan/wtf.666
5 -- Ibid. http://luckymojo.com/avidyana/graphics/tarotreektys.gif
END
> ...you would use that mission as a justification to
> shade any "readings" you make of Tarot or any other
> divinatory tool to aid that objective?
not really, no. all the same, most of my divination is
done for myself, reflection of the present circumstance.
occasionally
> ..."eccentrics" or frauds already cause the general
> public to disparage Tarot and the people who
> professionally practice it....
that's a contributing factor, but there is a hefty
antagonism against all things occult in part due
to religious and secular instruction prejudicing
against it (competition, superstition-claims).
> Now, you're still a member of Ordo Templi Orientis,
> correct?
in good standing. got a newsletter from Thelema Lodge
recently confirming this. it was great to hear from
them again.
> And you have in the past argued for a Satanic
> interpretation of Crowley's teachings, and
> that Aleister Crowley was in fact a Satanist.
there is no special interpretation of Crowley that
is required to see his de facto Satanist status.
> So, if Satan is guiding or inspiring your work,
> would you say this work is consistent with a
> Thelemic ethic? ....
of course, as it provides self-empowerment and
individualistic genius. Crowley wasn't a very
consistent example of Thelema.
>> they were assisted in a friendly manner by
>> helpful people with knowledge of magic.
the person in this thread, silly.
>>>...If the clerics of your faith help the aspirant
>>> kill themselves by stabbing them 25 times (or
>>> whatever),
>>
>> saint Kevorkian wound up in prison for less
>> interactive methods---
>
> The last one was a televised execution,
indeed.
> quite interactive,
no, he wasn't stabbing people 25 times, silly.
> and got the "saint" 10 to 25 years, or as it
> seems, life.
sadly true. he's ahead of his time.
> Is that the sainthood you aspire to?
no, i'm not becoming a doctor and wouldn't take
that kind of action without being one. ;) all
the same, he was right in what he was doing.
thanks, blessed beast!
boboroshi at-sign satanservice.org: Satanic Outreach Director
Church of Euthanasia: http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
TOKUS WEBLINKS: http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
"Ninth Scholar"'s Library (Satanism Archive): http://www.satanservice.org/
Feel free to send my words in this thread *anywhere* with attribution :)
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: http://ec.princeton.edu/ 1-800-584-9911
nagasiva
> occasionally
occasionally i've done readings including others,
but these were primarily instructive readings in
which i helped another person read for themself. :)
nagasiva
luckymojo.com@
jk
> > That count would be exactly zero.
> Your semantic wiggles aside here is a quote from you about your "test"
It's a test which should only be threatening to you if you fear failing
it with respect to your claim "there is no truth".
> Anyway, it seems as though it may very well soon be too late for you, at
> least to use the Golden Gate. (jk)"
For the test of your premise that there is no truth.
> > I have encouraged you to do the Golden Gate Test,
> Read "jump off of"
Unless you are admitting the truth of gravity, "jump off of" isn't
necessarily "jump down from to a watery end". As noted earlier, your
considerable hot air might afford you the ability to float over the
whole enterprise, thus not requiring any jump at all.
But that's of course a metaphor, and the test is a real opportunity.
> > You have of course declined since your dogma
> > is a lie and you know it.
> You conveniently read my response to your original accusation of me
> being a liar---
Aren't you a liar?
> and you possessing the "Truth" of the tarot the way you
> want to in order to cater to your own prejudice, you know perfectly well
> i was referring to what you claimed is the "Truth" of the tarot.
Joey, what I know is that you cannot write a coherent English sentence
to save your life.
If all you meant was there was no "Truth of the tarot", which would
invite some useful questions you could not answer, why would Margaret
devise the Golden Gate test for you?
As noted, she certainly would not have been encouraging you to commit
suicide. She would have been encouraging you to either act on your
claim, or admit its falsehood. It's taken a while, but it seems in this
post you finally accomplish the latter mission. Congratulations on your
breakthrough.
But, you're still a liar.
> But even putting that aside for the nonce, even so called scientific "Truth"
> is conditional and relative.
So, you're saying if you take the test, it is like shooting craps, or
turning the roulette wheel? Gravity might be working, gravity might not
be working?
Then do it with a net. 1000 times. Let's see how conditional and
relative it is.
You live in a little box of lies called "I don't have to do it just
because you say so."
It's not because I say so. It's just how things are. There are truths,
You claimed otherwise. You were wrong.
And you know that it is the truth.
> > As noted earlier this week, Margaret Young created that test for you,
> > and she was adamantly opposed to suicide. In other words, she also knew
> > you were a liar and a coward.
> If you ever pull your head our of your ass long enough to to stop
> adoring it, you might possibly see that everything i have written in
> response to you is legitimate speculation---
Your many claims, falsely accusing me of having plagiarized other
people's work, are neither legitimate or speculative, but slander on
your part.
> regarding the propaganda of dogmatic "Truth" you so adamantly adhere to.
What dogmatic "Truth" do I adamantly adhere to?
Be specific.
Again, if the dispute was merely cartotopical, Margaret would not have
devised the test for you.
> I disagree with your opinion upon the nature of "Truth"
What is my opinion upon the nature of "Truth"?
> why you take this as a personal insult to you---
You're projecting there. You came into this game expecting something
you clearly did not merit---automatic respect for your very
questionable opinions. When you did not receive that, and you did not
receive it from most people, it upset you.
On the other hand, you have been slandering me for years. That part of
your "work" does seem personally insulting.
> and an indictment of not only my intelligence but every one else of all the
> people i have cited in reference to support my assertion---
Who would that be?
You have a history of having been challenged on numerous assertions you
make.
You have a history of ignoring those challenges.
You have a history of then falsely claiming to have met them.
Those histories do erode your credibility.
> is rather obvious, you cant handle the
> idea that you might not have everything locked up neat and tidy, that
> your idea of "Truth" is just an opinion---
Regarding what specifically?
You are a liar. That is a fact.
Nagasiva is a suicide-promoting Satanist.
That is a fact, which he affirms.
And Tarot is about something, and not all opinions about it are
knowledgeable or true.
Oh, and there is that rule called gravity concerning massive things.
> and no more demonstrable than your accusations regarding people personal integrity or
> lack thereof.
So, in your opinion, is Nagasiva's plan to have humanity kill itself a
worthy goal?
Is it one you support?
> > Now, if you suddenly develop the testicular delusion to go take a whack
> > at it, well there is always natural selection to consider. But that is
> > a different issue, and certainly nobody will have preached to you that
> > it was your duty as a human being to be a fool.
> If anybody around here is a "wind bag".....
That would be a number of people; you and Min and Nagasiva come to mind
most readily as pufferfish of folly.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>is conditional and relative.
>
>
> So, you're saying if you take the test, it is like shooting craps, or
> turning the roulette wheel? Gravity might be working, gravity might not
> be working?
A week ago science taught that Pluto was a planet, to day science says
it is not. What was "True" a week ago is not "True" today.
We have been around this argument before, i have my opinion of "Truth"
you have your opinion of me, i don't care to discuss your subjective
opinions of me, and you don't care to discuss the concept of "Truth" so
be it. Nothing is served by your insults to me or my attempt to reason
with you.
What's the tag from Tacitus? "Capax imporii nisi imperasset" modifying
and applying this to yourself, had you never spoke no one would have
questioned your intelligence.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
Thank you for your contribution Hiero, but please recall that this all
started with kkkarlins claim of possessing the "Truth" of the tarot.
Since then, my statement regarding the nature of this particular
assertion has, by kkkarlins & his ilk & myrmidons, become wrapped up in
a discussion of science, this is merely kkkarlins way of obsfucating the
discussion and trying to wiggle out of an untenable position he was
foolish enough to get himself into, it is, IMO more indicative of his
own hubris than anything else.
---
JL
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>even so called scientific "Truth" is conditional and relative.
>
>
> "It should be made clear from the onset that the sort of truth we are
> talking about in this discussion is not some sort of idealized dogmatic
> or universal truth of the type sometimes promoted by religious or
> political zealots. While truth is an extremely valuable concept, things
> are usually not totally true or totally false, and we may or may not be
> able to judge the truth of a statement with much confidence. Still,
> some things are very true and others are very false, and it is often
> important that we can make good judgments about which is which and when
> we don't know."
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/nature.htm
>
>
>>I disagree with your opinion upon the nature of "Truth"
>
>
> "For the truth of a statement to be meaningful, it should be predictive
> in some way. If we say the football games starts at 1:00, that implies
> that witnesses in the appropriate place will observe a football game
> going on shortly after 1:00 but not before 1:00. If a statement doesn't
> predict anything, it is hard to imagine how the statement could be of
> any use to us."
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/nature.htm
>
>
>>your idea of "Truth" is just an opinion
>
>
> "Unfortunately there is a tradition that experts in an area like music
> sometimes regard their own preferences as a "truth" that one thing is
> better than another, and those of us who are not experts may believe
> them because we feel unqualified to question their opinions. In modern
> times some might challenge such arbitrary choices by saying "It is true
> for you that Pavarotti is better but it is true for me that Elton John
> is better." This leads to the idea that there are different "truths"
> for different people. This might be fine for evaluating artists, but it
> gets us into big trouble when talk about the conservation of energy or
> when the football game starts or whether there is a cement truck
> heading toward our car at high speed."
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/nature.htm
>
> -hi-
>
jk
> A week ago science taught that Pluto was a planet, to day science says
> it is not.
That is a misleading representation, which we should expect from a
person who demonstrates a considerable hostility to science and its
implications.
In fact, Pluto's planetary stature has been in question by scientists
since the time of its discovery. The reason it was allowed in is
because the definition of "planet" had not been rigorously attempted
before today---that is it had not been formally accepted by a consensus
of astronomers.
Now, that has changed. And Pluto has been demoted to a dwarf.
That isn't a problem for science and its truth, but it certainly is one
for astrology and its alleged truths.
As I wrote on Tarotica:
"After all, if Pluto isn't REALLY a planet, but a dwarf version of a
planet, with insufficient "orbital dominance" to qualify in the big
leagues, what does that say about Scorpio and its natives?Does that
lack of dominance, and size, and let's face it respect, make them all
dark and vengeful and wormtonguey? Is it that basic lack of acceptance
that makes them so alienated from others they go on jihads of
retribution against the whole human race?"
Nagasiva is a Scorpio.
Cat once pointed out: "He comes from a long line of postal inspectors
and book-keepers."
So, likely to go postal or enron.
> What was "True" a week ago is not "True" today.
Well, one thing that was true a week ago, is still true today.
You're an idiot.
> What's the tag from Tacitus?
"Joseph is a YAMhead"---in Latin of course.
FragileWarrior
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> A week ago science taught that Pluto was a planet, to day science says
>> it is not.
Whoohooo. I can't wait until they discover hot fudge and deep fat frying
are weight loss tools!
cheyne
On 24-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> jk wrote:
> > Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> >
> >> But even putting that aside for the nonce, even so called scientific "Truth"
> >> is conditional and relative.
Explain that please.
> > So, you're saying if you take the test, it is like shooting craps, or
> > turning the roulette wheel? Gravity might be working, gravity might not
> > be working?
>
> A week ago science taught that Pluto was a planet, to day science says
> it is not. What was "True" a week ago is not "True" today.
Back in those early days when you were expounding
your "thesis" concerning truth, you had a history of
not using capital letters correctly. That's true, isn't it?
I find it just a little ironic therefore that now you've
manoeuvered to the fore this distinction between
"truth" and "Truth" in support of your argument.
Either way, I don't think it makes much difference
(in terms of your argument), but then, you haven't
made much of an effort to explain why it would.
Also, you didn't answer the simple question that
was put to you, so let's try again:
If you would jump from the Golden Gate bridge,
and if you would be able to repeat that experiment
many times over, then in each and every case, you
would fall down, and for the simple reason that that is
the way gravity works, and this is true -- isn't it?
You know Joe, your anti-truth crusade is more
than just a little tired, and it never was much more
than just a solipsistic mantra more befitting a confused
adolescent. Most of us are aware that our
understanding is constrained by certain limits,
like the mechanisms of our senses, or the size and
functionality of our brains. For others there are
self-imposed constraints too. But whatever the
limitations of our tools to reach or to express the truth,
they do not diminish the reality of what that truth is.
We're still trying to reach SOMETHING. What you
call "opinion", is rather a measure of the fact that
we all stand in different aspect and distance with
respect to the truth, because our limitations are
not exactly equal, and some people make more of
an honest enquiry than others to establish facts.
The Golden Gate test was put to you not to
precipitate your demise, but because the Golden
Gate truth is idiot proof, as proved by you.
cheyne
Erwin Hessle
> The Golden Gate test was put to you not to
> precipitate your demise, but because the Golden
> Gate truth is idiot proof, as proved by you.
Purely in the interests of science, try it on Archie.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Asiya
Not surprisingly, your post is full of lies. Way back in 2000 in
alt.tarot, you were posting things like:
"Well finaly margey, you actually saaid somthing i can agree with,
about myself, "solipsistic" yes oh very deffinatly yes if you mean by
that "the theory that only the self exists or can be proven to exist"
to ones self. im not so shure itss not all an illusion, my awarness of
my self that is."
And: "man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers even
his idea of his limitations is based on experience of the past, and
every step in his progress extends his empire. there is therefore no
reason to assign theoretical limits (except-posssibly-in the case of
logically absurd questionss, such as adolescents discuse in connection
with "God")to what he may be or to what he may do."
And that eventually led Margaret to post: "And if there is no objective
truth, fly, unaided, off the Golden Gate Bridge. Gravity, after all, is
only a theory."
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Joseph Littleshoes
> The Golden Gate test was put to you not to
> precipitate your demise, but because the Golden
> Gate truth is idiot proof, as proved by you.
>
> cheyne
>
The original statement concerned the "Truth" of Tarot. When and if you
can get back to the original assertion i would be happy to discuss it.
Until then the attempt to confuse the argument is of no interest to me.
Now read that through your own filters and call me what ever you will,
that also is of no interest to me.
If kkkarlin had taken the time to defend his position on the "Truth" of
the Tarot instead of trying to demean a disagreement with his position
we would not be having this conversation.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
We were discussing "Truth" not gravity.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
>
>
> Not surprisingly, your post is full of lies. Way back in 2000 in
> alt.tarot, you were posting things like:
>
Are you and your ilk ever going to develop the refined sensibility that
can discriminate between your conception of 'lies' and an 'opinion'?
given your posting history i am not optimistic.
> "Well finaly margey, you actually said somthing i can agree with, about
> myself, "solipsistic" yes oh very deffinatly yes if you mean by that
> "the theory that only the self exists or can be proven to exist" to ones
> self. im not so shure its not all an illusion, my awarness of my self
> that is."
>
> And: "man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers even his
> idea of his limitations is based on experience of the past, and every
> step in his progress extends his empire. there is therefore no reason to
> assign theoretical limits (except-posssibly-in the case of logically
> absurd questionss, such as adolescents discuse in connection with
> "God")to what he may be or to what he may do."
>
> And that eventually led Margaret to post: "And if there is no objective
> truth, fly, unaided, off the Golden Gate Bridge. Gravity, after all, is
> only a theory."
How do you get from a discussion of knowledge of self to a challenge to
gravity? Ordinarily i would credit you with a tad more intelligence,
but if your going to attempt to perpetuate the kkkarlins & "Margrets"
absurdity...
---
JL
>
>
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>A week ago science taught that Pluto was a planet, to day science says
>>it is not.
>
>
> That is a misleading representation, which we should expect from a
> person who demonstrates a considerable hostility to science and its
> implications.
Tsk...im starting to think you actually believe you absurd assumptions
about moi.
>
> In fact, Pluto's planetary stature has been in question by scientists
> since the time of its discovery. The reason it was allowed in is
> because the definition of "planet" had not been rigorously attempted
> before today---that is it had not been formally accepted by a consensus
> of astronomers.
>
> Now, that has changed. And Pluto has been demoted to a dwarf.
Yeah, they voted on it, really great way to determine "Truth" lets vote
on it.
Lets put kkkarlin on the ballot, i vote he don't exist. Polls to close
in 1 week, film at 11. Depending on 'consensus' the "Truth" of
kkkarlins existence will be determined by a simple majority vote.
---
JL
cheyne
On 25-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> cheyne wrote:
>
> > The Golden Gate test was put to you not to
> > precipitate your demise, but because the Golden
> > Gate truth is idiot proof, as proved by you.
>
> The original statement concerned the "Truth" of Tarot.
Joe, from what I can recall, you chanted your mantra
like a Tourette's spasm every time the word truth got
mentioned in any context, by anyone. One only needs
to look at this catalogue, generously provided by jk,
and charting the progress of your tic, to determine that
your no truth assertion was applied in more than just
a Tarot context.
http://tinyurl.com/jwy4j
That said, I'm a firm believer in the restorative power
of change, and it could be that the blessed hand of
change has beckoned you, or perhaps stuffed a middle
finger up your backside. In which case, are you now
saying that your assertion "there is no truth", or
"there is no Truth", or "there is no "Truth"" only applies
in the context of Tarot, and that the assertion, in general,
would be incorrect? Or only applies in a particular type
of context, or what exactly do you now mean?
cheyne
Prospero
definition. The question as to what we want to call a planet in scientific
discussions. Should Pluto, which is sometimes closer the sun than Neptune
and at other times is farther away and is smaller than our own moon, be
called a planet or something else. There was no discussion as to what Pluto
actually was, but only what we want the word "planet" to mean. There were
other objects involved. The astronomers voted on a definition. It was
decided to make a new one called "dwarf planet", so Pluto still has the
title of planet. No one discussed what Pluto really was, only what we want
to word planet to mean.
I'm sure science of Astrology will continue to utilize Pluto in the same was
it has. That object, so many million miles away, is still moving slowly
through our charts. The science of Astronomy will continue to study it with
its rockets and telescopes. No reality has changed, only a single word
definition has been made a bit more concise.
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:330f6$44eeb441$4396fd29$16...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
cheyne
On 25-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> > And that eventually led Margaret to post: "And if there is no objective
> > truth, fly, unaided, off the Golden Gate Bridge. Gravity, after all, is
> > only a theory."
> >
> >
> We were discussing "Truth" not gravity.
Wrong. We were discussing the truth about gravity.
Is it true that you were really unable to discern what
was being discussed here? Or were you just being evasive
again, and squirming?
cheyne
The Ilk
<chyene01@spamless_btopenworld.com> wrote:
In reply to Jo-pop Tinyfeet:-
> In which case, are you now
>saying that your assertion "there is no truth", or
>"there is no Truth", or "there is no "Truth""
Which in and of itself must be a truth or Truth, according to Jojo -
otherwsie it cannot be something he holds to any degree of faith or
belief in any case.
Jo-pop - you got yourself a nice little paradox there, sunshine.
>only applies
When the drugs wear off, I should think.
>in the context of Tarot, and that the assertion, in general,
>would be incorrect?
Well, of course it is incorrect. The fact that tarot exists, for
example is a truth, and a Truth, and can be evidenced by anyone with a
sense of touch, or sight.
What that means, on the other hand, well.......
> Or only applies in a particular type
>of context, or what exactly do you now mean?
Such a statement, so frequently made by one as prolific as our
Jo-babe, has contextually been applied to almost everything falling
out of his virtual mouth.
Just as well for him really that his truth/Truth must also assert that
his writings are not real, and simply a figment of whatever untrue
imagination he is existing in at present......
>cheyne
Joseph Littleshoes
> On 25-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>And that eventually led Margaret to post: "And if there is no objective
>>>truth, fly, unaided, off the Golden Gate Bridge. Gravity, after all, is
>>>only a theory."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>We were discussing "Truth" not gravity.
>
>
> Wrong. We were discussing the truth about gravity.
You might want to but that's not what i was contending.
>
> Is it true that you were really unable to discern what
> was being discussed here? Or were you just being evasive
> again, and squirming?
Reply without the personal invective or don't expect a response.
---
JL
>
> cheyne
cheyne
On 25-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> cheyne wrote:
>
> > On 25-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>And that eventually led Margaret to post: "And if there is no objective
> >>>truth, fly, unaided, off the Golden Gate Bridge. Gravity, after all, is
> >>>only a theory."
> >>
> >>
> >>We were discussing "Truth" not gravity.
> >
> > Wrong. We were discussing the truth about gravity.
>
> You might want to but...
...but, of course, you don't.
Because you have to vet the questions put to you,
and you have to posit your own, so far undefined,
definition of truth by giving it a capital letter and putting
quotation marks around it.
In other words, you've got yourself into such a stupid
knot that you only feel comfortable participating in a
discussion so long as it's framed according to your own
little Joey rules. Well sorry, this is the world of the
grown-ups, and there are no moderators here. So, why
not answer me, why not discuss the truth about gravity?
> > Is it true that you were really unable to discern what
> > was being discussed here? Or were you just being evasive
> > again, and squirming?
>
> Reply without the personal invective or don't expect a response.
You're ridiculous -- that wasn't invective, it was just
another unanswered question. And everyone reading this,
including you of course, knows that. The problem here
has got nothing to do with invective, it's ALL about you
being unable to defend the indefensible. So off you go with
the usual tactics of evasive language, whining about tone,
and then withdrawing into a crumpled ball of self-loathing.
It wouldn't be my first choice, but good luck with that.
If you would jump from the Golden Gate bridge,
and if you would be able to repeat that experiment
many times over, then in each and every case, you
would fall down, and for the simple reason that that is
the way gravity works, and this is true -- isn't it?
cheyne
cheyne
On 26-Aug-2006, "hierony...@my-deja.com" <hierony...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> cheyne wrote:
>
> > So, why not answer me, why not discuss the truth about gravity?
>
> There's gravity, and then there's gravity...
Nope, I think you'll find there's just gravity.
Then again, I've never been to Maryland.
cheyne
Bassos
<hierony...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156604615.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> cheyne wrote:
>
>> So, why not answer me, why not discuss the truth about gravity?
>
Is that like unto :"there is fun, and then there is fun" ?
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>>hieronymous707:
>
>
>>Thank you for your contribution Hiero, but please recall that this all
>>started with kkkarlins claim of possessing the "Truth" of the tarot.
>
>
> You're very welcome, of course. I hope you take the opportunity to
> peruse the site.
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/
Interesting site, but the statement in the "nature of truth" section
about Caesar being the first emperor of rome is odd.
Rome did not have an Emperor, it did have a number of military leaders
whose title, imperator iirc, is what the english word emperor is based
on. It also had dictators, and what ever the local language equivalent
of King was at the time, Rex?
---
JL
>
> I think you'll find it worthwhile. Frankly, I don't recall or care how
> "this all started". I can't even tell you why I was apparently
> compelled to chime in here and now. I'm certainly in no position
> comment knowledgeably on, much less settle any argument between the two
> of you, so I'll be shutting the fuck up very, very soon.
>
>
>>Since then, my statement regarding the nature of this particular
>>assertion has, by kkkarlins & his ilk & myrmidons, become wrapped up in
>>a discussion of science, this is merely kkkarlins way of obsfucating the
>>discussion and trying to wiggle out of an untenable position he was
>>foolish enough to get himself into, it is, IMO more indicative of his
>>own hubris than anything else.
>
>
> I suppose we see what we want to see
>
> -hi-
>
Karipidu Marianna
<hierony...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1156680379.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/
>
> > Interesting site, but the statement in the "nature of truth" section
> > about Caesar being the first emperor of rome is odd.
>
> > Rome did not have an Emperor,
>
> Rome. I think Augustus/Octavius was actually the first "princeps" of
> Rome.
If you want to learn what the words Romios or
Romiosene mean or what Byzantine Empire
means, take a look at this:
Byzantine Empire Byzantine Empire ( Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) is the term
conventionally used ... This reference article is mainly selected from the English
Wikipedia with ...
fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/wp/b/Byzantine_Empire.htm - 91k -
Cached - Similar pages
autocracy, autocrator
autocratoria= empire
autocrator, autocratoras= emperor
autocrateira= empress
Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy - Wikipedia, the free ... Autocrator
(Αυτοκράτωρ) — "Emperor," this title was originally equivalent to ... The vast
Byzantine bureaucracy had many titles, and varied more than ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_aristocracy_and_bureaucracy - 43k - Cached -
Similar pages
Byzantine aristocracy and bureaucracy: Information From Answers.com Byzantine
aristocracy and bureaucracy The Byzantine Empire had a complex system of ... Example
(with more context): Constantine VII; Autocrator (Αυτοκράτωρ) ...
www.answers.com/topic/byzantine-aristocracy-and-bureaucracy - 68k - Cached -
Similar pages
> If you read further down the page, you'll come to the section titled,
> "Philosophical attacks on the idea of truth." I'd be interested in
> reading your comments on that.
> -hi-
cheyne
On 27-Aug-2006, "Karipidu Marianna" <kari...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If you want to learn what the words Romios or
> Romiosene mean or what Byzantine Empire
> means,
Hands up anyone who wants to learn what these words mean?
...See? Nobody.
How do they say "go away" in Greek?
cheyne
Karipidu Marianna
"cheyne" <cheyne01@spamless_btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:Q7adnSEgJ-KLf2zZ...@bt.com...
Ooooooooooh, I step on grandpa's (=Karlin's)
tail! Gee, Cheyne, I didn't know that you are
Karlin's tail...What happened to Asiya?
Joseph Littleshoes
Your probly familiar with the phenomena where one dog starts barking for
whatever reason, and then all of a sudden any other dogs in the
neighbourhood take up its refrain and start barking also?
Similar phenomena here don't you think?
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/
>
>
>>Interesting site, but the statement in the "nature of truth" section
>>about Caesar being the first emperor of rome is odd.
>
>
>>Rome did not have an Emperor,
>
>
> The word "emperor" is often used by historians to refer to rulers of
> Rome. I think Augustus/Octavius was actually the first "princeps" of
> Rome.
>
> If you read further down the page, you'll come to the section titled,
> "Philosophical attacks on the idea of truth." I'd be interested in
> reading your comments on that.
>
> -hi-
>
I scanned it and recall reading another point of view about the same
thing, something about "deconstruction" iirc.
Ill get back to you when i find the article.
As it is, i tend to agree with what was written on the page you refer to
but i would shift the emphasis and not see it as quite the negative the
page seems to imply.
---
JL
Karipidu Marianna
The first one (=Karlin) didn't know what electricity
is, and the second one (cheyne) was discussing
the truth about gravity without knowing the cause
of genesis of gravity . Both of them suffer from
periods of oblivion. Oh, well, let me see what
the third one is going to say.
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/nature.htm
>
>
>>As it is, i tend to agree with what was written on the page you refer to
>>but i would shift the emphasis and not see it as quite the negative the
>>page seems to imply.
>
>
> I don't understand your meaning. What part do you tend to agree with,
> and what do you perceive as a negative implication? How or where would
> you shift the emphasis? Thanks.
>
> http://www.truthpizza.org/nature.htm
>
> -hi-
>
It was a first impression and a minor quibble that upon a second reading
seems less emphatic than i first thought.
Though the example of a blind man crossing the street does not seem to
me to be a well constructed argument against the 'post modern' idea
expressed. The person asked could have assessed the situation as 'true'
and yet the blind man took too much time or some other problem occurred
that resulted in the blind man being hit by the truck. Ultimately its not
"safe" to be borne, to say nothing of crossing any street.
But still, a minor quibble in an other wise agreeable site.
Pity 'you know who' couldn't take the time to be a bit more expansive in
what they meant by the 'truth' of Tarot. It seems to me he is more
prone to "polarization" in his BELIEFS than he is to "critical thinking".
Are you aware of how 'feminists' tried to "take over" the Tarot?
Obviously they had as much success with the Tarot as they have had in
business, medicine, politics, the arts etc. etc.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
Σας είναι ηλίθιος, κλείστε επάνω και πηγαίνετε μακριά?
---
Μικράπαπούτσια
Joseph Littleshoes
I'm the one who says tarot
> doesn't really work.
>
Just the Tarot or all forms of divination? and why the qualifier
'really' does it work just a little bit? or sometimes but not other
times? are you familiar with my idea of accidental perfection, that the
Tarot or other forms of divination can 'accidentally' work?
---
JL
Asiya
> Asiya wrote:
>>
>> Not surprisingly, your post is full of lies. Way back in 2000 in
>> alt.tarot, you were posting things like:
>
> Are you and your ilk
You shouldn't use words you don't understand.
> ever going to develop the refined sensibility that can discriminate
> between your conception of 'lies' and an 'opinion'?
When your exact words can be called up instantly from a public archive,
you can't rewrite history. You mischaracterize the nature of "the
Golden Gate test" beyond "opinion" and instead lie about it.
You all have been arguing and whining about this crap for six years
now, to the point where you Joseph have commited libel numerous times
against a writer. It's time to get over it.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Joseph Littleshoes
> On 2006-08-25 03:24:37 -0500, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> said:
>
>> Asiya wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly, your post is full of lies. Way back in 2000 in
>>> alt.tarot, you were posting things like:
>>
>>
>> Are you and your ilk
>
>
> You shouldn't use words you don't understand.
I never claimed to be Scottish, "ilk: family, class or kind."
Myrmidon: 1.One of the war like people of ancient Thessaly who
accompanied Achilles, their King, to the Trojan war. 2. a person who
executes without scruple his masters commands.
>
>> ever going to develop the refined sensibility that can discriminate
>> between your conception of 'lies' and an 'opinion'?
>
>
> When your exact words can be called up instantly from a public archive,
> you can't rewrite history.
You & your ilk seem to insist on interpreting it any way you want.
You mischaracterize the nature of "the Golden
> Gate test" beyond "opinion" and instead lie about it.
I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
no bearing on the original assertion.
I merely asked about the assertion as to the possession of a particular
type of information the original asserter labelled 'truth'. And i am
still waiting.
And don't bother recommending its 'web site' what little actual
information that is there is so shrouded in OPINION as to be all but
worthless.
Take away the opinion, condense it down to one page and you might have a
nice readers digest version of the known history of the Tarot but that's
about it. Even with something so simple as fortune telling with the
Tarot cards the, and i use the term loosely, "writer" of it, cant seem
to make up his mind, either it is all a criminal fraud perpetuated on
"YAMS" or only supremely gifted people like the "writer" (i prefer
editor) are capable of it.
>
> You all
So its not just me?
have been arguing and whining about this crap for six years now,
So? every few months you and your ilk and the myrmidons choose to
resurrect the petty squabble with the same tired old hyperbole.
And when the chief ilk gets a stick up its ass and comes back after
months of hibernation and makes an issue of it yet again, you & your
ilk, like the myrmidons you are, jump in and like a pack of dogs start
howling at each other. You and the ilk are nothing more than...
"....a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his
hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
William Shakespeare
Get over yourself Asiya, get over the hubris that would have you think
you can determine what i should think or write about. What arrogance!
> to the point where you Joseph have commited libel numerous times against
> a writer. It's time to get over it.
Now you choose to suggest that i have committed a criminal act, all
because i do not agree with you & your ilk's opinions and have said so?
Pity the deja archives are not still readily available, it would be
interesting to get those first 100's or so posts to alt.tarot back.
schucks...theres even a couple where i admit to being less than well
educated, in any formal sense, than a number of your ilk, but that alone
does not necessarily invalidate anything i have written.
Plus, in case you have not noticed by now, it don't matter to me what
you & your ilk think of me. Given your so readily admitted opinion of
me im genuinely surprised you give me enough credence to feel the need
to even notice my insignificant contributions.
Given that i believe everything has a purpose, i can only assume you and
your ilk were put here for my amusement, you provide little else.
---
JL
cheyne
On 28-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
> no bearing on the original assertion.
All this recent reference to the "original assertion" is yet
another example of the way you would try to frame the
argument in a manner that suits you. Your next move
(out of the corner) would be trying to re-write the "original
assertion". The point is Joe, whether or not your original
assertion was "there is no truth in Tarot", you are on record
subsequently, (years after the original assertion), saying
simply: "there is no truth". So whatever the "original assertion"
is supposed to be, and however questionable that assertion
remains, it was clarified, it was trumped, eclipsed.
So, more fundamentally, do you continue to assert: "there is
no truth"?
cheyne
Joseph Littleshoes
> On 28-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
>>no bearing on the original assertion.
>
>
> All this recent reference to the "original assertion" is yet
> another example of the way you would try to frame the
> argument in a manner that suits you.
And we will just ignore your and your ilks attempts to interpret my
statements in "a manner that suits you"?
---
JL
cheyne
On 28-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> >>I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
> >>no bearing on the original assertion.
> >
> >
> > All this recent reference to the "original assertion" is yet
> > another example of the way you would try to frame the
> > argument in a manner that suits you.
>
> And we will just ignore your and your ilks attempts to interpret my
> statements in "a manner that suits you"?
Joe's got no balls.
You've been gabbling on about truth for YEARS, like
a stupid old hen. But guess what, when push comes to
shove, you've got nothing to say. Had you been able to
support your claims, you would have done so, without
the arm-twisting. But the truth is, you don't have a single
clue what you're talking about, and you never did. You
are the consummate blathering windbag and time-waster.
Tarot's not for you, try this instead:
http://groups.google.com/group/grim-knitters
cheyne
Joseph Littleshoes
> On 28-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
>>>>no bearing on the original assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>All this recent reference to the "original assertion" is yet
>>>another example of the way you would try to frame the
>>>argument in a manner that suits you.
>>
>
>
> Joe's got no balls.
Oh nonsence, im anatromicaly intact.
>
> You've been gabbling on about truth for YEARS, like
> a stupid old hen. But guess what, when push comes to
> shove, you've got nothing to say. Had you been able to
> support your claims, you would have done so, without
> the arm-twisting.
Go back and check the archives, i gave my sources, and quoted
extensively form various writers on the subject. All this was rejected
not by an intellectual rebuttal of the ideas i quoted but by name
calling and other forms of written word abuse.
Besides, its not like i came up with the idea of questioning the concept
of "Truth", even "Corey" was able to find a web page describing the
arguments better than i can.
If i expected anything other than written abuse from you and your ilk i
might be tempted to dig up all the old citations and start all over
again, but the first time i did this, as noted above, the answer was
that i was a (insert explicative here) and no body cared to respond to
the actual argument i was making, but rather found it more rewarding to
indulge in scatological vituperation.
Funny how the self proclaimed "intelligent" myrmidons here demonstrate
their intelligence by such tactics as you demonstrate in this, your most
recent attempt to indict me null content insults rather than write about
the idea.
Of course, iirc you were always one of the supporters of the "game ball"
theory of news groups, which some people refer to as the "Dojo" theory,
if you cant take the abuse get out of the Dojo. Well..i disagree with
those ideas also.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> cheyne wrote:
>
>
>>Joe's got no balls.
>
>
> How does "just gravity" affect your balls?
>
> Does it do them justice?
>
> -hi-
>
You have to ask? it seems self evident to me and not dissimilar to the
way gravity effects the female mammary glands. As far as justice goes,
i have always been fond of Crowley's comment on the Justice card, "The
universe is not just, merely exact."
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
with your
Asiya
> Asiya wrote:
> > On 2006-08-25 03:24:37 -0500, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> said:
> >> Asiya wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not surprisingly, your post is full of lies. Way back in 2000 in
> >>> alt.tarot, you were posting things like:
> >>
> >> Are you and your ilk
> >
> > You shouldn't use words you don't understand.
>
> I never claimed to be Scottish, "ilk: family, class or kind."
>
> Myrmidon: 1.One of the war like people of ancient Thessaly who
> accompanied Achilles, their King, to the Trojan war. 2. a person who
> executes without scruple his masters commands.
That's nice, but doesn't demonstrate that you understand the meaning
and usage of "ilk". But we already know you don't.
> >> ever going to develop the refined sensibility that can discriminate
> >> between your conception of 'lies' and an 'opinion'?
> >
> > When your exact words can be called up instantly from a public archive,
> > you can't rewrite history.
>
> You & your ilk seem to insist on interpreting it any way you want.
What "ilk", Joseph? I wasn't a part of alt.tarot in 2000. I've simply
posted your exact words that took about 30 seconds to find. The problem
you're complaining about is that you can't squirm out of your words no
matter how much you try to spin (or re-interpret) them. 'Course it
doesn't have to be a problem. You could just admit to being human, made
a mistake, admitting you were wrong. It's not hard to do, it's a lot
easier than acting on knee-jerk responses for six years (and more in
the future).
> > You mischaracterize the nature of "the Golden
> > Gate test" beyond "opinion" and instead lie about it.
>
> I never suggested any one jump off a bridge to test a phenomena that has
> no bearing on the original assertion.
>
> I merely asked about the assertion as to the possession of a particular
> type of information the original asserter labelled 'truth'. And i am
> still waiting.
>
> And don't bother recommending its 'web site' what little actual
> information that is there is so shrouded in OPINION as to be all but
> worthless.
>
> Take away the opinion, condense it down to one page and you might have a
> nice readers digest version of the known history of the Tarot but that's
> about it. Even with something so simple as fortune telling with the
> Tarot cards the, and i use the term loosely, "writer" of it, cant seem
> to make up his mind, either it is all a criminal fraud perpetuated on
> "YAMS" or only supremely gifted people like the "writer" (i prefer
> editor) are capable of it.
And here you ramble some more, off on a tangent...
> > You all
>
> So its not just me?
Good reading comprehension there, you're improving.
How in the world would you think that it is just you?
> And when the chief ilk gets a stick up its ass and comes back after
> months of hibernation and makes an issue of it yet again,
Incorrect, you brought it up. JK was replying to Nagasiva about
Nagasiva's suicide-encouraging activities (JK's against it), and you
jumped in with a knee-jerk response, pretending that JK had encouraged
your suicide many times. Presumably you wouldn't like the idea of
someone encouraging you to commit suicide when depressed, yes? So were
you trying to agree or disagree with JK?
> > to the point where you Joseph have commited libel numerous times against
> > a writer. It's time to get over it.
>
> Now you choose to suggest that i have committed a criminal act,
No. I'm stating that you have committed criminal acts, as have other
people pointed out to you.
> all
> because i do not agree with you & your ilk's opinions and have said so?
No, but because you have committed these acts. And you have committed
these acts because a different person than who you are attacking
suggested you test your assertion that you wanted to foist on the
world.
> Plus, in case you have not noticed by now, it don't matter to me what
> you & your ilk think of me.
Good thing I'm not posting just for you then, eh?
> Given your so readily admitted opinion of
> me im genuinely surprised you give me enough credence to feel the need
> to even notice my insignificant contributions.
I'm writing a somewhat intense article for one of my websites. Posting
in alt.magick provides a light break.
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> I'm writing a somewhat intense article for one of my websites. Posting
> in alt.magick provides a light break.
>
> Asiya
Finally, something we can agree about.
---
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>You have to ask? it seems self evident to me and not dissimilar to the
>>way gravity effects the female mammary glands.
>
>
> So, you're saying there is some truth to this whole gravity thing? Who
> would've thought?
>
>
>>As far as justice goes,
>>i have always been fond of Crowley's comment on the Justice card, "The
>>universe is not just, merely exact."
>
>
> People fantasize. The idea that tarot works is a fantasy. Tarot
> simply doesn't really work.
>
> -hi-
>
I still don't understand the "really."
Not even the "...simply doesn't really..."
In some cases simple really does.
Besides, i was never talking about gravity.
Isn't that an 'ad hominine" or a "straw man"? i am so little familiar
with the type of rhetoric that encourages such things that it is
sometimes difficult for me to tell hyperbolae from an attempt at
communication.
My father was an eagle
With wings as wide as sails
My mother was the west wind witch
With grasping finger nails
She lured him from his aery
With her twittering device
She kept him in a golden cage
And feed him field mice
---
JL
David Carter
>> way gravity effects the female mammary glands.
>
> would've thought?
>
>> i have always been fond of Crowley's comment on the Justice card, "The
>> universe is not just, merely exact."
>
> simply doesn't really work.
>
> -hi-
>
The tarot does work, both as a symbol system and a system of divination.
But. One has to have the right method of using it and each persons
method will be slightly different.
Carter
David Carter
Jeez Asiya. Dont you get on with *anyone*?
Carter
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> The tarot does work, both as a symbol system and a system of divination.
>
> Then explain how tarot works as a system of divination.
> Cite examples. Thanks.
>
>> But. One has to have the right method of using it and each persons
>> method will be slightly different.
>
> different?
>
> -hi-
>
There is a 'right' or 'best' way of using the tarot for each person.
There is no one 'right' way for all, and good users of the Tarot will
themselves have several methods that they can use for any given situation.
For example. If I want to use for divination (I dont read for other
people), then I will use one method, which in turn may employ one or
more of a number of layouts and approaches.
If I want to use the Tarot for Path working or as a doorway, the method
I use will clearly be different.
If I want to use a card ceremonially (a bit of a misnomer because I dont
use dramatic ritual any more), then I will use it differently again.
Even so, in divination, each person will access their inner faculties
using the cards as a focus and thus bring their intuitive abilities to
bear on the problem at hand. This is how the Tarot works. Ultimately
everything is down to interpretation, and that is down to the reader and
not the cards, although imho it is important for the interpretation for
the cars to have specific symbolism.
Sorry for the long answer, I was trying to cover several aspects.
Carter
Joseph Littleshoes
> The "Golden Gate Test" as a proof of the "True" nature of gravity may
> be indicative of a rather parochial mentality, but such a test can and
> does establish the existence of "Truth", as well as the necessity for
> truth as an absolute. Can you figure out how it does that in "a manner
> that suits you"?
>
> -hi-
Joseph Littleshoes
> David Carter wrote:
>
>
>>The tarot does work, both as a symbol system and a system of divination.
>
>
> Please explain how tarot works as a symbol system.
> Then explain how tarot works as a system of divination.
> Cite examples. Thanks.
>
>
>>But. One has to have the right method of using it and each persons
>>method will be slightly different.
>
>
> How can one have the "right method" and each person's method be
> different?
>
> -hi-
>
Its not, the mechanics of divination are similar form one person to the
next.
---
JL
Erwin Hessle
Archie, in a desperate attempt to resurrect his wholly dead and
discredited reputation, attempts a post of substance.
Yet, despite making a "long answer", and "trying to cover several
aspects", he predictably manages to make a post 100% devoid of any
actual content.
This is the genuinely the best Archie can do.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> There is a 'right' or 'best' way of using the tarot for each person.
>> There is no one 'right' way for all, and good users of the Tarot will
>> themselves have several methods that they can use for any given situation.
>
>> For example. If I want to use for divination (I dont read for other
>> people), then I will use one method, which in turn may employ one or
>> more of a number of layouts and approaches.
>
>> If I want to use the Tarot for Path working or as a doorway, the method
>> I use will clearly be different.
>
>> If I want to use a card ceremonially (a bit of a misnomer because I dont
>> use dramatic ritual any more), then I will use it differently again.
>
> tarot works as a symbol system, or how tarot works as a system of
> divination.
Nobody will be able to give you a scientific explanation of the way that
Tarot works, or indeed any explanation that is better than the one I
give below. It was the one I was given when I asked the same question.
>
>> Even so, in divination, each person will access their inner faculties
>> using the cards as a focus and thus bring their intuitive abilities to
>> bear on the problem at hand. This is how the Tarot works.
>
> Like I've said, people fantasize. The idea that tarot works is a
> fantasy.
Sure. I accept this is your view. Mine is different.
>
>> Ultimately
>> everything is down to interpretation, and that is down to the reader and
>> not the cards, although imho it is important for the interpretation for
>> the cars to have specific symbolism.
>
> As a reader of symbol systems, how would you interpret the following
> statement?
>
> Tarot simply doesn't really work.
As a statement it is clear and uncomplicated.
>
> How does your reading and interpretation of that statement differ from
> how you read and interpret tarot?
As a symbol it is different. Suppose it is symbolic of your disbelief,
then we can ask why you disbelieve. Either it is experience-based or
noon-experience-based.
If it is experience based, it would be symbolic of your inability to
make the tarot work for you. This might be because of a lack of training
or a lack of technique or a faulty perception of what you can expect.
If it is non-experience-based, it could be because you have been told it
doesnt work by someone you love or trust or who has been proved right
for you before, which could again be experience-based on their part or
non-experience-based. or it could be because you have a tightly
scientific model of the world, or it could be that you were just
spreading troll-bait upon the water (not saying you were, just
acknowledging the possibility).
Lots of possibilities. Exploring symbolism is all about asking questions
related to what you already know, establishing links references and
correspondences with other things. Allowing your intuition to process
possibilities and arrive at probable conclusions.
>> Sorry for the long answer, I was trying to cover several aspects.
>
> Thank you for the effort. It was a pleasure to (virtually) meet you.
> Have a great day.
>
> -hi-
>
I will, thanks.
Carter
David Carter
> Erwin Hessle wrote:
>
>> Archie, in a desperate attempt to resurrect his wholly dead and
>> discredited reputation, attempts a post of substance.
>
>> Yet, despite making a "long answer", and "trying to cover several
>> aspects", he predictably manages to make a post 100% devoid of any
>> actual content.
>
>> This is the genuinely the best Archie can do.
>
>
> -hi-
>
Don't mined Erwhine, he is bitter. Nobody else minds him, he is kind of
like a grouchy old uncle (except he is quite young). Everyone pretends
to take him ever so seriously and then laughs behind his back.
Sad really.
Carter
cheyne
On 29-Aug-2006, Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com> wrote:
> cheyne wrote:
> > You've been gabbling on about truth for YEARS, like
> > a stupid old hen. But guess what, when push comes to
> > shove, you've got nothing to say. Had you been able to
> > support your claims, you would have done so, without
> > the arm-twisting.
>
> Go back and check the archives, i gave my sources, and quoted
> extensively form various writers on the subject. All this was rejected
> not by an intellectual rebuttal of the ideas i quoted but by name
> calling and other forms of written word abuse.
I thought you didn't reply to my invective. You did this
time. Unlike before when you were using that as an
excuse for not answering perfectly reasonable questions,
that were asked of you without invective.
In any case, in the current thread you appeared to
be promoting a different emphasis, and one which is
somewhat at odds with what's in your archive.
That's why I was attempting to find out what you're
actually asserting about truth, now. You refused to
engage in questions like that, and I've reasonably
concluded that you're not well-versed in the arguments
commonly advanced by those who would argue there
is no truth. That being so, I don't see how you could
have any strong rational basis for asserting such
a thing at all, let alone as enthusiastically as you
have done in the past.
Your enthusiasm for proclaiming "no truth" or "no "Truth"",
is only matched by your lack of enthusiasm for explaining
why.
What does that say about you?
> Besides, its not like i came up with the idea of questioning the concept
> of "Truth", even "Corey" was able to find a web page describing the
> arguments better than i can.
Even Corey?
Yes, for Corey Connor to find his own dick would be
something of an achievement for him.
I presume you're referring to www.truthpizza.org/nature?
That web page does not support the theory that there
is no truth. And if that is the best you can find, and you
think it describes your arguments better than YOU can,
then, again, I suggest your problem with your reality isn't
the absence of truth, but your own ignorance (of it).
I predict that your current strategy will not solve that
problem.
cheyne
cheyne
On 29-Aug-2006, David Carter <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
> Jeez Asiya. Dont you get on with *anyone*?
Are you at work today?
Or have all St. Bartholomew's sick hoofed it down to Guys?
cheyne
David Carter
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> Nobody will be able to give you a scientific explanation of the way that
>> Tarot works, or indeed any explanation that is better than the one I
>> give below. It was the one I was given when I asked the same question.
>
> reasonable explanation.
> You may be right. I may never get a better explanation than yours.
> You don't mind if I keep asking though, do you?
I should hope you never stop questioning.
if you find one that is better, let me know what it is, I would like to
understand more myself.
>
>> Sure. I accept this is your view. Mine is different.
>
> How different? You wrote, "each person will access their inner
> faculties" and "bring their intuitive abilities to bear." Aren't those
> exemplars of fantasizing? People fantasize. The idea that tarot works
> is a fantasy.
Not really, my views in this regard (as everbody's are) are my
rationalisation of what I have seen work. Imperfect (also as everbody's
are) but they provide an explanation that I can live with in the absence
of a better one.
>
>> As a statement it is clear and uncomplicated.
>
> It is also a true statement. Tarot simply doesn't really work.
Well, it may be a true statement within your world view. Let me explain:
If my brother is blind and cannot see a rainbow, I could describe
the sudden appearance of striped colours in the sky. If he has n
knowledge of the mechanism by which such a thing could happen, he would
be justified in saying it cannot happen. Doesnt make the rainbow less
beautiful.
In your case, perhaps it would be better to just say you dont see how it
could work, while accepting the possibility that it might. That way, if
you can at some stage learn how to use the tarot, you arent proving
yourself wring in the process.
>
>> As a symbol it is different. Suppose it
>
> Unfortunately (for you), it is not a supposition, and it is not about
> me.
Not unfortunate for me at all, almost everything I wrote in that para
was supposition.
>
> It is a clear and uncomplicated statement of truth.
>
> Here, I'll write it again.
>
> Tarot simply doesn't really work.
>
> -hi-
>
OK. I believe you.
Carter
David Carter
LOL
I left Barts a while back. Thought about going over the river to a job
there but headed West instead. Guy's rugby team too damn good. Should
make em all honorary Welshmen (even if the Welsh team not too damn good
these years).
Have we met?
Carter
cheyne
On 29-Aug-2006, "hierony...@my-deja.com" <hierony...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> One dick, cheyne, is more than enough for most people.
Yes, I have profound differences with that dick.
cheyne
cheyne
On 29-Aug-2006, David Carter <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
> Have we met?
I don't think so.
Are you THE David Carter, or a lesser species
masquerading under the same name?
cheyne
David Carter
Probably a lesser species. Depending upon who you believe the REAL David
Carter is.
Carter
cheyne
On 29-Aug-2006, David Carter <david...@barts.nhs.uk> wrote:
> Probably a lesser species. Depending upon who you believe the REAL David
> Carter is.
This one:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.cancer/msg/fb76680cc87e09f5?
cheyne
David Carter
Modesty forbids... lol. No, I am not he. I am a humble accountant. I
doubt the other one would have much of an abiding interest in magic
(though who knows...?). I am certain he would not react well to some of
the wildlife and lowlife in here.
Nice to meet you though. Medic?
carter
David Carter
Indeed.
>
>> if you find one that is better, let me know what it is, I would like to
>> understand more myself.
>
> Stay tuned.
I shall.
>
>> Not really, my views in this regard (as everbody's are) are my
>> rationalisation of what I have seen work. Imperfect (also as everbody's
>> are) but they provide an explanation that I can live with in the absence
>> of a better one.
>
> I was not previously aware that all views require "rationalisation". I
> was under the impression that, in the absence of -any- real evidence
> and substantive explanation thereof, one may reasonably conclude that
> something, like tarot, doesn't really work, at all, for anyone. I'm
> always willing to consider any new evidence, even anecdotes, if there
> is a particular event you'd like to share.
There are 2 processes at work here. First the observation, free of
wishful thinking, that Tarot works or otherwise. Second, if it works,
and recognising that there is and will be no scientific basis for why or
how it works, then one must rationalise as to how it *might* work.
>
>> Well, it may be a true statement within your world view.
>
> It needn't be qualified as such. It is simply a true statement. It is
> just as true within the virtual world of Usenet as it is in my world,
> or your world for that matter.
Everything we believe or decide not to believe is based on our view of
the world. There are objectivities of course but everything we perceive
forms a part of our own version of the world and is not entirely objective.
>
> Tarot simply doesn't really work.
>
> That's the truth.
OK
>
>> Let me explain:
>> If my brother is blind and cannot see a rainbow, I could describe
>> the sudden appearance of striped colours in the sky. If he has n
>> knowledge of the mechanism by which such a thing could happen, he would
>> be justified in saying it cannot happen. Doesnt make the rainbow less
>> beautiful.
>
> I understand a little about a raindrop's refractive index, but I've
> never seen evidence of any mechanism of tarot. I've looked everywhere.
> I'm left with no other conclusion but that tarot simply doesn't really
> work.
I have. So naturally my world view is slightly different from yours.
>
>> In your case, perhaps it would be better to just say you dont see how it
>> could work, while accepting the possibility that it might. That way, if
>> you can at some stage learn how to use the tarot, you arent proving
>> yourself wring in the process.
>
> People imagine all sorts of ways that tarot -could- work. In fact,
> people have imagined so many ways that tarot could work, one would be
> hard pressed to imagine a way that hasn't already been imagined by
> someone else. People fantasize. The idea that tarot works is a
> popular fantasy.
I accept there are good reasons why you think this. You dont seem like a
fool to me so I accept that you have considered the matter and reached a
considered conclusion.
Carter
>
>> OK. I believe you.
>
> The neat thing is, you don't have to believe me.
> You can prove it for yourself.
David Carter
> What processes are you talking about, the processes of observation;
> evaluation; assessment? Are those three different processes, or three
> aspects of the same process?
> Two processes, or forces, that we experience every day are gravity and
> magnetism.
> We don't have to rationalise how they -might- work, and we are still
> discovering more and more every day about how they actually -do- work.
> Tarot doesn't really work.
You keep saying that although I already know that is what you think. Why
is that?
> I don't particularly care what you believe. All I'm asking is that if
> you believe tarot works, tell how.
>
> How I seem to you is not pertinent to the fact that tarot simply
> doesn't really work.
You are probably right.
Carter
Joseph Littleshoes
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>>Its not, the mechanics of divination are similar form one person to the
>>next.
>
>
> then they must be popular mechanics. What are "the mechanics of
> divination"?
>
> -hi-
>
"Divination is so important a branch of Magick as almost to demand a
separate treatise."
Douglas
Not as sad as the lying fraud you are.
-Douglas
Asiya
> Jeez Asiya. Dont you get on with *anyone*?
I get along with most everyone. That's a hilarious inquiry, coming from you.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
David Carter
> On 2006-08-29 04:59:49 -0500, David Carter <david...@barts.nhs.uk> said:
>
>> Jeez Asiya. Dont you get on with *anyone*?
>
> I get along with most everyone. That's a hilarious inquiry, coming from
> you.
>
doesnt seem that way. I suppose like calls unto like eh?
carter
Rosifer
He is neither *THE* David Carter, nor even *A* David Carter. He is
neither an accountant, nor does he work at Bart's.
He is a known liar who posts mainly to alt.magick under a variety of
nyms and making various unfounded claims. These nyms change when the
pressure for him to explain his lies becomes too great. His latest
incarnation being "David Carter".
Expect a change of nym soon.
Rosifer
David Carter
Well he doesnt work at Barts but then he has said that twice. As for
liar, you seem to like the sound of that word, probably a memory from
childhod. You keep calling me a liar but somehow always seem to fall
short of stating a single example of him having done so.
Odd that, are all Australians full of shit?
Carter