TOO MUCH TALK, AND NOT ENOUGH ACTION!
princ...@my-deja.com
It is just simply too much talk, and not enough action.
If you want to keep on ranting about evoking spirits, then you better
be ready to perform! Full evocation to visible appearance, before the
eyes of all non-believers! And they will see and know that you are
not just full of hot air and bluster.
If you do not know whgat you are talking about, then just keep your
big trap shut! Do us all a favour!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Schuler
<princ...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86ckhj$nj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Why is it that there is so much IMPOTENCY in occult circles
> today?
Because there is a very great difference of opinion about what "potency"
really is is such matters.
> It is just simply too much talk, and not enough action.
A Usenet newsgroup is nothing but words. If you want action, you will have
to look elsewhere.
> If you want to keep on ranting about evoking spirits, then you better
> be ready to perform! Full evocation to visible appearance, before the
> eyes of all non-believers! And they will see and know that you are
> not just full of hot air and bluster.
Changes in consciousness are not necessarily visible to independent
observers. The most competent Goetic magicians do not claim that their
evocations produce results like those of fantasy books. Be sure you examine
claims specifically and address those, instead of making up your own
criteria and insisting that everyone must conform to them.
> If you do not know whgat you are talking about, then just keep your
> big trap shut! Do us all a favour!
This would be good advice for you, too.
princ...@my-deja.com
There are multiple examples of the correct use of occult POWER,
instead of merely uttering empty words.
In the Fama Fraternitatis, it says, that EVERY Rosicrucian shall
heal the sick, and that - Free of Charge! It is a fundamental
requirement, it is basic and fundamental!
So what will you do, when the dying cripple comes before you,
begging for help. Will you heal him, using your occult knowledge?
Or will you just send him away?
Many new age shops today also have practising "healers" within
them. Unfortunately these people are IMPOTENT as anything.
If you tell them you feel great and never felt better, then
they tell you that your chakras are "out of tune", and only a
specialist like them can heal you.
But, if you enter their premises in a wheelchair, or with some
terrible disease, they try and get rid of you. Because real
disease is something these "healers" are unable to fix.
And so... they make loud breathing noises, as they wave their
hands around your head, and supposedly "tune" your chakras.
Please!! Do not be so cruel!! Medicine is not a joke or a game!!
Many yogis and occultists demonstrate the power to materialise
objects, and they all testify to one thing. Occult powers are gained
very early along the Path of Return, and just because someone can
perform materialisations etc, does not mean that they are great
Sages. NO!! Even complete amateurs can do it also! It is only those
who are so utterly impotent, beyond all belief, you cannot do it.
Cagliostro said that "making diamonds and gold is pure child's
play" compared to the art of evoking spirits. Other mystics also
said pretty much the same thing.
But the funny thing is, these days, there are plenty of impotent
wonders, who would have us believe that they "can indeed invoke
and command spirits", whilst, for some reason, they are totally
incapable of easier arts, such as materialising diamonds.
So called "magickians" keep ranting about so-called "spirits" and
what they can do. Just have a look on some of the Golden Dawn
essay boards. Yet... if you ask one of these people to actually
PERFORM instead of blowing hot air, they try and run away.
richard sprigg
princ...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Sorry Tom, but you are WRONG about this one.
Using caps does not make it so.
>
>
> There are multiple examples of the correct use of occult POWER,
> instead of merely uttering empty words.
There are multiple claims.
The volume of independantly witnessed, verifiable and replicable results is
in inverse proportion to the volume of nonsense spouted.
>
>
> In the Fama Fraternitatis, it says, that EVERY Rosicrucian shall
> heal the sick, and that - Free of Charge! It is a fundamental
> requirement, it is basic and fundamental!
It is also a fairy tale.
>
>
> So what will you do, when the dying cripple comes before you,
> begging for help. Will you heal him, using your occult knowledge?
> Or will you just send him away?
Neither. Break both his arms, steal his crutches, and he will realize how
fortunate he was before.
This will stop the importunate fucker from whining.
>
>
> Many new age shops today also have practising "healers" within
> them. Unfortunately these people are IMPOTENT as anything.
> If you tell them you feel great and never felt better, then
> they tell you that your chakras are "out of tune", and only a
> specialist like them can heal you.
> But, if you enter their premises in a wheelchair, or with some
> terrible disease, they try and get rid of you. Because real
> disease is something these "healers" are unable to fix.
> And so... they make loud breathing noises, as they wave their
> hands around your head, and supposedly "tune" your chakras.
>
> Please!! Do not be so cruel!! Medicine is not a joke or a game!!
This is good medicine, though it may be bitter.
The terminally stupid are beyond help, and of no account. The credulous
will learn to be more discerning.
>
>
>
> Many yogis and occultists demonstrate the power to materialise
> objects, and they all testify to one thing.
This is credulous silliness. The only thing materialized is a horde of
fools.
Many have been demonstrated to be charlatans, others have refused testing.
>
> Occult powers are gained
> very early along the Path of Return, and just because someone can
> perform materialisations etc, does not mean that they are great
> Sages. NO!! Even complete amateurs can do it also! It is only those
> who are so utterly impotent, beyond all belief, you cannot do it.
Utter claptrap. Are you claiming to be able to materialize matter from thin
air, or spirits to visible appearance? If so, I am sure that a proper test
can be arranged for you. There are many individuals who would dearly love
to see the first such successful demonstration under controlled conditions.
>
>
> Cagliostro said that "making diamonds and gold is pure child's
> play" compared to the art of evoking spirits. Other mystics also
> said pretty much the same thing.
Remarkably, they by and large failed to produce any significant quantity of
the above material objects. A hundred or so perfect four-carat blue-white
diamonds should provide a simple test for you.
>
> But the funny thing is, these days, there are plenty of impotent
> wonders, who would have us believe that they "can indeed invoke
> and command spirits", whilst, for some reason, they are totally
> incapable of easier arts, such as materialising diamonds.
>
> So called "magickians" keep ranting about so-called "spirits" and
> what they can do. Just have a look on some of the Golden Dawn
> essay boards. Yet... if you ask one of these people to actually
> PERFORM instead of blowing hot air, they try and run away.
So do it.
Or, perhaps, you are just puffing hot air, and have no fucking idea at all
of what you speak. Think about it: just a measly hundred four-carat
diamonds and you will prove your pre-eminence.
Prince or weasel, it is yours to choose.
Easy on the Lampreys, now.
Justificatus
I am a Rosicrucian. Recently, I magickally healed a baby who, having
been born premature, had suspected brain damage...yet when he had a
second cat-scan, said damage disappeared.
The technique I used is the same one as is mentioned in "Magick in
Theory and Practice", that of the Willed manipulation of the patient's
astral body.
However I should point out that said baby also had the congregations of
two local churches praying for him, and of course had the constant
attendance of the dedicated staff of the local hospital, so it might
not be solely down to me.
I also evoke various supernatural entities to appearance, at least on
the astral plane: the most recent occasion being last night.
Therefore, the next time you are tempted to accuse the posters to this
NG of not exercising any Power, kindly show some good faith, and
exercise the fourth Power of the Sphinx.
VH Frater Justificatus
ANTEllllf
>wonders, who would have us believe that they "can indeed invoke
>and command spirits", whilst, for some reason, they are totally
>incapable of easier arts, such as materialising diamonds.
>
I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold. Or a lump of coal. Or
a tongue of flame. Anything at all that is physical, and potentially lasting.
Would you be kind enough to explain to me, in elaborate detail and great
clarity, to one of profound ignorance, how to do so?
Please reply to me by email.
Tom Schuler
<kol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86gl2c$n0h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> magick is not a PERFORMANCE art.
I'd say it most certainly is a performance art. However, a magical
performance isn't likely to be fully appreciated in print.
AlbanBurger
also...just that no one is sharing their experiments and their goals...the knob
at the ends of their wands.....mine is an indigo tetrahedron!
also "impotence" is kinda a loaded term on alt.magick.....you might want to
find another word.....many of us nasty types here...I personally thought you
were talking about me...the one-eyed wand wonder...I am most guilty of that for
the next 10 aeons...maybe you might want to say "weakness" or "tragick magick"
but please don't say "impotent"....TRAGICK MAGICKIANS ALL SUCK!...wait in a few
weeks this will change...the end of the world is nigh! The end of the world is
nig
ENTHEOGENS:
In a few months US will make info illegal
"US Senate passes pot-info ban" at deja.com or your newsreader...REGISTER TO
VOTE. Use your "signature" to spread this info...seek the source document at
http://www.cannabisculture.com
kol...@my-deja.com
>
> instead of merely uttering empty words.
>
> heal the sick, and that - Free of Charge! It is a fundamental
> requirement, it is basic and fundamental!
>
> begging for help. Will you heal him, using your occult knowledge?
> Or will you just send him away?
>
> them. Unfortunately these people are IMPOTENT as anything.
> If you tell them you feel great and never felt better, then
> they tell you that your chakras are "out of tune", and only a
> specialist like them can heal you.
> But, if you enter their premises in a wheelchair, or with some
> terrible disease, they try and get rid of you. Because real
> disease is something these "healers" are unable to fix.
> And so... they make loud breathing noises, as they wave their
> hands around your head, and supposedly "tune" your chakras.
>
> Please!! Do not be so cruel!! Medicine is not a joke or a game!!
>
> very early along the Path of Return, and just because someone can
> perform materialisations etc, does not mean that they are great
> Sages. NO!! Even complete amateurs can do it also! It is only those
> who are so utterly impotent, beyond all belief, you cannot do it.
>
> play" compared to the art of evoking spirits. Other mystics also
> said pretty much the same thing.
> wonders, who would have us believe that they "can indeed invoke
> and command spirits", whilst, for some reason, they are totally
> incapable of easier arts, such as materialising diamonds.
>
> what they can do. Just have a look on some of the Golden Dawn
> essay boards. Yet... if you ask one of these people to actually
> PERFORM instead of blowing hot air, they try and run away.
magick is not a PERFORMANCE art.
you seem to think that WORDS are REALITY, and that is not the CASE.
kol...@my-deja.com
alban...@aol.com (AlbanBurger) wrote:
> amen brother prince john...not that I accuse this ng about impotence,
> also...just that no one is sharing their experiments and their
goals...the knob
> at the ends of their wands.....
maybe you should read alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.exhibitionism
instead, where everyone's wands and cups are on display!
Harold Piser
>>But the funny thing is, these days, there are plenty of impotent
>>wonders, who would have us believe that they "can indeed invoke
>>and command spirits", whilst, for some reason, they are totally
>>incapable of easier arts, such as materialising diamonds.
>>
>
>I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold. Or a lump of coal. Or
>a tongue of flame. Anything at all that is physical, and potentially lasting.
>Would you be kind enough to explain to me, in elaborate detail and great
>clarity, to one of profound ignorance, how to do so?
>Please reply to me by email.
The method to do this is quite simple. However, the task may be more
difficult. Go to The Philosopher's Library -
http://home.earthlink.net/~haroldpiser/ - and checkout the book "A
Compendium of Occult Laws". From the Index (F7) read "An Invitation to the
Golden Feast". This should point you in the right direction.
Harold
Tom Schuler
"Harold Piser" <harol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:krqn8scngp4ul8n6j...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Jan 2000 22:56:10 GMT, ante...@aol.com (ANTEllllf) wrote:
>
> >I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold.
> >Or a lump of coal. Or a tongue of flame. Anything at all
> > that is physical, and potentially lasting.
>
> difficult.
Have you actually done this, Harold?
Diancecht
<princ...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
EVERY Rosicrucian shall
> heal the sick, and that - Free of Charge! It is a fundamental
> requirement, it is basic and fundamental!
And what seems to be their major malfunction in your case?
If your beef is with them I doubt they can heal you here, pj.
Harold Piser
Tom,
You make it sound like materializing is uncommon for magicians. Haven't you
done this?
Harold
Tom Schuler
> >
> Tom,
>
> You make it sound like materializing is uncommon for magicians. Haven't
you
> done this?
No, Harold, I haven't. Of course, there are many unsubstantiated (heh)
claims by mediums and the like, but I have never seen it done in situations
where sleight of hand or other illusions could be reasonably ruled out.
Frankly, I don't think it can be done. It would involve some fancy
sidestepping of the laws of thermodynamics that seems unlikely in the
extreme.
I'll ask you again. Are you claiming you have done this?
Tom Schuler
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:12:03 -0800, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
> >
> >I'll ask you again. Are you claiming you have done this?
> >
>
> I think you are blinded by you preconceived idea of "showmanship"
> materializing. Real Magicians do not perform as showmen.
Well, those who are in show biz do, but I take your point.
> To materialize in the "outer" what is conceived in the "inner" is what
> magic (occult science) is all about. We all have the capability to
manifest
> something materially according to our capabilities and the limitations we
> place on ourselves.
>
> I am sure you have materialize much. You just don' realize it, or fully
> understand how it is done.
Oh, if you're speaking metaphorically, I'd have to agree. I have
materialized this sort of precious substance. Manifesting events that seem
to come about without any overt cause through an action of Will is certainly
both achievable and a challenge to the spirit.
Actually I was talking about causing physical substance to appear out of
nowhere by some sort of supposed paranormal means, which is often claimed by
the showman type of fraud. These are typically known as "apports" among the
seance crowd. I saw a film recently of an Indian guru who claimed to make a
powdery dust appear, but it was pretty clear the guy was a clever
sleight-of-hand artist.
It sort of surprised me that you would give credence to such baloney, but I
see now that you were taking it to a different level.
-ZZ
<harol...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> >I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold.
>>> >Or a lump of coal. Or a tongue of flame. Anything at all
>>> > that is physical, and potentially lasting.
>>>
>>> The method to do this is quite simple. However, the task may be more
>>> difficult.
>>
>>Have you actually done this, Harold?
>You make it sound like materializing is uncommon for magicians. Haven't you
>done this?
That seems like an evasion, Harold.
Are you going to asnwer Tom's question?
I'm also watching to see if Tom answer's yours.
-ZZ
Harold Piser
>
>"Harold Piser" <harol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:i1op8s8hs4v49o8mr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:10:22 -0800, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >Have you actually done this, Harold?
>> >
>> Tom,
>>
>> You make it sound like materializing is uncommon for magicians. Haven't
>you
>> done this?
>
>No, Harold, I haven't. Of course, there are many unsubstantiated (heh)
>claims by mediums and the like, but I have never seen it done in situations
>where sleight of hand or other illusions could be reasonably ruled out.
>
>Frankly, I don't think it can be done. It would involve some fancy
>sidestepping of the laws of thermodynamics that seems unlikely in the
>extreme.
>
>I'll ask you again. Are you claiming you have done this?
>
Tom,
I think you are blinded by you preconceived idea of "showmanship"
materializing. Real Magicians do not perform as showmen.
To materialize in the "outer" what is conceived in the "inner" is what
magic (occult science) is all about. We all have the capability to manifest
something materially according to our capabilities and the limitations we
place on ourselves.
I am sure you have materialize much. You just don' realize it, or fully
understand how it is done.
Harold
aik...@my-deja.com
kt...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > So what will you do, when the dying cripple comes before you,
> > begging for help. Will you heal him, using your occult knowledge?
> > Or will you just send him away?
>
> Neither. Break both his arms, steal his crutches, and he will realize
how
> fortunate he was before.
> This will stop the importunate fucker from whining.
>
Where you by chance a Thatcherite, Richard?
> >
> > Cagliostro said that "making diamonds and gold is pure child's
> > play" compared to the art of evoking spirits. Other mystics also
> > said pretty much the same thing.
>
> Remarkably, they by and large failed to produce any significant
quantity of
> the above material objects. A hundred or so perfect four-carat blue-
white
> diamonds should provide a simple test for you.
>
Well, according to the scientific literature it is harder to
successfully evoke spirits to observable measurement than to convert
carbon to diamond at least given synthetic diamond production.
> So do it.
> Or, perhaps, you are just puffing hot air, and have no fucking idea
at all
> of what you speak. Think about it: just a measly hundred four-carat
> diamonds and you will prove your pre-eminence.
> Prince or weasel, it is yours to choose.
>
> Easy on the Lampreys, now.
>
>
Think of the poor diamond markets.
Reading alchemical texts recently did get me to wondering if it would
be possible to construct an "organic" molecule out of metals as well as
the lighter elements (C,O,N,H, etc.). "heavy metal" "proteins"? If it
turned out to be a catalyst, that really would be a philosopher's stone.
nguyen
Tom Schuler
"richard sprigg" <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:388E7B09...@sympatico.ca...
>
> Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> > I saw a film recently of an Indian guru who claimed to make a
> > powdery dust appear, but it was pretty clear the guy was a clever
> > sleight-of-hand artist.
>
> Pretty dumb to palm the goods with a camera on him.
But he was a very good illusionist. It's just that he was contending with
some unusually well-prepared observers.
richard sprigg
aik...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <388ABDBD...@sympatico.ca>,
> kt...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> >
> > > So what will you do, when the dying cripple comes before you,
> > > begging for help. Will you heal him, using your occult knowledge?
> > > Or will you just send him away?
> >
> > Neither. Break both his arms, steal his crutches, and he will realize
> how
> > fortunate he was before.
> > This will stop the importunate fucker from whining.
> >
>
> Where you by chance a Thatcherite, Richard?
Moi?, follow the "Milk Snatcher"? Nah.
Politics, like all games, is amusing until it is taken seriously.
> > > Cagliostro said that "making diamonds and gold is pure child's
> > > play" compared to the art of evoking spirits. Other mystics also
> > > said pretty much the same thing.
> >
> > Remarkably, they by and large failed to produce any significant
> quantity of
> > the above material objects. A hundred or so perfect four-carat blue-
> white
> > diamonds should provide a simple test for you.
> >
>
> Well, according to the scientific literature it is harder to
> successfully evoke spirits to observable measurement than to convert
> carbon to diamond at least given synthetic diamond production.
Well, let us agree that that corpus deals with the latter subject in greater
detail.
There is a similarity here, though, in that the synthetic object is
relatively easy to separate from the real thing.
> > So do it.
> > Or, perhaps, you are just puffing hot air, and have no fucking idea
> at all
> > of what you speak. Think about it: just a measly hundred four-carat
> > diamonds and you will prove your pre-eminence.
> > Prince or weasel, it is yours to choose.
> >
> > Easy on the Lampreys, now.
> >
> >
>
> Think of the poor diamond markets.
Fuck 'em.
I picked 4-carat stones deliberately as being the prime investment item.
>
>
> Reading alchemical texts recently did get me to wondering if it would
> be possible to construct an "organic" molecule out of metals as well as
> the lighter elements (C,O,N,H, etc.). "heavy metal" "proteins"? If it
> turned out to be a catalyst, that really would be a philosopher's stone.
>
Yes.
In more ways than one.
richard sprigg
Harold Piser
Here is the original post:
>I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold. Or a lump of coal. Or
>a tongue of flame. Anything at all that is physical, and potentially lasting.
>Would you be kind enough to explain to me, in elaborate detail and great
>clarity, to one of profound ignorance, how to do so?
"Potentially lasting" here was the key to my reply. To acquire material
substance regardless of the method and insure its permanence, we must make
compensation and be qualified to posses it. Many times people wish for or
manifest something that they are not prepared to properly utilized and
eventually regret it.
I have verified this from foolish actions in my earlier days. I therefore
directed the poster to information on how to manifest that of worthwhile
and lasting value.
Harold
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 22:29:13 -0800, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>"Harold Piser" <harol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:fj3q8s07eh37s7dvu...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:12:03 -0800, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >I'll ask you again. Are you claiming you have done this?
>> >
>> Tom,
>>
>> I think you are blinded by you preconceived idea of "showmanship"
>> materializing. Real Magicians do not perform as showmen.
>
>Well, those who are in show biz do, but I take your point.
>
>> To materialize in the "outer" what is conceived in the "inner" is what
>> magic (occult science) is all about. We all have the capability to
>manifest
>> something materially according to our capabilities and the limitations we
>> place on ourselves.
>>
>> I am sure you have materialize much. You just don' realize it, or fully
>> understand how it is done.
>
>Oh, if you're speaking metaphorically, I'd have to agree. I have
>materialized this sort of precious substance. Manifesting events that seem
>to come about without any overt cause through an action of Will is certainly
>both achievable and a challenge to the spirit.
>
>Actually I was talking about causing physical substance to appear out of
>nowhere by some sort of supposed paranormal means, which is often claimed by
>the showman type of fraud. These are typically known as "apports" among the
>seance crowd. I saw a film recently of an Indian guru who claimed to make a
>powdery dust appear, but it was pretty clear the guy was a clever
>sleight-of-hand artist.
>
Tom Schuler
> Tom,
>
> Here is the original post:
> >I would like to materialize a diamond. Or a lump of gold. Or a lump of
coal. Or
> >a tongue of flame. Anything at all that is physical, and potentially
lasting.
> >Would you be kind enough to explain to me, in elaborate detail and great
> >clarity, to one of profound ignorance, how to do so?
>
> "Potentially lasting" here was the key to my reply. To acquire material
> substance regardless of the method and insure its permanence, we must make
> compensation and be qualified to posses it. Many times people wish for or
> manifest something that they are not prepared to properly utilized and
> eventually regret it.
>
> I have verified this from foolish actions in my earlier days. I therefore
> directed the poster to information on how to manifest that of worthwhile
> and lasting value.
Ensuring the permanence of physical things seems like an exercise in
futility, actually. As you are well aware, physical things come and go.
They are contiinually caught up in the process of change, even when that
change is very slow.
There is value in your advice here, Harold.
Tom Schuler
<princ...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86qq6v$5td$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39mi4.7179$C4.1...@news1.teleport.com>,
> "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Changes in consciousness are not necessarily visible to
> > independent observers. The most competent Goetic magicians
> > do not claim that their evocations produce results like those of
> > fantasy books. Be sure you examine claims specifically and
> > address those, instead of making up your own
> > criteria and insisting that everyone must conform to them.
>
> HAVE BEEN PROPAGATING A PACK OF LIES - WHEN THEY
> SAY THAT ALLAN BENNETT WROTE AND PERFORMED
> A RITUAL TO INVOKE SOME SPIRIT OF MERCURY TO
> VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
Is your capslock key stuck or are you just a moron? Or both?
Visible to whom? My dreams are visible to me, does that mean you can see
them too?
> OR POSSIBLY, YOU ARE WRONG.... SO GET YOUR FACTS
> STRAIGHT BEFORE DOING A POSTING NEXT TIME.
What "facts" are you referring to? The fact that claims have been made for
summoning spirits to visible appearance? Certainly I have that straight.
Yes, claims have been made.
Have independent observers under controlled conditions verified that they
can see the spirits? No, this has not been done.
So, fix your capslock key and present me with the "facts" you think I don't
havce straight.
Amanda Walker
> Have independent observers under controlled conditions verified that they
> can see the spirits? No, this has not been done.
I wonder what Bennett might have thought of the movie "Toy Story 2."
Amanda Walker
princ...@my-deja.com
"Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> <princ...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > Why is it that there is so much IMPOTENCY in occult circles
> > today?
>
> Because there is a very great difference of opinion about what
"potency"
> really is is such matters.
>
> > It is just simply too much talk, and not enough action.
>
> A Usenet newsgroup is nothing but words. If you want action, you will
have
> to look elsewhere.
>
> > If you want to keep on ranting about evoking spirits, then you
better
> > be ready to perform! Full evocation to visible appearance, before
the
> > eyes of all non-believers! And they will see and know that you are
> > not just full of hot air and bluster.
>
> observers. The most competent Goetic magicians do not claim that
their
> evocations produce results like those of fantasy books. Be sure you
examine
> claims specifically and address those, instead of making up your own
> criteria and insisting that everyone must conform to them.
>
OBVIOUSLY THEN, THE ORIGINAL GOLDEN DAWN MUST HAVE BEEN PROPAGATING
A PACK OF LIES - WHEN THEY SAY THAT ALLAN BENNETT WROTE AND PERFORMED
A RITUAL TO INVOKE SOME SPIRIT OF MERCURY TO VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
AFTER ALL.. AS YOU SAY, "THE MOST COMPETENT DO NOT CLAIM ...."
I GUESS BENNETT AND HIS COLLEAGUES WERE GROSSLY MISTAKEN. TOO BAD
SOMEONE "PROPERLY INFORMED" WAS NOT THERE TO TELL THE ORIGINAL
GD MEMBERS THAT SUCH THINGS ARE JUST SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE.
GUESS THAT ELPIHAS LEVI MUST ALSO HAVE BEEN LYING... WHEN HE SAID
THAT HE ALSO EVOKED A SPIRIT TO VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
OR POSSIBLY, YOU ARE WRONG.... SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE
DOING A POSTING NEXT TIME.
> > If you do not know whgat you are talking about, then just keep your
> > big trap shut! Do us all a favour!
>
> This would be good advice for you, too.
>
>
aik...@my-deja.com
kt...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > Where you by chance a Thatcherite, Richard?
>
> Moi?, follow the "Milk Snatcher"? Nah.
> Politics, like all games, is amusing until it is taken seriously.
>
Ah, but I am amused by some very serious games. Most amused.
> Well, let us agree that that corpus deals with the latter subject in
greater
> detail.
> There is a similarity here, though, in that the synthetic object is
> relatively easy to separate from the real thing.
>
Maybe because reality is in general both messier and more ingenuous.
> > Reading alchemical texts recently did get me to wondering if it
would
> > be possible to construct an "organic" molecule out of metals as
well as
> > the lighter elements (C,O,N,H, etc.). "heavy metal" "proteins"? If
it
> > turned out to be a catalyst, that really would be a philosopher's
stone.
> >
>
> Yes.
> In more ways than one.
>
Well, I was pondering all those phase transitions back and forth, and
the hermetically sealed conditions, and the temperature regimes. It was
all getting rather tedious thinking about what in the hell could any
sane person be doing making those metals go back and forth, as if
anything would happen with them.
Until it struck me that this is precisely the way that organic
chemistry is done. As a broad outline it sould be possible. Certainly
hemoglobin is an example of a complex organic molecule incorporating a
metal.
Of course, why would an old fashioned chemist bother with trying to
generate an organic metal molecule? Today it might be done for the
sheer feat of the accomplishment. That too escaped me until I
remembered catalysis.
Especially if it catalyzed other ambient ions in solution into other
complex organic forms. An interesting note that I once you've produced
the philosopher's stone, it's supposed to easily generate more of its
own substance.
Of course first i'd have to surmount the difficulties of the
Philosopher's mercury. The white woman and the red man.
It'd fit in with the nasty heavy metal studies of the Taoists who also
sought the 'amrta'. Though in the Tibetian legend, it was through the
accidental introduction of a herb that made the discovery possible.
Organic molecule template perhaps? Soma?
Though I'm amiss as to how this could better one's health, renew youth,
or prolong life. Ingesting heavy metals is usually quite hazardous.
Ah, first synthesize the molecule I suppose.
nguyen
AlbanBurger
> also...just that no one is sharing their experiments and their
goals...the knob
> at the ends of their wands.....
>>maybe you should read alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.exhibitionism
instead, where everyone's wands and cups are on display!
<<<<
Those are maggot jokes...don't believe everything your'e told.. sometimes the
maggots lie cause they're irritable and didn't want to talk to the chela and
the chela wouldn't quit so they tell the vicious maggot lies...the wand is not
phallic...its primarily a walking stick...many of you will become hermits later
and that stick will be your only friend. to help you up...and you can reach for
the heroin on the dresser because of your friend...
I've seen actual materializations...of pot (what else) and the person was a
regular human...I won't claim to know how he did it...but I know its real...
POT is theatened:
http://www.altlit.com/drugbooks/
"US Senate passes or pot-info ban" at deja.com ..REGISTER TO VOTE. Use your
"signature" to spam...the ms. is at www.cannabisculture.com
www.lindesmith.org
NORML
Luke Se Fur
seems to know the answer to injesting heavy metals that have been turned to
powder. I will help later when i have time if your interested.
<aik...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:86rb2i$hk9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
princ...@my-deja.com
> > In article <39mi4.7179$C4.1...@news1.teleport.com>,
> > "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Changes in consciousness are not necessarily visible to
> > > independent observers. The most competent Goetic magicians
> > > do not claim that their evocations produce results like those of
> > > fantasy books. Be sure you examine claims specifically and
> > > address those, instead of making up your own
> > > criteria and insisting that everyone must conform to them.
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY THEN, THE ORIGINAL GOLDEN DAWN MUST
> > HAVE BEEN PROPAGATING A PACK OF LIES - WHEN THEY
> > SAY THAT ALLAN BENNETT WROTE AND PERFORMED
> > A RITUAL TO INVOKE SOME SPIRIT OF MERCURY TO
> > VISIBLE APPEARANCE.
>
>
SO MUCH FOR POLITENESS FROM MR SCHULER... instead you just simply
resort to using insulting language if you do not get your own way.
Now that's mature!! Good one! I am sure that you have probably
using abusive language many a time on these boards... after all,
why should an enlightened genius like yourself have to tolerate so
many morons?
> Visible to whom? My dreams are visible to me, does that mean you can
see
> them too?
What is the so-called "Golden Rule"? The "Golden Rule" is: "Treat others
as you would like others to treat you". Obviously as you like abusive
language, this is how you want to be treated in kind... TWIT!!
If you were even remotely familiar with GD literature, then you
would realize that Allan Bennett's evocation to visible appearance
was performed with several people present, and there is no literary
evidence that any of the individuals DID NOT see the "spirit".
The message that is propagated by the early GD members was that this
evocation was successfully performed before all observers.
>
> > OR POSSIBLY, YOU ARE WRONG.... SO GET YOUR FACTS
> > STRAIGHT BEFORE DOING A POSTING NEXT TIME.
>
> What "facts" are you referring to? The fact that claims have been
made for
> summoning spirits to visible appearance? Certainly I have that
straight.
> Yes, claims have been made.
>
> Have independent observers under controlled conditions verified that
they
> can see the spirits? No, this has not been done.
WHO THE HELL ARE YOU SO-CALLED "INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS?"
Allan Bennett performed the ritual, and the others merely watched.
I guess that in your mind, this means that the others cannot be
classed as "independent observers"...
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOUR "CONTROLLED CONDITIONS"...
Do not be so fucking vague you complete moron!!
Have you not even got enough clues to realize that most arguments
that arise between people arise simply because people do not DEFINE
the exact meaning of the terms they are using????
Shit!! Do a course in basic philosophy, and open your goddamn mind!!
>
> So, fix your capslock key and present me with the "facts" you think I
don't
> havce straight.
>
>
And as for your "facts",,, will you please GET A LIFE!!!!
So-called "scientific facts" usually have a short-lifetime before
being shattered by the latest scientific theories, which supposedly
give us the real "facts"... Where the hell have you been??
Obviously you identify with IMPOTENCY!! And because you recognize
your own impotency, you appear to be convinced that NO-ONE else onm
this planet is capable of achieving what you cannot do.
Try not to be so small-minded.
Amanda Walker
> SO MUCH FOR POLITENESS FROM MR SCHULER...
All caps on Usenet has the connotation of shouting. If you don't
offer politeness yourself, why do you expect it from others?
> What is the so-called "Golden Rule"? The "Golden Rule" is: "Treat others
> as you would like others to treat you".
No. The golden rule is "what is hateful to you, do not do to others."
It's not an injunction about how other people should behave.
Amanda Walker
richard sprigg
aik...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <388E79E6...@sympatico.ca>,
> kt...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
> > > Where you by chance a Thatcherite, Richard?
> >
> > Moi?, follow the "Milk Snatcher"? Nah.
> > Politics, like all games, is amusing until it is taken seriously.
> >
>
> Ah, but I am amused by some very serious games. Most amused.
I know. We share a sense of humour in some ways.
Dying, after all, is the punchline to a long and often hilarious joke.
>
>
> > Well, let us agree that that corpus deals with the latter subject in
> greater
> > detail.
> > There is a similarity here, though, in that the synthetic object is
> > relatively easy to separate from the real thing.
> >
>
> Maybe because reality is in general both messier and more ingenuous.
Yes. so much more ......interesting.
>
>
> It'd fit in with the nasty heavy metal studies of the Taoists who also
> sought the 'amrta'. Though in the Tibetian legend, it was through the
> accidental introduction of a herb that made the discovery possible.
> Organic molecule template perhaps? Soma?
>
> Though I'm amiss as to how this could better one's health, renew youth,
> or prolong life. Ingesting heavy metals is usually quite hazardous.
It has been known, but are these the purified metals, or the impure?
>
>
> Ah, first synthesize the molecule I suppose.
>
> nguyen
>
@king.org Jesus Crowley
and stuff.....deadth is the comic tradgedy,,,,,the ufos are coming to get
me...hehehehe Reichian counter-intellegence,,,,here is some disscussion for
the chap that was talking about tiome and time travel on his web page.....my
reply
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wsci.html#timenews:3892758A...@sympatico.ca...
@king.org Jesus Crowley
this is what that left hand tantra alchemy will do to you:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pcss/tookRhIrAufortherecord.html
more info is available here:
http://monatomic.earth.com/
http://home.earthlink.net/~pcss/hudson.htm
http://www.lyghtforce.com/WhiteGold/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~pcss/tookRhIrAufortherecord.html
Harold Piser
To the degree we are able to control the circumstances in our life, then,
too, will we be able to control the coming and going and the change. Such
efforts toward control should not be considered futile but advantageous to
an efficient, effective and productive life.
Harold