FAQs/REFs and Levels of Adeptship (was Key Terms for Occult Searching ...)
tyaginator
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>For your files, dear one:
<etc.>
thank you!
>How do you intend to use these, hon? Are you going to create an archive
>file or use them when replying to folks in usenet, or what?
many FAQs (frequently asked questions) can be provided this information
as part of a "here's one (possibly incomplete, simple) answer, but if
you want more information these key terms will assist you in getting it!"
response.
I used to think that question-sets would be best for this, elaborating
the details of a subject area without providing the discerning biases
of contending knowledge-bases and the factions which support them.
however, most people don't understand the value of question-sets, from
what I can tell, unless they come pre-pablumized with ready-made
answers! that is, too many questions daunts the untrepid explorer.
until a Student has graduated to the status of Philosophus (I'm now
co-opting the Rosicrucian and Goldawnian system for my own! Mwahaha!)
we cannot expect that such a question-set will do more than confuse
and perturb. the Student or Zealotor (characterized by eagerness
without development) asks after information, and particularly means
by which information may be acquired in a form assimilatable to hir
stage of development.
the key term set, therefore, provides the Zealotor with just such a
tool to obtain this abundance of information pertinant to hir interest,
but WITHOUT the constraining and dominating format of providing a
KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM which contains and defines it for others. we provide
the building blocks or compositional elements of a variety of knowledge
systems that utilize them so that the Zealotor may follow them out in
the worldwide web or within any responsible index or table of contents
in a reference text offline.
the format I have begun to use is derived from the headers to REFerence
files and FAQs in usenet, and looks like this:
------------------------------------------------------- begin FAQ FORMAT
<file subroutine>
FILENAME: <the identifying information about the reference file>
VERSION: <revision date or serial number>
LOCATION: <the location of the file, its URL for updated versions>
<query subroutine>
QUESTION: <the frequently-asked query, implying the general subject>
RESPONSE:
Key Terms: <series of key terms which, if used within
a search-engine or an offline index,
should return data of particular relevance
to the subject implied above>
Related Terms: <series of terms which would provide
contextual and/or comparable information
if used for research as above>
Text: <compilation of potential or received responses
to the query, or refined summaries of these into
comprehensive 'FAQ' responses; or, a biased
response indicating the preferences of the person
constructing the REFerence document, whether due
to the objective limitation of the subject area
itself (as with a company's product or a material
object being described), the experiential and/or
knowledge limitations of the author (innocence or
ignorance), or the intent to persuade on the part
of the author (argumentation, politics, or even
fundamentalism)>
References: <URLs from which may be obtained material
comparable to or identical with extracts
contained within the Text: field above;
this would include FTP archives and email
contact addresses; it would also include
any noncyber references such as books,
postal addresses, phone numbers, etc.>
</query subroutine>
Credits: <contributors to the document provided credit>
Copyright: <identification of copyright authority for
the textual content and formal composition>
</file subroutine>
end FAQ FORMAT -------------------------------------------------------
and here's my revision for the Hermetic/Goldawnian/Thelemic offices to set
the stage for the usage of FAQs and REFs:
MATRICULAR (formerly "Golden Dawn")
-----------------------------------
0 Neophyte
uninformed, uninterested, contemptuous, apathetic, or resistant
I Zealotor
aggressively interested, consumptive, gullible, and accepting
II Theoricus
comprehending of a single knowledge-system concerning the subject
III Practicus
comprehending of a single practical system concerning the subject
IV Philosophus
comparing and contrasting theoretical and practical systems
SOCIETAL (formerly "Rosicrucian")
---------------------------------
V Adeptus Minor
capable of minor demonstrations for those of lesser rank
("teacher's assistant")
VI Adeptus Major
capable of managing a complete educational program
("instructor")
VII Adeptus Exemptus
capable of providing one-to-one instruction on a case-by-case
basis outside the confines of an educational program
("counsellor" and "reference librarian")
INITIATORY (formerly "Silver Star")
-----------------------------------
VIII Magister Templi
maintaining a structure of initiation whereby those who
come within hir sphere are inspired to similar endeavours
IX Magus
prophet catalyzing practical and theoretical revolution
X Ipsissimus
transcendantal force of transformation
--------------------------------------------------------------
references such as FAQs and REFs are therefore of use to all
individuals beyond the grade of Neophyte (I), but the content
and spin of the material contained within them will pertain
to greater and lesser achievements. those expressing single,
biased systems can only be said to be that of the Practicus (III)
or below, while that which broadens the subject matter for the
apprehension of true diversity may even derive from such as
as the Adeptus Major (VI). beyond this level, expression tends
to either be too personal (directed toward a specific student,
for example, in the case of the Adeptus Exemptus (VII)), or
so revolutionary or ambiguous so as to at times hinder those
students unprepared for this level of discourse (to Ipsissimus (X),
whose expressions tend to be so simple as to resemble that of the
Neophyte or so ambiguous as to resemble seemingly unusable poetry).
blessed beast!
tyaginator
--
FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: cata...@luckymojo.com
mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
catherine yronwode
>
> 50001016 Vom
>
> sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> >For your files, dear one:
>
> <etc.>
>
> thank you!
>
> >How do you intend to use these, hon? Are you going to create an
> >archive file or use them when replying to folks in usenet, or what?
>
> many FAQs (frequently asked questions) can be provided this
> information as part of a "here's one (possibly incomplete, simple)
> answer, but if you want more information these key terms will assist
> you in getting it!" response.
>
> I used to think that question-sets would be best for this, elaborating
> the details of a subject area without providing the discerning biases
> of contending knowledge-bases and the factions which support them.
Does this mean you will now ask fewer questions in usenet? :-)
> the key term set, therefore, provides the Zealotor with just such a
> tool to obtain this abundance of information pertinant to hir
> interest, but WITHOUT the constraining and dominating format of
> providing a KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM which contains and defines it for others.
> we provide the building blocks or compositional elements of a variety
> of knowledge systems that utilize them so that the Zealotor may follow
> them out in the worldwide web or within any responsible index or table
> of contents in a reference text offline.
In other words, you will now begin using this format for replying to
queries? How wonderful! You are so ... orderly!!!!
> the format I have begun to use is derived from the headers to
> REFerence files and FAQs in usenet, and looks like this:
My comments are interlineated ... and by the way, i had to shorten your
lines a lot to keep them from overflowing -- you put too many blank
charcaters at the left margin.
> ----------------------------------------- begin FAQ FORMAT
>
> <file subroutine>
>
> FILENAME: <the identifying information about the reference file>
>
> VERSION: <revision date or serial number>
>
> LOCATION: <the location of the file, its URL for updated versions>
>
> <query subroutine>
Would you use the query subroutine alone (without the file subroutine)
in usenet, when no filename is specified and hence no file subroutine
can be employed?
> QUESTION: <the frequently-asked query, implying the general subject>
>
> RESPONSE:
> Key Terms: <series of key terms which, if used within
> a search-engine or an offline index,
> should return data of particular relevance
> to the subject implied above>
May i suggest that you identify the usefulness of the key terms for the
querent, perhaps in a format such as this:
Key Terms (use these with an internet search engine
such as google.com to get more answers):
> Related Terms: <series of terms which would provide
> contextual and/or comparable information
> if used for research as above>
may i suggest that you identify the usefulness of the key terms for the
querent, perhaps in a format such as this:
Related Terms (use these with an internet search engine
for broader, more contextual answers):
> Text: <compilation of potential or received responses
> to the query, or refined summaries of these into
> comprehensive 'FAQ' responses; or, a biased
> response indicating the preferences of the person
> constructing the REFerence document, whether due
> to the objective limitation of the subject area
> itself (as with a company's product or a material
> object being described), the experiential and/or
> knowledge limitations of the author (innocence or
> ignorance), or the intent to persuade on the part
> of the author (argumentation, politics, or even
> fundamentalism)>
This i presume, is the actual "answer" in usenet.
> References: <URLs from which may be obtained material
> comparable to or identical with extracts
> contained within the Text: field above;
> this would include FTP archives and email
> contact addresses; it would also include
> any noncyber references such as books,
> postal addresses, phone numbers, etc.>
I usually place any list of web pages and books in the body of the reply
to the querent rather than piling them up at the bottom. Just a matter
of style, i guess.
> </query subroutine>
>
> Credits: <contributors to the document provided credit>
>
> Copyright: <identification of copyright authority for
> the textual content and formal composition>
I have taken to placing copyrights on my substantive usenet posts
lately, because Joanna Licciardi-Martinez (aka Jo, Peacedawge,
Moondawge, emoress Jo, MojoJuju et al) has been ripping my writing off
and posting it at her site with my name deleted and hers appended, as if
she had written my texts. Therefore i would add the copyright notice to
the query subroutine (e.g. for usenet), not only the file subroutine
(e.g. for ftp or the web).
> </file subroutine>
>
> end FAQ FORMAT ----------------------------------------------
>
> and here's my revision for the Hermetic/Goldawnian/Thelemic offices to
> set the stage for the usage of FAQs and REFs:
<snipped as being too specialized>
Let's try another one: A newbie asks:
"Is Magick black or white?"
Now ... answer that one with your new format. :-)
cat yronwode
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
Re O'Stat
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> Let's try another one: A newbie asks:
>
> "Is Magick black or white?"
>
> cat yronwode
>
Well, I'll jump in and give my impression. YMMV.
To ask if magick is black or white is much like asking if water is black
or white. It is a question which, in itself, has no meaning without
defining "black" and "white" in this context.
Today, some would question these divisions as being racist. However,
that is another discussion which we need not go into here.
Generally, white magick is considered "good" and black magick is
considered "bad." Unfortunately, different people still consider good
and bad in different ways. For example:
1) Some people would consider anything which is spiritual (uniting or
communing with the divine, giving comfort to others, seeking
trancendence, healing [possibly], etc.) to be good while anything for
the physical world (money, power, fame, love, etc.) to be bad.
2) Others would say that anything that helps people is good and anything
which hurts people is bad.
3) Still others say that anything that calls on God is good and anything
else is bad.
The line that goes through all of these interpretations is that magick
can be used for all of these purposes.
Unfortunately, there is a question as to methodology versus outcome. In
versions 1 and 2, the methodology is unimportant, only the outcome
determines whether the magick is white or black, good or bad. Version 3
says the methodology determines good or bad and the outcome is actually
unimportant.
In my opinion, the type 3 interpretation is followed by a relatively
small number of people. Rather, types 1 and 2 seem to be the norm. If we
accept this (and as shown, not all people do), then what determines
whether magick is black or white is not dependant upon what you do, but
the goal and outcome of your magick.
In fact, this seems to be accurate according to many magicians. Magic is
neither black nor white. Rather, what you do with it determines its
shade. You can use the exact same techniques to perform magick that is
either white or black.
The idea that magick is simply magick and that the goal/outcome
determines the shade results in the inevitable view that there can be
colors of magick. In Real Magic, Bonewitz presents ideas of colored
magick. Others have presented further ideas that there are different
colors of magick, focused on the purpose of the magick.
The indication seems to be that Magick is simply a technology, much like
electricity. Electricity is electricity. That's all. And just as
electricity can light your room or electricute you, so, too, can magick
be black or white.
Magick is simply magick.
Re
Sar Draconis
>
> In article <39EB99...@luckymojo.com>, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Is Magick black or white?"
> >
It has been frequently alleged that Re O'Stat is Sar Draconis. As Mr.
Re O'Stat (aka Mr. Poke Runyon) has not taken the trouble to deny the
claim, then let me do it for him:
I AM NOT RE O STAT.
Best regards,
SAR DRACONIS