Soror TQ Interviews Keith
David R. Jones
you better do it via email and even then I will probably ignore it ;-)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/keith418
Soror TQ Interviews Keith
Due to the recent release of the Bay Area OTO "expose," "The Black Lodge of
Santa Cruz," I consented to be interviewed...
So what was your reaction to the book detailing some of your exploits in the
late 80's, early 90's?
I was amused. The irony is pretty obvious. I have spent years studying and
tracking down exposes of Mormonism, Scientology, the Jehovah's Witnesses,
The I AM Cult, The Church of Satan, The Masons, The Temple of Set, the
Golden Dawn, etc. only to wind up being in an expose myself!
Was the book accurate?
I'm sure this is very much how the author saw it. I have a few quibbles
about the details. For example, the name for the house we worked in was
never "Oz House" - we called it, and still call it, "The Catacombs." It was
up the street from what was then Thelema Lodge, not next door. I also felt
some of the characterizations were unfair.
In what way?
John Golding was and is a brilliant, caring, wonderful person. He never had
any sympathy for anything like a "Golden Dawn" approach to Enochian, and to
assert that is a direct contradiction to the facts. I thought the portrait
of him in the book was simple character assassination. It was driven by
jealousy. We got that all the time. John also, frankly, worked harder at
ceremonial magick and made a deeper commitment to it than the author did. We
went off and did our own thing (alluded to in the book) while Mike (the
author of "The Black Lodge of Santa Cruz") was stuck in a very dependent way
on David Jones.
Was there anything left out of the book?
Of course! Most of the people reading it have commented on the fact that our
voracious consumption of chemical substances was left out. I have no idea
why this was done. In addition, there are a few more subtle details that
were not included. For example, Mike never mentions the fact that during
this whole series of episodes he never had a job.
Why is that important?
Well, despite how wacky things got, I also had to go to work every day. This
meant that I was sort of forced to stabilize. When events got too wild
outside of work, I had work as a solace. When work stressed me out, I had
the magical work to balance that. Mike never had that balance. He told me a
little while ago that during that period of time he considered his magical
work his job. That doesn't wash with me, since the people who actually had
to work got much further than he did.
What do you think was his main problem?
I think Mike could never make full commitments. He never really fully
committed to any of the things he picked up. If he had, that commitment
would have seen him through the rough spots. The sort of "inner peace" he
talks about at the end of the book would have come to him much faster. In
addition, there is the problem of "answered prayers."
What's that?
"There are more tears shed over answered prayers than
over unanswered prayers," said Saint Theresa. In magick it's the idea that
you have to be careful about what you want and work for, because the chances
are good that you will get it. Mike had a much harder time with his
successful operations than he did with his failures. He asked for things,
got them, and couldn't handle the results.
Why does this happen?
I think people don't know their own wills. John Golding and I were always
very clear on what it was we wanted and were never disappointed by our
successful operations. Mike never had that clarity. It's not something you
can give to people. In his recent "paper presentation" DRJ went over this
exact issue. I wonder if anyone got it.
Do you think the damage described in the book was due to the use of Enochian
magick?
No. Despite his comments about Golding, John was far more skilled at
Enochian work than Mike ever was. We didn't have these problems and we were
doing stuff that was just as intense as what Mike was watching David do.
Despite his comments now about "magical tourism" this book proves that at
the time, David was the "Capt. Steubing" of the magical tourism "Love Boat."
I think our (John's and mine) results were better. We weren't dependent on
David, and Mike was.
Was it the drugs?
There will be many to pass this all off to the drugs, but I think this
over-states their ultimate importance. They certainly didn't slow down the
descent into the spiral, but there was more to than just the drugs. Much of
it was propelled by profound confusion and unhappiness.
So what else was left out?
You need to see that this book is only one person's account. Each of us sees
things through our own perspective. I think a lot was left out, but that's
because it's not my book. Some of it mirrors my own experiences very
closely. Much of it doesn't, but I wouldn't expect it to. Mike didn't
experience and know everything I did, and the same is true for me. It is
very well written as these things go.
Where you surprised someone would write a book like this?
No. Even at the time I knew something like this had great cinematic and
literary potential. It was part of the fun! It was like being in a great
"beat" novel or a terrific film. David Jones will always be, for me anyway,
the "Dean Moriarty" of the American occult community.
Any last thoughts?
I wish Mike all the best.
Satyr
I learned in correspondence with Keith last fall that he is now on the
Electoral College of the Caliphate, with the implication that he is now
V°, and KRE. As such, he has sworn to assist the Grand Master of the Order
in his efforts to govern the Caliphate. To my mind, this accounts for the
obvious discrepancies between what he wishes here to be said officially,
in public, and what he confided to me in private.
In addition to his honest opinion on why things went wrong, he wrote to me
in glowing terms of his triumph over the addictions that gripped him back
then, of his new wife, his government job, his house, his driver's
license, his car, and his return to the middle class under the guidance of
Jerry Cornelius. Keith gave full credit to Jerry, for having helped him to
realize that being normal, in the eyes of one's neighbors, was of the
utmost value for anyone practicing magick. After reading his words, and
pondering their implication, I found myself curiously resolved to publish
my tale in "The Black Lodge of Santa Cruz".
I am deeply indebted to Keith for his friendship in the past, for the
motivation his letters provided, for reading my work, and for reacting so
strongly to its message that he found himself compelled to have his
official opinion made public in this forum.
My only wish is that he continues in his current happiness.
--
Satyr
****************************************
http://www.kaosbabalon.btinternet.co.uk/
catherine yronwode
"David R. Jones" <jdn...@budget.net> wrote:
> > Posted at K's [Keith Schurholz's] request (I rarely read usenet
> > so if you want to reply to me you better do it via email and even
> > then I will probably ignore it;-)
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/keith418
> >
> > Soror TQ Interviews Keith [Schurholz]
> >
> > Due to the recent release of the Bay Area OTO "expose," "The Black
> > Lodge of Santa Cruz," I consented to be interviewed...
> >
> > So what was your reaction to the book detailing some of your
> > exploits in the late 80's, early 90's?
> >
> > I was amused. The irony is pretty obvious. I have spent years
> > studying and tracking down exposes of Mormonism, Scientology, the
> > Jehovah's Witnesses, The I AM Cult, The Church of Satan, The
> > Masons, The Temple of Set, the Golden Dawn, etc. only to wind up
> > being in an expose myself!
> >
> > Was the book accurate?
> >
> > I'm sure this is very much how the author saw it. I have a few
> > quibbles about the details. For example, the name for the house we
> > worked in was never "Oz House" - we called it, and still call it,
> > "The Catacombs." It was up the street from what was then Thelema
> > Lodge, not next door.
Quibble #2: Orinda is not "a small village east of San Francisco" any
more than Phladelphia is a large city east of San Francisco. That is,
the direction is correct, but the placement is not. The Bay (a body of
water connected to the Pacific Ocean) is east of San Francisco. Orinda
is a lage, extremely affluent suburb (not a "small village") east of
Berkeley.
> > I also felt some of the characterizations
> > were unfair.
> >
> > In what way?
> >
> > John Golding was and is a brilliant, caring, wonderful person. He
> > never had any sympathy for anything like a "Golden Dawn" approach
> > to Enochian, and to assert that is a direct contradiction to the
> > facts. I thought the portrait of him in the book was simple
> > character assassination. It was driven by jealousy. We got that
> > all the time. John also, frankly, worked harder at ceremonial
> > magick and made a deeper commitment to it than the author did. We
> > went off and did our own thing (alluded to in the book) while Mike
> > (the author of "The Black Lodge of Santa Cruz") was stuck in
> > a very dependent way on David Jones.
> >
> > Was there anything left out of the book?
> >
> > Of course! Most of the people reading it have commented on the
> > fact that our voracious consumption of chemical substances was
> > left out. I have no idea why this was done.
I don't understand the deletion of all references to drugs, either, and
i, for one, would have though that information would have been of value
to those interested in the effects that psychotropic substances have
upon magical workings.
As some may recall, i have written in the past about the possibility
that some of the inconsistencies in Aleister Crowley's magical writings
may have stemmed from the varied effects of ingesting different drugs at
different times in his life.
I feel the same way about Satyr's memoir -- it leaves me wondering which
drugs were associated with the paranoia he so diligently describes --
and which drugs were associated with workings in which he felt powerful
and strong -- or if both effects were asscooiated with the same drugs at
different times.
> > In addition, there are a few more subtle details that were not
> > included. For example, Mike never mentions the fact that
> > during this whole series of episodes he never had a job.
This fact certainly comes across between the lines, though.
> > Why is that important?
> >
> > Well, despite how wacky things got, I also had to go to work every
> > day. This meant that I was sort of forced to stabilize. When
> > events got too wild outside of work, I had work as a solace. When
> > work stressed me out, I had the magical work to balance that. Mike
> > never had that balance. He told me a little while ago that during
> > that period of time he considered his magical work his job. That
> > doesn't wash with me, since the people who actually had to work
> > got much further than he did.
As Michael describes events, he was not only not working at a paying
job, he was on a free-floating circadian cycle, placing him occasionally
out of phase with colleages and his wife. This probably came to pass in
part because he had no routinized employment and thus no commitments to
be any place at any time. That alone can be socially destabilizing,
without respect to drug use and magical workings.
> > What do you think was his main problem?
> >
> > I think Mike could never make full commitments. He never really
> > fully committed to any of the things he picked up. If he had, that
> > commitment would have seen him through the rough spots. The sort
> > of "inner peace" he talks about at the end of the book would have
> > come to him much faster.
This is the kind of moralizing that is often made by those who believe
that their innate biological resilience signifies a *moral* superiority
to those who succumb to ill side-effects of drug use. As such, it is
trach.
> > In addition, there is the problem of "answered prayers."
> >
> > What's that?
> >
> > "There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over
> > unanswered prayers," said Saint Theresa. In magick it's the idea
> > that you have to be careful about what you want and work for,
> > because the chances are good that you will get it. Mike had a much
> > harder time with his successful operations than he did with his
> > failures. He asked for things, got them, and couldn't handle the
> > results.
Oh boy, the typical Anglo-Germanic babble on about backfired payers and
blow-back spell-craft. I chose to ignore such moralizing.
> > Why does this happen?
> >
> > I think people don't know their own wills. John Golding and I were
> > always very clear on what it was we wanted and were never
> > disappointed by our successful operations. Mike never had that
> > clarity. It's not something you can give to people. In his recent
> > "paper presentation" DRJ went over this exact issue. I wonder if
> > anyone got it.
I read this as simply a way to dismiss someone who suffered, naming the
victim as the architect of his own downfall. It's typical New Age crap,
working from Christian principles, in my opinion.
I hold no brief for Satyr (a chronically disagreeable and foul-mouthed
entity with respect to me) but he deserves -- we all deserve -- better
than being parlor-psychoanalyzed by Thelemic Dogmatists.
> > Do you think the damage described in the book was due to the use
> > of Enochian magick?
> >
> > No. Despite his comments about Golding, John was far more skilled
> > at Enochian work than Mike ever was. We didn't have these problems
> > and we were doing stuff that was just as intense as what Mike was
> > watching David do. Despite his comments now about "magical
> > tourism" this book proves that at the time, David was the "Capt.
> > Steubing" of the magical tourism "Love Boat." I think our (John's
> > and mine) results were better. We weren't dependent on David, and
> > Mike was.
> >
> > Was it the drugs?
> >
> > There will be many to pass this all off to the drugs, but I think
> > this over-states their ultimate importance. They certainly didn't
> > slow down the descent into the spiral, but there was more to than
> > just the drugs. Much of it was propelled by profound confusion and
> > unhappiness.
As a drug-user myself, who has done jail time on drug charges, i again
would like to know which drugs are being alluded to here. Hashish was
mentioned in the early pages of the manuscript -- but after that the
record remains blank.
All of us old enough to have gone through these things know that certain
drugs, including LSD, amphetamines, ectasy, pcp, and even marijuana,
when used too frequently, can lead to ongoing states of paranoia that
obviate any attempt to perform acts of magick. Such drug-induced
overlays of paranoia may cloud daily life and, worse, they may turn a
simple magical ceremony into a parade of delusional terror.
If the Enochian operations described by Satyr were performed in a
relatively drug-free environment, i would be more likely to attribute
the horrors he encountered to the magickal workings alone -- but with an
unknown quantity of unnamed drugs thrown into the mix, i am left
wondering what the heck was going on.
But, mind you, i also have been known to ask on more than one occasion,
"What the heck was Violet Firth smoking when that cat jumped out at
her?!"
> > So what else was left out?
> >
> > You need to see that this book is only one person's account. Each
> > of us sees things through our own perspective. I think a lot was
> > left out, but that's because it's not my book. Some of it mirrors
> > my own experiences very closely. Much of it doesn't, but I
> > wouldn't expect it to. Mike didn't experience and know everything
> > I did, and the same is true for me. It is very well written as
> > these things go.
I found it odd that, while naming everyong else and exposing them to
public scrutiny, Michael did not name himself or Susan (his then-wife)
by surname, only by first name, and he gave neither a first name nor a
surname to "Belial," the young man with whom Susan became lovers.
I still don't know Michael's last name, and would like to know it, if
only for the sake of fairness.
> > Where you surprised someone would write a book like this?
> >
> > No. Even at the time I knew something like this had great
> > cinematic and literary potential. It was part of the fun! It was
> > like being in a great "beat" novel or a terrific film. David Jones
> > will always be, for me anyway, the "Dean Moriarty" of the American
> > occult community.
> >
> > Any last thoughts?
> >
> > I wish Mike all the best.
> I learned in correspondence with Keith last fall that he is now on
> the Electoral College of the Caliphate, with the implication that he
> is now V*, and KRE. As such, he has sworn to assist the Grand Master
> of the Order in his efforts to govern the Caliphate. To my mind,
> this accounts for the obvious discrepancies between what he wishes
> here to be said officially, in public, and what he confided to me in
> private.
This is a real problem in the OTO, isn't it? There is a certain
institutionalized deviousness in it -- at least to this outsider's eyes.
> In addition to his honest opinion on why things went wrong, he wrote
> to me in glowing terms of his triumph over the addictions that
> gripped him back then,
Okay, so are we talking amphetamines, then?
> of his new wife, his government job, his house, his driver's
> license, his car, and his return to the middle class under the
> guidance of Jerry Cornelius. Keith gave full credit to Jerry, for
> having helped him to realize that being normal, in the eyes of one's
> neighbors, was of the utmost value for anyone practicing magick.
Jerry really said that???
> After reading his words, and pondering their implication, I found
> myself curiously resolved to publish my tale in "The Black Lodge of
> Santa Cruz".
I can see why the disconnection between Keith's pubic and private
personae inspired you to write the memoir. Although, as i said above, i
wish you had been as forthright with yours, Susan's and Beliaal's names
as you were with the names of others, and that, for the sake of other
magical experimentors, you had been explicit with respect to when drugs
were used in your operations and when not, and which drugs those were.
> I am deeply indebted to Keith for his friendship in the past, for
> the motivation his letters provided, for reading my work, and for
> reacting so strongly to its message that he found himself compelled
> to have his official opinion made public in this forum.
Yes, there is a whiff of Stalinist show-trial in the public presentation
of the "official opinion"; i can smell it, faintly, faintly...
> My only wish is that he continues in his current happiness.
No doubt. And i notice that despite the schism and the passage of time,
both you and Keith Schurholz still retain the same numeric signature, he
being Keith418 and you Satyr418.
Some marks are branded in the spirit, not in the flesh.
cat (108) yronwode
Freemasonry for Women ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html
Lu Zhen Shih
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote
<sniper>
;-) This is almost getting pathetic, isn't it?
> cat (108) yronwode
<snip>
aethyr augoeides
Azal and rosaries: you guys are reading me mind
aa
catherine yronwode
>
> >>cat (108) yronwode
> Azal and rosaries: you guys are reading me mind
But not mine :-)
cat (do more numeric research!) yronwode
Kali Does Shiva
Heidi Klum?! Heidi Klum?! Heidi Klum?!
http://www.fifty-five.com/photos/klum34.jpg
catherine yronwode
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> > aethyr augoeides wrote:
> > > > cat (108) yronwode
> > > Azal and rosaries: you guys are reading me mind
> > But not mine :-) cat (do more numeric research!) yronwode
> What does this have to do with Heidi Klum?!
Lu Zhen Shih
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3D7BCA...@luckymojo.com...
Awe. What if he were talking about the perpetual striving of lust of result
in alt.magick(generaly speaking); like hamsters in a wheel?;-)
Did I read your mind, Cat?
Lu Zhen Shih
Do more numeric research!
catherine yronwode
>
> Did I read your mind, Cat?
Nope.
My referent was to the topics herein discussed -- Mike's memoire "The
Black Lodge of Santa Cruz" and the commentary thereon by Keith. In
short, i chose 108 as a signature numeral for myself in that specific
post in *contrast* to the obviously Kabbaloid / Themlemic /
gematria-based 418 numeral that both Keith and Mike, although at odds in
terms of their individual magico-mystical paths, were still appending to
their screen names, more than a decade after the events described. Hence
it had nothing much to do with your terms, such as "108 beads" or "the
Lust of God."
It is true that 108 is assoicated with mala beads and god-forms and such
and so forth, but those ascriptions are, to me, mere add-ons. 108 names
of siva, 108 names of kali, 108 this-that-and-the-other -- including
gates in the castle of Odin and all and all and all -- they are of
cultural interest, no doubt, but beneath such attributions the
transcultural basis of 108 *anythings* should point the inquisitive
seeker to a purely math-based significance, not a culture-bound (because
language-bound) gematria-based significance, such as we see in 418.
By choosing 108 as a sig in that post, i was alluding to my opinion, set
forth in this newsgroup and in the thelema-93 e-list on several
occasions in the past, and hence no revelation, that the entire GD / OTO
/ Thelemic / Crowleyan / Enochian system of Aetheyrs and
pseudo-Kabbalisms (in which Mike and and Keith and David and the lot
became ensnared, as described in "The Black Loidge of Santa Cruz") is
but a small eddy or backwater in the larger cosmic flux -- and that this
larger flux is better described, in my opinion, in purely mathematical
terms that transcend any given cultural pardigm based on human language.
Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a
fight, that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is
similarly language-based and may in the end subject him (and any other
potential followers of Steve) to similar involvement with small, shallow
waters instead of the larger flux.
108 was simply a convenient and well-studied integer i pulled out of a
large skein of such numbers. I might just as easily have made my point
by signing off with "360."
cat (or 1.618) yronwode
The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
Lu Zhen Shih
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote
"360."
lol. Signal-to-noise ratio? Aethyr knows his shit. LIKE WOMEN I KNOW, in
order to be heard! you must insist hurting feelings. It's not appropriate
and we expect more from your scholastic position. Give us what we deserve,
Cat.
Thank-you.
Grrr
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a
>fight, that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is
>similarly language-based and may in the end subject him (and any other
>potential followers of Steve) to similar involvement with small, shallow
>waters instead of the larger flux.
indeed.
*points* - "look! can you see the finger?!"
--
Lu Zhen Shih
Joel Biroco
>On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:35:28 GMT, catherine yronwode
><c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
>>Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a
>>fight, that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is
>>similarly language-based and may in the end subject him (and any other
>>potential followers of Steve) to similar involvement with small, shallow
>>waters instead of the larger flux.
Followers are always shallow, no matter what they follow. You ain't
preaching to me, I'm not the one who needs this advice. As someone
said: "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the sort of
person I preach to." Still, your concern is doubtless touching, were I
organising a motorbike gang.
What you regard as "shallow waters" may simply be what is beyond your
comprehension, ever considered that? You want to know what shallow
waters are? Imagining that your small backwater concerns are in fact
the larger flux. You saying that doesn't apply to you then? Take the
gristle from between your teeth and swallow hard before deigning to
comment on the beliefs and lifestyles of others.
>
>indeed.
>
>*points* - "look! can you see the finger?!"
It's up yer ass perhaps? Yet another zen deadhead. Say something
original.
Lu Zhen Shih
"Grrr" <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in message
news:h6rnnuscchqm1feks...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:35:28 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a fight,
that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is similarly
language-based and may in the end subject him (and any other potential
instead of the larger flux_CLEAR_DEEP_SEA/WATER
>
> indeed.
>
> *points* - "look! can you see the finger?!"
> --
Huh? I don't see anything.
> http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/i/Clearing.txt
mommadona
I love it - boils down to 9 (Hermit) any way you "add it up"...Thanks, cat
Grrr
Say something
>original.
Joel is a really cool guy, who would never conflate his little mental
abstractions for his own self-indulgent ends.
HTH
--
Satyr
I'll accept that. In all honesty, I can't recall even looking at the place
on a map. I arrived there in the middle of the night, and my mind was very
much elsewhere when I left. Suppose there aren't many "villages" that
haven't succombed to the Bay Area sprawl. I used to tell folks back home
that I lived in a small town, between San Francisco and San Jose, in
reference to Mountain View. It's population, back then, was greater than
the population of the largest city in a one-hundred mile radius of where I
live today.
I have to agree, but can only do so in principal.
In the interest of fairness and honesty, both to myself and to others, I
would have to have included all instances in which, in my admittedly
subjective opinion, drug use and abuse seriously impacted any particular
person's behavior, or any particular situation. There is a legal phrase
for that sort of literary integrity: criminal libel. Personally, knowing
full well that this would be the Caliphate's first line of attack, as
amply attested in Keith's "interview", I preferred to allow them to cast
the first stone with hypocritical glee. To my mind, it poignantly and
effectively underscores the character of the people who find my essay so
distressing.
As you note, I did not attempt to sugar-coat or hide my mental state from
the reader in any way, shape, or form, and cannot begin to tell you just
how painful it was to crawl back into that mindset once more, even from a
safe and sane perspective that many intervening years and a vastly
healthier lifestyle affords. And if anything, I was even at some pains to
downplay how psychotic those around me had become by the end of the
narrative, omitting much of what could, and possibly should, have been
said. The record stands as it was written, as accurately and honestly as
my meager skills allowed. Those who are predisposed to discredit personal
responsibility, the kind of folks that said General Grant was just a
drunk, or William Burrough's was just a junkie, will read my words and
draw the conclusions they wish to draw. Others may ponder what I've
written, and recognize that results are results, and psychosis is
psychosis, whatever its possible source. Today, I can pass any given drug
test on any given day of the week. The responsibility for my actions I
take upon myself, and take no pride, and find no shame, in the contents of
my bodily fluids. I never have, and I never will.
The mantra "It was the drugs" has become Caliphate boilerplate in the
years since I left. Pundits, like my friend Keith, wear their Sunday
school cleanliness like a merit badge, pointing to it and wagging their
heads sagely when explaining that this is why their little Thelemic club
is so keen on keeping its image pristine in the eyes of the public. This
is total bullshit, and you and I know it. The Caliphate has no valid claim
to being THE OTO, and instead have been forced to rely upon one arguable
ruling in a California courtroom to establish their `legitimacy'. The
powers that be know all to well that to question the legal system to which
they owe their existence, even when its laws are in direct conflict with
their stated goals, and the fundamental rights of its members, is to
question their own existence as well. Though I was originally drawn to the
ideals of the OTO, and as my essay shows, involved myself in its
manifestation as the Caliphate, I cannot find it within my heart to
countenance such rank hypocrisy. This too affected my decisions as I
wrote.
Like yourself, I am interested in psychopharmacology as well, and under
the ill-considered and draconian laws of this land, it is a sadly
neglected field. Anyone who has been personally involved in this
particular subculture, knows that there are drugs and there are drugs:
some are harmless, some can be harmful, at least for certain individuals
or under certain circumstances, and some are probably dangerous under any
circumstances, and best avoided altogether. The Caliphate, burdened with
the path to `legitimacy' it has been forced to take, have chosen to agree
with our government, and declare all illicit drugs detrimental to the
health and wellbeing of the individual. The hypocricy and stupidity of
this stance cannot be overemphasized enough. Just how hypocritical, again,
may only be justified at the risk of being subject to potential legal
action.
Sorry for clamoring atop my soapbox like this, but I hope this
demonstrates that the decision of what to leave in, and what to leave out,
was not made lightly, nor without duress.
>> > In addition, there are a few more subtle details that were not
>> > included. For example, Mike never mentions the fact that during this
>> > whole series of episodes he never had a job.
>
> This fact certainly comes across between the lines, though.
>
>> > Why is that important?
>> >
>> > Well, despite how wacky things got, I also had to go to work every
>> > day. This meant that I was sort of forced to stabilize. When events
>> > got too wild outside of work, I had work as a solace. When work
>> > stressed me out, I had the magical work to balance that. Mike never
>> > had that balance. He told me a little while ago that during that
>> > period of time he considered his magical work his job. That doesn't
>> > wash with me, since the people who actually had to work got much
>> > further than he did.
>
> As Michael describes events, he was not only not working at a paying
> job, he was on a free-floating circadian cycle, placing him occasionally
> out of phase with colleages and his wife. This probably came to pass in
> part because he had no routinized employment and thus no commitments to
> be any place at any time. That alone can be socially destabilizing,
> without respect to drug use and magical workings.
Indeed. I hadn't thought of it such terms before reading your comment, but
like some other more commonly recognized shamanic techniques, it helped to
achieve what I wanted at the time: to step out of the social context in
which I was then embedded. Part of the realization that writing this essay
has afforded was see, in retrospect, how events and behaviors allowed me
to break away from the conditioning that gripped me, and has given me the
perspective and insight I enjoy today.
>> > What do you think was his main problem?
>> >
>> > I think Mike could never make full commitments. He never really fully
>> > committed to any of the things he picked up. If he had, that
>> > commitment would have seen him through the rough spots. The sort of
>> > "inner peace" he talks about at the end of the book would have come
>> > to him much faster.
>
> This is the kind of moralizing that is often made by those who believe
> that their innate biological resilience signifies a *moral* superiority
> to those who succumb to ill side-effects of drug use. As such, it is
> trach.
That, and it reflects a reluctance to make public his own story, and the
depths to which he himself descended. If anything, I cleaned up my act far
sooner than did Keith, and emerged on the other side of my nightmare
without "selling my soul", or compromising my personal integrity. In my
opinion, it is his inability to admit this, to himself and others, that
has forced him to speak out as he has done in this "interview".
>> > In addition, there is the problem of "answered prayers."
>> >
>> > What's that?
>> >
>> > "There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over unanswered
>> > prayers," said Saint Theresa. In magick it's the idea that you have
>> > to be careful about what you want and work for, because the chances
>> > are good that you will get it. Mike had a much harder time with his
>> > successful operations than he did with his failures. He asked for
>> > things, got them, and couldn't handle the results.
>
> Oh boy, the typical Anglo-Germanic babble on about backfired payers and
> blow-back spell-craft. I chose to ignore such moralizing.
>
>> > Why does this happen?
>> >
>> > I think people don't know their own wills. John Golding and I were
>> > always very clear on what it was we wanted and were never
>> > disappointed by our successful operations. Mike never had that
>> > clarity. It's not something you can give to people. In his recent
>> > "paper presentation" DRJ went over this exact issue. I wonder if
>> > anyone got it.
>
> I read this as simply a way to dismiss someone who suffered, naming the
> victim as the architect of his own downfall. It's typical New Age crap,
> working from Christian principles, in my opinion.
>
> I hold no brief for Satyr (a chronically disagreeable and foul-mouthed
> entity with respect to me) but he deserves -- we all deserve -- better
> than being parlor-psychoanalyzed by Thelemic Dogmatists.
Thanks, cat. If it makes you feel any better, I'm a foul-mouthed bastard
in real life as well.
They have to pigeonhole me somehow, in a desperate and stupid attempt to
shoot the messenger, even after he has delivered his message. The ripples
created by my little essay are spreading rapidly, and I have already
received reports that formerly loyal members of the Caliphate are
hesitating to advance to the next degree after reading "The Black Lodge".
These ludicrous attempts at character assassination only serve to
intensify this effect.
Well, exactly. I've had weird shit happen in decidedly altered states, and
I've had weird shit happen when I was stone-cold sober. As a veteran of
such things, I must say that when I can safely observe, "that's some good
shit", the experiences are far easier to explain.
>> > So what else was left out?
>> >
>> > You need to see that this book is only one person's account. Each of
>> > us sees things through our own perspective. I think a lot was left
>> > out, but that's because it's not my book. Some of it mirrors my own
>> > experiences very closely. Much of it doesn't, but I wouldn't expect
>> > it to. Mike didn't experience and know everything I did, and the same
>> > is true for me. It is very well written as these things go.
>
> I found it odd that, while naming everyong else and exposing them to
> public scrutiny, Michael did not name himself or Susan (his then-wife)
> by surname, only by first name, and he gave neither a first name nor a
> surname to "Belial," the young man with whom Susan became lovers.
>
> I still don't know Michael's last name, and would like to know it, if
> only for the sake of fairness.
I thought it over for a long time, actually, pondering the pros and cons.
In the end, I decided it would be interesting to see who would be the
first to step forward and reveal my name. It may interest you to know that
I was thinking specifically of you at the time I mad my decision, and
forgive me if I say I intended to use you as my canary in the coal mine.
When the truth is known, cat will be the first to sing.
}:-)
Besides, anyone who was directly involved back then knows precisely who I
am, so quite obviously, neglecting to include my real name could not
possibly result in my remaining anonymous for long. As for `Belial', the
explanation is quite simple: I failed to write down his last name in my
journal at the time. Being unsure of its spelling, I resorted to using his
nickname, as explained in the text.
>> > Where you surprised someone would write a book like this?
>> >
>> > No. Even at the time I knew something like this had great cinematic
>> > and literary potential. It was part of the fun! It was like being in
>> > a great "beat" novel or a terrific film. David Jones will always be,
>> > for me anyway, the "Dean Moriarty" of the American occult community.
>> >
>> > Any last thoughts?
>> >
>> > I wish Mike all the best.
>
>> I learned in correspondence with Keith last fall that he is now on the
>> Electoral College of the Caliphate, with the implication that he is now
>> V*, and KRE. As such, he has sworn to assist the Grand Master of the
>> Order in his efforts to govern the Caliphate. To my mind, this accounts
>> for the obvious discrepancies between what he wishes here to be said
>> officially, in public, and what he confided to me in private.
>
> This is a real problem in the OTO, isn't it? There is a certain
> institutionalized deviousness in it -- at least to this outsider's eyes.
As I hope my efforts have shown, this fundamental duplicity is even worse,
and far more damaging, when one is directly subject to it.
>> In addition to his honest opinion on why things went wrong, he wrote to
>> me in glowing terms of his triumph over the addictions that gripped him
>> back then,
>
> Okay, so are we talking amphetamines, then?
I will leave the details to those who were directly involved.
>> of his new wife, his government job, his house, his driver's license,
>> his car, and his return to the middle class under the guidance of Jerry
>> Cornelius. Keith gave full credit to Jerry, for having helped him to
>> realize that being normal, in the eyes of one's neighbors, was of the
>> utmost value for anyone practicing magick.
>
> Jerry really said that???
>
>> After reading his words, and pondering their implication, I found
>> myself curiously resolved to publish my tale in "The Black Lodge of
>> Santa Cruz".
>
> I can see why the disconnection between Keith's pubic and private
> personae inspired you to write the memoir. Although, as i said above, i
> wish you had been as forthright with yours, Susan's and Beliaal's names
> as you were with the names of others,
See above.
> and that, for the sake of other
> magical experimentors, you had been explicit with respect to when drugs
> were used in your operations and when not, and which drugs those were.
As I hope I made clear, so do I.
>> I am deeply indebted to Keith for his friendship in the past, for the
>> motivation his letters provided, for reading my work, and for reacting
>> so strongly to its message that he found himself compelled to have his
>> official opinion made public in this forum.
>
> Yes, there is a whiff of Stalinist show-trial in the public presentation
> of the "official opinion"; i can smell it, faintly, faintly...
>
>> My only wish is that he continues in his current happiness.
>
> No doubt. And i notice that despite the schism and the passage of time,
> both you and Keith Schurholz still retain the same numeric signature, he
> being Keith418 and you Satyr418.
>
> Some marks are branded in the spirit, not in the flesh.
I have taken mine from Liber 418, The Vision and the Voice, not the Book
of the Law, as I assume Keith has done. If Keith ever had any knowledge
of, or interest in, Enochian magick, he betrayed no sign of it prior to my
leaving Northern California. His understanding of the subject was trivial,
at best.
Joel Biroco
>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:16:16 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>Say something
>>original.
>
>Joel is a really cool guy, who would never conflate his little mental
>abstractions for his own self-indulgent ends.
>
Do you think I care if that is your opinion of me? Smug bastards like
you are ten a penny, ask yourself what you have achieved up to this
point in your life and what you are likely to have achieved by the
time you are on the verge of death, and then turn round and tell me I
was a bit arrogant and self-indulgent in pursuing my goals steadfastly
throughout my entire life, the extent of which, frankly, you haven't
the faintest clue.
mika
> I found it odd that, while naming everyong else and exposing them to
> public scrutiny, [Satyr] did not name himself or [ZZZZ] (his then-wife)
> by surname, only by first name, and he gave neither a first name nor a
> surname to "Belial," the young man with whom [ZZZZ] became lovers.
>
> I still don't know [Satyr]'s last name, and would like to know it, if
> only for the sake of fairness.
"Only for the sake of fairness"? Catherine, I don't trust you. I
believe if you found out Satyr's last name, you would use it to find
out his place of employment and home address, which you would file
away to use against him later when he eventually pisses you off again.
There is no need to know Satyr's first name (which you outed on this
newsgroup, how nice of you) or his last name to appreciate his story.
What possible purpose could you, an outsider to that order with a
history of using retaliatory magick, have for ferretting out his
personal information? The people who were directly involved know who
he is. If they feel they have been treated unfairly, they will deal
with it how they see fit. It's really not any of your or anyone
else's business.
catherine yronwode
>
> catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> > I found it odd that, while naming everyong else and exposing them
> > to public scrutiny, [Satyr] did not name himself or [ZZZZ] (his
> > then-wife) by surname, only by first name, and he gave neither a
> > first name nor a surname to "Belial," the young man with whom
> > [ZZZZ] became lovers.
Her name is Susan, as was mentioned about 250 times during the course of
the 69 page memoir. Google indexes pdf format documents for sontent. You
know this, right? I mean, you are not confused about what indexing is,
right? You know that each instance of the use of her name is indexed at
google.
What are you thinking when you replace the name Susan with [ZZZZ] in my
posts?
> > I still don't know [Satyr]'s last name, and would like to know it,
> > if only for the sake of fairness.
Satyr's name is Michael. That information is in the published memoir
itself. Satyr has been addressed directly as Mike and Michael here in
usenet repeatedly. There is also an interview online with Keith
Schurholz in which the author of the "Black Lodge of Santa Cruz" memoir
is referred to as Mike and that interview was recently published in this
newsgroup.
What are you thinking when you replace the name Mike with [Satyr] in my
posts?
> "Only for the sake of fairness"? Catherine, I don't trust you.
That says more about you than about me.
> I believe if you found out Satyr's last name, you would use it to
> find out his place of employment and home address, which you would
> file away to use against him later when he eventually pisses you off
> again.
Belief is an interesting thing. Your belief in a frightening
stalker-like scenario is revelatory of your worldview.
It does not accord with known facts about me, or actions i have
perfromed in the past.
> There is no need to know Satyr's first name (which you outed on this
> newsgroup, how nice of you) or his last name to appreciate his story.
"Outed"? How silly. An author used the name "Michael" to describe
himself *in a published memoir* and he has been addressed in this
newsgroup as Mike or Michael repatedly.
"Outing" is a term that originated in reference to cross-dressers who
had women's clothing hidden in their closets. By extension, they were
said to keep their sexual preferences hidden "in the closet" too.
By the 1960s "in the closet" came to refer more generally to homosexuals
(whether or not they were cross-dressers) who posed as heterosexuals in
public life.
By the 1970s, to "be out of the closet" or to "be out" meant that a
homosexual person was not concealing his or her sexual preferences or
orientation.
Shortly thereafter, in the mid to late 1970s, "to out" someone became a
transitive verb meaning to "drag someone out of the closet" -- that is,
to reveal their sexual preferences to the media against their will.
Even taking away the original conext of sexual issues and substituting
"deep dark secrets" for "sexual orientation" it is obvious that my
mentioning an author's first name after he and others have mentioned it
in print is not "outing" him.
Get a grip.
> What possible purpose could you, an outsider to that order
As a student of the history of magic, including magical orders, my
purpose is to learn.
> with a history of using retaliatory magick,
I have studied the subject of magic in depth and know the forms of many
retaliatory spells, but i do not practice such work routinely -- and,
more to the point, i have no reason to work such magic aganst Mike, who
is a relative stranger to me.
> have for ferretting out his personal information?
"Ferretting"? I simply commented in a review of Mike's excellent memoir
that i had hoped he would reveal his own last name since he had revealed
the full names of others. It would have,by cvirtue of even-handedness,
given more weight and authenticiy to the narrative, in my opinion.
> The people who were directly involved know who
> he is. If they feel they have been treated unfairly, they will deal
> with it how they see fit. It's really not any of your or anyone
> else's business.
The memoir is published -- it is not a private communiique. For you to
hold the opinion that it is "not [...] anyone's business" to review it
simply speaks of ignorance about what "publishing" is.
Now, please, before you come back with more accusations consisting of
your fantasies in which i ahve secret stalker tendencies and intend to
use magic to attack Mike, check out my home pages for details about me.
I have written, edited, and published books and magazine articles for
decades, and functioned as a journalist as well. With the exception of
the times i was hired as a ghost-writer or a staff-writer, everything i
have written has my name on it. At my web site i provide my personal
history, street address, phone and fax numbers, and even a map.
Now look at what you are accusing me of and try to place that accusation
in perspective with my life.
I am telling you flat out that there is no reason on earth for me to
"ferrett out" information about Satyr / Mike when he himself has
published it. I am telling your that i was addressing him as a reviewer
addresses an author, obliquely and in a public forum, with a comment
about his memoir.
Your paranoid assumptions -- that i am not to be trusted, that i will go
to unusual lengths to learn his surname and that i will stalk him and
"find out his place of employment and home address, which [i] would file
away to use against him later" -- is mentally aberrent and simply does
not accord with my personal history.
It is so aberrent, Mika, that it is not even "insulting." It is just
fucking NUTS.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Blazin' Tommy D.
Satyr <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> wrote in article
<LB_e9.2826$i84.1993@fe02>...
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 04:43:05 -0400, catherine yronwode wrote:
>
> > Satyr (saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com) a.k.a Vinctor wrote:
> >
> > "David R. Jones" <jdn...@budget.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > Posted at K's [Keith Schurholz's] request (I rarely read usenet so
if
> >> > you want to reply to me you better do it via email and even then I
> >> > will probably ignore it;-)
> >> >
> >> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/keith418
> >> >
[clip]
BTD: The thing that really kills me is that you folks summon demons to tell
you about all of the secrets of the universe? Speaking about hypocrisy, you
should learn some fundamental stuff about - e.g., the society and law you
complain about.
Ist you complain that you can't write what you want because you're afraid
someone will sue you. Where is your evidence in support of your reasonable
fear? You're already committing libel/slander.
So you knuckle under and submit to something you oppose? Yet you oppose
OTO, too? But nothing happens except whining and unsupported pleas of fear.
Sound like you're a real chicken shit or else just full of shit
>
> In the interest of fairness and honesty, both to myself and to others, I
> would have to have included all instances in which, in my admittedly
> subjective opinion, drug use and abuse seriously impacted any particular
> person's behavior, or any particular situation. There is a legal phrase
> for that sort of literary integrity: criminal libel. Personally, knowing
> full well that this would be the Caliphate's first line of attack, as
> amply attested in Keith's "interview", I preferred to allow them to cast
> the first stone with hypocritical glee. To my mind, it poignantly and
> effectively underscores the character of the people who find my essay so
> distressing.
BTD: So I guess then it was/is you that wrote what appeared to me as the 69
page Joey Biroxo piece? The one about a group of kids doing Ecstasy?
Replacing the Quija board with a glass egg? How distressing!
>
> As you note, I did not attempt to sugar-coat or hide my mental state from
> the reader in any way, shape, or form,
BTD: That pretty obvious from this post.
and cannot begin to tell you just
> how painful it was to crawl back into that mindset once more, even from a
> safe and sane perspective that many intervening years . . .
[clip -- comparing himself to General Grant and William Burrough's]
BTD: Some guys go for Napoleon, the thing with the hat and hand?
>
> The mantra "It was the drugs" has become Caliphate boilerplate in the
> years since I left. Pundits, like my friend Keith, wear their Sunday
> school cleanliness like a merit badge, pointing to it and wagging their
> heads sagely when explaining that this is why their little Thelemic club
> is so keen on keeping its image pristine in the eyes of the public.
BTD: The version I heard was that the RAID was thorough bullshit
[clip]
This
> The Caliphate has no valid claim
> to being THE OTO, and instead have been forced to rely upon one arguable
> ruling in a California courtroom to establish their `legitimacy'.
BTD: There is a legal principle known as Res Judicata. If you think the
decision establishing copyright for AC's work is bullshit then petition the
Court to open the record and vacate the order. All you have to do, however,
is (1) show you're an interested party - which I see no evidence of - and
(2) that there is some compelling reason to vacate the decision. Surely you
know how to petition a court, pissing and moaning as you do about the
alleged unfairness and inferiority of our legal system:
The
> powers that be know all to well that to question the legal system to
which
> they owe their existence, even when its laws are in direct conflict with
> their stated goals, and the fundamental rights of its members, is to
> question their own existence as well.
BTD: You're worried about libel? Doesn't appear so to me. What about
deceit?
Though I was originally drawn to the
> ideals of the OTO, and as my essay shows, involved myself in its
> manifestation as the Caliphate, I cannot find it within my heart to
> countenance such rank hypocrisy.
BTD: Well I guess I missed that part, if there was such part, probably not
since you refused to make the link available to me.
This too affected my decisions as I
> wrote.
>
> Like yourself, I am interested in psychopharmacology as well, and under
> the ill-considered and draconian laws of this land, it is a sadly
> neglected field.
BTD: Well why don't you do something useful and attack this in the courts?
Apparently lack/loss of will. Which would likely explain your Thelemic
fiasco
Anyone who has been personally involved in this
> particular subculture, knows that there are drugs and there are drugs:
> some are harmless, some can be harmful, at least for certain individuals
> or under certain circumstances, and some are probably dangerous under any
> circumstances, and best avoided altogether. The Caliphate, burdened with
> the path to `legitimacy' it has been forced to take, have chosen to agree
> with our government, and declare all illicit drugs detrimental to the
> health and wellbeing of the individual.
BTD: Do you have a link to such declaration?
The hypocricy and stupidity of
> this stance cannot be overemphasized enough. Just how hypocritical,
again,
> may only be justified at the risk of being subject to potential legal
> action.
BTD: What are you going to do sue yourself? For what, hearsay?
>
> Sorry for clamoring atop my soapbox like this, but I hope this
> demonstrates that the decision of what to leave in, and what to leave
out,
> was not made lightly, nor without duress.
BTD: You should call up GOP and run for Congress.
[clip]
catherine yronwode
>
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:36:03 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:35:28 GMT, catherine yronwode
> ><c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a
> >>fight, that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is
> >>similarly language-based and may in the end subject him (and any
> >>other potential followers of Steve) to similar involvement with
> >>small, shallow waters instead of the larger flux.
>
> Followers are always shallow, no matter what they follow. You ain't
> preaching to me, I'm not the one who needs this advice.
That is correct. You do not need this advice.
The comment -- not advice, just a comment -- was addressed evenly to
both Mike and Keith, both of whom attach 418 to their screen names. 418
is ABRAHADABRA, a Crowletan confection concocted by "sampling" an
ancient Jewish magical formula, ABRACADABRA.
In "The Black Lodge of Santa Cruz", Mike specifically stated that he is
a "joiner." Yet Mike and Keith had both had difficulties with the (c)OTO
leadership circa 1989 -1990, which in some measure interfered with what
they at the time perceived to be their True Wills. I was pointing out,
quietly and with some respect and sympathy, that although the two men
who studied Dee's Enochican magick had travelled apart -- one leaving
the (c)OTO and one making peace with it and rising to higher grades --
there was still this shared link between them, and the link was to
Crowley's language-based magical system, adapted from Jewish gematria.
I signed off with a different number, one tied to more purely
mathematical concepts. I did this as a significator (should anyone care
to know) of why i myself have never joined the (c)OTO, BOTA, AMORC, or
various GD offshoots and other magickal orders that take
numero-linguistic work as their basis.
> What you regard as "shallow waters" may simply be what is beyond
> your comprehension, ever considered that?
Yes, i have considered that. .
Still, i do believe that numero-lingusitic systems of correspondence and
ascription are highly arbitrary and are therefore less universal in
applicartion than geometric-numeric systems of ascription and
correspondence.
I recognize that even my own mention of 108 (in contrast to your 156 and
Mike's and Keith's 418) is still arbitrary, based as it is in the
sexigesimal system we have inherited from the Sumerins. But as long as
we're talking base 10 and sexigesimal, it has a certain elegance
independent of language.
In my next post, i signed off with 1.618, an even more "purely
geometrical-nummeric" magical number than 108.
I'll add another, quite delightful number to my sig this time, and
perhaps you will see that it is not the particulars of the 156 current,
or the specifics of 418 or 333 or 666 that i was commenting upon, but
rather the entire paradigm of numero-linguistic symbolism that i holding
up for comparison to purely geometric-numeric magical symbolism.
cat (check out the 112358 current!) yronwode
Grrr
>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:43:29 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:16:16 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>>Say something
>>>original.
>>
>>Joel is a really cool guy, who would never conflate his little mental
>>abstractions for his own self-indulgent ends.
>>
>
>Do you think I care if that is your opinion of me?
it's my opinion of human nature.
You're just an ape like the rest of them trying to see yourself past
the eye holes in your ape suit.
You're still the 6YOld doing a rain dance in his parents back yard
before a big storm. and thinking himself a whether God and a prophet
because you've been having a few debauched fantasies about the little
girl next door. Your own Heidi Clum. And her number is 666. You think
that you are beyond the same old repetitious algorithms of time past,
and that history isn't just repeating itself, replete with turning
points, as it ever was.
Smug bastards like
>you are ten a penny, ask yourself what you have achieved up to this
>point in your life and what you are likely to have achieved by the
>time you are on the verge of death, and then turn round and tell me I
>was a bit arrogant and self-indulgent in pursuing my goals steadfastly
>throughout my entire life, the extent of which, frankly, you haven't
>the faintest clue.
--
Blazin' Tommy D.
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
<3D7D1A...@luckymojo.com>...
******************************************************
BTD: This woman is a genius:
>
> > There is no need to know Satyr's first name (which you outed on this
> > newsgroup, how nice of you) or his last name to appreciate his story.
>
> "Outed"? How silly. An author used the name "Michael" to describe
> himself *in a published memoir* and he has been addressed in this
> newsgroup as Mike or Michael repatedly.
>
> "Outing" is a term that originated in reference to cross-dressers who
> had women's clothing hidden in their closets. By extension, they were
> said to keep their sexual preferences hidden "in the closet" too.
>
> By the 1960s "in the closet" came to refer more generally to homosexuals
> (whether or not they were cross-dressers) who posed as heterosexuals in
> public life.
>
> By the 1970s, to "be out of the closet" or to "be out" meant that a
> homosexual person was not concealing his or her sexual preferences or
> orientation.
>
> Shortly thereafter, in the mid to late 1970s, "to out" someone became a
> transitive verb meaning to "drag someone out of the closet" -- that is,
> to reveal their sexual preferences to the media against their will.
>
> Even taking away the original conext of sexual issues and substituting
> "deep dark secrets" for "sexual orientation" it is obvious that my
> mentioning an author's first name after he and others have mentioned it
> in print is not "outing" him.
>
> Get a grip.
BTD: The foregoing is a resplendent irony. I am moved and deeply impressed.
Cat is a much better writer than the staff of KAOS.
**********************************************************
BTD: Yeah Mika I think you have us confused I'm the guy that does shit like
that:)
(slurp, gurgle blah ha ha)
[clip]
Joel Biroco
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The comment -- not advice, just a comment -- was addressed evenly to
>both Mike and Keith, both of whom attach 418 to their screen names. 418
>is ABRAHADABRA, a Crowletan confection concocted by "sampling" an
>ancient Jewish magical formula, ABRACADABRA.
Makhashanah is the 418 word Crowley sidelined that would have been
more interesting to pursue. Keith doubtless uses 418 because of
Abrahadabra and Liber AL, but Satyr because of the Vision and the
Voice, Liber 418. Same number, different influences.
<snip>
>
>I recognize that even my own mention of 108 (in contrast to your 156 and
>Mike's and Keith's 418) is still arbitrary, based as it is in the
>sexigesimal system we have inherited from the Sumerins. But as long as
>we're talking base 10 and sexigesimal, it has a certain elegance
>independent of language.
What kind of "elegance" are you referring to? 108 is regarded as a
Buddhist number. Be interesting perhaps to list the correspondences
and uses of 108.
>
>In my next post, i signed off with 1.618, an even more "purely
>geometrical-nummeric" magical number than 108.
>
>I'll add another, quite delightful number to my sig this time, and
>perhaps you will see that it is not the particulars of the 156 current,
>or the specifics of 418 or 333 or 666 that i was commenting upon,
As I noted in KAOS, the true number of the Beast is 616. And of course
Gnome is a follower of the 358 current..... nay, its evil prophet....
*******************************
KAOS in Russia:
http://kaosbabalon.da.ru
Joel Biroco
>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:32:56 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:43:29 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:16:16 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Say something
>>>>original.
>>>
>>>Joel is a really cool guy, who would never conflate his little mental
>>>abstractions for his own self-indulgent ends.
>>>
>>
>>Do you think I care if that is your opinion of me?
>
>it's my opinion of human nature.
>
>You're just an ape like the rest of them trying to see yourself past
>the eye holes in your ape suit.
>
>You're still the 6YOld doing a rain dance in his parents back yard
>before a big storm. and thinking himself a whether God and a prophet
>because you've been having a few debauched fantasies about the little
>girl next door. Your own Heidi Clum. And her number is 666. You think
>that you are beyond the same old repetitious algorithms of time past,
>and that history isn't just repeating itself, replete with turning
>points, as it ever was.
>
Remind me will you, are you that Australian non-entity who is still
smouldering because I pointed out your sparsity of insight into
fengshui? Get over it, you've been clinging to my shirt-tails for far
too long.
catherine yronwode
responses, so am snipping down to those alone:
Satyr wrote:
Re: drugs and magic:
> In the interest of fairness and honesty, both to myself and to
> others, I would have to have included all instances in which, in my
> admittedly subjective opinion, drug use and abuse seriously impacted
> any particular person's behavior, or any particular situation. There
> is a legal phrase for that sort of literary integrity: criminal
> libel.
;-) Point taken.
Yet, i so well recall the *third time* that i was with a group of people
who were running around and screaming in blind panic because UFOs were
landing RIGHT OFF THE COAST! I turned to the one person among us who was
*not* on acid, and i said, "Why do the UFOs always show up when we've
taken acid and can't properly deal with them?" His reply was, "I don't
know. I can't see them, myself. Maybe they like the smell of LSD in your
sweat."
'Nuff said.
> Personally, knowing full well that this would be the Caliphate's
> first line of attack, as amply attested in Keith's "interview", I
> preferred to allow them to cast the first stone with hypocritical
> glee. To my mind, it poignantly and effectively underscores the
> character of the people who find my essay so distressing.
Yes, it does.
> As you note, I did not attempt to sugar-coat or hide my mental state
> from the reader in any way, shape, or form, and cannot begin to tell
> you just how painful it was to crawl back into that mindset once
> more, even from a safe and sane perspective that many intervening
> years and a vastly healthier lifestyle affords. And if anything, I
> was even at some pains to downplay how psychotic those around me had
> become by the end of the narrative, omitting much of what could, and
> possibly should, have been said.
What with your mention of your belief in "PZ gas" and the description of
how you threatened to burn your entire library, i think no reader can
accuse you of "sugar-coating" your memories. And yes, i know how painful
it can be to revisit such moments. You have my respect.
> The record stands as it was written, as accurately and honestly as
> my meager skills allowed. Those who are predisposed to discredit
> personal responsibility, the kind of folks that said General Grant
> was just a drunk, or William Burrough's was just a junkie, will read
> my words and draw the conclusions they wish to draw. Others may
> ponder what I've written, and recognize that results are results,
> and psychosis is psychosis, whatever its possible source.
True, but, not to belabour the point, future voyagers might like to have
a map... so they know where the reefs are.
> The mantra "It was the drugs" has become Caliphate boilerplate in
> the years since I left. Pundits, like my friend Keith, wear their
> Sunday school cleanliness like a merit badge, pointing to it and
> wagging their heads sagely when explaining that this is why their
> little Thelemic club is so keen on keeping its image pristine in the
> eyes of the public. This is total bullshit, and you and I know it.
Boy howdy!
I find it amazing that the (c)OTO has taken this tack, when we all know
that Mr. Crowley, their leading light and Sainted One, was who he was
and wrote what he wrote.
Institutionalized hypocricy? Idiotic Revisionism? (c)OTO does
Scientology?
Whatever it is, i laugh at it.
But, lest i be misinterpreted here by anyone, i also wish say that i
believe that excessive drug use did ruin some of Crowley's best magickal
experiments, that in your narrative i also saw the pitfall of excessive
drug use, and that i need look back no farther than into my own life to
see examples of how my excessive drug use led me astray as well.
Mark the reefs well on your maps, i say -- but don't forbid the sailors
to go to sea.
> The Caliphate has no valid claim to being THE OTO, and instead have
> been forced to rely upon one arguable ruling in a California
> courtroom to establish their `legitimacy'. The powers that be know
> all to well that to question the legal system to which they owe
> their existence, even when its laws are in direct conflict with
> their stated goals, and the fundamental rights of its members, is to
> question their own existence as well.
Right. The old cunundrum:
Q: When is a Thelemic Order NOT a Thelemic Order?
A: When it infringes upon its members' Wills.
Re: Publication of Names:
[cat]:
> > I still don't know Michael's last name, and would like to know it,
> > if only for the sake of fairness.
[Satyr]:
> I thought it over for a long time, actually, pondering the pros and
> cons. In the end, I decided it would be interesting to see who would
> be the first to step forward and reveal my name. It may interest you
> to know that I was thinking specifically of you at the time I mad my
> decision, and forgive me if I say I intended to use you as my canary
> in the coal mine. When the truth is known, cat will be the first to
> sing.
>
> }:-)
But i was NOT the first "to step forward and reveal [your] name," you
know -- not by a long shot. I learned that your name is Michael when
David Cantu addressed you as "Michael" and published your alternative
"vinctor" email address in alt.magick more than a year ago. Then, after
"The Black Lodge" was published, others stepped forward before i did --
including Keith -- to name you in usenet.
Thinking that you might not believe that David Cantu was the real
"canary in the coal mine," i just went to
http://www.groups.google.com
and typed in the keyword string
satyr magick michael
and, discarding all the references to the archangel Michael and to
Donald Michael Kraig, i found the David Cantu post from July 2001. Here
it is in the summary form with which google supplies it via that keyword
string:
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=satyr+magick+michael&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=47267.133533%24WT.24194302%40typhoon.austin.rr.com&rnum=21
Re: AL for ALL
... tut. ---- Original Message ----- From: "Satyr 418" <satyr418@my-deja
... to put into words, Michael. See, I am not ... Preliminary Remarks of
Magick part 1. The goal ...
alt.magick - 20 Jul 2001 by David Cantu
---------------------------------------------------------------
So it's a good thing you didn't place a bet on the first revelator
being me, eh?
> Besides, anyone who was directly involved back then knows precisely
> who I am, so quite obviously, neglecting to include my real name
> could not possibly result in my remaining anonymous for long.
One doesn't have to be "involved" in past events to be interested in
history. In fact, NOT being involved is part of what makes such events
"history" rather than "reminiscence."
I only know of two Michaels through Thelema Lodge: Michael Sanborne (i
am not sure of the spelling of his surname) who lives in the Bay Area,
which you no longer do, and is still a member of Thelema Lodge, which
you are not, and Michael (Miller??), a.k.a. "bank job man," a
semi-legendary guy said to have been kicked out of the Caliphate OTO
because he robbed a bank. So, are you a Third Thelemic Michael?
> As for `Belial', the explanation is quite simple: I failed to write
> down his last name in my journal at the time. Being unsure of its
> spelling, I resorted to using his nickname, as explained in the
> text.
Same as with "Gizmo," then. I wondered about Belial because i thought i
might know him, but i guess not.
Well, again, thanks for writing that piece. It was interesting and you
were fearless in doing so.
cat yronwode
Grrr
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:23:14 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:32:56 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:43:29 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 01:16:16 +0000 (UTC), Joel Biroco <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Say something
>>>>>original.
>>>>
>>>>Joel is a really cool guy, who would never conflate his little mental
>>>>abstractions for his own self-indulgent ends.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do you think I care if that is your opinion of me?
>>
>>it's my opinion of human nature.
>>
>>You're just an ape like the rest of them trying to see yourself past
>>the eye holes in your ape suit.
>>
>>You're still the 6YOld doing a rain dance in his parents back yard
>>before a big storm. and thinking himself a whether God and a prophet
>>because you've been having a few debauched fantasies about the little
>>girl next door. Your own Heidi Clum. And her number is 666. You think
>>that you are beyond the same old repetitious algorithms of time past,
>>and that history isn't just repeating itself, replete with turning
>>points, as it ever was.
>>
>
>Remind me will you, are you that Australian non-entity who is still
>smouldering because I pointed out your sparsity of insight into
>fengshui?
No.
I think you're mistaking me for Colonel Klink.
"H O G A N..!!"
Another product of human nature. Go figure..
Get over it, you've been clinging to my shirt-tails for far
>too long.
>
>*******************************
>KAOS in Russia:
>http://kaosbabalon.da.ru
--
Lu Zhen Shih
"BOB" bobs to find bob-wanna-be's trying bag "BOB", but "BOB", with the help
of a _NOT _CAT_ bags ALL wanna-be bobs. I'm writting a Comic Book!;-):
THERE CAN ONLY BE "ONE" "BOB"!;-)
WAY__WATER WOMAN. I like.
catherine yronwode
>
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 23:53:06 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >The comment -- not advice, just a comment -- was addressed evenly
> >to both Mike and Keith, both of whom attach 418 to their screen
> >names. 418 is ABRAHADABRA, a Crowletan confection concocted by
> >"sampling" an ancient Jewish magical formula, ABRACADABRA.
>
> Makhashanah is the 418 word Crowley sidelined that would have been
> more interesting to pursue.
Why is the word Makhashanah more interesting than Abrahdabra, in your
opinion? When and why did Crowley sideline it?
> Keith doubtless uses 418 because of Abrahadabra and
> Liber AL, but Satyr because of the Vision and the
> Voice, Liber 418. Same number, different influences.
Yes, Satyr explained this as well. I understand. And if i had to chose,
i'd go with The Vision and the Voice for 418. Abrahadabra -- the very
word itself -- has always seemed like a badly overproduced cover version
of a famous yet simple song to me -- like, oh, Englebert Humperdink
singing Robert Johnson's "Crossroads Blues" or The Rooftop Singers
singing Gus Cannon's "Walk Right In."
> <snip>
>
> >I recognize that even my own mention of 108 (in contrast to your
> >156 and Mike's and Keith's 418) is still arbitrary, based as it is
> >in the sexigesimal system we have inherited from the Sumerians. But
> >as long as we're talking base 10 and sexigesimal, it has a certain
> >elegance independent of language.
>
> What kind of "elegance" are you referring to?
Oh, math itself, games with 9s and 12s and 18s (see below), or how about
this cute one:
The first three numerals are 1, 2, and 3. Take one 1, two 2s, and three
3s and multiply them all together:
1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 108.
(A nicer way to say to say this is "one to the first power times two to
the second power times three to the third power equals 108.")
And then there are cool connections in which this nifty number 108
happens to mesh up with the mechanics of the solar system, like:
108 is 9 x 12. There are 18 solar years in a lunar cycle, 9 years of 12
solar months (108 solar months) when the moon moves northward, and 9
years of 12 solar months (108 solar months) when the moon moves
southward.
If you mark the rising point of the full moons during all those solar
months (that is, during 18 solar years or twice 108 solar months) and
you also the rising points of the sun for every day of 1 year -- you
know, with poles at a horizon-line -- you are on your way to
constructing a solar-and-lunar eclipse predicting machine. This has
often been done. Cf. the spires at Ankor Wat.
Therefore 108 is said to be a "lunar" number, because wise use of it
helps us predict lunar movements and sol-lunar conjunctions (eclipses).
> 108 is regarded as a Buddhist number. Be interesting perhaps to
> list the correspondences and uses of 108.
The use of 108 in religious symbology is not unique to Buddhism, and in
fact in Buddhism it derives from the earlier Dravidian and Aryan
religions of India, where 108 was tied to the lunar calendar, the
computation of the lengths of the yugas or cosmic ages, and to worship
of deities such as Bhairava/Siva and Kali/Durga.
For instance, when using the Shri Durga Navaran Beesi Yantra (a nagic
number triangle diagram affiliated with the goddess Durga) "to bestow
wealth, good health, and victory over enemies" one is instructed to
recite the mantra "Aim Hrom Klom Chamundaye Vichche" 108 times daily.
Siva has 108 names, Hindu malas for the worship of Siva have 108 beads,
and so do the Nepalese skull-bead malas which belong to the hybrid
religion known as Tantric Buddhism (basically the indigenous Bon
religion plus Buddhism).
The significance of the number 108 stretches back even to ancient Sumer,
where 108-plus-252 was a numerical combination associated with the
goddess Inanna's gift of the arts of civilization to humanity.
Inanna stole 252 arts of cvilization from her grandfather and gave them
to humanity, then added 108 arts of her own creation to the gift.
The number 252 is significant because it represented the 9 lunar months
(9 x 28 days) of the growing season in that region.
This myth arose before the "invention" of the 365-day-year. At that
time, the year was said to have 360 days plus 5 intercalery days (days
whioch did not appear on the calendar and were set aside for feating and
play).
Since 108-plus-252 equals 360, the number of degrees into which the
Sumerians divided a circle or a year, one can see that the 252 gifts
plus 108 gifts were intended to signify "all" the gifts of civilization
-- a complete circle-round.
The number 108, Innanna's contribution to civilized arts, represents
what the radio announcer Paul Harvey calls "the REST of the story."
But that ain't all. Take the 252 gifts Inanna stole from her
grandfather, and multiply them by 4 and you get 1008, which is a nifty
magical mnemonic for the 108 extra gifts she provided.
1008, rather amazingly, divides evenly by 18 (giving you 56)
18, 108, 1008. See? Cute! Evenly divisible numbers!
You can also play these games with 1080 (diivide it by 18 -- go on! it's
cool!)... but, moving right along...
The sacred number 108 can also be found in Norse religion, where there
are said to be 108 gates to the god Odin's castle. Again, one supposes
this to be a lunar / solar calendrical reconciliation mnemonic.
You like Buddhist stuff from China? -- check this out:
108 Buddhas on a Walnut:
http://www.luckymojo.com/buddhawalnut.html
Uh ... try running 18 and 108 together to make 18108 and divide that by
18 and check it out.
And since we produced 1008 from the 252 gifts that were NOT the 108
gifts Innana created, we can play games with it, too.
Run 108 and 1008 together to make 1081008 and divide that by 18. See?
COOL!
Jam all three of 'em -- 18 and 108 and 1008 -- together to make
181081008 and divide it by 18. Wild!
Push the whole lot -- 18 and 108 and 1008 and 1080 -- together to make
1810810081080 and divide *that* by 9. Do it! YEAH!!!!!
Sorry, i could go on and on... but your calcultaor probably doesn't have
any more digits than that. You get the picture.
A bunch of us have an elist for the discussion of the entire panoply of
geometric, mathematical, and architectural sacred stuff. It is the
Sacred Landscape elist at Yahoo Groups. I also have a web site... The
Sacred Landscape, http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
cat (mumble mumble, read "Hamlet's Mill" mumble mumble) yronwode
Joel Biroco
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Joel Biroco wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 23:53:06 GMT, catherine yronwode
>> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >The comment -- not advice, just a comment -- was addressed evenly
>> >to both Mike and Keith, both of whom attach 418 to their screen
>> >names. 418 is ABRAHADABRA, a Crowletan confection concocted by
>> >"sampling" an ancient Jewish magical formula, ABRACADABRA.
>>
>> Makhashanah is the 418 word Crowley sidelined that would have been
>> more interesting to pursue.
>
>Why is the word Makhashanah more interesting than Abrahdabra, in your
>opinion? When and why did Crowley sideline it?
See the 27th Æthyr in Liber 418. He seems to have regarded it merely
as a code word for Abrahadabra, rather than something interesting in
its own right. It's more interesting because Abrahadabra, as you
pointed out, is just a form of a pre-existing word, whereas
Makhashanah is of gematrical equivalence and apparently emergent from
skrying. Yet he seems to have virtually ignored it as if it was no
more than confirmation of Abrahadabra, possibly because of his Liber
AL tunnel vision. Makhashanah, so far as I am aware, is still
virtually ignored, which I find curious given the spewing forth of
material on the "fine points" of Liber AL.
<snip>
>cat (mumble mumble, read "Hamlet's Mill" mumble mumble) yronwode
I have read Hamlet's Mill, I held out great hope for it when I started
it, but felt it foundered on a wealth of detail disguising a basic
lack of a cohesive argument. Fascinating as a compendium of sources,
but its basic premiss about the precession of the equinoxes being
known by ancient civilizations much prior to its recognised discovery
still has no convincing evidence to back it up and has rather become
an item of New Age faith after Bauval etc. (I was present at a lecture
given by Robert Bauval at l'Institute Francais a decade ago and while
listening formulated the most brilliant refutation of his argument,
but because it was so involved and complicated and hard to hold all
together in my mind in the freshness of its creation I forewent the
opportunity to confront him with it at question time. Damn!)
Your 108 discussion was fascinating. Also the number of petals of the
Buddhist lotus, number of heroes of the Water Margin, among many other
things. But can it be said to represent a "current"? I don't think so,
any more than 23.
Lu Zhen Shih
Happy Hunting!;-)
"Joel Biroco" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:m1grnu4vuslvdko47...@4ax.com...
Joel Biroco
>" foregoes game that runs off in front."
>Happy Hunting!;-)
Hah! Apt.
Lu Zhen Shih
Lu Zhen Shih
"Joel Biroco" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:813snuocl2f574gl9...@4ax.com...
Joel Biroco
>^ 6@ the Beginning: Shih.
"Yi lu" may mean "with pitchpipes" rather than "in ordered ranks", out
of interest.... this hexagram I have dealt with at length in another
place, although didn't mention the Yi lu argument.
Lu Zhen Shih
88 to 93_ You're not walking on Water, homles.
seer
> > > > if only for the sake of fairness.
> >
> > Satyr's name is Michael. That information is in the published memoir
> > itself. Satyr has been addressed directly as Mike and Michael here in
> > usenet repeatedly. There is also an interview online with Keith
> > Schurholz in which the author of the "Black Lodge of Santa Cruz" memoir
> > is referred to as Mike and that interview was recently published in this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > What are you thinking when you replace the name Mike with [Satyr] in my
> > posts?
> >
> > > "Only for the sake of fairness"? Catherine, I don't trust you.
> >
> > That says more about you than about me.
> >
> > > I believe if you found out Satyr's last name, you would use it to
> > > find out his place of employment and home address, which you would
> > > file away to use against him later when he eventually pisses you off
> > > again.
> >
> > > newsgroup, how nice of you) or his last name to appreciate his story.
> >
> > "Outed"? How silly. An author used the name "Michael" to describe
> > himself *in a published memoir* and he has been addressed in this
> > newsgroup as Mike or Michael repatedly.
You people are insanely hilarious.
A name is a name is a label.
If Satyr wanted you to know his name, you would know it.
---
Mike, I've been away for a week; I'll be replying to your email
whenever I get a good chance to do so. (The first paragraph got cut
off... but I believe I've got the gist of it.)
Seer
Ian Sturrock
<c...@luckymojo.com> gibbers
>Yet, i so well recall the *third time* that i was with a group of people
>who were running around and screaming in blind panic because UFOs were
>landing RIGHT OFF THE COAST! I turned to the one person among us who was
>*not* on acid, and i said, "Why do the UFOs always show up when we've
>taken acid and can't properly deal with them?" His reply was, "I don't
>know. I can't see them, myself. Maybe they like the smell of LSD in your
>sweat."
>
>'Nuff said.
Traditionally that is the point when you stick _Liquid Sky_ in the VCR.
--
"Such a day, rum all out - Our company somewhat sober - A damn`d confusion
among us! - Rogues a-plotting - Great talk of separation - so I looked sharp
for a prize - Such a day took one, with a great deal of liquor on board, so
kept the company hot, damned hot; then all things went well again." (Teach)
sun-set-man
"Ian Sturrock" <shubni...@goatweb.com> wrote in message
news:Tu+xNCAv...@ty-gath.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3D7D6A...@luckymojo.com>, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> gibbers
> >Yet, i so well recall the *third time* that i was with a group of people
who were running around and screaming in blind panic because UFOs were
landing RIGHT OFF THE COAST! I turned to the one person among us who was
*not* on acid, and i said, "Why do the UFOs always show up when we've taken
acid and can't properly deal with them?" His reply was, "I don't know. I
can't see them, myself. Maybe they like the smell of LSD in your sweat."
> >
> >'Nuff said.
>
> Traditionally that is the point when you stick _Liquid Sky_ in the VCR.
Quite right; and she understands.
> --
> "Such a day, rum all out - Our company somewhat sober - A damn`d confusion
among us! - Rogues a-plotting - Great talk of separation - so I looked sharp
for a prize - Such a day took one, with a great deal of liquor on board, so
kept the company hot, damned hot; then all things went well again."
>(Teach)
Yeah, we'll see.
Grrr
Blazin' Tommy D.
reading it so to hell with it. Otherwise Satyr is doing precisely what Mika
accused cat of. I could tell drug stories about friends I have, I don't
because they're chicken shits and are afraid the GOP will pressure them at
work, &c. and they in turn will slander me potentially leading to violence
in public places which local police will not protect me against and which
the DA will not prosecute (whether he would allow private prosecutions is
an ancillary issue and whether NYS will allow me prosecute civil actions
pro se is a matter under State Appeal and a pending Federal suit).
Satyr is essentially using his tale to take cheap unsubstantiated shots
against the OTO. Cat's response shows how desperate she is to slander or
libel the OTO for reasons I don't understand. She sells lucky penis
swastika oil from her catalog and claims to wear a gold swastika necklace -
some sort of bizarre pseudo feminist goddess thing with OSA?!?!
From what I did read of the story some kid was initiated into the 1st
degree, some guys wanted to fuck his girlfriend so he didn't like the OTO
anymore and decided to reinvent the Golden Dawn on some sort of drug with a
scrying device. You'd call this guy as a witness against the OTO? I'd love
to be opposite you in that case:)
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
> Thanks for your detailed reply, Satyr. I only have a few specific
> responses, so am snipping down to those alone:
>
> Satyr wrote:
>
> Re: drugs and magic:
[clip]
Blazin' Tommy D.
You contemplate a number and it makes you want to paint your kitchen
yellow?
Or, oh this number alters my consciouness and this other one gives me a
hard on?
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
sun-set-man
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/OSANWO/
An anti of the Parsons " Babalon Working". I feel a Breeze of a Dust Devil
"Spin" coming on.
Remember, in the Well, there are no more secrets.lol
sun-set-man
Not a fucking soul here can touch THIS, I'm MADE.
"Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:01c25936$097035d0$d8865f18@federalist...
Blazin' Tommy D.
CI
sun-set-man <hawks.ha.md.us> wrote in article
<almak...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> OSA:
>
> http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/OSANWO/
BTD: Here's an interesting aspect:
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/OSANWO/32.htm
>
> An anti of the Parsons " Babalon Working". I feel a Breeze of a Dust
Devil
> "Spin" coming on.
BTD: Moi!?
>
> Remember, in the Well, there are no more secrets.lol
BTD: And "On the perimeter there are no stars . . ."
>
>
>
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
And "MADE" do you mean like those that resort to war in the private sector?
Rather uncivilized.
sun-set-man <hawks.ha.md.us> wrote in article
<almc8...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Blazin' Tommy D.
How about surveying this one
7.25"
Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in article
<5q4tnukgcuecscbd1...@4ax.com>...
Grrr
<td...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>Yes, that actually vectored through my mind
>How about surveying this one
>7.25"
Honestly now. You must be jelqing.
>Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in article
><5q4tnukgcuecscbd1...@4ax.com>...
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 05:45:54 GMT, catherine yronwode
>> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Push the whole lot -- 18 and 108 and 1008 and 1080 -- together to make
>> >1810810081080 and divide *that* by 9. Do it! YEAH!!!!!
>>
>> sounds almost as exciting as the 3.1416 current.
>> --
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/i/Clearing.txt
>>
--
We are of plant. You must go here to be assimilated:
http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/i/Clearing.txt
Blazin' Tommy D.
http://extend.cleavageonline.com/jelqing.html
but 7.25" does refer to something else, a hint was provided
There actually was a situation which related to both
if someone names what the measurement is
I'll tell.
Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote in article
<2a0unugfso4ptr25q...@4ax.com>...
Satyr
> Thanks for your detailed reply, Satyr. I only have a few specific
> responses, so am snipping down to those alone:
>
> Satyr wrote:
>
> Re: drugs and magic:
>
>> In the interest of fairness and honesty, both to myself and to others,
>> I would have to have included all instances in which, in my admittedly
>> subjective opinion, drug use and abuse seriously impacted any
>> particular person's behavior, or any particular situation. There is a
>> legal phrase for that sort of literary integrity: criminal libel.
>
> ;-) Point taken.
>
> Yet, i so well recall the *third time* that i was with a group of people
> who were running around and screaming in blind panic because UFOs were
> landing RIGHT OFF THE COAST! I turned to the one person among us who was
> *not* on acid, and i said, "Why do the UFOs always show up when we've
> taken acid and can't properly deal with them?" His reply was, "I don't
> know. I can't see them, myself. Maybe they like the smell of LSD in your
> sweat."
>
> 'Nuff said.
Agreed.
>> Personally, knowing full well that this would be the Caliphate's first
>> line of attack, as amply attested in Keith's "interview", I preferred
>> to allow them to cast the first stone with hypocritical glee. To my
>> mind, it poignantly and effectively underscores the character of the
>> people who find my essay so distressing.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>> As you note, I did not attempt to sugar-coat or hide my mental state
>> from the reader in any way, shape, or form, and cannot begin to tell
>> you just how painful it was to crawl back into that mindset once more,
>> even from a safe and sane perspective that many intervening years and a
>> vastly healthier lifestyle affords. And if anything, I was even at some
>> pains to downplay how psychotic those around me had become by the end
>> of the narrative, omitting much of what could, and possibly should,
>> have been said.
>
> What with your mention of your belief in "PZ gas" and the description of
> how you threatened to burn your entire library, i think no reader can
> accuse you of "sugar-coating" your memories. And yes, i know how painful
> it can be to revisit such moments. You have my respect.
Thanks, cat. I appreciate you saying that, and am honored, more than you
might imagine.
>> The record stands as it was written, as accurately and honestly as my
>> meager skills allowed. Those who are predisposed to discredit personal
>> responsibility, the kind of folks that said General Grant was just a
>> drunk, or William Burrough's was just a junkie, will read my words and
>> draw the conclusions they wish to draw. Others may ponder what I've
>> written, and recognize that results are results, and psychosis is
>> psychosis, whatever its possible source.
>
> True, but, not to belabour the point, future voyagers might like to have
> a map... so they know where the reefs are.
>
>> The mantra "It was the drugs" has become Caliphate boilerplate in the
>> years since I left. Pundits, like my friend Keith, wear their Sunday
>> school cleanliness like a merit badge, pointing to it and wagging their
>> heads sagely when explaining that this is why their little Thelemic
>> club is so keen on keeping its image pristine in the eyes of the
>> public. This is total bullshit, and you and I know it.
>
> Boy howdy!
>
> I find it amazing that the (c)OTO has taken this tack, when we all know
> that Mr. Crowley, their leading light and Sainted One, was who he was
> and wrote what he wrote.
>
> Institutionalized hypocricy? Idiotic Revisionism? (c)OTO does
> Scientology?
>
> Whatever it is, i laugh at it.
I do too, but only up to a point. There's a whiff of sadness about it as
well. Had they buried the old bugger, Crowley would be spinning in his
grave, I should think. The idea that we all have the right to be what we
are, without having to conform ourselves to the expectations of those
around us, seems fundamental to his personal philosophy, and to my mind,
constitutes what was good about the man. Crowley experimented with many
drugs, writing extensively on the subject, and his personal abuse of some
of those drugs is well documented. To lay claim to his legacy, and at the
same time deny, or simply ignore, that he intended others to enjoy this
same freedom of exploration, strikes a mortal blow to the very core of
that legacy. To my mind, it is beyond hypocricy.
> But, lest i be misinterpreted here by anyone, i also wish say that i
> believe that excessive drug use did ruin some of Crowley's best magickal
> experiments, that in your narrative i also saw the pitfall of excessive
> drug use, and that i need look back no farther than into my own life to
> see examples of how my excessive drug use led me astray as well.
Excess of anything may lead us astray. Yet, what we are today is a direct
result of what we were once, and denying that is to deny a significant
part of ourselves. Some believe that the reintegration of those lost bits
is the road to enlightenment.
> Mark the reefs well on your maps, i say -- but don't forbid the sailors
> to go to sea.
Agreed.
I remember David's post.
>> Besides, anyone who was directly involved back then knows precisely who
>> I am, so quite obviously, neglecting to include my real name could not
>> possibly result in my remaining anonymous for long.
>
> One doesn't have to be "involved" in past events to be interested in
> history. In fact, NOT being involved is part of what makes such events
> "history" rather than "reminiscence."
I am flattered that you would consider my little contribution to be
"history". I suppose it is, in a way. Have patience; all will out, in its
own good time.
> I only know of two Michaels through Thelema Lodge: Michael Sanborne (i
> am not sure of the spelling of his surname) who lives in the Bay Area,
> which you no longer do, and is still a member of Thelema Lodge, which
> you are not, and Michael (Miller??), a.k.a. "bank job man," a
> semi-legendary guy said to have been kicked out of the Caliphate OTO
> because he robbed a bank. So, are you a Third Thelemic Michael?
There were more Michaels than that, actually.
>> As for `Belial', the explanation is quite simple: I failed to write
>> down his last name in my journal at the time. Being unsure of its
>> spelling, I resorted to using his nickname, as explained in the text.
>
> Same as with "Gizmo," then.
No, Gizmo was different, and in all honesty, I can't explain why I used
that name instead. It just seemed appropriate to include him that way. He,
like Satyr, will be known to anyone directly involved, and no further
explanation is necessary.
There is no need to dispel all mystery, for with it goes much of the fun.
Someone from inside the narrative, or close to it, will read the "Black
Lodge" and say, "I know who that is", and for a moment will feel they were
part of something, something that extends beyond their own memory, and
something, I hope, that will be remembered in years to come. Keith's first
reaction was to send a copy to his father, a thing he did with obvious
pride. I don't think it bragging to say that others have reacted in a
similar manner, whatever their official opinions.
Despite the controversy that has grown up around the piece, it isn't mere
gossip, nor did I intend it to fuel the gossip mill. Perhaps it is a
history, as you suggest, but not the mere dry and dusty recitation of
names, dates, and places. It was my hope that "The Black Lodge of Santa
Cruz" would capture, in some small measure, a portion of living history,
an organic thing that cannot be easily fixed to the printed page . If my
work serves as a reminder, for those who were there, to tell there own
stories, to recount their own memories of the part they played in a very
interesting time, then I am content.
> I wondered about Belial because i thought i might know him, but i guess
> not.
>
> Well, again, thanks for writing that piece. It was interesting and you
> were fearless in doing so.
Thanks, cat, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to think about
what I've written. As I mulled over my response, I realized that much of
the rancor that developed between you and I was over Crowley, Thelema, and
the OTO. I hope that after reading my essay, you understand now that
little of it had anything to do with you per se, and everything to do with
my own unresolved conflicts over these issues. I can't always agree with
your position, but do accept my apologies for pouring more emotion into
our exchanges than was necessary.
--
Satyr
****************************************
http://www.kaosbabalon.btinternet.co.uk/
Bela Concupiscibilis
"sun-set-man" <hawks.ha.md.us> wrote in message
news:almak...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>I feel a Breeze of a Dust Devil
> "Spin" coming on.
Tell me I didn't say it was so.
Blazin' Tommy D.
a regular
Dido and Aeneas . . .
watch out for mercury
Satyr <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> wrote in article
<M9Hf9.9128$i84.3195@fe02>...
Prophet of the Star Key
> > Besides, anyone who was directly involved back then knows precisely
> > who I am, so quite obviously, neglecting to include my real name
> > could not possibly result in my remaining anonymous for long.
Good point, as demonstrated below.
Cat wrote:
> I only know of two Michaels through Thelema Lodge: Michael Sanborne (i
> am not sure of the spelling of his surname) who lives in the Bay Area,
> which you no longer do, and is still a member of Thelema Lodge, which
> you are not, and Michael (Miller??), a.k.a. "bank job man," a
> semi-legendary guy said to have been kicked out of the Caliphate OTO
> because he robbed a bank. So, are you a Third Thelemic Michael?
In the *Live Journal* entries for Keith418, Mike's name is revealed -- O'Farrell.
Proximus Lux
aethyr augoeides
>Satyr wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Besides, anyone who was directly involved back then knows precisely
>>>who I am, so quite obviously, neglecting to include my real name
>>>could not possibly result in my remaining anonymous for long.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Addressing the impersonal and cool part in you all, and to no particular
person specifically: myself maybe more than aught? hmmm...
<rant>
I love it when someone questions the veracity of a document or its
arguments etc. on the basis of its being its anonymous or when the
author chooses to employ a nom-de-plume! Thomas Paine wrote anon. didn't
he? Sheesh! Coum ON poeple! Is this fascist internet hour??
</rant type= preaching to the choir, brief>
aa
Blazin' Tommy D.
"Anon."
The present term/usage for this eludes me
I signed a post a while back "Anon." as a joke, I guess no one appreciated
it
"fascist"!:0
Gosh be careful all of the solar phallic symbol folk on the right will
start with their animal howlings in apoplexy &c
you know, examining their wands/rods and all
:)
aethyr augoeides <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote in article
<3D817491...@cox.net>...
aethyr augoeides
>So what do all of these numbers do?
>You contemplate a number and it makes you want to paint your kitchen
>yellow?
>Or, oh this number alters my consciouness and this other one gives me a
>hard on?
>
>catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
><3D7D36...@luckymojo.com>...
>
>
>>Joel Biroco wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 00:36:03 GMT, Grrr <grr...@AMpost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:35:28 GMT, catherine yronwode
>>>><c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
LOL! He said 'hard on.'
aa
deqvf
nagasiva
>> "Only for the sake of fairness"? Catherine, I don't trust you.
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>That says more about you than about me.
>> I believe if you found out Satyr's last name, you would use it to
>> find out his place of employment and home address, which you would
>> file away to use against him later when he eventually pisses you off
>> again.
>Belief is an interesting thing. Your belief in a frightening
>stalker-like scenario is revelatory of your worldview.
very.
>It does not accord with known facts about me, or actions i have
>performed in the past.
it accords with the slanders against you. sufficient to have Sir IF
asking me recently if you (or I, I think) tried to get Steve Marshal
(aka Wiggy aka Joel Birocco) fired from his job (at the Lancet! did
he not already move on to the New Scientist? isn't he doing Chinese
History and Kaos zines?). gotta wonder.
all unworthy of your glorious attention, my dear.
>Get a grip.
it's a fantasy drama to drown out the drama (or lack thereof)
near-to-hand. dismiss it when the relish of scandal and your
amusement has worn out.
>> with a history of using retaliatory magick,
>I have studied the subject of magic in depth and know the forms of many
>retaliatory spells, but i do not practice such work routinely -- and,
>more to the point, i have no reason to work such magic aganst Mike, who
>is a relative stranger to me.
fear can run rampant in unstable foundations.
> Now look at what you are accusing me of and try to place that
> accusation in perspective with my life.
if mika places an undue emphasis of reliability on Wiggy's (or one of
his cronies') lies, then this might account for the mistrust. it also
displays a certain credulity.
nagasiva
Joe Cosby
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Lu Zhen Shih wrote:
>>
>> Did I read your mind, Cat?
>
>Nope.
>
>My referent was to the topics herein discussed -- Mike's memoire "The
>Black Lodge of Santa Cruz" and the commentary thereon by Keith. In
>short, i chose 108 as a signature numeral for myself in that specific
>post in *contrast* to the obviously Kabbaloid / Themlemic /
>gematria-based 418 numeral that both Keith and Mike, although at odds in
>terms of their individual magico-mystical paths, were still appending to
>their screen names, more than a decade after the events described. Hence
>it had nothing much to do with your terms, such as "108 beads" or "the
>Lust of God."
>
>It is true that 108 is assoicated with mala beads and god-forms and such
>and so forth, but those ascriptions are, to me, mere add-ons. 108 names
>of siva, 108 names of kali, 108 this-that-and-the-other -- including
>gates in the castle of Odin and all and all and all -- they are of
>cultural interest, no doubt, but beneath such attributions the
>transcultural basis of 108 *anythings* should point the inquisitive
>seeker to a purely math-based significance, not a culture-bound (because
>language-bound) gematria-based significance, such as we see in 418.
>
>By choosing 108 as a sig in that post, i was alluding to my opinion, set
>forth in this newsgroup and in the thelema-93 e-list on several
>occasions in the past, and hence no revelation, that the entire GD / OTO
>/ Thelemic / Crowleyan / Enochian system of Aetheyrs and
>pseudo-Kabbalisms (in which Mike and and Keith and David and the lot
>became ensnared, as described in "The Black Loidge of Santa Cruz") is
>but a small eddy or backwater in the larger cosmic flux -- and that this
>larger flux is better described, in my opinion, in purely mathematical
>terms that transcend any given cultural pardigm based on human language.
>
>Likewise, i was commenting, sub rosa, and with no intent to pick a
>fight, that Mike's current babble on about Steve's 156 current is
>similarly language-based and may in the end subject him (and any other
>potential followers of Steve) to similar involvement with small, shallow
>waters instead of the larger flux.
>
>108 was simply a convenient and well-studied integer i pulled out of a
>large skein of such numbers. I might just as easily have made my point
>by signing off with "360."
>
>cat (or 1.618) yronwode
>
>The Sacred Landscape ------- http://www.luckymojo.com/sacredland.html
You've said a lot about what 108 isn't but nothing about what it is,
or what you think it is.
2^2 * 3^3?
rainbow in the cloud
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >108 was simply a convenient and well-studied integer i pulled out of a
> >large skein of such numbers. I might just as easily have made my point
> >by signing off with "360."
>
> You've said a lot about what 108 isn't but nothing about what it is,
> or what you think it is.
>
> 2^2 * 3^3?
"There are 108 heptominoes, one of which surrounds a hole.
It is the form of a 3 * 3 square with one cornor and the
central square missing. This is the smallest polyomino
to contain a hole"
Curious and Interesting Numbers, David Wells
mika
Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this time
last year.
How about these quotes? A google search can easily pull up many others
for anyone else with interest to review.
***
Author: Catherine Yronwode
Subject: Re: Your High Catshitiness?!
Newsgroups: alt.magick, alt.religion.wiccaView: Complete Thread (8
articles) | Original FormatDate: 2001-09-20 21:15:11 PST
I am currently pondering whether Satyr and Sulk are worthy of my
hatred
too. The answer to that question depends on how much time i have to
hate
them (hating Joel is a chore enough) and how boorishly they perform
during the announced absense of their Fearless Leader, Joel "Yes!
Please
Insert Me In Your Enormous Asshole, Sulk! Quickly! Quickly!" Biroco.
We shall see how nice i can remain while juggling THREE jerks to hate
... if i choose to go that route.
***
***
Author: Catherine Yronwode
Subject: Re: Magical link and Caliphate OTO (was: Re: Need info on
spells with graveyard dirt)
Newsgroups: alt.magickView: Complete Thread (4 articles) | Original
FormatDate: 2001-10-08 19:05:15 PST
i now hate you with a depth and breadth of
justified venom you will never encompass nor erase, you disgusting
everted rectum.
***
After reading those comments and others like them, do you really
expect people to believe that you two archive curses just for academic
purposes? Hey, maybe Catherine's and your motivations really are
simply intellectual, but admitting that possibility doesn't mean I
also must trust you two losers.
You and Catherine can blame my opinions on whatever the hell you want.
I really don't give a shit what excuses you tell yourselves and try
to tell others to explain my posts. I don't trust either of you and I
will speak up whenever I feel like it.
Pharnabaze Pneumatikos
>
> What does this have to do with Heidi Klum?!
> Heidi Klum?! Heidi Klum?! Heidi Klum?!
> http://www.fifty-five.com/photos/klum34.jpg
The Sphinx of Aegypt spoke, Harpocrates.
catherine yronwode
>
> Pathetic mistrust? I don't think so. I base my opinions on
> Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this
> time last year.
Yes, dear. And while voicing my hatred, i was quite public and
good-tempered and -- more to the point -- nothing i did fell into the
realm of your bete noir, the fabulous paranoid vision of me as a
*stalker*.
But that was, as you yourself recall, last year.
Meanwhile, *this* year, David, Satyr, Joel, and i are conversing
civilly, respectfully, and with mutual accord.
And you? Waltzing alone in some scary stalker-filled dark, it seems.
cat yronwode
mika
> mika wrote:
> >
> > Pathetic mistrust? I don't think so. I base my opinions on
> > Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this
> > time last year.
>
> Yes, dear. And while voicing my hatred, i was quite public and
> good-tempered and -- more to the point -- nothing i did fell into the
> realm of your bete noir, the fabulous paranoid vision of me as a
> *stalker*.
All I said was I don't trust you and that I think eventually you will
try to use someone's personal information against them. You are the
one who started on this "stalker" trip.
Of course, calling me paranoid is an easy way to try to get other
people to ignore my opinion.
> But that was, as you yourself recall, last year.
So? It shows the depths of hate you are capable of. If you want me
to trust you, you have to earn it, and so far you haven't. The
passage of time alone doesn't change anything.
> Meanwhile, *this* year, David, Satyr, Joel, and i are conversing
> civilly, respectfully, and with mutual accord.
>
> And you? Waltzing alone in some scary stalker-filled dark, it seems.
If that's what you need to believe, sure. I'm all alone, frightened,
cowering at every sound and shadow. Because, of course, anyone who
expresses mistrust, especially of you, also must be paranoid.
And you, I'm sure, trust everyone, right?
Seyfert-1
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> The first three numerals are 1, 2, and 3.
> Take one 1, two 2s, and three 3s and multiply them all together:
> 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 108.
any way to determine the first historical mention of this
analysis? I would think it would be early, but until deriving
it myself I hadn't sought out its historical basis and tradition
(what is the earliest mention of religious comprehension of this
mathematical relation?, for example).
the formula : 1^1 * ... * X^x generates this series:
1 1 = 1
2 4 = 1 x 2 x 2
= 1 x 4
3 108 = 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3
= 1 x 4 x 27
4 27648 = 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4
= 1 x 4 x 27 x 256
(NOTE:
- 108 = 27540 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 5 x 17)
5 86400000 = 1^1x2^2x3^3x4^4x5^5
= 1 x 4 x 27 x 256 x 3125
= 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 864 (108x8)
that, and its connections with 432 and Kali Yuga,
the Day (/Night) of Brahma, is quite intriguing!
> And then there are cool connections ....
most of the rest (stupendous!) omitted, thanks.
> 1008, rather amazingly, divides evenly by 18 (giving you 56)
> 18, 108, 1008. See? Cute! Evenly divisible numbers!
yes, all iterations of 1 <stuff> 8 divide evenly by 2 x 9;
it looks like the 1<zeros>8s come out to some 5..5&6-looking
thing until they get down to 108,
when the 5 is subsumed into 6 (x18),
or 18,
which is identical (1).
> 1080 (divide ...by 18 -- go on! it's cool!)...
60
not surprising as 108 = 18 x 6, thus 1080 = 18 x (10 x 6)
we could extrapolate that
(18 x 6) x VARIABLE = 18 x (6 x VARIABLE)
> ...18108 and divide that by 18 and check it out.
1006
makes sense, having derived the factors of 18 and 108 (1/6)
> ...1081008 divide[d] by 18. See? COOL!
6056
makes sense again factoring 108 and 1008 (6/56)
> ...181081008 and divide it by 18. Wild!
10060056
I'm seeing its relation to 1, 6, and 56.
>1810810081080 ...divided ...by 9. Do it! YEAH!!!!!
ok, 201201120120
that's an odd result, more because it is doubled (201(2) 120(2))
than that it deals so in 120s (having associated 1080s with
60 the further association in 120s would follow). what did you
like most about this result?
"And While We're At It" Dept.:
what about 18108100810008100008100000810000008100000008 (8 iterations)?
/18 = 18 => 1 (18 => 1)
108 => 6 (18108 => 1006)
1008 => 56 (181081008 => 10060056)
10008 => 556 (18108100810008 => 10060560056)
100008 => 5556 (18108100810008100008 => 1006005600560056)
1000008 => 55556
10000008 => 555556
100000008 => 5555556
18108100810008100008100000810000008100000008 =>
100600560056005600560056005600560056)
> Sorry, i could go on and on... but your calculator probably
> doesn't have any more digits than that.
I think I got the pattern of numbers without needing a calculator,
but I could be mistaken. interesting.
> You get the picture.
18s and 108s seem more connected with 1s and 6s (to 1006),
whereas every number 1008 and up develops a relation to 56
(x18=1008; 2s and 7s) in the formulae as you have it laid out.
thanks!
Seyfert-1
naga...@luckymojo.com
aethyr augoeides
>50020917 VII
><big snip>
>
>
>
>thanks!
>
>Seyfert-1
> naga...@luckymojo.com
>
>
Then there's always 1081, which itself is not devoid of interesting
permutations etc.
aa
deqvf
Azoth418
"aethyr augoeides" <astrum-...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3D87A4A0...@cox.net...
You have to get through these forces to see that light and wizardry:
216/239/39/120.
> aa
> deqvf
>
216/239/39/120
mommadona
"Seyfert-1" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:5VKh9.25067$Ik.5...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> 50020917 VII
>
> sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> > The first three numerals are 1, 2, and 3.
> > Take one 1, two 2s, and three 3s and multiply them all together:
> > 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 108.
>
> any way to determine the first historical mention of this
> analysis? I would think it would be early, but until deriving
> it myself I hadn't sought out its historical basis and tradition
> (what is the earliest mention of religious comprehension of this
> mathematical relation?, for example).
>
> the formula : 1^1 * ... * X^x generates this series:
>
> 1 1 = 1
>
> 2 4 = 1 x 2 x 2
> = 1 x 4
>
> 3 108 = 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3
> = 1 x 4 x 27
>
>
> 4 27648 = 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4
> = 1 x 4 x 27 x 256
>
> (NOTE:
> - 108 = 27540 = 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 5 x 17)
>
>
> 5 86400000 = 1^1x2^2x3^3x4^4x5^5
{SNIP like a good witch}
> thanks!
>
> Seyfert-1
> naga...@luckymojo.com
Naive question: anything to do with abracadabra?
catherine yronwode
>
> All I said was I don't trust you and that I think eventually you
> will try to use someone's personal information against them. You are
> the one who started on this "stalker" trip.
You actually wrote:
> > > > > I believe if you found out Satyr's last name, you would use
> > > > > it to find out his place of employment and home address,
> > > > > which you would file away to use against him later when he
> > > > > eventually pisses you off again.
Using a person's name to find out his or her place of employment and
home address and then uing such information against the person is
commonly called "cyber-stalking." Thus, to your comment, i responded:
So although i first used the *word* "stalker", it remains quite obvious
that you were the one who first stated a *belief* involving me in a what
i called a "stalker-like scneario".
> Of course, calling me paranoid is an easy way to try to get other
> people to ignore my opinion.
I doubt that. People believe all manner of things, regardless of how
others characterize their beliefs.
> > But that was, as you yourself recall, last year.
>
> So? It shows the depths of hate you are capable of.
If i am name-called, lied about, bullied, and badgered by a coterie of
posters for seven straight weeks without surcease, as happened here last
year, i will become quite angry.
I would not call my anger "the depths of hate" but rather the height of
rage.
Depth and height are only metaphors, but on a planetary, gravitational
model, they operate quite differently.
One who has sunk to depths has to climb out of the depths. One who has
risen to rage merely need float down from the heights.
Descent requires less efforts than ascent.
But that's all metaphor, you know?
You chose one metaphor, i have chosen another.
Neither is reality.
> If you want me to trust you, you have to earn it, and so far you
> haven't.
I don't want you to trust me.
I want you to stop talking trash about me in a public forum.
In my opinion, i need not "earn" freedom from your slander and libel; it
is my right.
> The passage of time alone doesn't change anything.
Time "alone" changes nothing except the date. However, time is never
"alone" -- rather, things change, and time allows us to mark the
changes. Your point?
> > Meanwhile, *this* year, David, Satyr, Joel, and i are conversing
> > civilly, respectfully, and with mutual accord.
> >
> > And you? Waltzing alone in some scary stalker-filled dark, it
> > seems.
>
> If that's what you need to believe, sure.
I don't "need" to believe it, but i did reach that tentative conclusion
because you continue to cling to a spooky fantasy that you created about
me cyber-stalking Satyr through his place of employment and home
address.
> I'm all alone, frightened, cowering at every sound and shadow.
> Because, of course, anyone who
> expresses mistrust, especially of you, also must be paranoid.
Sarcasm is a useless tactic when dealing with me. I don't get it, don't
do it, and don't have an interest in it as an art form.
> And you, I'm sure, trust everyone, right?
Pretty much, yeah, up to a certain point.
More to the point, i don't publish slanderous fantasy scenarios about
people being cyber-stalkers.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Blazin' Tommy D.
CI
mika <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<d1bb921f.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> Pathetic mistrust? I don't think so. I base my opinions on
> Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this time
> last year.
>
> How about these quotes? A google search can easily pull up many others
> for anyone else with interest to review.
BTD: Wow these are soe gems. I really enjoyed this post mika!
> ***
> Author: Catherine Yronwode
> Subject: Re: Your High Catshitiness?!
BTD:0
> Newsgroups: alt.magick, alt.religion.wiccaView: Complete Thread (8
> articles) | Original FormatDate: 2001-09-20 21:15:11 PST
>
> I am currently pondering whether Satyr and Sulk are worthy of my
> hatred
> too. The answer to that question depends on how much time i have to
> hate
> them (hating Joel is a chore enough) and how boorishly they perform
> during the announced absense of their Fearless Leader, Joel "Yes!
> Please
> Insert Me In Your Enormous Asshole, Sulk! Quickly! Quickly!" Biroco.
BTD: (LDL - loud delightful laughter)
>
> We shall see how nice i can remain while juggling THREE jerks to hate
> ... if i choose to go that route.
BTD: a penis and two testicles!
> ***
> ***
> Author: Catherine Yronwode
> Subject: Re: Magical link and Caliphate OTO (was: Re: Need info on
> spells with graveyard dirt)
> Newsgroups: alt.magickView: Complete Thread (4 articles) | Original
> FormatDate: 2001-10-08 19:05:15 PST
>
> i now hate you with a depth and breadth of
> justified venom you will never encompass nor erase, you disgusting
> everted rectum.
BTD: Cat said that! No shit (FFO - far fucking out)
> ***
>
> After reading those comments and others like them, do you really
> expect people to believe that you two archive curses just for academic
> purposes? Hey, maybe Catherine's and your motivations really are
> simply intellectual, but admitting that possibility doesn't mean I
> also must trust you two losers.
>
> You and Catherine can blame my opinions on whatever the hell you want.
> I really don't give a shit what excuses you tell yourselves and try
> to tell others to explain my posts. I don't trust either of you and I
> will speak up whenever I feel like it.
BTD: Well good for you mika. I like Muddy Waters follow the simple policy
that we "don't trust nobody".
>
Blazin' Tommy D.
I'll have to get my dict, erm dictionary out for that one
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
<3D8695...@luckymojo.com>...
> mika wrote:
> >
> > Pathetic mistrust? I don't think so. I base my opinions on
> > Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this
> > time last year.
>
> Yes, dear. And while voicing my hatred, i was quite public and
> good-tempered and -- more to the point -- nothing i did fell into the
> realm of your bete noir, the fabulous paranoid vision of me as a
> *stalker*.
>
> But that was, as you yourself recall, last year.
>
> Meanwhile, *this* year, David, Satyr, Joel, and i are conversing
> civilly, respectfully, and with mutual accord.
BTD: See mika, they're all fucking assholes:)
Blazin' Tommy D.
surcease!!!
have we bombast or pseudo intellectualism:0
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in article
<3D87C7...@luckymojo.com>...
Šłł
"Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:01c25ef2$e7d24950$d8865f18@federalist...
LOL! LINK? QUITE. HER 156 ISN'T MY 156 CURRENT LINK, HOWEVER. NOR SHALL THIS
EVER BE. THESE MOMADONNA SLUTS. Gotta love 'em.
Blazin' Tommy D.
Reissued on vinyl
"I'm Ready"
Johnny Winters "Blue Sky" label
CI
Šłł <^> wrote in article <am9ht...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>
> "Blazin' Tommy D." <td...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:01c25ef2$e7d24950$d8865f18@federalist...
> > I just realized, mika is Joey Biroxo in cyber drag
> > CI
> > mika <mik...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> > <d1bb921f.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Pathetic mistrust? I don't think so. I base my opinions on
> > > Catherine's posts, particularly the hate campaign occurring this time
> > > last year.
> > >
> > > How about these quotes? A google search can easily pull up many
others
> > > for anyone else with interest to review.
> >
> > BTD: Wow these are soe [sic] {such} gems. I really enjoyed this post
mika!
> >
> > > ***
> > > Author: Catherine Yronwode
> > > Subject: Re: Your High Catshitiness?!
> >
> > BTD:0
> >
> > > Newsgroups: alt.magick, alt.religion.wiccaView: Complete Thread (8
> > > articles) | Original FormatDate: 2001-09-20 21:15:11 PST
> > >
> > > I am currently pondering whether Satyr and Sulk are worthy of my
> > > hatred
> > > too. The answer to that question depends on how much time i have to
> > > hate
> > > them (hating Joel is a chore enough) and how boorishly they perform
> > > during the announced absense of their Fearless Leader, Joel "Yes!
> > > Please
> > > Insert Me In Your Enormous Asshole, Sulk! Quickly! Quickly!" Biroco.
> >
> > BTD: (LDL - loud delightful laughter)
BTD: Remember "Jay and the Americans"? "This Magic Moment"
BTD: Momadonna's being nice to me . . . (gasp) do you suppose it some sort
of Enochian Plot:o
Peace, love, freedom, happiness,
wanna wanna marijuana
>
>
>
aethyr augoeides
>50020917 VII
>
>sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>
>
>>The first three numerals are 1, 2, and 3.
>>Take one 1, two 2s, and three 3s and multiply them all together:
>> 1 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 108.
>>
The Indian subcontinent 530 BCE (my guess): Buddhist/sacred math abouds
in useful combinatorics.
Remember infinity and a google? An adequate display of the Much smaller
{2 to the 64} is practically unattainable on most calculators, even
fairly good ones. Cantor is interesting, hear about him? A lot of
mathematicians and teachers were also religious thinkers or had active
religious lives: Newton and Einstein being the obvious western examples
of recent history..
>>
>>
>
>18s and 108s seem more connected with 1s and 6s (to 1006),
>whereas every number 1008 and up develops a relation to 56
>(x18=1008; 2s and 7s) in the formulae as you have it laid out.
>
>thanks!
>
>Seyfert-1
> naga...@luckymojo.com
>
>
aa
deqvf
aethyr augoeides
>50020917 VII
>
>sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>
>
>>The first three numerals are 1, 2, and 3.
>>
>>
Also, 496, 28, and 6 are perfect numbers...
aa
deqvf