Psychology & Magick
an...@earthlink.net
psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
the subject. It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
framework to study Magick. I realize that my statements require much
more explanation than I have provided but I would first like to here
from both sides of the argument before boring myself with my own
opinion.
--anoki
Rev. pH33r c0w
>It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
>psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
>the subject. It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
>independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
>psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
>framework to study Magick
what does Psychology (why is it capitalized?) rule out people with
psychoses from doing? at the current time, Psychology probably doesn't
provide a framework for studying magick because there are deep-seated
beliefs and prejudices rooted within it (such as "magickal phenomena
are fake and due to hallucination", or "effects must have a logical
and tangible causes occuring beforehand"). like it or not, the
American Psychological Association is not going to endorse occult
things like the Holy Guardian Angel, astral plane, or angels. magick
is just framework through which to view yourself, and can be combined
with others (like capital-P-Psychology, which is so broad that making
claims about what are "official Psychological beliefs" can't even be
made).
rambling on,
john.
an...@earthlink.net
psychology i am referring to the general explanation that magick is all
in your head the whole jungian speech that is given as stock answer. My
question is what do you think? Is magick an internal illusion if so why
are we doing it? Or is it both an internal and external process that is
separate from just having your imagination take over as you meditate?
---anoki
Tom Schuler
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393C0F9D...@earthlink.net...
> It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
> psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
> the subject.
Odd. I seem to be talking about it a lot.
> It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
> independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
> psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
> framework to study Magick.
I think you have a simplistic notion of what psychology is.
an...@earthlink.net
>
> <an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:393C0F9D...@earthlink.net...
> > It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
> > psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
> > the subject.
>
> Odd. I seem to be talking about it a lot.
Perhaps I haven't been reading your posts enough but then again perhaps
you haven't quite understood the questions I would like posited.
> > It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
> > independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
> > psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
> > framework to study Magick.
>
> I think you have a simplistic notion of what psychology is.
That is a quite funny remark my mentor in graduate school does not seem
to think so. Maybe you should reread my post more carefully as I have
tried to put as little of my own opinion in them as possible in the
hopes of sparking an intellectual discussion. How can you possibly judge
someone else's knowledge of any subject with as little as five lines on
an internet post? Maybe I should take you as my mentor. What University
do you teach at?
---anoki
Jinx
requires overcoming psychological barriers we all have.
But all that is Magick is not only in Psychology and magick is not just
looking at yourself. Magick is getting an understanding of the universe
and gaining control over at least some of it. Of course...as above, so
below. So if you can control yourself (totally), it is said you can do
the same without. Magick allows you to do tricks...changing a stoplight
to green...get prime parking spots...etc. This is in the realm of the
beginner, who is just practicing...later using abilities so frivolously
seems a waste. Magickal studies let you control weather (as this is
also a very common area people mess with when they have studies a bit).
How does this relate only to psychology and self-view/introspection?
If you count this all off into delusion, coincidence, and luck...then
you don't understand magick at all (and probably just doing mental and
psychological exercises). Granted...some of it can be just delusion
(not all), but there are no coincidences and there is no such thing as
luck.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
V.H.F. V.A.A.
literatti were enamored of the various schools psychoanalysis. IR in
particular was pretty convinced that Jungian theories and magick were two
sides of the same coin. You can see this in his introductions to GD as well
as the text of some of the books he wrote during this period.
There is certaintly something to be said about the relations between Jungian
archetypes and magickal "spirits" (to use a general terms), as well as
between the process of initiation and the process of Jungian therapy which
involves recognition of archtypes such as the shadow as blocking the
fulfillment of the individual.
Z'ev Havlevi also has an interesting book, "Psychology and Kabbalah" I
believe that discusses a variety of psychological models in terms of the Etz
Chaim. It's somewhat obscurantist in places but some of his points are
interesting nontheless.
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393C0F9D...@earthlink.net...
> It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
> psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
> the subject. It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
> independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
> psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
an...@earthlink.net
Rick wrote:
>
> "an...@earthlink.net" wrote:
>
> > While Psychology may rule out those with
> > psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
> > framework to study Magick.
>
> Psychology "rules out those with psychosis?" What does this mean?
> --
> ?|!
It was meant to say that psychology can be used to diagnose those with
psychoses i.e. psychotic or mental disorders...mpp..bpd..schizophrenia
etc. thus ruling out those that are nuts...but I think it is safe to say
my sarcasm has been missed ...is ok i keep forgetting that the
subtleties of language are often lost on the net through lack of tone
etc.
:) anoki
> Rick
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~iopan/
Rick
> While Psychology may rule out those with
> psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
> framework to study Magick.
Psychology "rules out those with psychosis?" What does this mean?
--
?|!
Rick
Peter L. Kantor
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393CDE0F...@earthlink.net...
> Tom Schuler wrote:
> > I think you have a simplistic notion of what psychology is.
>
> That is a quite funny remark my mentor in graduate school does not seem
> to think so. Maybe you should reread my post more carefully as I have
> tried to put as little of my own opinion in them as possible in the
> hopes of sparking an intellectual discussion. How can you possibly judge
> someone else's knowledge of any subject with as little as five lines on
> an internet post? Maybe I should take you as my mentor. What University
> do you teach at?
> ---anoki
Ah, but you have presented a simplistic notion of psychology in your post,
which ironically, when one looks at it, implies formal training, something
that often has to do with indoctrinating one with simplistic viewpoints
against strawmen that you can then claim are thrown at you by the
opposition. Just kidding. Psych jaded me because it didn't answer any
questions I was interested in beyond the most superficial of glosses, and
nobody wanted to sponsor a class where I could focus on nothing but the
works of Jung.
But shall we start with a question of what kind of psychology are we asking
about to build a framework from. Obviously not forensic, industrial,
developmental, abnormal, clinical, counselling, or experimental. Did I
forget any? That leaves social, psychiatry (which bristles when it is
called psychology), perhaps one or two others, and pop. Now psychiatry is
premised on Victorian notions if right culture, which (Jung aside, wonderful
loony that he was) does not bode well for its addressing occult phenomena.
In fact, much of it was a backlash against 19th century mysticism. Social
psychology has a bad habit of getting lost in the anthropology of social
interaction, trying, it seems, to be sociology from the individual
perspective. This leaves pop psychology, which, although it loves to touch
on magick, is probably not the sort of thing you are looking for to think
about a framework for magick. What sort of psychology would you suggest for
a framework? Obviously it would have to be something that could function at
the self-help level. It also raises the question of whether theorists of
magick would want theorists of psychology invading their turf and coopting
it through re-framing it in psychological terms.
I don't think psychology has ever really been primarily focused on how one
should conduct one's self in any circumstance except to the extent that one
deviates from social norms. Magick deviates severely from social norms
these days. For that matter, why, exactly, should magick require another
framework through which to study it. (Isn't, to a large extent, magick
tightly integrated with notions of how one should conduct their life?)
Okay, I know it has value, and it would keep academics employeed, but I do
not see it as significantly different from psychology study sociology or
anthropology to develop psychological frameworks describing how those fields
of study function from a perspective of psychological theory.
It would rephrase the questions these ways:
If psychology can be used to study magick, then is it really magick that is
being studied or personal belief systems about magick?
What literature has contributed to a psychological understanding of occult
phenomenon as phenomenon, rather than as internal cognitive states? What
literature has attempted to find common ground between occult phenomenon and
psychology? Jung, of course, being a prime example. What psychological
literature can help be understand more about magick from a personal or
social perspective? I just had Maslow's heirarchy of needs pop into my head
at this one, or Rogers, or even Berne.
As you say, they may be two independent disciplines, but that is not to deny
a common grounding or the possibility of learning from each other.
I'm sure there's more to say, but you're probably all snoring already.
Peter K.
Tom Schuler
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393CDE0F...@earthlink.net...
> Tom Schuler wrote:
> >
> > I think you have a simplistic notion of what psychology is.
>
> That is a quite funny remark my mentor in graduate school
> does not seem to think so.
This is an unclear statement. Are you saying that you have a "mentor" who
is in graduate school or that you are in graduate school and have a "mentor"
among the faculty.
I suspect the former. No graduate student worth a jot would ever capitalize
"Psychology" like it was some sort of entity and declare "While Psychology
may rule out those with psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not
provide an adequate framework to study Magick."
Your "mentor" is either a dunce or you are completely misunderstanding what
you're being told.
> Maybe you should reread my post more carefully as I have
> tried to put as little of my own opinion in them as possible in the
> hopes of sparking an intellectual discussion. How can you possibly judge
> someone else's knowledge of any subject with as little as five lines on
> an internet post?
Easily, when their statements are as obtuse and blatantly oversimplified as
yours have been.
> Maybe I should take you as my mentor. What University
> do you teach at?
You would make a lousy protege. You're more of a camp follower, actually.
Peter L. Kantor
> Not at all I really enjoyed your post. The whole point of my original
> post was to gauge the climate of opinion in regards to this issue and to
> find out why so many of today's occultist believe it's all in your head.
> --anoki
Even most of my dreams aren't in my own head. So no reason to suppose that
magick would be. I like to think of it as the understanding and
manipulation of patterns and flows at the meta-level through the use of
applied metaphor (or is that simile?). Then again I am probably more of a
psionicist than a mage, so my view is skewed from the perspective of trying
to internally reconcile and formally manipulate what seems to me to be
natural phenomena.
On the other hand, perhaps this notion of magick being inside one's head,
even within occult circles, is merely a narcissistic misinterpretation of
the notion of coming from within, confusing congition of self with source of
being. However, to explore that fully, I really, really, really need to go
back and review my philosophy on the difference between essence and being.
It could also be a simple response to being cultured through the lens of a
'psychological' society.
>(Isn't, to a large extent, magick tightly integrated with notions of how
>one should conduct their life?)
Perhaps I am confusing "traditional" ritual magick with "New Age"
self-discovery magick. Although there may be some more of an answer in that
confusion. And there may also be a flaw with divorcing the ritual from the
mode of social conduct that is supposed to accompany it. Even alchemists,
an epitome of abstractionism, sought and ideal world and state of being
through their art.
I know absolutely nothing about Prus and Irini. Sociologists or minor
deities of some forgotten cult of the fertile cresent? I suppose I could
just look them up.
Peter K.
Tom Schuler
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393D91E6...@earthlink.net...
> Personal attacks are generally a sign of a man who has nothing to
> significant to say on the issue but still wants to hear his own voice.
Either that or it's a sign that you really are a git.
> I do take into consideration that my statements were intentionally
> ambiguous in the original post. The ambiguity was there in order to
> encourage discussion of the subject of Psychology and Magick apparently
> you were the only one that required such an explanation.
The ambiguity was due to your babbling.
> As far as capitalization is concerned if you would refer to
> page 106 section 9a(7) of the Harbrace Collegiate Handbook
> you will find that religions and their adherents are capitalized.
Psychology is not a religion. Does your "mentor" worship at the Church of
Psychology? What kind of "graduate school" does he/she/it attend? It
clearly isn't in the psych department. Maybe you're just lying about this
"mentor", after all.
> Again I apologize for making a grammatical a pun.
There you go babbling again.
> However, I would like your help on this question. Do
> I capitalize 'bug' when I ask you "Why don't you get the
> bug out of your ass and try to have some fun?"
No, you don't.
Now, if you want to discuss psychology and magick, you will first have to
give up the pretense that you actually know anything about psychology,
because it's clear that you don't. Perhaps you should also give up the
pretense that you know anything about magick, too. That would make for a
good starting place.
Tom Schuler
"Peter L. Kantor" <kan...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:8hkbao$1cee$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
>
> On the other hand, perhaps this notion of magick being inside
> one's head, even within occult circles, is merely a narcissistic
> misinterpretation of the notion of coming from within,
> confusing congition of self with source of being.
A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as "reality" exists
inside one's head. Since magick is a manipulation of reality, it follows
that magick is also operating inside one's head.
One way to appreciate the Hermetic Axiom is to see that changes inside one's
head create corresponding changes in the external world and vice versa.
These changes are not identical but they do correspond. The manipulation of
inner states to produce outer effects is one hallmark of magick.
Therefore, a clear idea of one's present psychological state and how it can
be adjusted at will is a very important part of learning to understand and
use magick.
an...@earthlink.net
do take into consideration that my statements were intentionally
ambiguous in the original post. The ambiguity was there in order to
encourage discussion of the subject of Psychology and Magick apparently
capitalization is concerned if you would refer to page 106 section 9a(7)
of the Harbrace Collegiate Handbook you will find that religions and
grammatical a pun. However, I would like your help on this question. Do
I capitalize 'bug' when I ask you "Why don't you get the bug out of your
ass and try to have some fun?"
an...@earthlink.net
"Peter L. Kantor" wrote:
>
> <an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:393CDE0F...@earthlink.net...
> Ah, but you have presented a simplistic notion of psychology in your >post,
> which ironically, when one looks at it, implies formal training, >something
> that often has to do with indoctrinating one with simplistic viewpoints
> against strawmen that you can then claim are thrown at you by the
> opposition. Just kidding.
Ahh finally someone on the list has a sense of humor!
>Psych jaded me because it didn't answer any
> questions I was interested in beyond the most superficial of glosses, >and nobody wanted to sponsor a class where I could focus on nothing but >the works of Jung.
I have experienced disillusionment with subject of Psychology as well.
However, the nasty little habit you pointed out earlier of leaving open
ended and ambiguous questions has not yet left me.
>
> But shall we start with a question of what kind of psychology are we >asking about to build a framework from. Obviously not forensic, >industrial, developmental, abnormal, clinical, counselling, or experimental. Did I forget any? That leaves social, psychiatry (which bristles when it is called psychology), perhaps one or two others, and pop.
<Now psychiatry is premised on Victorian notions if right culture, which
<(Jung aside, wonderful loony that he was) does not bode well for its
<addressing occult phenomena.
Yet another reason why I do not like to use Psychology as a methodology
of explaining occult phenomena. The most neutral party that I have
encountered in the studies of deviance have been Prus and Irini which
take more of a symbolic interactionist (among others) approach to
deviance and describe it in terms of its own unique subculture rather in
terms of the mainstream culture but they are Sociologists. This would be
ideal for studying particular orders but not Magick itself. Weber and
Durkheim touched on religion as well but again the aggregates were
groups.
> In fact, much of it was a backlash against 19th century mysticism. >Social psychology has a bad habit of getting lost in the anthropology of >social interaction, trying, it seems, to be sociology from the individual
>perspective.
Again I would agree with you.
>This leaves pop psychology, which, although it loves to touch
> on magick, is probably not the sort of thing you are looking for to >think about a framework for magick. What sort of psychology would you >suggest for a framework? Obviously it would have to be something that >could function at the self-help level. It also raises the question of >whether theorists of magick would want theorists of psychology invading >their turf and coopting it through re-framing it in psychological terms.
> I don't think psychology has ever really been primarily focused on how >one should conduct one's self in any circumstance except to the extent >that one deviates from social norms. Magick deviates severely from >social norms these days. For that matter, why, exactly, should magick >require another framework through which to study it.
I personally do not think that Magick requires the development of such a
framework.
>(Isn't, to a large extent, magick tightly integrated with notions of how >one should conduct their life?)
I am not sure that it does. However, if you wanted to go with that
notion I think the studies would fall under the realms of ethnography
and sociology (as far as studying the notions of each order/group).
>Okay, I know it has value, and it would keep academics employeed, but I >do not see it as significantly different from psychology study sociology >or anthropology to develop psychological frameworks describing how those >fields of study function from a perspective of psychological theory.
>
> It would rephrase the questions these ways:
> If psychology can be used to study magick, then is it really magick that >is being studied or personal belief systems about magick?
> What literature has contributed to a psychological understanding of >occult phenomenon as phenomenon, rather than as internal cognitive >states? What literature has attempted to find common ground between >occult phenomenon and psychology? Jung, of course, being a prime >example. What psychological literature can help be understand more about >magick from a personal or social perspective? I just had Maslow's >heirarchy of needs pop into my head
> at this one, or Rogers, or even Berne.
From the social perspective I think sociology is much more effective.
> As you say, they may be two independent disciplines, but that is not to >deny a common grounding or the possibility of learning from each other.
I would agree. What concerns me most is that too many people take psych
as absolute truth. If I told you I had a patient that cut himself to
impress his peers most psychologists would give me an immediate
diagnosis. Without even asking about his social circumstances they would
not know that he was actually a tribal African Chief! Without taking
culture into account most psychology is absolutely useless. The question
is can it explain the HGA or the ability to see the astral etc? As far
as I know it cannot begin to measure or explain these phenomena (granted
their have been attempts).
> I'm sure there's more to say, but you're probably all snoring already.
> Peter K.
Not at all I really enjoyed your post. The whole point of my original
Leo Smith
Psychology places it inside, magick outside. But possibly the things that
are encountered in both disciplines are actually the same.
Leo Smith
"an...@earthlink.net" wrote:
> Or is it both an internal and external process that is
> separate from just having your imagination take over as you meditate?
Yes.
Adam Bratter
Jungian psychology and magick. He was of course a Reichian Therapist.
I am reading it now and it is wonderful, try to get the newest edition if
you want to read it,
- Adam
"V.H.F. V.A.A." <v...@logicelves.com> wrote in message
news:tO6%4.605$2X2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> During the 20s, 30s and 40s many adepts, along with most the western
> literatti were enamored of the various schools psychoanalysis. IR in
> particular was pretty convinced that Jungian theories and magick were two
> sides of the same coin. You can see this in his introductions to GD as
well
> as the text of some of the books he wrote during this period.
>
> There is certaintly something to be said about the relations between
Jungian
> archetypes and magickal "spirits" (to use a general terms), as well as
> between the process of initiation and the process of Jungian therapy which
> involves recognition of archtypes such as the shadow as blocking the
> fulfillment of the individual.
>
> Z'ev Havlevi also has an interesting book, "Psychology and Kabbalah" I
> believe that discusses a variety of psychological models in terms of the
Etz
> Chaim. It's somewhat obscurantist in places but some of his points are
> interesting nontheless.
>
> news:393C0F9D...@earthlink.net...
Harold Piser
>It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
>psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
>the subject. It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
>independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
>psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
>framework to study Magick. I realize that my statements require much
>more explanation than I have provided but I would first like to here
>from both sides of the argument before boring myself with my own
>opinion.
>--anoki
Anoki
You are correct in your supposition.
Psychology is a pseudo-science and is controlled by government and
financial interests. It is similar to today's medical profession which is
controlled by government, financial interests and unions. Both treat
diseases or symptoms and know little, if anything, about health and
wholeness.
True Magic, not magick, is a much older science and produces unmistakable
results to the practitioner. True Magic includes the whole person, not just
his mind. True Magic is controlled by you and not by government.
Harold
potnia...@yahoo.com
Leo Smith <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote:
> Psychology and magick are possibly two ways of looking at the same
thing.
>
> Psychology places it inside, magick outside. But possibly the things
that
> are encountered in both disciplines are actually the same.
Psychology inside, magick outside?
This split does not really work for me.
Much of magick is internal, not to mention invocation, and much of the
discipline of psychology deals with relationships between individuals
or individuals and society. Indeed, I do not see how psychology can be
easily separated from relationships or magic from internal processes.
That said, I do think you're idea that they are different viewpoints
dealing with the same phenomena is not far off.
PotniaTheron
Leo Smith
potnia...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <393DA160...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk>,
> Leo Smith <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote:
> > Psychology and magick are possibly two ways of looking at the same
> thing.
> >
> > Psychology places it inside, magick outside. But possibly the things
> that
> > are encountered in both disciplines are actually the same.
>
> Psychology inside, magick outside?
> This split does not really work for me.
It doesn't have to :-)
>
> Much of magick is internal, not to mention invocation, and much of the
> discipline of psychology deals with relationships between individuals
> or individuals and society. Indeed, I do not see how psychology can be
> easily separated from relationships or magic from internal processes.
>
Well, to amplify what I meant, it is my opinion that psychlogy and magick
deal with essentially the same territory, but they are radically different
techniques with radically different effects. Psychology deals with entities
like 'repressed feelings' and 'psychoses', whioch are the mappings of the
subconscious into a material-realistic world. I.e. these entities are
largely considered to be the reaction of the organisim to phsyical and
chemical events coming into the psyche via the senses.
The magickian deals with 'spirits and forces' that are these things mapped
to a more phenomenological world. One may posit for example the existence
the 'astral plane' which is perceived as separate from the individuals
psyche - a territory in which these events and dramas take place.
I use both models. And others. Sometimes it is easier to deal with things
'within one's own mind and body' and sometimes easier 'as if they were
independent entities'
The absolute truth of what one is dealing with, is something I have
concluded is beyond my capacity to determine, at both a theoretical and
practical level.
>
> That said, I do think you're idea that they are different viewpoints
> dealing with the same phenomena is not far off.
>
I think we have more a problem with the words, than the concepts :-)
Amanda Walker
> What literature has contributed to a psychological understanding of occult
> phenomenon as phenomenon, rather than as internal cognitive states? What
> literature has attempted to find common ground between occult phenomenon and
> psychology? Jung, of course, being a prime example.
Well, this depends a bit on what how you draw the line between
external phenomena and internal cognition, but there's been a fair
amount of work on this topic since Jung. However, much of it is on
the fringes of the field, since mainstream psychology seems to be
more concerned with aligning itself with the physical sciences than
with magical/religious traditions, at least in the west.
But folks like Habermas, Grof, Aurobindo, Wilber, etc. have some very
interesting things to say. Whether what they have to say is psychology
or philosophy is a matter for some debate--transpersonal psychology is
a bit of a black sheep.
Amanda Walker
Cameron Mandrake
: It would rephrase the questions these ways:
: If psychology can be used to study magick, then is it really magick that is
: being studied or personal belief systems about magick?
A few things come to mind here. Firstly, I am reminded of Dione Fortune's
definition of magic. "The art of changing consciousness at will." We
know she was right in the middle of the whole magic/psychology
integration. She was, in fact, a therapist herself. This is reflected in
how she worked and wrote. While I prefer the Goeta definition of magic
much more, I am reminded that they are both interestingly similar in that
they imply not just the art of magic, but the science.
I am aware of a number of magical working groups that required at least a
year of psychotherapy before letting a member into their ranks. I am not
aware of any at the present, but this wasn't all that long ago. I see a
lot of validity to this, but I also see how working the magic regularly
and doing the inner work that is required will lead to a much sounder
mind. We may disagree, however, on what that inner work should be. :)
Just as I see magic as applied mysticism (in my own personal experience),
I can see pyschology as a science of the mind, and magic as the art of
developing the mind, and achieving the One consciousness. I say this,
because, in my opinion, any magic that works shows a momentary conjunction
(of varying depth) of the mind of the magician and the consciousness of
the Universe. The adept is one who has a great sense of control of this
experience.
Now to your question. Since each person's path is very different,
"magick" and the "personal belief systems about magick" become one and the
same. Magic is one thing that is heavily influenced by perspective. One
person may have very little results in their magic, because they haven't
come to grips with their own personal belief system. Studying magic with
psychology gives us the opportunity to explore our own relationship with
our belief systems. It can help us liberate ourselves from the biases and
prejudices that keep us from moving forward.
Again, I moved into magic from a background in mysticism, so my views are
skewed that way.
Just a few ideas to pitch into the fray.
Deep peace,
-Cameron
--
Cameron J. Mandrake mand...@dragon.org
Coming soon, Dragon Spirit Magazine at http://www.dragon.org
Submissions needed. Please visit the site for details.
V.H.F. V.A.A.
Adam Bratter <abra...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:f0i%4.3971$mD1....@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Parzifal
lol
well, dont be too hard on Tom, he does try - really.
I especially love it when he tells others to think clearly... get him to talk
to you about psychology or the nature of reality and you will *really* know what
a spaghetti mental process is like... lol
or even better, his favourite of at least 4 years... ahem, a drun rll if you
please...
** THE PLACEBO EFFECT** <shudder>
Give him a break though, underneath all that he is a nice guy. Harmless but
quite nice.
lol
Parzifal
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:07:07 GMT, "an...@earthlink.net" <an...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: Personal attacks are generally a sign of a man who has nothing to
: significant to say on the issue but still wants to hear his own voice. I
: do take into consideration that my statements were intentionally
: ambiguous in the original post. The ambiguity was there in order to
: encourage discussion of the subject of Psychology and Magick apparently
: you were the only one that required such an explanation. As far as
: capitalization is concerned if you would refer to page 106 section 9a(7)
: of the Harbrace Collegiate Handbook you will find that religions and
: their adherents are capitalized. Again I apologize for making a
: grammatical a pun. However, I would like your help on this question. Do
: I capitalize 'bug' when I ask you "Why don't you get the bug out of your
: ass and try to have some fun?"
: ---anoki
: Tom Schuler wrote:
: >
: > <an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: > news:393CDE0F...@earthlink.net...
: > > Tom Schuler wrote:
: > > >
: > > > I think you have a simplistic notion of what psychology is.
: > >
: > > That is a quite funny remark my mentor in graduate school
: > > does not seem to think so.
: >
: > This is an unclear statement. Are you saying that you have a "mentor"
who
: > is in graduate school or that you are in graduate school and have a
"mentor"
: > among the faculty.
: >
: > I suspect the former. No graduate student worth a jot would ever
capitalize
: > "Psychology" like it was some sort of entity and declare "While
Psychology
: > may rule out those with psychoses it like almost all other sciences does
not
: > provide an adequate framework to study Magick."
: >
: > Your "mentor" is either a dunce or you are completely misunderstanding
Tom Schuler
"Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
news:hu8tjss9qgpcbdtki...@4ax.com...
>
> I especially love it when he tells others to think clearly... get
> him to talk to you about psychology or the nature of reality
> and you will *really* know what a spaghetti mental process is
> like... lol
Because you get confused thinking about this stuff does not mean that I am
confused about it.
> ** THE PLACEBO EFFECT** <shudder>
Scares you, does it? Well, it should. It's a clear demonstration that some
effects of magick can be verified, while none of your claims seem to be able
to meet that standard.
Peter L. Kantor
Tom Schuler <d...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:uMj%4.10609$AW3.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
>
> A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as "reality" exists
> inside one's head. Since magick is a manipulation of reality, it follows
> that magick is also operating inside one's head.
That seems to be a bit of sophistry garnished with a dash of solipsism.
(Sorry, I just had to say that. It's such a nice turn of phrase.)
The considerable portion of what is through to be real that is inside our
heads is the congnition thereof. But that reality from within is only an
essence of reality, not its being. The notion that this being is within
seems to derive from an odd upturning of this duality in the belief that we
have access to what is, but not its essence. This, unfortunately, may also
be true. Thus we end up with a confusion of being and essense since we
mistake the essence within for being without and the ungraspable being
without as pure essence and therefore unachievable.
Hmm. If I continue on that thread I may end up agreeing with you. Anway.
Perhaps the problem is that of the question of whether the magick is within
or without, and whether what is within is magick or actor. The first part
of the question is the critical bit. It traps us in a notion of dualism
that requires that the answer be on one side of the fence or the other.
What happens if magick is neither within nor without, but rather between,
existing purely in the instant between what is within and what is without?
Then the Hermetic tradition would not be that "changes inside one's head
create corresponding changes in the external world and vice versa," but
rather that these changes are co-made within and without and are co-make
what it is that is within and without. It is a process of co-operation, not
operation from nor upon. The point of effecting changes within one's head
then is perhaps merely a sentizing exercise to being able to find the nexus
between within and without.
A bit of a muddle, but I think that hits it somewhere close to the thumb.
Peter K.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> > Psychology "rules out those with psychosis?" What does this mean?
> It was meant to say that psychology can be used to diagnose those with
> psychoses i.e. psychotic or mental disorders...mpp..bpd..schizophrenia
> etc. thus ruling out those that are nuts...but I think it is safe to say
> my sarcasm has been missed ...is ok i keep forgetting that the
> subtleties of language are often lost on the net through lack of tone
> etc.
> :) anoki
Is that the extent of psychology in your view?
an...@earthlink.net
know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
to set my ignore filters!
--anoki
Parzifal wrote:
>
> lol
>
> well, dont be too hard on Tom, he does try - really.
>
> I especially love it when he tells others to think clearly... get him to talk
> to you about psychology or the nature of reality and you will *really* know what
> a spaghetti mental process is like... lol
>
> or even better, his favourite of at least 4 years... ahem, a drun rll if you
> please...
>
> ** THE PLACEBO EFFECT** <shudder>
>
PotniaTheron
The interesting and sticky question being can we separate internal
cognitive states from apparently external phenomenon in any kind of
really meaningful way? Can we separate mind from body or internal from
external? Our language is based on such dualisms, so it becomes very
difficult to speak accurately about our experience.
--
PotniaTheron (formerly Sved)
"Why not daub with bright green paint the smug low wall of assumption?"
-Jeanette Winterson
PotniaTheron
Ah, you see, I do not think this is necessarily so. Perhaps I am just
thinking of different areas of the discipline of psychology.
Psychology deals with entities
> like 'repressed feelings' and 'psychoses', whioch are the mappings of
the
> subconscious into a material-realistic world. I.e. these entities are
> largely considered to be the reaction of the organisim to phsyical and
> chemical events coming into the psyche via the senses.
>
> The magickian deals with 'spirits and forces' that are these things
mapped
> to a more phenomenological world. One may posit for example the
existence
> the 'astral plane' which is perceived as separate from the individuals
> psyche - a territory in which these events and dramas take place.
>
> I use both models. And others. Sometimes it is easier to deal with
things
> 'within one's own mind and body' and sometimes easier 'as if they were
> independent entities'
I suppose. Though I do not really find this separation useful.
I did for a time, but I do not now. I cannot either separate mind and
body, action and reaction, identity and persona. They are not even as
distinct as "aspects" of self. In fact, I find self and other a false
separation as well, but one that I have not been able to get around
using.
-ZZ
<an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:393EBFDB...@earthlink.net...
> LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
> know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
> to set my ignore filters!
A lot of people try to ignore Tom because he asks them awkward questions
that threaten their world-view.
Generally they fail, and end up obsessing over him.
- ZZ
Amanda Walker
> The interesting and sticky question being can we separate internal
> cognitive states from apparently external phenomenon in any kind of
> really meaningful way?
Really meaningful? I don't know. Generally useful? Sure.
> PotniaTheron (formerly Sved)
Yay! You're back! Send me email.
Amanda Walker
wrm
Tales, and Transpersonal Psychology. I do magical meditations with a
psychologist and enjoy working with both traditions. Bill
See http://www.lava.net/~pagios
"an...@earthlink.net" wrote:
> It has been remarked several times on the list that Magick is the mere
> psychology of one's self but I have yet to see much of a discussion of
> the subject. It is my opinion that Magick and Psychology are two
> independent disciplines. While Psychology may rule out those with
> psychoses it like almost all other sciences does not provide an adequate
Tom Schuler
"Peter L. Kantor" <kan...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:8hmace$m7k$1...@newsfeeds.rpi.edu...
>
> Tom Schuler <d...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:uMj%4.10609$AW3.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
> >
> > A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as "reality"
exists
> > inside one's head. Since magick is a manipulation of reality, it
follows
> > that magick is also operating inside one's head.
>
> That seems to be a bit of sophistry garnished with a dash of solipsism.
> (Sorry, I just had to say that. It's such a nice turn of phrase.)
That's OK. You're wrong, of course. It has very little to do with
solipsism.
> The considerable portion of what is through to be real that is inside our
> heads is the congnition thereof. But that reality from within is only an
> essence of reality, not its being. The notion that this being is within
> seems to derive from an odd upturning of this duality in the belief that
we
> have access to what is, but not its essence.
Now *this* appears to be sophistry.
> This, unfortunately, may also be true. Thus we end up with a confusion
> of being and essense since we mistake the essence within for being
> without and the ungraspable being
> without as pure essence and therefore unachievable.
>
> Hmm. If I continue on that thread I may end up agreeing with you. Anway.
Is the concept of reality itself abstracted? (Now there's an invitation to
a sophist!)
> Perhaps the problem is that of the question of whether the magick is
within
> or without, and whether what is within is magick or actor. The first part
> of the question is the critical bit. It traps us in a notion of dualism
> that requires that the answer be on one side of the fence or the other.
> What happens if magick is neither within nor without, but rather between,
> existing purely in the instant between what is within and what is without?
Then we can dispense with all these words.
> Then the Hermetic tradition would not be that "changes inside one's head
> create corresponding changes in the external world and vice versa," but
> rather that these changes are co-made within and without and are co-make
> what it is that is within and without.
Within and without are themselves dualistic concepts.
richard sprigg
>
> LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
> know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
> to set my ignore filters!
Another worshipper.
How do you do it, Tom?
Fate's Knight
"an...@earthlink.net" wrote:
> LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
> know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
> to set my ignore filters!
> --anoki
Igmore him at your own detriment. I find him intelligent, and if nothing else, good
for a laugh occasionally. I like hearing people tell me what I don't want to hear when
I need it.
> > : > "Psychology" like it was some sort of entity and declare "While
> > Psychology
> > : > may rule out those with psychoses it like almost all other sciences does
> > not
> > : > provide an adequate framework to study Magick."
> > : >
> > : > Your "mentor" is either a dunce or you are completely misunderstanding
> > what
> > : > you're being told.
> > : >
> > : > > Maybe you should reread my post more carefully as I have
> > : > > tried to put as little of my own opinion in them as possible in the
> > : > > hopes of sparking an intellectual discussion. How can you possibly
> > judge
> > : > > someone else's knowledge of any subject with as little as five lines
> > on
> > : > > an internet post?
> > : >
> > : > Easily, when their statements are as obtuse and blatantly oversimplified
> > as
> > : > yours have been.
> > : >
> > : > > Maybe I should take you as my mentor. What University
> > : > > do you teach at?
> > : >
> > : > You would make a lousy protege. You're more of a camp follower,
> > actually.
Fate's Knight
--
"Just a bunch of wannablessedbes. You know, nowadays, every girl with a
spice rack and a henna tattoo thinks she is a sister to the dark ones."
--Willow "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
PolishRider
>financial interests. It is similar to today's medical profession which is
>controlled by government, financial interests and unions. Both treat
>diseases or symptoms and know little, if anything, about health and
>wholeness.
The government regulates the medical practices in hopes of cutting down on
'quack' practices and unsanitary conditions, in effect establishing guidelines
that have demonstrated their usefullness, not unlike the rules and rituals laid
out in grimoires or other books. And most guidelines deal with established and
proven matters, not necessarily with suppositions until proven they can be true
as well. If psychology treats people who think they are 'demons' or have grand
powers as delusional, it is mostly due to the fact that many of them were. Of
course, no guideline ever encompasses all facts in the case, and I am sure that
psychology and science have run into 'unexplainable' instances more than once.
Psychology only goes so far in explaining anything, just as magick only goes so
far. I think the two overlap more often than not, and the prime example could
be the dreamstate. Not every dream is a astral travel, and not every dream is a
psychological or phsiological reaction to your environment or you daily
thoughts, so it is quite possible that a dream that started out as a
psychological 'mind chatter' could evolve into something else, and vice versa.
The more possibilities you entertain, the more likely you are to reach an
understanding of the problem or dilema you are presented with. If you only
carry a hammer around with you, every problem starts to 'look' like a nail.
Harold Piser
the saving of human life. Here is a news article that shows doctors are the
third leading cause of death in America.
http://home.earthlink.net/~haroldpiser/SPOTLIGHT/SPOTLIGHTNewsApr99.htm#anchor16889
You may search The Spotlight indexes for more on health and government
negligence.
Harold
kol...@my-deja.com
> >
> > On the other hand, perhaps this notion of magick being inside
> > one's head, even within occult circles, is merely a narcissistic
> > misinterpretation of the notion of coming from within,
> > confusing congition of self with source of being.
>
> A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as "reality"
exists
> inside one's head.
You said "a considerable portion", why did you not say "all"? Did
you state a fact or were you playing it safe?
What portion of what is generally thought of as "reality" does NOT
exist inside one's head?
Since magick is a manipulation of reality, it follows
> that magick is also operating inside one's head.
>
> One way to appreciate the Hermetic Axiom is to see that changes inside
one's
> head create corresponding changes in the external world and vice
versa.
> These changes are not identical but they do correspond. The
manipulation of
> inner states to produce outer effects is one hallmark of magick.
>
> Therefore, a clear idea of one's present psychological state and how
it can
> be adjusted at will is a very important part of learning to understand
and
> use magick.
Parzifal
lol
I make no claims Tom, neither do I get confused...
lol
Parzifal
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:50:06 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:hu8tjss9qgpcbdtki...@4ax.com...
: >
: > I especially love it when he tells others to think clearly... get
: > him to talk to you about psychology or the nature of reality
: > and you will *really* know what a spaghetti mental process is
: > like... lol
:
: Because you get confused thinking about this stuff does not mean that I am
: confused about it.
:
: > ** THE PLACEBO EFFECT** <shudder>
:
: Scares you, does it? Well, it should. It's a clear demonstration that
:
:
Parzifal
LOL
not me :-) I know who I am,
More to the point, I know who Tom is...
lol
Parzifal
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 17:35:27 -0500, "-ZZ" <-Z...@mailcity.com> wrote:
:
: <an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
: news:393EBFDB...@earthlink.net...
:
: > LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
: > know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
: > to set my ignore filters!
:
: A lot of people try to ignore Tom because he asks them awkward questions
:
Parzifal
lol
well, as I said dont be too hard on him, I have actually seen some posts which
were quite lucid. It is just when he gets sort of *focussed* on slagging off
other people without concentrating on his own gaps, of which there are certainly
some.
*shrug*
it's probably a moon thing or something...
lol
Parzifal
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 21:35:16 GMT, "an...@earthlink.net" <an...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
: LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
: know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
: to set my ignore filters!
: --anoki
:
: Parzifal wrote:
: >
: > lol
: >
: > well, dont be too hard on Tom, he does try - really.
: >
: > I especially love it when he tells others to think clearly... get him
to talk
: > to you about psychology or the nature of reality and you will *really*
know what
: > a spaghetti mental process is like... lol
: >
: > or even better, his favourite of at least 4 years... ahem, a drun rll
if you
: > please...
: >
: > ** THE PLACEBO EFFECT** <shudder>
: >
: > Give him a break though, underneath all that he is a nice guy. Harmless
Parzifal
Must be a gift...
lol
Parzifal
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 06:35:24 GMT, richard sprigg <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
: an...@earthlink.net wrote:
: >
: > LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
: > know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
: > to set my ignore filters!
: > --anoki
:
: Another worshipper.
Tom Schuler
"richard sprigg" <kt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:393F3E...@sympatico.ca...
> an...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
> > know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
> > to set my ignore filters!
> > --anoki
>
> Another worshipper.
> How do you do it, Tom?
"Oh carrots are divine,
You get a dozen for a dime.
It's maaaa-gick!"
-- Bugs Bunny
Tom Schuler
"Harold Piser" <harold(omit)pi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ds8vjsci79m80du21...@4ax.com...
> Government regulation of medical practices would be fine if its
> goal was the saving of human life. Here is a news article that
> shows doctors are the third leading cause of death in America.
>
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~haroldpiser/SPOTLIGHT/SPOTLIGHTNewsApr99.htm#anch
or16889
Amazing. Quoting the kookiest bunch of racist paranoids on the planet as
your authority.
Tom Schuler
<kol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8hocma$1lu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <uMj%4.10609$AW3.5...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> > A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as
> > "reality" exists inside one's head.
>
> You said "a considerable portion", why did you not say "all"? Did
> you state a fact or were you playing it safe?
Heh. Don't get me started on "facts" again. It upsets too many people.
I try not to overstate my position by using absolutes. I don't think that
"all" of reality exists inside one's head, but I am never really sure which
parts of it aren't inside. New stuff seems to come from somewhere.
Peter L. Kantor
>
> > That seems to be a bit of sophistry garnished with a dash of solipsism.
> > (Sorry, I just had to say that. It's such a nice turn of phrase.)
>
> That's OK. You're wrong, of course. It has very little to do with
> solipsism.
Nonsense, how can such a wonderful turn of phrase be wrong. Anyway. I do
mean solipsism, or the argument that all that exists is the self, which is
fundamental to the notion of what is without coming from within.
>
> Now *this* appears to be sophistry.
>
Probably is, I have a hard time with the being and essence duality because I
keep thinking that its primary discussants have something in there that is
backwards, but I can never put my finger on it.
>
> Is the concept of reality itself abstracted? (Now there's an invitation
to
> a sophist!)
No, just pomo. The concept of reality is actually subjective, and to that
extent can only be an abstraction of any potential reality that may be
there.
>
> > Perhaps the problem is that of the question of whether the magick is
> within
> > or without, and whether what is within is magick or actor. The first
part
> > of the question is the critical bit. It traps us in a notion of dualism
> > that requires that the answer be on one side of the fence or the other.
> > What happens if magick is neither within nor without, but rather
between,
> > existing purely in the instant between what is within and what is
without?
>
> Then we can dispense with all these words.
Yes, hard to talk that way. The challenge is not to dispense with words but
to find combinations of words that allow the words to have different and
deeper meanings. Hmm. Makes a debate sound sort of like magick, doesn't
it. Ah well.
>
> > Then the Hermetic tradition would not be that "changes inside one's head
> > create corresponding changes in the external world and vice versa," but
> > rather that these changes are co-made within and without and are co-make
> > what it is that is within and without.
>
> Within and without are themselves dualistic concepts.
>
Yes, but I was trying to get you to step beyond them to the co-making that
brings about their definition as a duality. I do not doubt there is a
within and without (I am not about to abstract reality quite that much
except as a mental exercise), but they are not oppostions, but rather an
integral binary unit. However, it is only in the between that is the nature
of this binary unit where anything actually happens. Therefore, magick
cannot truly be said to be within or without, but rather between,
co-made between the person and the world that surrrounds them.
It's a slog, but you might try Schumacher's "Human Posture," if you can find
a copy, for a better working of all that. I have a tendency toward glibness
that tends to muddle my intent.
Peter K.
Leo Smith
Tom is always good for an argument. But I think his new kid is mellowing him
out too much.
STAND UP TOM YOU MOTHERFUCKER. GET YER DUKES UP> IT IS A FACT THAT YOU ARE
WRONG
There - that should set him off.
-ZZ wrote:
> <an...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:393EBFDB...@earthlink.net...
>
> > LOL Parziful..so Tom is just one of those people we ignore...i didn't
> > know that... I am new to this list...thanks fo the info...i'll be sure
> > to set my ignore filters!
>
Leo Smith
Parzifal wrote:
> LOL
>
> not me :-) I know who I am,
>
> More to the point, I know who Tom is...
Well that puts you one up on me, and Tom, neither of whom know who they are.
Tell me, in the Spirit of Schuler, how do you know you know who you know you are?
Leo Smith
Parzifal wrote:
> lol
>
> well, as I said dont be too hard on him, I have actually seen some posts which
> were quite lucid. It is just when he gets sort of *focussed* on slagging off
> other people without concentrating on his own gaps, of which there are certainly
> some.
>
> *shrug*
>
> it's probably a moon thing or something...
Not another sex change artist surely!
Leo Smith
PotniaTheron wrote:
> The interesting and sticky question being can we separate internal
> cognitive states from apparently external phenomenon in any kind of
> really meaningful way?
Yes, to an extent. Or at least we need not stay completely confused.
If - when you were a small baby - you willed something to happen, and saw a
pink blobby thing move, you might, after a few experiments, conclude that it
was 'part' of 'you' . Your fist.
Likewise, as you develop in magic, you may find that certain aspects of your
reality, that you always considered external and something outside of you,
were actually under your control.
Whether you modify your worldview to encompass this behavior bty saying that
you have magical powers that can affect reality, or redefine those parts of
your experience as 'internal' is really not the issue. The issue is to get
waving yoir psychic willy as hard as you can, to see how far you can
masturbate the universe.
> Can we separate mind from body or internal from
> external? Our language is based on such dualisms, so it becomes very
> difficult to speak accurately about our experience.
why bother? I can direct my mind and body and emotions to an extent. To an
extent I can't. They are not concepts that survive the transcendental
experience. One may at best talk of 'self' and 'other' as generalised
concepts relating to 'that which I seem to have control over, or power to
affect' and 'that which seems to exist more or less independently of my
power to affect it'. One shouldn't extend the utility of concepts outside of
the worldview they are a constituent of.
Leo Smith
PotniaTheron wrote:
>
> > I use both models. And others. Sometimes it is easier to deal with
> things
> > 'within one's own mind and body' and sometimes easier 'as if they were
> > independent entities'
>
> I suppose. Though I do not really find this separation useful.
Well, in the limit, one just sort of 'does it' anyway. But in there more
normal incarnations they are different.
But everything tends towards the One in the end :-)
>
> I did for a time, but I do not now. I cannot either separate mind and
> body, action and reaction, identity and persona. They are not even as
> distinct as "aspects" of self. In fact, I find self and other a false
> separation as well, but one that I have not been able to get around
> using.
>
Ah. Well we ought to start a new thread on that. I have some ideas about
that........suffice to say, we seem similar.
Leo Smith
PolishRider wrote:
> >Psychology is a pseudo-science and is controlled by government and
> >financial interests. It is similar to today's medical profession which is
> >controlled by government, financial interests and unions. Both treat
> >diseases or symptoms and know little, if anything, about health and
> >wholeness.
>
> The government <snip>
Why is it that when anybody says 'the government' I just sort of automagically
ignore the rest of the post..
:-)
Tom Schuler
>
> More to the point, I know who Tom is...
What a silly thing to say.
Tom Schuler
>
> I make no claims Tom, neither do I get confused...
That's two false claims right there.
Peter L. Kantor
Okay, now that Leo has tuned out we can talk about him behind his back.
Wait, wait, he may still be browsing though ...
The military ...
Big business ...
The military industrial complex ...
Okay, now he's catatonic. Discuss.
Peter K.
Leo Smith <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39401C99...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
Jackie Patti
<393D9F6D...@earthlink.net>...
>I would agree. What concerns me most is that too many people take
psych
>as absolute truth. If I told you I had a patient that cut himself to
>impress his peers most psychologists would give me an immediate
>diagnosis. Without even asking about his social circumstances they
would
>not know that he was actually a tribal African Chief! Without taking
>culture into account most psychology is absolutely useless. The
question
>is can it explain the HGA or the ability to see the astral etc? As
far
>as I know it cannot begin to measure or explain these phenomena
(granted
>their have been attempts).
I don't know of any psychologist whom would presume to diagnose based
on one symptom, and therefore consider your statement regarding "most"
to be a boldfaced lie.
Most of the diagnoses listed in the DSM require a certain number of
specific behaviors for a diagnosis (for instance, patient fulfills 11
out of 14 criteria). Furthermore, cutting is not a disease itself,
nor necessarily indicative of a specific diagnois, but a *possible*
symptom of several different disorders, which do not *require* cutting
as a symptom. I can't even imagine what diagnosis one could possibly
give on the basis of what you wrote above.
And I *certainly* don't know of psychologists whom would diagnose a
patient based on hearsay without any opportunity to observe or
interact with the person - I'm fairly certain that for a psychologist
to throw around a diagnosis lightly like this is considered a fairly
grave ethical lapse.
I don't think you have the foggiest idea what psychology actually
consists of.
Jackie Patti
>Perhaps the problem is that of the question of whether the magick is
within
>or without,
What makes you think there is a clear boundary between the two?
>and whether what is within is magick or actor. The first part
>of the question is the critical bit. It traps us in a notion of
dualism
>that requires that the answer be on one side of the fence or the
other.
>What happens if magick is neither within nor without, but rather
between,
>existing purely in the instant between what is within and what is
without?
What makes you think these distinctions are real?
>Then the Hermetic tradition would not be that "changes inside one's
head
>create corresponding changes in the external world and vice versa,"
but
>rather that these changes are co-made within and without and are
co-make
>what it is that is within and without. It is a process of
co-operation, not
>operation from nor upon. The point of effecting changes within one's
head
>then is perhaps merely a sentizing exercise to being able to find the
nexus
>between within and without.
In a feedback loop, any change made to any bit of the loop effects all
the other bits
Joshua O'Brien
>
> LOL
>
> not me :-) I know who I am,
Will you answer no to this question?
Harold Piser
Can you cite an example of racism that you think The SPOTLIGHT is guilty of
to support your accusation.
Harold
Leo Smith
"Peter L. Kantor" wrote:
> The government ...
>
> Okay, now that Leo has tuned out we can talk about him behind his back.
>
> Wait, wait, he may still be browsing though ...
>
> The military ...
> Big business ...
> The military industrial complex ...
>
> Okay, now he's catatonic. Discuss.
>
Yawn. I heard that.
kol...@my-deja.com
"Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> <kol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hocma$1lu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <uMj%4.10609$AW3.5...@nntp3.onemain.com>,
> > "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A considerable portion of what is generally thought of as
> > > "reality" exists inside one's head.
> >
> > You said "a considerable portion", why did you not say "all"? Did
> > you state a fact or were you playing it safe?
>
> Heh. Don't get me started on "facts" again. It upsets too many
people.
>
> I try not to overstate my position by using absolutes. I don't think
that
> "all" of reality exists inside one's head, but I am never really sure
which
> parts of it aren't inside. New stuff seems to come from somewhere.
Tom, you ARE Great. I hate to nit-pick, but I also love it. But that
which is "THOUGHT of" as reality, must, by definition, be inside the
mind. New stuff coming in? Is it "really" new? or just recombined old?
Parzifal
erm... no
I dont *think* so anyway...
did I?
ooer
lol
Parzifal
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:13:48 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
:
:
Parzifal
I shouldnt think so... he is wrong a lot. He sort of got used to it. Now he
doesnt notice the difference...
lol
Parzifal
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:14:58 +0100, Leo Smith <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk>
wrote:
: I like Tom. I am always confused, except when I am not.
Parzifal
LOL
Parzifal
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:17:27 +0100, Leo Smith <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk>
wrote:
:
:
: Parzifal wrote:
:
: > LOL
: >
: > not me :-) I know who I am,
: >
: > More to the point, I know who Tom is...
:
: Well that puts you one up on me, and Tom, neither of whom know who they
Parzifal
erm, ok
erm
what was the question again?
lol
Parzifal
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:50:10 +1000, Joshua O'Brien <josh....@xt3.com.au>
wrote:
: Parzifal wrote:
: >
: > LOL
: >
: > not me :-) I know who I am,
:
: Will you answer no to this question?
Parzifal
I know who Tom is. I have seen him take severl ferocisous pastings over the
years for being generally obnoxious. Doesnt see to learn from it though, all
you get out of him is THE PLACEBO EFFECT and some crappy old pop-psych... The
rumour is that was all he had time to learn in college before getting kicked out
for being a dag.
lol
parzifal
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 19:14:36 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:bisvjs8vd8pmgbcg1...@4ax.com...
: >
: > More to the point, I know who Tom is...
:
: What a silly thing to say.
:
:
richard sprigg
> Tom, you ARE Great. I hate to nit-pick, but I also love it. But that
> which is "THOUGHT of" as reality, must, by definition, be inside the
> mind. New stuff coming in? Is it "really" new? or just recombined old?
Why limit yourself?
Consider Phenomenology; you could eat your cake and have it too.
Tom Schuler
<kol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8hr35j$31f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> But that which is "THOUGHT of" as reality, must, by definition,
> be inside the mind. New stuff coming in? Is it "really" new? or
> just recombined old?
It is difficult to account for all the novelty of experience by mere
recombination. The experience we have of being surprised strongly suggests
that new stuff is coming in.
I think it was Paul who surmised that "there is nothing new under the sun",
but even he wouldn't go so far as to say that nothing new ever enters our
heads.
Tom Schuler
>
>
> I shouldnt think so... he is wrong a lot.
I should hope so. I have no pretensions of omniscience. However, claiming
I am wrong simply because I have arrived at different conclusions than you
is somewhat weak as an argument. If you wish to point out some specific
area in which you think I am wrong, I'm willing to consider the evidence you
have.
Tom Schuler
"Harold Piser" <harol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:388a2c79...@news.earthlink.net...
> Tom,
>
> Can you cite an example of racism that you think The SPOTLIGHT is guilty
of
> to support your accusation.
From the latest edition:
**************
"If you live in Arizona you have two choices: agree to see your country
overrun with illegal aliens or defend your property...
Pro-illegal groups have protested to the government that the anti-illegal
effort has created growing tension and has sparked fear in northern Mexican
towns. It seems that illegals are worried that they won't be welcomed with
open arms by legal United States citizens.
The situation also worries U.S. government officials, even those who so far
have largely tolerated ranchers who set out with guns and dogs to look for
Mexicans crossing the border....
Reporters at the meeting said that participants hailed rancher Roger Bar
nett-who patrols his 22,000-acre ranch with a high-powered rifle and dogs
and has detained dozens of immigrants-as a national hero.
'I get calls every week from people wanting to come here and help,' Barnett
said. He added that he has turned down the offers because he doesn't think
they would be effective.
But Barnett says the damage in litter, lost cattle and downed fences on his
property-which has cost him about $15,000-'is not the primary thing'
anymore.
'It's a principle,' he said."
*******************
From previous editions:
***************
"Zionists Change Strategy
The loudly celebrated interim agreement between the Israeli government and
Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat represents world Zionism's thrust toward a
wider war, intelligence sources and diplomatic observers interviewed both in
Washington and New York are warning.
What Zionism has created is a total warfare state, governed for the past
quarter-century by a succession of prime ministers who have committed
terrorist murders with their own hands, he explained.
That such a militarized society should regard an occasional embittered Arab
who wanders into a shopping center with a pipe bomb under his belt as a
critical security threat is a preposterous pretension."
***************
"Public Mural of Robert E. Lee Removed
Richmond's Robert E. Lee Controversy Is Racial Conflict
In Richmond, Va., racial and cultural revolution ratcheted up yet another
notch last month with the removal of a public mural of Confederate Gen.
Robert E. Lee at the demand of a black city councilman who threatened
violence if the picture were not taken away. "Either it comes down or we
jam," blustered Councilman Sa'ad El-Amin. The picture promptly came down.
El-Amin (obviously, that's not his real name but it apparently makes him
feel important to call himself by it) says the picture of Lee, still a
revered hero to Southerners as well as many non-Southerners, had to go
because 'he is offensive to the African-American community because of what
he stood for. He is a pariah in my community.'
Among other whines and grouses the councilman emitted, he complained that
'we were dehumanized and made into chattel property through slavery. There
was no apology made for that and no reparations. Lee defended that. If he
succeeded, we would probably still be slaves.'
Yet for all his historical erudition, El-Amin did not bother to explain why
being 'offensive' to one particular 'community' should dictate the picture's
removal, especially when removal itself is just as or even more offensive to
other 'communities.' But then, El-Amin doesn't need to explain himself...
But the stark reality of multiracialism is that one race becomes dominant
and lays down the law to the others-'either it comes down or we jam'-and,
having become dominant, proceeds to demand the removal of the symbols of the
race and culture it dominates. When the old race and culture are as
indifferent to their own future and as guilt-ridden about their own past as
the whites of Richmond seem to be, there's not much of a power struggle."
****************
The story titled "Professor Links Race, Smarts" was pulled from the archives
without explanation, so I can't quote that one.
From a news release at the Southern Poverty Law Center website:
*****************
Paying the Price
After four years as a player on the radical right, a Washington, D.C.,
consultant says he wants to come clean
Todd Blodgett, 39, began working in Republican campaigns while still in his
early teens, and eventually landed jobs in the Reagan White House press
office, the Bush-Quayle election committee and several state GOP campaigns.
In 1995, Blodgett says he was approached by Willis Carto, a long-time
anti-Semite and stalwart of America's extreme right, and went to work for
him as a marketing consultant. In the next four years, he would meet and
work with other extremists including the notorious William Pierce, leader of
the neo-Nazi National Alliance. After his role as a broker for Pierce was
revealed in the Intelligence Report, Blodgett says his world began to
collapse. In short order, he approached the magazine hoping, he said, to
redeem himself publicly. While he did not disclose all details of his
business dealings, Blodgett did offer some revealing glimpses of his former
world...
'About a week after the election, I had a job in the press office of the
Reagan White House.'
'I worked there until the fall of 1986, when I was offered a job at a
marketing firm that more than doubled my salary. I wanted to get more
involved in business and marketing. That was also the year I met Willis, at
some society reception. He put me down for a subscription to The Spotlight
[Carto's conspiracy-minded tabloid], and from time to time he would call me
for lunch, maybe three times in the '80s and probably twice in the early '
90s. Anyway, I worked at the marketing firm until early 1988...'
'It became obvious The Spotlight was in real trouble -- advertising revenue
was flat, circulation was down, the readership was aging. They didn't know
how to promote it. My job was to try to bring the publication back to life.
The Spotlight became the exclusive client of my agency; at the same time, I
also was a liaison to other populist and racist publications.'
' The Spotlight's editorial direction serves its readership well, but it
also precludes it from being able to expand that readership. I mean, Willis
will not change. It's like, find a problem, sit in an editorial meeting and
find some way to blame Israel for it. The latest issue I saw was blaming
Israel for downing John F. Kennedy Jr.'s plane.'
'Still, there are some very decent people who read The Spotlight. They might
be narrow-minded, but they're not bad people. They're patriotic, they're
often veterans -- basically Norman Rockwell kind of people. I think Carto
has conned a lot of these people. They just aren't aware of all that he
stands for.'
'He [Willis Corto] told me that he was never racially conscious at all --
"except," and this is a quote, "for the normal stuff, like hating
niggers" -- until he worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in
California in the early '50s. And he said Jewish people were even better
than the blacks at avoiding having to pay. I think a lot of his attitudes
were formed in the days of the White Citizens Councils, after the 1954
Supreme Court decision [outlawing "separate but equal" public schools].'
'I asked him one time, "Do you really think you're going to succeed at what
you're trying to do?" And he said no. He said, "It's the only thing I can
do. I have no hobbies except my garden. I don't have any children." He knows
there's no way he's ever going to be influential like he once was. He also
once said, "Todd, the problem we have is that everybody on our side is
stupid." That's what he said.'
Tom Schuler
> Doesnt see to learn from it though, all
> you get out of him is THE PLACEBO EFFECT and some crappy
> old pop-psych...
You have very effective blinders on, if that's all you see. Keep to the
nice, safe world of your imaginings. The wide world is too scary for you.
> The rumour is that was all he had time to learn in college before
> getting kicked out for being a dag.
This is better than your having dropped out of high school because of your
adolescent attitude that you already knew it all.
Parzifal
dont know where to start, you get most things wrong...
lol
why you arent respected...
LOL
Parzifal
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:nbi2ksc8j2tlsjmdj...@4ax.com...
:
Parzifal
lol
nice try for a witty riposte...
not a *good* try but a nice try.
what ever happened to that other idiot you used to have a pas-de-deux with...
<thinks> what was his name? oh yes... Josh someone - Geller, that was it, Josh
Geller!
lol
now he was even worse than you, and even less educated so he had to try even
harder to be obnoxious so the world wouldnt see how dumb he was...
lol
Parzifal
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:07:50 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:l6j2ks4fo31lvjdnb...@4ax.com...
:
:
Tom Schuler
> Tom,
>
> Thank you for your research.
>
> Illegal aliens, Zionism, multiculturalism, globalization are all serious
> threats to America and the world.
The answer is not paranoid, racist isolationism.
> The SPOTLIGHT merely reports the news
> that the established press does not dare report. If you have
> not been weaned from the controlled press then The
> SPOTLIGHT is as "strong meat".
Rancid meat, rather.
> Jews will do and say anything to discredit The
> SPOTLIGHT.
Thank you for making my point, Harold.
"The problem we have is that everybody on our side is stupid."
-- Willis Carto, Spotlight
Tom Schuler
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> : However, claiming I am wrong simply because I have arrived at
> : different conclusions than you
> : is somewhat weak as an argument. If you wish to point out
> : some specific area in which you think I am wrong, I'm willing
> : to consider the evidence you have.
>
> dont know where to start, you get most things wrong...
As I say, that's a weak argument. Apparently, you are unable to actually
get specific and actually support your claim. All you can do is lamely
repeat yourself.
Tom Schuler
>
> now he was even worse than you, and even less educated so
> he had to try even harder to be obnoxious so the world
> wouldnt see how dumb he was...
Argumentum ad hominem. You keep piling on the fallacies. It's a wonder you
can function at all. It's a tribute to the nurturance of society at large
that such a mentally deficit clown like you survives at all.
Harold Piser
Thank you for your research.
Illegal aliens, Zionism, multiculturalism, globalization are all serious
threats to America and the world. The SPOTLIGHT merely reports the news
that the established press does not dare report. If you have not been
weaned from the controlled press then The SPOTLIGHT is as "strong meat".
Jews are especially fearful of The SPOTLIGHT because it exposes the evils
and crimes of Israel. Jews will do and say anything to discredit The
SPOTLIGHT.
The SPOTLIGHT Creed reads:
"The SPOTLIGHT is a weekly newspaper published by Liberty
Lobby, Inc. at 300 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
"The point of view of The SPOTLIGHT is best described as populist and
nationalist.
"You can trust The SPOTLIGHT to give you "the other side of the news"
- to report on events which are vital to your welfare but which would
otherwise be hushed up or distorted by the controlled press. The
SPOTLIGHT makes no attempt to give you "both sides." It leaves the
Establishment side to your daily newspaper, TV and radio. Make up
your own mind who is being honest with you: The Establishment media
or The SPOTLIGHT.
Like you, not everyone will understand or be able to handle the truth.
Harold
Parzifal
hmmm
a good point, and yes, you are right... it is very hard to be specific
Like trying to identify a single stone on Mount Everest. The task is so big you
dont quite know where to start...
lol
Parzifal
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:04:22 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:5or2ksofvo1p53bbn...@4ax.com...
:
: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
: >
: > : However, claiming I am wrong simply because I have arrived at
Parzifal
yes, it's true. Ad Hominem..
I am really sorry, I will write out 100 times
'mustn't be horrid to Tom and his friend'
<hangs head in shame>
lol!!!
Parzifal
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:07:42 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
:
: "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
: news:kpr2ksoro55fdtdhg...@4ax.com...
:
:
Tom Schuler
>
> hmmm
>
> a good point, and yes, you are right... it is very
> hard to be specific
There's a very good reason why you find this difficult. You've never
trained yourself to think clearly.
Besides, your accusations about my being wrong are only an emotional
reaction to my comments and have no rational base.
Tom Schuler
>
> yes, it's true. Ad Hominem..
>
> I am really sorry, I will write out 100 times
>
> 'mustn't be horrid to Tom and his friend'
>
> <hangs head in shame>
Lying yet again.
Why be so dishonest with complete strangers?
kol...@my-deja.com
"Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> <kol...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8hr35j$31f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > But that which is "THOUGHT of" as reality, must, by definition,
> > be inside the mind. New stuff coming in? Is it "really" new? or
> > just recombined old?
> It is difficult to account for all the novelty of experience by mere
> recombination. The experience we have of being surprised strongly
suggests
> that new stuff is coming in.
amnesia could count for that too.
> I think it was Paul who surmised that "there is nothing new under the
sun",
> but even he wouldn't go so far as to say that nothing new ever enters
our
> heads.
True. I'm not saying nothing new ever enters our minds (heads), and
I might even dispute it.
But that which is thought of as reality, can only be in our heads,
only because it is Thought. "That which is not thought of" may not
be in our heads.
I am not saying "That which is NOT thought of IS Outside our heads"
because of the possibility of amnesia.
In other words,
there are things we are aware of.
there are things we're not aware of. The evidence of which is the
experience of surprise.
Things we're not aware of may be "outside" or they may've been "inside"
all along, just forgotten.
If something is forgotten, does it go outside our minds?
kol...@my-deja.com
kt...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> kol...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Tom, you ARE Great. I hate to nit-pick, but I also love it. But
that
> > which is "THOUGHT of" as reality, must, by definition, be inside the
> > mind. New stuff coming in? Is it "really" new? or just recombined
old?
>
Good question. Why can't we see things in their true nature always?
> Consider Phenomenology; you could eat your cake and have it too.
I wish it was only a cake.
kol...@my-deja.com
Parzifal <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote:
>
> hmmm
>
> a good point, and yes, you are right... it is very hard to be
specific
>
so big you
> dont quite know where to start...
this is getting interesting. what is the first boulder at the foot of
the mountain?
> lol
>
> Parzifal
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 22:04:22 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>
> :
> : "Parzifal" <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
> : news:5or2ksofvo1p53bbn...@4ax.com...
> :
> : > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:01:50 -0700, "Tom Schuler"
<d...@teleport.com>
> wrote:
> : >
> : > : However, claiming I am wrong simply because I have
arrived at
> : > : different conclusions than you
> : > : is somewhat weak as an argument. If you wish to point
out
> : > : some specific area in which you think I am wrong, I'm
willing
> : > : to consider the evidence you have.
> : >
> : > dont know where to start, you get most things wrong...
> :
> : As I say, that's a weak argument. Apparently, you are unable to
actually
> : get specific and actually support your claim. All you can do is
lamely
> : repeat yourself.
>
>
richard sprigg
> > Why limit yourself?
>
> Good question. Why can't we see things in their true nature always?
Too busy looking at the dirt to see the flowers.
>
> > Consider Phenomenology; you could eat your cake and have it too.
>
> I wish it was only a cake.
>
PotniaTheron
Parzifal <Rosae_...@bigfoot.com > wrote:
>
> lol
>
> nice try for a witty riposte...
>
> not a *good* try but a nice try.
>
> what ever happened to that other idiot you used to have a pas-de-deux
with...
>
> <thinks> what was his name? oh yes... Josh someone - Geller, that was
it, Josh
> Geller!
>
> lol
>
try even
> harder to be obnoxious so the world wouldnt see how dumb he was...
Hmmm...in the parlance of Parzifal, "educated" would seem to be related
somehow to nice, and agreement...people who disagree and challenge
Parzifal are obnoxious, dumb, and uneducated. Hm, but you also seem to
use dumb and uneducated as synonyms, which is a peculiar bit of
language.
So challenging/disagreeing=obnoxious=uneducated=dumb.
Is this what you mean to say?
--
PotniaTheron (formerly Sved)
"Why not daub with bright green paint the smug low wall of assumption?"
-Jeanette Winterson
richard sprigg
>
> richard sprigg wrote:
> >
> > Greg Cameron wrote:
> >
> > > You should really toss Richard in there too. I don't think that you'll
> > > find him very supportive.
> >
> > Me?
> > Not supportive?
> > Not a very fucking nice thing to say, is it.
>
> LOL.
> Fuck nice. It's the truth.
>
> > I can be as supportive of any ignorant, useless, douchebag as anyone.
> >
> > Fucking cheek.
>
> Heh.
> You *do* give them exactly what they need.
> Is that what you mean by supportive?
Of course.
Saccharine causes cancer, and I don't want people getting sick.
Harold Piser
>
>"Harold Piser" <harol...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:388a2c79...@news.earthlink.net...
>> Tom,
>>
>> Can you cite an example of racism that you think The SPOTLIGHT is guilty
>of
>> to support your accusation.
>
>****************
>
>The story titled "Professor Links Race, Smarts" was pulled from the archives
>without explanation, so I can't quote that one.
>
>*****************
Tom,
If you give me the date of the issue, I will try to find it for you.
Harold
Tom Schuler
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:49:37 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >
> >The story titled "Professor Links Race, Smarts" was pulled from
> >the archives without explanation, so I can't quote that one.
> >
> Tom,
>
> If you give me the date of the issue, I will try to find it for you.
That's OK, Harold. You don't have to go to the trouble. The rest of the
articles I quoted make my point very well. And then there's the report from
Corto's former fund raiser, Todd Blodgett:
"He told me that he was never racially conscious at all -- 'except,' and
this is a quote, 'for the normal stuff, like hating niggers' -- until he
worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in California in the early '
50s. And he said Jewish people were even better than the blacks at avoiding
having to pay."
Corto and the Spotlight, which is his publication, are clearly and
admittedly racist. You may deny this, as a loyal dupe for this crank's
agenda, but Corto's own words make his position clear.
"The problem we have is that everybody on our side is stupid."
-- Willis Corto
Blazin' Tommy D.
> Corto's former fund raiser, Todd Blodgett:
>
> "He told me that he was never racially conscious at all -- 'except,' and
> this is a quote, 'for the normal stuff, like hating niggers' -- until he
> worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in California in the
early '
> 50s. And he said Jewish people were even better than the blacks at
avoiding
> having to pay."
>
> "The problem we have is that everybody on our side is stupid."
> -- Willis Corto
>
>
Harold Piser
>
>"Harold Piser" <harold(omit)pi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4u3blsg37no502sdo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:49:37 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >The story titled "Professor Links Race, Smarts" was pulled from
>> >the archives without explanation, so I can't quote that one.
>> >
>> >*****************
>> Tom,
>>
>> If you give me the date of the issue, I will try to find it for you.
>
>That's OK, Harold. You don't have to go to the trouble. The rest of the
>articles I quoted make my point very well. And then there's the report from
>Corto's former fund raiser, Todd Blodgett:
>
>"He told me that he was never racially conscious at all -- 'except,' and
>this is a quote, 'for the normal stuff, like hating niggers' -- until he
>worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in California in the early '
>50s. And he said Jewish people were even better than the blacks at avoiding
>having to pay."
>
Is being "racially conscious" mean the same as being "racially biased"? I
would say everyone in today's society is conscious of racism thanks to the
exploitation by the media and by those who use hate and racism as a means
to fill their coffers such as your source, the "non-profit" Southern
Poverty Law Center and the notorious Morris Dees. It seems rather
suspicious that he has a personal Swiss bank account.
http://members.xoom.com/Halchemist/Files/MorrisDees.htm
Is it any more disrespectful to judge a person according to their skin
color or sexual preference than it is to judge them according their
intelligence? I notice you seem to have a habit of disrespectfully calling
others in this newsgroup during your intellectual(?) and scholarly(?)
discourses with whom you disagree and whom you judge below your level of
intelligence, morons, weird and worse instead of being a source of helpful
information for their benefit.
Recall your mentioning and finding an article objectionable titled,
"Professor Links Race, Smarts". Do you object to denigrating people's
intelligence? Does this indicate some confusion and hypocrisy in your
thinking?
>Corto and the Spotlight, which is his publication, are clearly and
>admittedly racist. You may deny this, as a loyal dupe for this crank's
>agenda, but Corto's own words make his position clear.
>
>"The problem we have is that everybody on our side is stupid."
>-- Willis Corto
You may talk about Carto all you want, but I defy you to prove any of the
articles in The SPOTLIGHT false or inaccurate and supply the evidence to
support your theory. The SPOTLIGHT will make the correction as noted on the
editorial page. News is news regardless of the way you wish to judge it.
Also, please check out the fact that The SPOTLIGHT has again won the
distinguished media award from Project Censored for reporting the truth
that was blacked out by the controlled press.
Harold
Tom Schuler
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:15:15 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
> >
> >"He told me that he was never racially conscious at all -- 'except,' and
> >this is a quote, 'for the normal stuff, like hating niggers' -- until he
> >worked for Procter & Gamble as a bill collector in California in the
early '
> >50s. And he said Jewish people were even better than the blacks at
avoiding
> >having to pay."
> >
"Hating niggers" is the same as being racially biased.
> I would say everyone in today's society is conscious of racism
> thanks to the exploitation by the media and by those who use hate
> and racism as a means to fill their coffers such as your source, the
> "non-profit" Southern Poverty Law Center and the notorious
> Morris Dees. It seems rather suspicious that he has a personal
> Swiss bank account.
It does? Do you feel that having a Swiss bank account is cause for
suspicion in all cases? If so, the entire country of Switzerland is
suspicious.
Are you aware, Harold, that rampant and unreasonable suspicion is the
hallmark symptom of paranoia?
> Is it any more disrespectful to judge a person according to
> their skin color or sexual preference than it is to judge them
> according their intelligence?
Yes.
> Recall your mentioning and finding an article objectionable titled,
> "Professor Links Race, Smarts". Do you object to denigrating people's
> intelligence?
No. I object to prejudging a person's intelligence by his skin color,
though.
> Does this indicate some confusion and hypocrisy in your
> thinking?
No.
> >"The problem we have is that everybody on our side is stupid."
> >-- Willis Corto
>
> You may talk about Carto all you want,
I'm quoting him.
> but I defy you to prove any of the articles in The SPOTLIGHT
> false or inaccurate and supply the evidence to
> support your theory.
The incidents reported are not necessarily false, but the interpretation of
them is heavily biased. The articles tend to include highly speculative and
absurd suggestions generously mixed in with the factual report, such as
suggesting that there was some nefarious connection between activities of
the Mossad and the Kennedy plane crash.
Blazin' Tommy D.
E.g., - Japanese people are a people.
UNO as opposed to the League of Nations
uses self determination of peoples rather than
National self determination.
But what is race? Africans are racing to take over the World?
Jews are racing to take over the World through central banking
and bills of exchange?
I truly don't understand such signification beyond using it to refer
to color by not referring to color. It seems entirely obsolete,
particularly in modern times when there is such a mixing of colors
in the US and elswhere.
All I know is that Conservatives don't like me and it's empirically
evident that on many occasions this has occurred upon finding out
that I'm a Jew - in some cases, after carrying on a prolonged
conversation, correspondence or friendship.
Others have the same experience and aside from anything
else, as demonstrable of events in Europe, Israel is a necessity
to our existence as a people. If my present difficulties in NYS
continue, I may be forced to go there. I told this to the NYS
Court of Appeals.
I'm not too particularly fond of some of the politicians or various
leaderships that have come and gone which is likewise true in the US
a far more capable power for imposing 'change' in the World.
This tangible feeling of hate or fear is absolutely astonishing to me
incredibly tasking upon my emotions and obstructive of my general
human tendency to be social.
It seems to me that this bigotry is exploited to raise money which in
turn perpetuates and lends legitimacy to the bigotry as if it is any
other political issue.
Harold Piser <harold(omit)pi...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<h5afls0vv0sp529nc...@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 09:15:15 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Harold Piser" <harold(omit)pi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:4u3blsg37no502sdo...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:49:37 -0700, "Tom Schuler" <d...@teleport.com>
wrote:
Tom Schuler
"Leo Smith" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39594765...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
>
>
> So I am prejudiced? Sure. So what.
Convictions cause convicts.
Leo Smith
"Blazin' Tommy D." wrote:
> I'm a Jew. We are a people, not a race.
Sure, sure.
>
> E.g., - Japanese people are a people.
Sure, sure.
>
> UNO as opposed to the League of Nations
> uses self determination of peoples rather than
> National self determination.
Sure sure, define yourself as anything that you want, but don't come crying
to me if you paint yourself into a ghetto.
I am not a Jew. I am not a Christian. I am not an Englishman, except by
legal definition, and when I choose to act like one. I am not male, except
as provided for above. I am not even human any more, except as provided for
above.
If you want to stop being categorised, stop categorising yourself, unless
you enjoy it, and if you do, be grateful and accept the consequences.
>
> But what is race? Africans are racing to take over the World?
Are they? News to me.
>
> Jews are racing to take over the World through central banking
> and bills of exchange?
Are they? News to me.
>
> I truly don't understand such signification beyond using it to refer
> to color by not referring to color. It seems entirely obsolete,
> particularly in modern times when there is such a mixing of colors
> in the US and elswhere.
sure. Its one big technicolor yawn....
>
> All I know is that Conservatives don't like me
Huh? They don't evemn know you exist, and if I were you, I would keep it
that way....
> and it's empirically
> evident that on many occasions this has occurred upon finding out
> that I'm a Jew - in some cases, after carrying on a prolonged
> conversation, correspondence or friendship.
You are a typical self styled Jew. Self conscious of your superiority, and
incensed by the ostracism it engenders. Stop being a fucking jew and join
the rest of the human race. We are all minority groups of one.
Everyone in some way or other encounters prejudice. I remember waling into a
bank in jeans and a t-shirt and trying to cash a check. The amount of proof
of indentity I was asked for was only exceeded by the speed with wihcih an
identiocal request at the same bank with the same cashier was honored the
next week when I went in in a suit and tie. Phaw. Learn to use prejudice to
your advantage and stop whingeing. I will always do business with a Kosher
Jew, because although I have done some hard negotiation, no Jew has ever
ratted on n agreement with me. Is that prejudice? Contrariwise, I will never
ever fuck a jewish princess again, because Jewish proncesses turn into
Yiddishy mommas, and Chicken soup makes me want to throw up....:-)
So I am prejudiced? Sure. So what. We all have to deal with life using
simplistic assumptions, and we are all part of someone elses simplistic
assumption. Get on with living and stop whingeing. Maybe the Jewish Princess
of my dreams will turn up and turn out to be liberated, intersting, and not
prone to attempts to smother me with unwanted femininity. Meanwhile I will
stick with my 'hippy chick' who is just damn cool.
>
> Others have the same experience and aside from anything
> else, as demonstrable of events in Europe, Israel is a necessity
> to our existence as a people. If my present difficulties in NYS
> continue, I may be forced to go there. I told this to the NYS
> Court of Appeals.
Hah. Isreale is where all the jews that can't handle reality go. In Israle,
you *know* you are surrounde by people whose land you have taken, who hate
your guts, so you can justify your paranoia.
Here, no one gives a fuck who you are. I happen to like Jews, in the most
part. Apart from the fact that they all suffer from ingrained social
paranoia, and a lack of sense of humour about themslevs. C'mon dude. Half
the entertainment business and a lot of the financial instituitions are RUN
by jews - never hear of Metro Goldwyn Mayer or Goldman Sachs? You can hardly
say that Jews don't get to enjoy lots of lifes little successes in the USA.
If you want to be a Jew, be a Jew, revel in your Jewishness. Just don't get
trapped in it for Yahweh's sake. You are lucky to be born Jewish. Make
something of it. With luck, you will fimnally come to understand that to be
born Jewish, or black, or English, or Australian, or any other damned stupid
category you find yourself born into, is simply a challenge you have to take
on until you realise how damned little it really matters. You were lucky to
be born at all.
>
> I'm not too particularly fond of some of the politicians or various
> leaderships that have come and gone which is likewise true in the US
> a far more capable power for imposing 'change' in the World.
> This tangible feeling of hate or fear is absolutely astonishing to me
> incredibly tasking upon my emotions and obstructive of my general
> human tendency to be social.
Well them's the breaks son.
I can't cut it in a bra and panties either. I guess thats one of lifes
little irionies. So I try to make out in a t-shirt and jeans, Gawd. You are
like those damned womens libbers who blame every little setback in life on
being female. I could whinge on about how I never got accepted by lots of
rich jewish kids at school, becuase I was poor and non jewish. What the
fuck. My best friend was the son of a rich jew tho, so it taught ME not to
generalise. But by and large most jews i have met - or a lot of them - are
like you, not wise to the social ways of non jews, so you get caught up in a
ghetto of your own making. The world doesn't owe it to you to make it easy
for you. You owe it to yourslef to go out and be first and foremost a damned
human being. Stop thinking jewish, and start thinking human.
>
> It seems to me that this bigotry is exploited to raise money which in
> turn perpetuates and lends legitimacy to the bigotry as if it is any
> other political issue.
>
Pah. You are weaving a conspiracy theory to account for your own feelings of
social rejection. Maybe you just have bad breath. But I think that you are
just too damn lazy to get on and accept who you are and change yourself into
what you could be. Its so much easier to blame it all on racial prejudice,
isn't it?
Leo Smith
Tom Schuler wrote:
> "Leo Smith" <Mr.Na...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39594765...@Nospam.shaman.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > So I am prejudiced? Sure. So what.
>
> Convictions cause convicts.
We are all serving our time...