Magick -- Back To Basics
Sidney Lambe
posted on these groups is amazing.
And the proof, as the old saying goes, is in the pudding.
There are dozens of people who could play the role of sorcerer or
wizard or witch or enchantress in a C fantasy movie and not one
who can demonstrate any extra-ordinary abilities.
That's fine, because such things aren't what real magick is
about, but these people tell everyone that such things _are_ what
magick is about, so they must at least pretend to have these
abilities.
The only difference between a mage (meaning here simply a person
who is devoted to the study and practice of magick) and an ordinary
person is that they understand, at least intellectually (in the
beginning) that they _are_ magickal beings living in a magickal
universe. That magick is the true science.
Spells are beliefs and believing that you are a magickal being is
easier said than done in a world where, at least in this global
culture, almost everyone is maintaining the spell that magick
doesn't exist.
Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
hold any contrary beliefs.
And this takes time and effort. The whole worldview of this
civilization is based upon the belief that magick doesn't
exist, and you have to rebuild your own mind based on this
new, and accurate, root assumption/spell.
Until you do this, you won't be able to do anything magickal.
(in the sense the word is usually used) and when you have
achieved this you won't care about sensational abilities.
Note that these groups are full of trolls and idiots and
ideological bullies, and my news filter kills more than half the
posts to them. So if I don't respond to someone it means only
that I didn't see their post. My filter also kills any replies to
names (etc.) I've killfiled.
Sid
Absorbed
> Spells are beliefs and believing that you are a magickal being is
> easier said than done in a world where, at least in this global
> culture, almost everyone is maintaining the spell that magick
> doesn't exist.
The placebo effect is fairly common knowledge. However, you won't fly by
flapping your arms, no matter how strong your belief that you can.
> Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
> enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
> hold any contrary beliefs.
If someone deludes themselves into believing they have superpowers, that
doesn't mean that they do.
What sort of abilities do you believe you can obtain by "believing it
exclusively"? Be specific.
ren
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
> > Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
> > enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
> > hold any contrary beliefs.
>
> If someone deludes themselves into believing they have superpowers, that
> doesn't mean that they do.
>
> What sort of abilities do you believe you can obtain by "believing it
> exclusively"? Be specific.
Let's consider this. If someone on this newsgroup did possess secrets
to such powers, why would they waste their time trying to prove it and
teach it to people like this? It would only hurt them to reveal their
advantages. It would only strengthen those who mean them harm.
No. Such a person with these secret abilities would probably toy with
us, perhaps exercise their powers on us without revealing too much.
They might even be actively working to conceal what is happening.
How ironic it would be if such people on this newsgroup constantly
demonstrated strange and wondrous things to an audience that
constantly forgets and once again disbelieves.
But that is just how this human progression works.
O.k. Here is another example. Let's say that I tell you that the
beginning of the improvement of your magickal powers is to practice
Lucid Dreaming every time you go to sleep. People scoff, and laugh,
and finally they go to bed without trying. Or perhaps they try for a
few nights but fall back into the old lazy pattern of convenience.
But that is just how this human progression works.
Some people are incapable of having a metaphysical conversation let
alone discussing magick all the time. People who have this capability
and people who practice Lucid Dreaming every time before sleep -- are
more advanced than us.
If you find such a person, please at least experiment with what they
have to say before you dismiss them. Don't be a fool. They are only
being generous to you in the hopes that you might one day wake up and
develop the consistent habits of a true practitioner.
Tom
> The amount of metaphysical double-speak and theatrical woo-woo
> posted on these groups is amazing.
>
> And the proof, as the old saying goes, is in the pudding.
>
> There are dozens of people who could play the role of sorcerer or
> wizard or witch or enchantress in a C fantasy movie and not one
> who can demonstrate any extra-ordinary abilities.
>
> That's fine, because such things aren't what real magick is
> about, but these people tell everyone that such things _are_ what
> magick is about, so they must at least pretend to have these
> abilities.
When you complain that nobody is demonstrating extraordinary powers
and then, in your next breath, claim that extraordinary powers are not
what magick is about anyway, you're engaging in "metaphysical
doubletalk". It looks like you'll fit in quite well.
> The only difference between a mage (meaning here simply a person
> who is devoted to the study and practice of magick) and an ordinary
> person is that they understand, at least intellectually (in the
> beginning) that they _are_ magickal beings living in a magickal
> universe. That magick is the true science.
More metaphysical doubletalk. You say that the *only* difference
between a "mage" and an "ordinary person" is that the "mage"
understands he is a magical being. Then you start equivocating that
this understandng is juist "intellectual" and only "in the
beginning". So, now you can claim you meant anything you want, since
you have completely negated your first claim by adding those vague
qualifiers later on. You're a doubletalker alright.
> Spells are beliefs and believing that you are a magickal being is
> easier said than done in a world where, at least in this global
> culture, almost everyone is maintaining the spell that magick
> doesn't exist.
Magick manipulates belief. Spells are a means of doing so. When I
manipulate clay with my hands, my hands are not the clay. Similarly,
spells are a means to manipulate belief, but they are not belief.
> Until you do this, you won't be able to do anything magickal.
> (in the sense the word is usually used) and when you have
> achieved this you won't care about sensational abilities.
More doubletalk. You can claim you're a mage with all sorts of
magical powers, but, because you are a mage, you won't be interested
in demonstrating any of them. So the only thing you have to actually
*do* to claim to be a "mage" is to claim to be one.
> Note that these groups are full of trolls and idiots and
> ideological bullies, and my news filter kills more than half the
> posts to them. So if I don't respond to someone it means only
> that I didn't see their post. My filter also kills any replies to
> names (etc.) I've killfiled.
All that means is that more than half of those who criticize your
silly pronouncements are going to remain unchallenged.
>
> Sid
Tom
>
> Let's consider this. If someone on this newsgroup did possess secrets
> to such powers, why would they waste their time trying to prove it and
> teach it to people like this? It would only hurt them to reveal their
> advantages. It would only strengthen those who mean them harm.
Altruism? I realize that someone who is as self-centered as you are
might not consider altruism as a genuine motive, but it really does
exist, you know. If such a person as you describe exists, he or she
may well be willing to teach it to others out of compassion. Fear of
being harmed for one's actions is an emotion that even those without
magical powers are willing to face in order to do what's right. It's
called "courage". Perhaps you've heard of it.
> No. Such a person with these secret abilities would probably toy with
> us, perhaps exercise their powers on us without revealing too much.
> They might even be actively working to conceal what is happening.
Paranoia is another manifestation of fear.
> How ironic it would be if such people on this newsgroup constantly
> demonstrated strange and wondrous things to an audience that
> constantly forgets and once again disbelieves.
>
> But that is just how this human progression works.
No, that's how paranoid delusions work.
> O.k. Here is another example. Let's say that I tell you that the
> beginning of the improvement of your magickal powers is to practice
> Lucid Dreaming every time you go to sleep. People scoff, and laugh,
> and finally they go to bed without trying. Or perhaps they try for a
> few nights but fall back into the old lazy pattern of convenience.
Or they keep trying ands discover you're full of shit and that
"magical powers" do not improve because of lucid dreaming.
> If you find such a person, please at least experiment with what they
> have to say before you dismiss them.
Yes, dismiss them after youve found out that what they're telling you
is bullshit.
> Don't be a fool.
Yes, don't be that. Especially don't be a paranoid fool. It's less
fun than regular foolishness.
ren
> Altruism? I realize that someone who is as self-centered as you are
> might not consider altruism as a genuine motive, but it really does
> exist, you know. If such a person as you describe exists, he or she
> may well be willing to teach it to others out of compassion. Fear of
> being harmed for one's actions is an emotion that even those without
> magical powers are willing to face in order to do what's right. It's
> called "courage". Perhaps you've heard of it.
I hate you Tom, but I'm in agreement with you.
Sidney Lambe
ren <ren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sid wrote:
> The amount of metaphysical double-speak and theatrical woo-woo
> posted on these groups is amazing.
>
> And the proof, as the old saying goes, is in the pudding.
>
> There are dozens of people who could play the role of sorcerer or
> wizard or witch or enchantress in a C fantasy movie and not one
> who can demonstrate any extra-ordinary abilities.
>
> That's fine, because such things aren't what real magick is
> about, but these people tell everyone that such things _are_ what
> magick is about, so they must at least pretend to have these
> abilities.
>
> Let's consider this. If someone on this newsgroup did possess secrets
> to such powers, why would they waste their time trying to prove it and
> teach it to people like this? It would only hurt them to reveal their
> advantages. It would only strengthen those who mean them harm.
That's just the short of bullshit I expected you (and the other
charlatans on these groups) to post.
The reason, you pathetic clown, that they would demonstrate their
abilities, would be to convince people that they weren't a pathetic
clown like you.
Duh.
No one who would want to harm such people would have the ability
to do so.
Duh.
You are always posting threats on these groups, many of
them directed at me.
I don't have any special abilities and I don't even bother
thinking about your threats. They are simply hot air.
What you call magick is theatrical nonsense you read on some
website or in some book that claimed to be about magick and
it doesn't work.
I know that you think you are unbearably clever, but your
sophomoric word games are incredibly boring.
Put up or shut up.
I say you couldn't find your asshole using magick.
I've said it again and again and again.
Unfortunately, you have managed to find your asshole
using conventional means, and regularly treat us to
its products here.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
> On Dec 12, 1:50=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> The amount of metaphysical double-speak and theatrical woo-woo
>> posted on these groups is amazing.
>>
>> And the proof, as the old saying goes, is in the pudding.
>>
>> There are dozens of people who could play the role of sorcerer or
>> wizard or witch or enchantress in a C fantasy movie and not one
>> who can demonstrate any extra-ordinary abilities.
>>
>> That's fine, because such things aren't what real magick is
>> about, but these people tell everyone that such things _are_ what
>> magick is about, so they must at least pretend to have these
>> abilities.
>
> When you complain that nobody is demonstrating extraordinary powers
> and then, in your next breath, claim that extraordinary powers are not
> what magick is about anyway, you're engaging in "metaphysical
> doubletalk". It looks like you'll fit in quite well.
The Buddhist Bully returns with his trademark attacks based upon
slipshod reasoning and misprepresentation.
He failed to bully me into accepting the basic premises of that
stupid book "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" and is out
for revenge.
Bullies are all little spoiled babies that just can't handle
it when they don't get their way.
I am not even going to bother trying to reason with this punk.
Tom? Shut the fuck up and get out of my life.
<plonk>
[delete]
Sid
aine
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harsh. Sid needs a care bear hug or I know.. a smoochie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHiwTIBEENM
Seamus
b203ee...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
From where I sit, you've both made valid points.
__
Camilla: You, sir, should unmask.
Stranger: Indeed?
Cassilda: Indeed, it's time. We have all laid aside disguise but you.
Stranger: I wear no mask.
Camilla: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
- The King In Yellow, Robert Chambers
Seamus
<snip>
> Unfortunately, you have managed to find your asshole
> using conventional means, and regularly treat us to
> its products here.
>
> [delete]
brackets as though that will have done with it?
Ren may be something of a narcissist, but it generally requires a certain
sort of poster to get his ire up.
Tom, well, Tom is certainly an abrasive sonofabitch, but he knows what
he's doing.
The only one here that I don't know is you.
Methinks perhaps I've been away too long.
__
>Do the cyclical "september threads" count as continuous?
It's moot now. September 1993 will go down in net.history as the
September that never ended. - Dave Fischer in 1994, alt.folklore.net
The first recorded outbreak of this was Warren Burstein saying
"It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the net" in response to
a particularly Clueless outburst from Delphi.com on alt.folklore.urban,
in fall 1993. - Wendy M. Grossman, "net.wars"
ren
> Methinks perhaps I've been away too long.
Aye, you have.
Parse Tree
> On Dec 12, 6:08 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Sidney Lambe wrote:
>
>>> Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
>>> enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
>>> hold any contrary beliefs.
>> If someone deludes themselves into believing they have superpowers, that
>> doesn't mean that they do.
>>
>> What sort of abilities do you believe you can obtain by "believing it
>> exclusively"? Be specific.
>
> Let's consider this. If someone on this newsgroup did possess secrets
> to such powers, why would they waste their time trying to prove it and
> teach it to people like this?
I think your reasoning here is completely biased. You presuppose it is a
waste of time, and thereafter conclude that it's a waste of time.
You could just as easily say proving or demonstrating anything is a
waste of time, with that reasoning.
For some people, total honesty is very important. They strive to avoid
misrepresenting themselves and like to have everything as clear and
coherent as possible. And I think most of the population has a little
bit of that in them, about certain things that they consider important
to their identity. It's part of the reason why people affirm their
sexuality, political affliation, etc.
> It would only hurt them to reveal their
> advantages. It would only strengthen those who mean them harm.
Are you saying this about all extraordinary abilities or just ones that
are magickal? Because I don't see any reasoning that indicates this is
true of magick and not true of the ability to knit.
> No. Such a person with these secret abilities would probably toy with
> us, perhaps exercise their powers on us without revealing too much.
> They might even be actively working to conceal what is happening.
They also might be made of poo, but the likelihood that there could be a
person made of poo that could function in this universe seems very slight.
> How ironic it would be if such people on this newsgroup constantly
> demonstrated strange and wondrous things to an audience that
> constantly forgets and once again disbelieves.
>
> But that is just how this human progression works.
>
> O.k. Here is another example. Let's say that I tell you that the
> beginning of the improvement of your magickal powers is to practice
> Lucid Dreaming every time you go to sleep. People scoff, and laugh,
> and finally they go to bed without trying. Or perhaps they try for a
> few nights but fall back into the old lazy pattern of convenience.
>
> But that is just how this human progression works.
>
> Some people are incapable of having a metaphysical conversation let
> alone discussing magick all the time. People who have this capability
> and people who practice Lucid Dreaming every time before sleep -- are
> more advanced than us.
And some people fixate too much on metaphysics. People are unfortunately
attracted to metaphysics because it's all about conclusions. I suppose
it would be very easy if you could just skip the process and end up with
the conclusions, though.
ren
> Are you saying this about all extraordinary abilities or just ones that
> are magickal? Because I don't see any reasoning that indicates this is
> true of magick and not true of the ability to knit.
Any fantastic abilities will generate a lot of jealousy among even
your peers. Not just magickal ones.
> They also might be made of poo, but the likelihood that there could be a
> person made of poo that could function in this universe seems very slight.
What I'm trying to say here, is that some people prefer to remain
underestimated. It is alright for people to think you are full of
shit. What you believe about yourself is more important.
> And some people fixate too much on metaphysics. People are unfortunately
> attracted to metaphysics because it's all about conclusions. I suppose
> it would be very easy if you could just skip the process and end up with
> the conclusions, though.
It is impossible not to fixate on physics and metaphysics because that
determines our actions. Most are not aware of metaphysics to their
disservice.
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> ... some people prefer to remain
> underestimated. It is alright for people to think you are full of
> shit. What you believe about yourself is more important.
Ok, I see your point. What happens when you begin to master (or succeed
with self mastery). Won't people see this in you?
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> The only difference between a mage (meaning here simply a person
> who is devoted to the study and practice of magick) and an ordinary
> person is that they understand, at least intellectually (in the
> beginning) that they _are_ magickal beings living in a magickal
> universe. That magick is the true science.
I like that term for mage as well.
However, I prefer to use the word "spiritual" as opposed to "magick",
and think that perhaps "spirituality" is a starting point if not
comparable to "magick" and allows others to be on similar footing for
these discussions.
What is the importance of this differentiation? Well if you believe (as
you so state) that a majority of people do not believe in "magick" and
therefore you must alter your reality to dis-clude magick because of
this global belief in order to operate properly, then the switch from
the "magick" paradigm to "spirituality or spiritual openness" paradigm
allows you to jump from one paradigm to another paradigm that contains a
larger population, and therefore a lot more power/realities are open if
you need that egregore type energy to thrive in.
hy_b...@shaw.ca
> For some people, total honesty is very important. They strive to avoid
> misrepresenting themselves and like to have everything as clear and
> coherent as possible. And I think most of the population has a little
> bit of that in them, about certain things that they consider important
> to their identity. It's part of the reason why people affirm their
> sexuality, political affliation, etc.
> ren wrote:
>> If you find such a person, please at least experiment with what they
>> have to say before you dismiss them. Don't be a fool. They are only
>> being generous to you in the hopes that you might one day wake up and
>> develop the consistent habits of a true practitioner.
I very much like these two statements that ren and Parse have written.
I also believe that there are good people who care to help others
achieve their own self mastery. This pursuit is something that will help
us all, even if it hurts the practitioner and the population/planet in
general.
Just as seeing truth in others and ourselves is also good for us (even
if it causes hurt at some time).
In general both of the above ideals (rens guide to self mastery and
parses seeing truth in others and ourselves) are important to strive for
and see in others, even if it does cause some hurt.
I think these are both important concepts to contain in a magickal or
spiritual paradigm, in order to succeed.
Sure, maybe all paths lead in the same direction. Does one take longer
and then snap you ahead in time, as compared to taking a more precise
tempo the entire way through?
I am writing this because I realized this morning, upon waking up that
my own teachers did not have a very nice paradigm. They had to undergo
great hardships in order to gain their mastery. And I am thinking, "was
this necessary" (at least in that form). Because in order to achieve
enlightenment or be a part of a group of people, they had to do what I
would consider to be "not in alignment" with their own self mastery path
or on the path to self enlightenment.
I am seeing that what they went through was like hurting themselves
(like slicing) to gain enlightenment instead of say hurting themselves
in a good way (say through training, cleaning, eating well and having
good practice) to gain enlightenment. Perhaps both methods can hurt
equally as well, and maybe both have their significant reasons that will
help enlighten, and are important.. but from this point of view, I am
not seeing the significance any longer. Except to say "stop it, this is
pure insanity" so that they can snap into a better timeline/path that is
actually more aligned with them, and by doing so stand up to those who
hurt them (their masters that are not concerned with self enlightenment
of others except as ploys to gain, and therefore keeping their students
as slaves to their gain, so that they are sidetracked from self mastery.)
ren
> Ok, I see your point. What happens when you begin to master (or succeed
> with self mastery). Won't people see this in you?
Those who don't have the ability to see it -- won't. They'll fight it.
Tom
>
> For some people, total honesty is very important. They strive to avoid
> misrepresenting themselves and like to have everything as clear and
> coherent as possible. And I think most of the population has a little
> bit of that in them, about certain things that they consider important
> to their identity. It's part of the reason why people affirm their
> sexuality, political affliation, etc.
Total honesty is impossible. It presumes you know enough of what's
going on to always represent it with complete accuracy. In other
words, total honesty requires omniscience.
Now, while it is laudable to strive for knowledge and honesty, one
should be realistic enough to accept that achieving it in an absolute
way is not going to happen.
Sidney Lambe
> Sidney Lambe wrote:
> > The only difference between a mage (meaning here simply a person
> > who is devoted to the study and practice of magick) and an ordinary
> > person is that they understand, at least intellectually (in the
> > beginning) that they _are_ magickal beings living in a magickal
> > universe. That magick is the true science.
>
> I like that term for mage as well.
>
> However, I prefer to use the word "spiritual" as opposed to "magick",
> and think that perhaps "spirituality" is a starting point if not
> comparable to "magick" and allows others to be on similar footing for
> these discussions.
Hi Hy. The problem with the term "spiritual" is that its origins
and associations are with a cosmology that conceives of the
metaphysical as something seperate from Nature, from the world of
the physical senses. Not only seperate from it, but infinitely
superior to it. The physical world is seen to be, at best, a
degraded expression of the spiritual world, which is supposedly
pristine and perfect.
>
> What is the importance of this differentiation? Well if you believe (as
> you so state) that a majority of people do not believe in "magick" and
> therefore you must alter your reality to dis-clude magick because of
> this global belief in order to operate properly, then the switch from
> the "magick" paradigm to "spirituality or spiritual openness" paradigm
> allows you to jump from one paradigm to another paradigm that contains a
> larger population, and therefore a lot more power/realities are open if
> you need that egregore type energy to thrive in.
>
I really don't get much of the above paragraph, but I do understand that
you are using a newer definition of the world "spiritual".
"Magick" and "Spiritual" are just words and words mean what we
want them to. At least to us.
Besides the need to distance oneself from the old meanings of
the word "spiritual", I use "magick" because its most basic
definition: Creating something out of nothing by an act of
Will/Intent, is how reality works. And the term lends itself
to thinking scientifically which "spiritual" does not. It also
implies personal power rather than appealing to some alleged
deity to accomplish things, which is important.
"Spiritual" is simply too vague a term and has too much baggage.
Sid
--
My newsfilter kills more than half the posts to these groups,
including replies to any name in my killfile. So if I don't
respond to a reply it is because I didn't see it.
Thou shalt not suffer a troll to speak in thine presence.
paul...@verizon.net
> going on to always represent it with complete accuracy. In other
> words, total honesty requires omniscience.
You are conflating total or absolute accuracy with total honesty.
Though I suppose, given an absolute stance, one could argue that the
only totally honest statement on any subject is "I don' t know."
Tom
> points for yourself.
To make points, surely. For myself? I just make points. I don't
collect them.
> Focus on what was said.
I do. Then I focus on what I think about what is said.
> One can be totally honest about themself.
One is lying to say so.
Tom
> > Total honesty is impossible. It presumes you know enough of what's
> > going on to always represent it with complete accuracy. In other
> > words, total honesty requires omniscience.
>
> You are conflating total or absolute accuracy with total honesty.
In what way does misrepresenting your experience count as "honesty"?
> Though I suppose, given an absolute stance, one could argue that the
> only totally honest statement on any subject is "I don't know."
If you restrict yourself entirely to that, I'd count it as being as
honest as one is ever likely to achieve.
odubh...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
ISTM is the word of the day.
Searles O'Dubhain
mika
> On Dec 14, 2:05 pm, paulh...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > Total honesty is impossible. It presumes you know enough of what's
> > > going on to always represent it with complete accuracy. In other
> > > words, total honesty requires omniscience.
>
> > You are conflating total or absolute accuracy with total honesty.
>
> In what way does misrepresenting your experience count as "honesty"?
It's possible to be both honest and mistaken. Being wrong doesn't
make one a liar. Intent is significant here.
Tom
> On Dec 14, 9:34 pm, Tom wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:05 pm, paulh...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > > > Total honesty is impossible. It presumes you know enough of what's
> > > > going on to always represent it with complete accuracy. In other
> > > > words, total honesty requires omniscience.
>
> > > You are conflating total or absolute accuracy with total honesty.
>
> > In what way does misrepresenting your experience count as "honesty"?
>
> It's possible to be both honest and mistaken.
No, it's not. When you are mistaken, it is because you have
misinterpreted something you experienced. Interpretation of
experience is narration, story-telling about your experience. When
you tell a story about your experience and you are not completely
accurate, it's because you've made stuff up and included it along with
what actually happened or deleted some part of the experience and are
acting as if that part didn't happen. When you make stuff up that
didn't happen or exclude what did happen, you're lying. Further, if
you make stuff up that didn't happen and then refuse to admit you did
so, you are lying about your lies.
> Being wrong doesn't
> make one a liar. Intent is significant here.
Intent has nothing to do with it. If you drop a glass and break it,
it doesn't matter if you intended to drop it or not. The glass is
still broken. We lie because we interpret our experience and then
represent it as a story. It is inevitable that we do so. It is not a
matter of choice beyond our choice to represent our experience in the
first place.
Any representation of reality must necessarily fall short of being the
reality it represents and thus is in some way untrue. The fact that
we know our representations are in some way untrue makes any utterance
of them a lie.
storm
> > easier said than done in a world where, at least in this global
> > culture, almost everyone is maintaining the spell that magick
> > doesn't exist.
>
> What sort of abilities do you believe you can obtain by "believing it
> exclusively"? Be specific.
In all the conversation I have seen from "Sid", I have never seen an
answer to this question. Countless times he has asked for specific
claims and demonstrations for those claims. Never has he bothered to
make claims, offer to demonstrate or discuss how they would be
demonstrated.
I myself claim to be magic and do magic, but I offer no specifics or
demonstrations. I have no need to convince skeptics or those who
follow different systems of magic. However, I have never demanded the
same from others. I think this describes a fundamental difference
between Sid and myself, one that I do not expect Sid to ever truly
address. I don't demand proof or justification from others. Sid
does. Why he does that I do not know, but it seems to be only for
purposes of insulting or antaginizing people who do not agree with
him. It is certainly a rather one-sided approach to the
conversation. "You have to prove it. I don't." Conversational
approaches like that are why I have given up responding to him. It
just doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Ah well.
-storm
storm
I really hesitate to say this, in fear of being interpreted as
boastful, but yes, this is exactly what happens. It can be very
unsettling sometimes, because one does try to stay low visibility and
all that. I have kvetched quietly to my lady "How do they find me?"
and she answers, "Because you are there. Because sometimes they need
you even if they don't know you, even if they don't like you."
I love her dearly, but I hate it when she is always right. :-)
-storm
Absorbed
I'm with mika on this. An honest statement is intended to inform,
regardless of whether it does or not. Lies deliberately intend to deceive.
It seems you agreed back in 2003:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.magick/msg/c80abe2b1d0b63b5
"there may be a difference between an honest answer and a true one"
mika
> On Dec 15, 8:21 am, mika wrote:
>
> > It's possible to be both honest and mistaken.
>
> No, it's not. When you are mistaken, it is because you have
> misinterpreted something you experienced.
Not always.
Tom: What time does the movie start?
Mika: The paper says it starts at 7 pm.
Tom and Mika arrive at the theater, the movie actually starts at 8.
I was honest, I did not misinterpret what I read. I was simply
misinformed by the paper. That's not a lie, it's a mistake, and it's
not even my mistake, it's the paper's.
> When
> you tell a story about your experience and you are not completely
> accurate, it's because you've made stuff up and included it along with
> what actually happened or deleted some part of the experience and are
> acting as if that part didn't happen.
Or, it's because what informs the experience itself was not completely
accurate, even if my story about the experience is.
Example:
Mika: I met a hot blonde last night. You know, Joe's friend, Sam?
Tom: Yeah, I know, but Sam is naturally a brunette.
Was I lying? No. Was my story about my experience accurate? Yes.
Maybe Sam's hair was dyed very well, maybe it was a wig, either way, I
didn't make stuff up or delete a part of the experience. I am
accurately describing my experienced reality.
cdnlearner
You have mentionned :
"Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not hold any
contrary beliefs."
My question is Do you know of a protocol to arrive, on day, to "believe it
exclusively"?
I am discovering an interest into magick and I do agree with your post even
though it can be called "ideological"
Daniel
____________
"Sidney Lambe" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:tno916x...@amma.net...
Sidney Lambe
cdnlearner <cdnle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is an interesting post Sidney.
Thanks, Daniel.
>
> You have mentionned : "Simply saying you believe it or
> believing you believe it is not enough. You must believe it
> exclusively. That is, you must not hold any contrary beliefs."
>
> My question is Do you know of a protocol to arrive, on day, to
> "believe it exclusively"?
The spells/beliefs we maintain in the background of our conscious
minds (those are the ideas that most people accept as facts
rather than beliefs, too obviously true to question) are usually
a part of its 'main organ', which consists of a tree-like structure
that the directory tree of a computer operating system is unwittingly
based on.
You have the root assumptions at the bottom, few in number, then
these branch to basic assumptions based on them that are more
numerous, and so on. The lower you get on the tree, the more
potent and stable the beliefs are.
Changing the spells we are maintaining without creating havoc
in our conscious minds and lives means respecting the integrity
of this 'main organ'. You start with learning what's there and
how they are related.
If you want to, say, be more prosperous, you better make sure
you have no beliefs about money and wealth being bad and
anti-spiritual. And look at the beliefs 'below' that one if
it's there. If there is nothing 'below' that needs to be
corrected, then you can just swap beliefs there.
But our conscious minds also contain the reasons we have adopted
a particular belief or group of them, and these must be faced, too.
People don't like to hear it, but whatever your reality is, for
good or ill, you created it for your own reasons. Reasons that
made sense to your whole self.
There are 'lower' beliefs of a general nature that can screw up
your whole life, too. Such as a belief in human unworthiness
and/or personal unworthiness. You have to deal with things like
that or nothing will go well for you.
I hope that's clear.
> I am discovering an interest into magick and I do agree with
> your post even though it can be called "ideological"
Hmmm...Any organized system of cosmological thought could be
called 'ideological', I guess. With logic, it is always the
basic, foundational premises you have to examine and assess. If
they are erroneous, all logical structures built on them are also
erroneous.
All beliefs are just beliefs. But some are true and some are
false.
separatus
> Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
> enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
> hold any contrary beliefs.
Absolutely, but specifically during the moment(s) of the working and
not necessarily during every waking moment. I would suggest that the
rigidity of concentration which the Chaos magicians out there call
gnosis provides the single-mindedness to achieve what you are talking
about, regardless of your feelings during your day job. I do not
necessarily believe in the objective existence of any number of
spirits, gods and so forth. However, it is still possible to assume a
godform.
Wouldn't you agree?
Sidney Lambe
separatus <separa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:50=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Simply saying you believe it or believing you believe it is not
>> enough. You must believe it exclusively. That is, you must not
>> hold any contrary beliefs.
>
> Absolutely, but specifically during the moment(s) of the working and
> not necessarily during every waking moment.
Yes. Obsession/worry will get you nowhere. You work on the spell
consciously, then set it aside until the next session, until it
is moved to the background of your conscious mind where it is
maintained "unconsciously", or by habit.
> I would suggest that the rigidity of concentration which
> the Chaos magicians out there call gnosis provides the
> single-mindedness to achieve what you are talking about,
> regardless of your feelings during your day job.
I don't know that technique, but it sounds good for this
application. There are many that will work just fine. But you
have to make sure that you've explored your own belief system
thoroughly as a part of this whole exercise, to make sure that
you aren't already maintaining (see above) spells/beliefs that
will keep your new one from manifesting.
> I would suggest that the
> rigidity of concentration which the Chaos magicians out there call
> gnosis provides the single-mindedness to achieve what you are talking
> about, regardless of your feelings during your day job.
> I would suggest that the
> rigidity of concentration which the Chaos magicians out there call
> gnosis provides the single-mindedness to achieve what you are talking
> about, regardless of your feelings during your day job.
> I would suggest that the
> rigidity of concentration which the Chaos magicians out there call
> gnosis provides the single-mindedness to achieve what you are talking
> about, regardless of your feelings during your day job.
> I do not necessarily believe in the objective existence of any
> number of spirits, gods and so forth. However, it is still
> possible to assume a godform.
>
> Wouldn't you agree?
Do you mean assume the existence of a godform? It's my understanding
that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
separatus
> Do you mean assume the existence of a godform? It's my understanding
> that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
> that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
No. Assumption of a godform is an invocation to draw the essence of a
particular God or Goddess into yourself (bear with me, I'm perhaps
oversimplifying here). For example, an adept might assume the godform
of Hermes to gain insights into matters of trickery. It's a curious
sensation, to feel one's personality shifted aside for ... something
else. Properly done, it exceeds your expectations. Improperly done,
and it simply doesn't happen. It is essentially a more formal version
of the "drawing down" practicied by many Wiccan groups, or being
ridden in a Voudon ritual. Bertiaux is quite informative in his
Voudon-Gnostic workbook.
aine
Why don't you just think it? So much work you people need to do to get
such little results.
Sidney Lambe
I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with the
science of magick.
Know what wasting your time with theatrical woo-woo like that
will get you?
The ability to play the part of a wizard in a C fantasy movie.
Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
Crowley, for example, was so un-adept at magick that he couldn't
even cure his own heroin addiction.
separatus
> >> It's my understanding
> >> that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
> >> that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
That is certainly an interpretation. Is this something you have read,
or something you have recognized and understood? Does this not mean in
this case you are a part of God yourself? Share your thoughts.
> I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with the
> science of magick.
That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt consciousness of
this and all realities. But the notion of communion with fragments of
this God is superstitious crap? Even when logically you are a fragment
of God yourself? Share your thoughts.
> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
> that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
> decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving one
well-know example, would you be willing what must surely be a systemic
flaw common to the traditions that facilitate this failure?
separatus
> >> It's my understanding
> >> that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
> >> that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
That is certainly an interpretation. Is this something you have read,
or something you have recognized and understood? Does this not mean in
this case you are a part of God yourself? Share your thoughts.
> I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with the
> science of magick.
That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt consciousness of
this and all realities. But the notion of communion with fragments of
this God is superstitious crap? Even when logically you are a fragment
of God yourself? Share your thoughts.
> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
> that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
> decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving one
separatus
accidentally here. I apologize for the bad grammar on my last post,
but my fingers don't seem to be working right at this moment.
Sidney Lambe
>
>> >> It's my understanding
>> >> that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
>> >> that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
>
> That is certainly an interpretation. Is this something you have read,
> or something you have recognized and understood?
Sort of half and half. It's something my teacher led me to conclude
on my own, and something I can sense/perceive/grok. The First People's
concept of "the spirit that moves in all things" is a good description
of the awareness.
> Does this not mean in this case you are a part of God yourself?
Yes. Everything is. We are all of the body of God.
> Share your thoughts.
Thank you.
There is only one basic, primal creative force in the multiverse,
which is composed of a number of realities so vast that infinite
is far too small a concept, and that's God, which is made of, and
makes, all of these realities, as is more than the some of It's
parts. There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All existence
is Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
>
>> I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with
>> the science of magick.
>
> That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt
> consciousness of this and all realities. But the notion of
> communion with fragments of this God is superstitious crap?
I've never seen/experienced any evidence that any such beings
exist. (the gods referred to in the ritual described in your
last post) I _believe_ that they had a psuedo-reality when they
were created by the people of the cultures that worshipped them.
They would be a few of tens of thousands of psuedo-gods that
Man made. They aren't the God that makes Man.
They wouldn't have much reality now, when almost no one believes
in them.
> Even when logically you are a fragment of God yourself? Share
> your thoughts.
Hard to keep this motormouth from doing that, but I do appreciate
the encouragement :-)
The beings that create physical reality, the physical universe,
(and many others) are our own source selves, our souls (if you
can strip that word of its religious baggage). They are creative
powerhouses that make Jehovah and Odin look like fumbling
infants. This kind of being does all the practical creative
work for God in terms of objectified realities.
This is what Jesus was referring to when he used the word "father".
He wasn't talking about God at all. And that is an accurate
description of their relationship to their personalities: Father.
We don't need to deal directly with them at all. Our commands
become their commands. It is our inner/whole selves that
we need to become aware of in an intimate way. The other side
of ourselves.
>> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
>> that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
>> decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
>
> What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving
> one well-know example, would you be willing what must surely be
> a systemic flaw common to the traditions that facilitate this
> failure?
Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow. Ritual/Ceremonial magick was
created during the birth pangs of the Physical Science paradigm,
which is the religion that dominates the world at this time.
It is a crippled hybrid of authentic magickal lore predating the
Christian paradigm and that paradigm and the Physical Science
paradigm.
I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual you
described in your last post: They can create very intense and
bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they don't do
anything else. They don't help you with things that matter. This
is semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
Tom
>
> I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with the
> science of magick.
I can't find any courses in "magick" in the science curriculum of any
university. I can find a science of biology, a science of physics,
and a science of chemistry, but no science of magick. If there is a
"science of magick", it must be more on the order of "Christian
Science".
> Know what wasting your time with theatrical woo-woo like that
> will get you?
That's why you do it. To see what it will get you.
> The ability to play the part of a wizard in a C fantasy movie.
OK, I can accept that your work in this field has had that result for
you, at least according to your own report. Of course we have no
evidence that you have achieved the ability to play the part of a
wizard in a C fantasy movie. Have you in fact had such a role, or is
your supposed ability just a speculation that you might be able to do
so, if anybody ever gave you a chance?
separatus
> Yes. Everything is. We are all of the body of God.
>
> > Share your thoughts.
>
> which is composed of a number of realities so vast that infinite
> is far too small a concept, and that's God, which is made of, and
> makes, all of these realities, as is more than the some of It's
> parts. There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All existence
> is Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
It is unclear as to whether you are discussing a theist or a mystical
concept here. I'm not judging either way, but hopefully you'll
clarify. If you do, I hope you will reconcile how God does not contain
evil if God contains everything. Would God not then contain even the
potential for evil? Or is Evil (ignorance, in this case) outside of
the body of God? I'm not trying to stir the pot, but this is an
important point to cover to ensure I understand.
> > That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt
> > consciousness of this and all realities. But the notion of
> > communion with fragments of this God is superstitious crap?
>
> I've never seen/experienced any evidence that any such beings
> exist. (the gods referred to in the ritual described in your
> last post) I _believe_ that they had a psuedo-reality when they
> were created by the people of the cultures that worshipped them.
> They would be a few of tens of thousands of psuedo-gods that
> Man made. They aren't the God that makes Man.
>
> They wouldn't have much reality now, when almost no one believes
> in them.
Fair enough, but there are all sorts of pagans, christians, muslims
and so forth who believe their deity (ies) either are that cosmic All,
or are a manifestation of at least one of the currents.
> The beings that create physical reality, the physical universe,
> (and many others) are our own source selves, our souls (if you
> can strip that word of its religious baggage). They are creative
> powerhouses that make Jehovah and Odin look like fumbling
> infants. This kind of being does all the practical creative
> work for God in terms of objectified realities.
>
> This is what Jesus was referring to when he used the word "father".
> He wasn't talking about God at all. And that is an accurate
> description of their relationship to their personalities: Father.
> We don't need to deal directly with them at all. Our commands
> become their commands. It is our inner/whole selves that
> we need to become aware of in an intimate way. The other side
> of ourselves.
Perhaps I misunderstood above. To clarify, this and all universes
comprise the aggregate entity known as God. However, our souls, our
creative sparks, as manifestations of God express the creative
energies that spin us and everything else into reality. Essentially,
God is the aggregate of creation, but we as divine sparks spin the
threads comprising the body of God into the tapestry of reality.
Again, I am not trying to start a fight. I am trying to distill your
outlook from a small handful of sentences. Please correct me if I am
wrong.
> >> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
> >> that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
> >> decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
>
> Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow.
I've always wondered about that word. It makes one sound like I am on
a shelf with the other canned cling peaches.
> I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual you
> described in your last post: They can create very intense and
> bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they don't do
> anything else. They don't help you with things that matter. This
> is semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
> really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
The same observation has been made about snake-handlers, Islamic
fundamentalists and Christian mysticism. All extremes lead inevitably
to irreconcilable contradictions [Note the plug for the Middle Way]. A
wise man once said that "whatever you believe imprisons you". It's a
difficult concept to understand and even more difficult to emotionally
accept.
storm
> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>
> separatus <separatus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:02 pm, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> It's my understanding
> >> >> that God is the gestalt consciousness formed by all realities and
> >> >> that forms all realities, every speck of which has consciousness.
>
> > That is certainly an interpretation. Is this something you have read,
> > or something you have recognized and understood?
>
> Sort of half and half. It's something my teacher led me to conclude
> on my own, and something I can sense/perceive/grok. The First People's
> concept of "the spirit that moves in all things" is a good description
> of the awareness.
>
> > Does this not mean in this case you are a part of God yourself?
>
> Yes. Everything is. We are all of the body of God.
By what you define as "God", yes.
>
> > Share your thoughts.
>
> Thank you.
>
> There is only one basic, primal creative force in the multiverse,
> which is composed of a number of realities so vast that infinite
> is far too small a concept, and that's God, which is made of, and
> makes, all of these realities, as is more than the some of It's
> parts. There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All existence
> is Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
Agreed. Especially about "Evil". Any discussion I have seen that
starts using the idea of "evil" is missing the part of how stupid and
greedy people can be. Stupid and greedy may be things that cause harm
in great amounts, but calling them "evil" is just trying to place some
sort of absolute blame on others that misses the possiblity of the
same behaviors in ourselves.
>
>
>
> >> I don't work with superstitious crap like that. I work with
> >> the science of magick.
>
> > That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt
> > consciousness of this and all realities. But the notion of
> > communion with fragments of this God is superstitious crap?
>
> I've never seen/experienced any evidence that any such beings
> exist. (the gods referred to in the ritual described in your
> last post) I _believe_ that they had a psuedo-reality when they
> were created by the people of the cultures that worshipped them.
> They would be a few of tens of thousands of psuedo-gods that
> Man made. They aren't the God that makes Man.
Here is where we part ways philosophically. The creations of
fragments of the all-is-God concept are just as real as the other
creations we make as part of that all-is-God. They are no less real
or useful than any of our other creations. Some have indeed used the
fragments as ways to hide the continuity behind them. In fact, it can
easily be argued that the vast majority of religious concepts do just
that. However, it is not an absolute pattern. Some do indeed use
understanding of the fragments as stepping stones to the understanding
of the whole. I think you dismiss that possiblity all too
automatically and aggressively. There are many many ways to get to
the center of it all. Why place such a great amount of energy denying
that other ways exist? So what if Gods, Goddesses, spirits, and
things that go bump in the night are not the way that you reached your
enligtenment and epiphany? Not everyone has to follow your path.
Actually, not everyone has exactly your destination, even if I do put
value on the awareness of that which is at the center of everything, I
do not try to impose my values on another. I do not claim the "one
true way". And I think that the claim of "I have the only truth", is
at the heart of much of human misery. BBDD loves to rant that all
religions are evil. I would have to amend that and say that all
religions or any other paths religious or political or whatever, that
claim to be the one and only truth are the true evil, if I really
believed in evil. So instead I just have to same something lame like
"truly unfortunate" or "basis of most of human suffering", which just
doesn't have the same fundamentalist rhetorical punch.
>
> They wouldn't have much reality now, when almost no one believes
> in them.
>
> > Even when logically you are a fragment of God yourself? Share
> > your thoughts.
>
> Hard to keep this motormouth from doing that, but I do appreciate
> the encouragement :-)
>
> The beings that create physical reality, the physical universe,
> (and many others) are our own source selves, our souls (if you
> can strip that word of its religious baggage). They are creative
> powerhouses that make Jehovah and Odin look like fumbling
> infants. This kind of being does all the practical creative
> work for God in terms of objectified realities.
Works for me.
>
> This is what Jesus was referring to when he used the word "father".
> He wasn't talking about God at all. And that is an accurate
> description of their relationship to their personalities: Father.
> We don't need to deal directly with them at all. Our commands
> become their commands. It is our inner/whole selves that
> we need to become aware of in an intimate way. The other side
> of ourselves.
I agree with the point. I do not agree with the re-interpretation of
the Bible there. You can take from that book most any lessons you
want, and I sure can't stop you, nor would want to, but I would have
to say that Jesus was talking to his Dad as he understood the
concept. I cannot find a basis to get more cosmological or mutiverse
out of the Jesus story than that, as you do and indeed many others do,
with entirely different interpretations. How does your interpretation
then become more correct than others? Your overall points are self-
consistent, which puts you far above others who reinterpret that
material, but that in itself is still not as authoritative as your
tone and statements would have things. Yours is not the only valid
interpretation, of this material or most any other. I am fairly
positive you disagree there, and that may be where we have to agree to
disagree. (Or not. No one can enforce agreement to disagreement.
Tis a shame, that. It would make much of human discourse much more
pleasant and useful.)
>
> >> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved in
> >> that stuff are losers? That they can't even give themselves
> >> decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
>
> > What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving
> > one well-know example, would you be willing what must surely be
> > a systemic flaw common to the traditions that facilitate this
> > failure?
>
> Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow. Ritual/Ceremonial magick was
> created during the birth pangs of the Physical Science paradigm,
> which is the religion that dominates the world at this time.
I can see what you mean by this concept, but it does not ring as true
to me as it seems to do for you. There does seem to be much that
science does not cover. (At least, not yet.) However, categorizing
it as a religion in and of itself, totally incapable of ever including
spiritual or metaphysical elements just doesn't work for me. Science
is still a valid way of discovering the universe and is young yet and
has far to grow. There are loads of potential in there, adventures
yet to be explored. To dismiss it so offhandedly seems an over-
reaction.
>
> It is a crippled hybrid of authentic magickal lore predating the
> Christian paradigm and that paradigm and the Physical Science
> paradigm.
How is it that the ancients knew all this magical lore and it has been
so lost? What do you see as the backwards movement that has led us as
a species so far astray? I have talked with many who seem to have
this "The ancients were all-powerful" claim, but have never seen
convincing corroboration. Some will substitute "Atlanteans" or
"Cosmic Angels" or "Enlightened Aliens", but it all seems to be part
of that "I know a truth you can never know" kind of thing that is a
warning, to my observation, that the speaker knows much less than they
claim. I see the same thing with people who claim to talk to spirits
of dead people. What made those people so suddenly smart and clever
and wise just because they are dead? It all comes under the banner of
"things you will never experience or comprehend", which is, as you
say, "woo-wwo" religion.
>
> I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual you
> described in your last post: They can create very intense and
> bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they don't do
> anything else. They don't help you with things that matter. This
> is semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
> really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
Yeah. I have seen that. But I have seen the opposite as well. Based
on my anecdotal evidence, I would have to respectfully disagree.
>
> Sid
Not that it will mean much to you coming from me, but this is the most
clear discussion of your viewpoints I have seen. Nicely written.
-storm
>
> --
> My newsfilter kills more than half the posts to these groups,
> including replies to any name in my killfile. So if I don't
> respond to a reply it is because I didn't see it.
> Thou shalt not suffer a troll to speak in thine presence.
Being God yourself, thou shalt do whatever thou wishes, and so shall
all the other parts of God. Including me!!! And there we may
forever disagree. I cannot envision you ever saying that my path is
as valid for me as your path is for you. I cannot envision you ever
saying that I am truly as much of the God-thing as you are. And yet,
I will gladly say the same about you. Thou art God. (for someone who
used the term "grok", that phrase should communicate all that I mean
to say)
-storm (Who art both Goddess and God, just because Wiccans like to see
it that way)
Ludwig Prinn
> Crowley, for example, was so un-adept at magick that he couldn't
> even cure his own heroin addiction.
>
To be fair, however, at that point in history heroin wasn't considered
a drug - it was medicine. People who used it were "patients", not
"addicts". Lots of people used heroin on a daily basis, and needed it
to treat their pain. They weren't considered "addicts", and it would
have been strange to talk of "curing" them. The equivalent today would
be something like claiming people are "addicted" to therapy, caffeine
or band-aids. They're perceived as doing more good than harm, and any
talk of "curing" the "addiction" to them is simply amusing.
Ludwig Prinn
> > What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving
> > one well-know example, would you be willing what must surely be
> > a systemic flaw common to the traditions that facilitate this
> > failure?
>
> Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow. Ritual/Ceremonial magick was
> created during the birth pangs of the Physical Science paradigm,
> which is the religion that dominates the world at this time.
>
> It is a crippled hybrid of authentic magickal lore predating the
> Christian paradigm and that paradigm and the Physical Science
> paradigm.
I'll actually agree with this, conditionally. The "authentic magickal
lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
physical principles which we have yet to understand. All modern
magical practices utilize these principles in the same stilted fashion
in which our forefathers did the same, but Ceremonial Magick actually
takes a few first steps toward identifying and utilizing the
underlying principles of physics which actually cause magic to work.
It is by no means a perfect philosophy, but it is in fact the only
logical approach to magic - analyze the actions and correlate the
effects to determine by exactly which engine such things are driven.
> I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual you
> described in your last post: They can create very intense and
> bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they don't do
> anything else.
I disagree. The Assumption of Godforms, like all forms of full- or
partial-trance possession, is a valid and useful magical technique
that temporarily transforms the mind and soul of the magician into
Something Else. The exactly Godform assumed would, by its very nature
(read Julian Jaynes), have access to knowledge the "human personality"
does not, as well as physical, mental and psychic abilities.
> They don't help you with things that matter. This
> is semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
> really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
Such is the nature of all activities which place mankind as "inferior"
to divine beings. However, to say that Assumption does "nothing" is
grossly inaccurate.
Sidney Lambe
Ludwig Prinn <maste...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:02=A0pm, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> Crowley, for example, was so un-adept at magick that he couldn't
>> even cure his own heroin addiction.
>>
> To be fair, however, at that point in history heroin wasn't considered
> a drug - it was medicine.
It still is considered a medicine in most of the world. It is preferred
to its close chemical relative morphine because it is more potent.
It's only America that has relegated it to the status of an illegal
drug, to my knowledge. They use it in hospitals in Britain.
> People who used it were "patients", not "addicts". Lots of
> people used heroin on a daily basis, and needed it to treat
> their pain. They weren't considered "addicts", and it would
> have been strange to talk of "curing" them. The equivalent
> today would be something like claiming people are "addicted" to
> therapy, caffeine or band-aids. They're perceived as doing more
> good than harm, and any talk of "curing" the "addiction" to
> them is simply amusing.
Semantics. Heroin is one of the world's most powerful
painkillers. That means it is one of the world's most powerful
pleasurekillers, too. You take heroin and you are a zombie. You
aren't even really alive. You are numb.
You don't need anyone to tell you that. The experience of it
tells you that. The experience of the people in your life tell
them that.
I am being quite fair here. Crowley couldn't cure his pain
with his alleged magickal skills and chose the half-life of
a junkie.
Sidney Lambe
>> Yes. Everything is. We are all of the body of God.
>>
>> > Share your thoughts.
>>
>> There is only one basic, primal creative force in the multiverse,
>> which is composed of a number of realities so vast that infinite
>> is far too small a concept, and that's God, which is made of, and
>> makes, all of these realities, as is more than the some of It's
>> parts. There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All existence
>> is Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
>
> It is unclear as to whether you are discussing a theist or a mystical
> concept here.
I'm discussing reality. Real physics.
> I'm not judging either way, but hopefully you'll clarify. If
> you do, I hope you will reconcile how God does not contain evil
> if God contains everything. Would God not then contain even
> the potential for evil? Or is Evil (ignorance, in this case)
> outside of the body of God?
There is no outside. But that's what the artificial/false concept
of Evil postulates.
> I'm not trying to stir the pot, but
> this is an important point to cover to ensure I understand.
The concept of Evil (notice the capital E) is one of a creative
force that is seperate from, and opposed to, God. No such thing
exists.
There are bad things that go on, but they represent the misuse,
because of ignorance, of the same creative force that is
responsible for all the things we call good.
It's All Good = It's All God
>> > That's a fine line. You believe in God as a gestalt
>> > consciousness of this and all realities. But the notion of
>> > communion with fragments of this God is superstitious crap?
>>
>> I've never seen/experienced any evidence that any such beings
>> exist. (the gods referred to in the ritual described in
>> your last post) I _believe_ that they had a psuedo-reality
>> when they were created by the people of the cultures that
>> worshipped them. They would be a few of tens of thousands of
>> psuedo-gods that Man made. They aren't the God that makes Man.
>>
>> They wouldn't have much reality now, when almost no one
>> believes in them.
>
> Fair enough, but there are all sorts of pagans, christians,
> muslims and so forth who believe their deity (ies) either are
> that cosmic All, or are a manifestation of at least one of the
> currents.
Their belief is quite shallow. Almost everyone professing
to belong to those religions actually believes in physical
science/darwinism. They go to medical doctors to be healed, not
prayer meetings. They look to technology to solve the world's
problems, not their deities.
They want their children taught darwinism in the public schools.
This is one way you tell what people really believe, by observing
their actions. They speak louder than words.
>> The beings that create physical reality, the physical
>> universe, (and many others) are our own source selves, our
>> souls (if you can strip that word of its religious baggage).
>> They are creative powerhouses that make Jehovah and Odin
>> look like fumbling infants. This kind of being does all the
>> practical creative work for God in terms of objectified
>> realities.
>>
>> This is what Jesus was referring to when he used the word
>> "father". He wasn't talking about God at all. And that is
>> an accurate description of their relationship to their
>> personalities: Father. We don't need to deal directly with
>> them at all. Our commands become their commands. It is our
>> inner/whole selves that we need to become aware of in an
>> intimate way. The other side of ourselves.
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood above. To clarify, this and all
> universes comprise the aggregate entity known as God. However,
> our souls, our creative sparks, as manifestations of God
> express the creative energies that spin us and everything else
> into reality. Essentially, God is the aggregate of creation,
> but we as divine sparks spin the threads comprising the body
> of God into the tapestry of reality. Again, I am not trying to
> start a fight. I am trying to distill your outlook from a small
> handful of sentences. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Sounds pretty good to me. I wouldn't call the souls 'creative
sparks', though. Sounds much to simple. They are powerful
entities that do the nitty gritty work of creating and
maintaining objective realities. For all intents and purposes,
they are the gods of those realities. But they are not God.
>> >> Haven't you ever noticed that the people who are involved
>> >> in that stuff are losers? That they can't even give
>> >> themselves decent lives with their alleged magickal skills?
>>
>> Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow.
>
> I've always wondered about that word. It makes one sound like I
> am on a shelf with the other canned cling peaches.
That's uncanny.
>> I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual
>> you described in your last post: They can create very intense
>> and bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they
>> don't do anything else. They don't help you with things that
>> matter. This is semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at
>> best and can really play hell with your life if you get too
>> far into it.
>
> The same observation has been made about snake-handlers,
> Islamic fundamentalists and Christian mysticism. All extremes
> lead inevitably to irreconcilable contradictions [Note the plug
> for the Middle Way]. A wise man once said that "whatever you
> believe imprisons you". It's a difficult concept to understand
> and even more difficult to emotionally accept.
That man was not very wise. A real wise man once said "The
truth will set you free." False beliefs imprison you.
Sidney Lambe
Ludwig Prinn <maste...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:38=A0am, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > What stuff specifically are you referring to? Instead of giving
>> > one well-know example, would you be willing what must surely be
>> > a systemic flaw common to the traditions that facilitate this
>> > failure?
>>
>> Yes indeed. You are a canny fellow. Ritual/Ceremonial magick was
>> created during the birth pangs of the Physical Science paradigm,
>> which is the religion that dominates the world at this time.
>>
>> It is a crippled hybrid of authentic magickal lore predating the
>> Christian paradigm and that paradigm and the Physical Science
>> paradigm.
>
> I'll actually agree with this, conditionally. The "authentic magickal
> lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
> physical principles which we have yet to understand.
And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
> All modern magical practices utilize these principles in the
> same stilted fashion in which our forefathers did the same,
> but Ceremonial Magick actually takes a few first steps toward
> identifying and utilizing the underlying principles of physics
> which actually cause magic to work. It is by no means a perfect
> philosophy, but it is in fact the only logical approach to
> magic - analyze the actions and correlate the effects to
> determine by exactly which engine such things are driven.
That's a logical approach to magick if you thinking like
a physical scientist. But there is nothing physical that
has anything to do with magick. Everything physical is
the _result_ of magick.
One must act in the physical world to manifest a spell in the
physical world, but those actions are not something that can be
predicted or 'canned'. They vary with the individual and the
circumstances and do not cause anything. They are merely
opening the door.
A person casting a spell for prosperity might bring it into
fruition by giving $5.00 they can't spare to a needy person
on the street, for example.
But you can't say that any person can bring prosperity into
their lives by giving $5.00 to a needy person on the street.
The person doing that was guided by their individuality and
intuitions and the spell, not by a formula from a cookbook.
What you have described above is precisely why ceremonial
magicians are such terrible magicians. They are barking up
the wrong tree.
>
>> I need to mention another problem with stuff like that ritual
>> you described in your last post: They can create very intense
>> and bizarre experiences that are quite addictive. But they
>> don't do anything else.
>
> I disagree. The Assumption of Godforms, like all forms of full-
> or partial-trance possession, is a valid and useful magical
> technique that temporarily transforms the mind and soul of
> the magician into Something Else. The exactly Godform assumed
> would, by its very nature (read Julian Jaynes), have access
> to knowledge the "human personality" does not, as well as
> physical, mental and psychic abilities.
<sound of a big fart>
I've heard that garbage before. Never seen it demonstrated. Never
heard anyone say it who wasn't a loser who couldn't do anything
but play a wizard in a C fantasy flick. Who was more concerned
with casting a harmful spell on his supposed enemies than doing
something about his shitty life.
If you want to access information and abilities you don't
normally have, you just have to look to your own inner self. It
doesn't take anything but applied medititative techniques.
You don't need to pretend that you have been posessed by beings
that don't even exist.
If you want to wow the peasants with sensational feats of
magick, then you need to grow up.
>
>> They don't help you with things that matter. This is
>> semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
>> really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
>
> Such is the nature of all activities which place mankind as
> "inferior" to divine beings. However, to say that Assumption
> does "nothing" is grossly inaccurate.
To say that is an utter waste of time is extremely accurate.
Ludwig Prinn
> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>
> > I'll actually agree with this, conditionally. The "authentic magickal
> > lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
> > physical principles which we have yet to understand.
>
> And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
> are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
Nothing is "supernatural". All things "metaphysical" are merely
principles of physics we have yet to understand. When we understand
them fully, they will cease to be "metaphysical" principles. Science
is always marching headlong into mystery, clearing away the
superstition with the power of truth. "Spontaneous Generation" was
once considered to be fact, until science disproved it. The same
things are happening with magic all the time - science is not
disproving, but rather *proving* magic, through the existence of
scientific principles which neatly explain them.
> > All modern magical practices utilize these principles in the
> > same stilted fashion in which our forefathers did the same,
> > but Ceremonial Magick actually takes a few first steps toward
> > identifying and utilizing the underlying principles of physics
> > which actually cause magic to work. It is by no means a perfect
> > philosophy, but it is in fact the only logical approach to
> > magic - analyze the actions and correlate the effects to
> > determine by exactly which engine such things are driven.
>
> That's a logical approach to magick if you thinking like
> a physical scientist.
Well yes, because I am. I am a magical scientist.
> But there is nothing physical that
> has anything to do with magick. Everything physical is
> the _result_ of magick.
That's a nice profund-sounding statement that actually means nothing.
> One must act in the physical world to manifest a spell in the
> physical world, but those actions are not something that can be
> predicted or 'canned'. They vary with the individual and the
> circumstances and do not cause anything. They are merely
> opening the door.
You are wrong. Once again, you presume your use of the world
"physical" to mean "material" as in solids. The word "physical"
describes all things related to principles of physics, which operates
on logical and repeatable formulas. Just because techniques of magic
vary from individual to individual does not mean that the underlying
principles vary in the slightest.
You see, every ritual contains a great deal of personal "dressing",
and a few "operative elements" which actually get the work done. The
dressing is there to control the mood of the participants and provide
the proper mindset, while the operative elements (which are invariably
symbolic actions representative of the ritual's goal) do all the work
behind the scenes. It is these elements which need to be constructed
according to established laws of magical physics.
> A person casting a spell for prosperity might bring it into
> fruition by giving $5.00 they can't spare to a needy person
> on the street, for example.
>
> But you can't say that any person can bring prosperity into
> their lives by giving $5.00 to a needy person on the street.
> The person doing that was guided by their individuality and
> intuitions and the spell, not by a formula from a cookbook.
It really depends upon what that action means to the person performing
it in the casting of their spell. It's all about how the symbolic
action hits the person's unconscious, and the context in which the
action is performed.
> What you have described above is precisely why ceremonial
> magicians are such terrible magicians. They are barking up
> the wrong tree.
Your prejudices betray you right here. Clearly you have a huge
personal trauma from ceremonial magic in your past, and you are
allowing that damage to continue restricting you to this day. However,
I have no such damage and have personally achieved great results with
ceremonial magic. You see, it's not the technique, system, tradition
or Order which produces good or bad magicians - it's only the
understanding and apprehension of magical physics which produces
results.
> > I disagree. The Assumption of Godforms, like all forms of full-
> > or partial-trance possession, is a valid and useful magical
> > technique that temporarily transforms the mind and soul of
> > the magician into Something Else. The exactly Godform assumed
> > would, by its very nature (read Julian Jaynes), have access
> > to knowledge the "human personality" does not, as well as
> > physical, mental and psychic abilities.
>
> <sound of a big fart>
>
> I've heard that garbage before. Never seen it demonstrated.
Then you probably shouldn't pronounce judgement on something you have
no personal experience with.
> Never
> heard anyone say it who wasn't a loser who couldn't do anything
> but play a wizard in a C fantasy flick. Who was more concerned
> with casting a harmful spell on his supposed enemies than doing
> something about his shitty life.
The Assumption of Godforms isn't suited for curses or hexes as such,
so I have no idea why you presume it to be such. Since you've already
admitted that you have no personal experience with the techniques in
question, there is no reason to believe that you have any idea what
you're talking about.
> If you want to access information and abilities you don't
> normally have, you just have to look to your own inner self. It
> doesn't take anything but applied medititative techniques.
Maybe you should go back and read what I actually posted, but I would
like to take this time to thank and congratulate you for running
yourself all the way around in a circle, chasing your own tail and
barking madly, only to come out and boldly proclaim exactly what I
stated in my post.
> You don't need to pretend that you have been posessed by beings
> that don't even exist.
The only being in your head that doesn't actually "exist" is you.
> If you want to wow the peasants with sensational feats of
> magick, then you need to grow up.
You need to let go of your hate, son. Whatever pain you received from
ceremonial magic or ceremonial magicians is *now* preventing you from
a balanced approach to spiritual development.
You see, *all* magic is ceremonial. Tee hee.
> >> They don't help you with things that matter. This is
> >> semi-magick as a drug. It's a waste of time at best and can
> >> really play hell with your life if you get too far into it.
>
> > Such is the nature of all activities which place mankind as
> > "inferior" to divine beings. However, to say that Assumption
> > does "nothing" is grossly inaccurate.
>
> To say that is an utter waste of time is extremely accurate.
>
Prove it.
Sidney Lambe
>> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>>
>> > I'll actually agree with this, conditionally. The "authentic magickal
>> > lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
>> > physical principles which we have yet to understand.
>>
>> And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
>> are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
>
> Nothing is "supernatural". All things "metaphysical" are merely
> principles of physics we have yet to understand. When we understand
> them fully, they will cease to be "metaphysical" principles. Science
> is always marching headlong into mystery, clearing away the
> superstition with the power of truth.
No. Physical science is looking for what _it_ calls truth, as
defined by _its_ conceptions of what the nature of reality is.
It wears blinders and thus has missed the truth completely.
Which largely explains why the world is currently a mess
and is heading for disaster.
[delete]
>> But there is nothing physical that has anything to do with
>> magick. Everything physical is the _result_ of magick.
>
> That's a nice profund-sounding statement that actually means
> nothing.
That's the essence of magick. If you don't know that you know
nothing about magick.
I see no point in arguing with you. We have very different
conceptions of what magick is.
They aren't compatible.
You aren't my audience and I'm not yours.
[delete]
sarchasm
> "Ludwig Prinn" <maste...@aol.com> wrote:
>> "Sidney Lambe" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> > "Ludwig Prinn" <maste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> > The "authentic magickal
>>> > lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
>>> > physical principles which we have yet to understand.
>>>
>>> And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
>>> are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
>
That is asserting that "nature" is outside of nature and lacks something of
consistancy, (unless it's being implied that the nature of nature is
inconsistancy).
>>
>> Nothing is "supernatural". All things "metaphysical" are merely
>> principles of physics we have yet to understand. When we understand
>> them fully, they will cease to be "metaphysical" principles. Science
>> is always marching headlong into mystery, clearing away the
>> superstition with the power of truth.
>
> No. Physical science is looking for what _it_ calls truth, as
> defined by _its_ conceptions of what the nature of reality is.
>
No, physical scientists are mainly concerned with accounting for what is
observed in nature. The accounting consists of theories attempting to
describe how processes of nature function. These theories do not define the
"nature of reality", (whatever that vague declaration is intended to
convey - maybe the implication that *you* know the "nature of reality" and
are in some kind of objective position to judge this?).
>
> It wears blinders and thus has missed the truth completely.
>
Physical science consists of the body of work of physical scientists, each
of whom has a subjective perspective but, in theory are endeaving to be as
objective as possible regarding observing and accounting for "nature." The
implication inherent in your statement being that *you* know "the truth" and
that physical scientists are off the mark, (which would be an unfounded
boast).
ren
In my opinion, physics and metaphysics, natural and supernatural are
just ways to label what we have a lot of "evidence" about and what we
have little "evidence" about. See Mr. Prinn's comments.
It is all within the realm of reality. We Druids, Wiccans, Magickians,
and Others, accept physics where physics apply. But physics can not
explain everything or we would have total mastery over our world.
Metaphysics is a subject we dare to try to gather evidence about. Most
career scientists are very busy detailing what we know about Physics.
They have no time for metaphysics and dismiss it as they see no value
in studying it.
We see value in it through our personal experiences. We see value in
detailing metaphysics. How do we do this? We do it the same way that
scientists do it. We experiment with magick and record the results.
However, there is a catch. Often what we discover is too important to
share with just anyone. Imagine Sidney Lambe with an effective
hypnotic technique! No way! So we guard our results with our lives and
share those results with other seekers whom we feel shares our values.
See storm's post about these values.
Ludwig Prinn
> I am being quite fair here. Crowley couldn't cure his pain
> with his alleged magickal skills and chose the half-life of
> a junkie.
Again, you're presuming to judge a prior age based on modern morals
and dogma.
BACK THEN, it wasn't considered a bad thing to use heroin, just like
it's not a bad thing today to use Vicodin. Same drug, different form.
Both highly addictive, yet one is illegal and one is not. One is
prescribed by doctors and one is not. I'm sure you're completely and
thoroughly anchored to the thought that all of ceremonial magic is
nonsense and doesn't work and does absolutely nothing, based on
nothing more than the fact that Crowley used prescription heroin, so
I'm not even attempting to disabuse you of your prejudices.
I'm merely shining the light of Truth on you. He didn't "cure" himself
because there was no need.
Ludwig Prinn
> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>
>
>
> Ludwig Prinn <masterpr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 1:34=A0pm, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>
> >> > I'll actually agree with this, conditionally. The "authentic magickal
> >> > lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
> >> > physical principles which we have yet to understand.
>
> >> And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
> >> are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
>
> > Nothing is "supernatural". All things "metaphysical" are merely
> > principles of physics we have yet to understand. When we understand
> > them fully, they will cease to be "metaphysical" principles. Science
> > is always marching headlong into mystery, clearing away the
> > superstition with the power of truth.
>
> No. Physical science is looking for what _it_ calls truth, as
> defined by _its_ conceptions of what the nature of reality is.
>
> It wears blinders and thus has missed the truth completely.
Actually, everything we know about the world, including the new
discoveries we make every day, we owe to the Scientific Method and
nothing else. YOU might dismiss science as being blindered and
useless, but I think you're smelling your own upper lip there as
evidenced by the tone of your posts.
> >> But there is nothing physical that has anything to do with
> >> magick. Everything physical is the _result_ of magick.
>
> > That's a nice profund-sounding statement that actually means
> > nothing.
>
> That's the essence of magick. If you don't know that you know
> nothing about magick.
TRANSLATION: "I'm going to make a vague nonsensical statement and
claim it's of some vital importance, and when you call me on my
bullshit I'm going to claim that if you disagree with me you simply
don't understand magic."
Sorry dumbass, but the Emperor does not in fact have any clothes on.
I'm not buying your bullshit on your say-so alone. If you feel you
know something I don't know about magic, then come right out and say
it in plain terms. Your silly posturing and formulaic pontificating
accomplishes nothing.
> I see no point in arguing with you. We have very different
> conceptions of what magick is.
TRANSLATION: "You've caught me out and I can already see that you're
getting ready to kick my ass SOLID, so I'm going to yip one last time
and then run off with my tail between my legs. Consider this my Brave
Exit Speech™."
Sidney Lambe
>> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>>
>>
>>
>> Ludwig Prinn <masterpr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>>
> l
>> >> > lore" in question is really nothing more mysterious than obscure
>> >> > physical principles which we have yet to understand.
>>
>> >> And metaphysical principles, though I think you understand that they
>> >> are one and the same thing. Nature is supernatural.
>>
>> > Nothing is "supernatural". All things "metaphysical" are merely
>> > principles of physics we have yet to understand. When we understand
>> > them fully, they will cease to be "metaphysical" principles. Science
>> > is always marching headlong into mystery, clearing away the
>> > superstition with the power of truth.
>>
>> No. Physical science is looking for what _it_ calls truth, as
>> defined by _its_ conceptions of what the nature of reality is.
>>
>> It wears blinders and thus has missed the truth completely.
>
> Actually, everything we know about the world, including the new
> discoveries we make every day, we owe to the Scientific Method and
> nothing else.
You really are an idiot.
Welcome to my killfile.
What the hell are you doing on the magickal groups?
Fanatics followers of the religion of phsyical science
have there own groups.
And spare us your other sockpuppets.
[delete]
Sid
Sidney Lambe
>
>> I am being quite fair here. Crowley couldn't cure his pain
>> with his alleged magickal skills and chose the half-life of
>> a junkie.
>
> Again, you're presuming to judge a prior age based on modern morals
> and dogma.
No I am not. I am talking about simple realities.
>
> BACK THEN, it wasn't considered a bad thing to use heroin, just like
> it's not a bad thing today to use Vicodin. Same drug, different form.
> Both highly addictive, yet one is illegal and one is not. One is
> prescribed by doctors and one is not. I'm sure you're completely and
> thoroughly anchored to the thought that all of ceremonial magic is
> nonsense and doesn't work and does absolutely nothing, based on
> nothing more than the fact that Crowley used prescription heroin, so
> I'm not even attempting to disabuse you of your prejudices.
>
> I'm merely shining the light of Truth on you. He didn't "cure" himself
> because there was no need.
There's no need to cure the causes of persistent pain that is so terrible
that you need the strongest known painkiller of the time to get through
the day?
You sir, are an idiot.
He didn't cure himself because he didn't know how.
Crowley was an incompetent magician. With a huge ego.
Apparently, you want to believe that the drivel he wrote was about
magick. Fine.
At least I know that you don't know anything about magick.
Ludwig Prinn
> #Followup-To: alt.religion.wicca
>
> > On Dec 23, 12:29 pm, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I am being quite fair here. Crowley couldn't cure his pain
> >> with his alleged magickal skills and chose the half-life of
> >> a junkie.
>
> > Again, you're presuming to judge a prior age based on modern morals
> > and dogma.
>
> No I am not. I am talking about simple realities.
You are talking about things presumed "realities" TODAY. Back then,
their reality was different. This is a known fact, and your insistence
to the contrary is nothing short of foolish.
> > BACK THEN, it wasn't considered a bad thing to use heroin, just like
> > it's not a bad thing today to use Vicodin. Same drug, different form.
> > Both highly addictive, yet one is illegal and one is not. One is
> > prescribed by doctors and one is not. I'm sure you're completely and
> > thoroughly anchored to the thought that all of ceremonial magic is
> > nonsense and doesn't work and does absolutely nothing, based on
> > nothing more than the fact that Crowley used prescription heroin, so
> > I'm not even attempting to disabuse you of your prejudices.
>
> > I'm merely shining the light of Truth on you. He didn't "cure" himself
> > because there was no need.
>
> There's no need to cure the causes of persistent pain that is so terrible
> that you need the strongest known painkiller of the time to get through
> the day?
Heroin wasn't "the cause of persistent pain". Heroin was the medicine
he used to relieve it. Try to stay on topic here.
If you're suddenly switching subjects to discuss his various dental
issues, yes he was getting treatment for his teeth. However, there was
a war on and civilian medical care was slow in coming. Prescription
heroin was the best most people could hope for, to tide them over
until they could be seen by a doctor.
And, uh, didn't you just say you didn't want to argue? Are you
supposed to be shutting up about now?
Now that you've lost, that is.
separatus
There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All existence is
Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
> > I'm not trying to stir the pot, but this is an important point to cover to ensure I understand.
> The concept of Evil (notice the capital E) is one of a creative force that is seperate from, and opposed to, God. No such thing exists. There are bad things that go on, but they represent the misuse, because of ignorance, of the same creative force that is responsible for all the things we call good.
> It's All Good = It's All God
>
creative force that is at odds with God as previously defined.
However, this counter-principle does not exist. What exists that is
perceived to be evil is the mis-use of God's creative force which is
designed and responsible for all things we call good.
If the mis-use of God's creative force which is designed and
responsible for all things we call good results in a negative effect
that is perceived to be evil, is the result evil or secretly good, or
neither. You are describing a very kabbalistic view here (which I am
familiar with), but how is this perceived (and potential) Evil to be
correctly judged? By God? By man? By the Selves representing the
Divine Spark (I know you aren't entirely happy with this term) of God?
Or is Evil in the minds of men?
Sidney Lambe
separatus <separa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:57=A0pm, Sidney Lambe <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote: There is no outside. And thus there is no Evil. All
> existence is Blessed. All apparent Evil is only ignorance.
>
>> I'm discussing reality. Real physics. There is no outside.
>> But that's what the artificial/false concept of Evil postulates.
>
>> > I'm not trying to stir the pot, but this is an important
>> > point to cover to ensure I understand.
>
>> The concept of Evil (notice the capital E) is one of a
>> creative force that
>
>> is seperate from, and opposed to, God. No such thing exists.
>>There are bad things that go on, but they represent the
>> misuse, because of ignorance, of the same creative force that
>> is responsible for all the things we call good.
>
>> It's All Good = It's All God
Below, I have changed your "evil" to "Evil". Because that is
what you are talking about. It's an important distinction.
> So, if I am to understand. "Real" [E]vil is a counter-principle
> of creative force that is at odds with God as previously
> defined. However, this counter-principle does not exist. What
> exists that is perceived to be [E]vil is the mis-use of God's
> creative force which is designed and responsible for all things
> we call good.
And all things we call bad or Evil. For everything.
> If the mis-use of God's creative force which is designed
> and responsible for all things we call good
Once again, this force is responsible for EVERYTHING.
> results in a negative effect that is perceived to be [E]vil, is
> the result evil or secretly good, or neither.
It's Good. Everything works towards a greater good. Doesn't mean
it isn't something that we should quit doing. Or prevent from
happenning. War is the product of a mental illness that we
should cure. And it is largely caused by the belief in Evil. As
is disease.
> You are describing a very kabbalistic view here (which I am
> familiar with), but how is this perceived (and potential)
> Evil to be correctly judged? By God? By man? By the Selves
> representing the Divine Spark (I know you aren't entirely happy
> with this term) of God?
>
> Or is Evil in the minds of men?
It is an artificial concept. Something that only exists in the minds
of Men. The belief in Evil causes most of the apparent Evil in
the world.
Once you've accepted the concept as valid, then you can kill or
imprison or maim or cheat or torture or rob or enslave anyone
that you have decided is Evil....
We have free will. We have the ability to believe utterly in things
that have no validity outside of that believing. We can believe
that the world is flat if we want to, and thus be forever confined
to one small territory because only a fool would wander off near
the edge of the world, right?
Ludwig Prinn
> I am being quite fair here. Crowley couldn't cure his pain
> with his alleged magickal skills and chose the half-life of
> a junkie.
>
Actually, that's anything *but* fair. Expecting someone to perform a
medical miracle with rituals and spells is like expecting someone to
speak to the dead using an ordinary telephone. Or claiming Chuck
Yeager couldn't fly an airplane simply because he didn't fly one
underwater.
While it *is* possible to temporarily suspend the apprehension of mild
pain through mental/magical techniques, the process is much simpler
and more effective with medicine.
I understand you've got Crowley Issues™, but why not at least pick
something with a reasonable grain of truth to it?
Ludwig Prinn
> > The same observation has been made about snake-handlers,
> > Islamic fundamentalists and Christian mysticism. All extremes
> > lead inevitably to irreconcilable contradictions [Note the plug
> > for the Middle Way]. A wise man once said that "whatever you
> > believe imprisons you". It's a difficult concept to understand
> > and even more difficult to emotionally accept.
>
> That man was not very wise. A real wise man once said "The
> truth will set you free." False beliefs imprison you.
Truth is not the same thing as belief. Even true beliefs imprison you.
The Truth WILL set you free .... from belief.
Ludwig Prinn
> > Again, you're presuming to judge a prior age based on modern morals
> > and dogma.
>
> No I am not. I am talking about simple realities.
There is no such thing as a "simple reality".
> > BACK THEN, it wasn't considered a bad thing to use heroin, just like
> > it's not a bad thing today to use Vicodin. Same drug, different form.
> > Both highly addictive, yet one is illegal and one is not. One is
> > prescribed by doctors and one is not. I'm sure you're completely and
> > thoroughly anchored to the thought that all of ceremonial magic is
> > nonsense and doesn't work and does absolutely nothing, based on
> > nothing more than the fact that Crowley used prescription heroin, so
> > I'm not even attempting to disabuse you of your prejudices.
>
> > I'm merely shining the light of Truth on you. He didn't "cure" himself
> > because there was no need.
>
> There's no need to cure the causes of persistent pain that is so terrible
> that you need the strongest known painkiller of the time to get through
> the day?
Now you're changing the subject. I said there was no need to "cure"
his addiction because AT THAT TIME, heroin was simply medicine. Do you
need to cure yourself from aspirin or coffee? Of course not, despite
their ill effects.
> Crowley was an incompetent magician. With a huge ego.
That sounds like a subject near and dear to your heart.
> Apparently, you want to believe that the drivel he wrote was about
> magick. Fine.
>
> At least I know that you don't know anything about magick.
You can make all the claims you want, but simply making the statements
doesn't make them true.
If you want to imprison yourself in the belief that you're better than
me because we disagree and you can't support your claims, by all means
go right ahead.
Strike hard and low!
Your claims have no actual effect on me, only on yourself.