Thoth's Devil & Sex (was: The Devil)
Gary Achenbach
(Moved to a new thread only because the old one has bit the electronic dust on
my newsserver.)
>>> Given all these indicators, I'm curious what the arguments are for
>>> the card portraying sodomy rather than vaginal intercourse.
>
>>Let's understand that for purposes of this argument, YOUR
>>'position' is that 'vaginal'=procreative, is that
>>right? If not, then please explain what virtues, or
>Yes, procreative in terms of engendering new
>life--as opposed to creative inspiration, spiritual
>awakening, or what have you. It's a card representing
>animal instincts, yes? Breeding is certainly an animal
>instinct as opposed to painting a picture.
I don't think that the Devil here is "about" sex (regardless of orifice
offered or technical legality in Arkansas) any more than it is "about" a
cyclopean mountain goat. Just uses them as various ways of pointing at
meaning.
The Devil's not concerned with "lust of result", keep in mind. His purpose in
banging Nuit isn't procreation itself). Animal instincts, sure, but it's more
of the raw urge to penetrate than the more complicated urge to produce new
life--the latter isn't precluded, I don't think (elemental dignification, come
to think of it, may well lean the Devil in that direction in a reading), but
the Devil in itself is more raw and, er, Bestial, than that.
--Gar
J. Karlin
Gary Achenbach wrote:
> I don't think that the Devil here is "about" sex (regardless of orifice
> offered or technical legality in Arkansas) any more than it is "about" a
> cyclopean mountain goat. Just uses them as various ways of pointing at
> meaning.
What meaning?
> The Devil's not concerned with "lust of result", keep in mind. His purpose in
> banging Nuit isn't procreation itself).
So what's the purpose?
> Animal instincts, sure, but it's more
> of the raw urge to penetrate
To penetrate what exactly?
> than the more complicated urge to produce new
> life--
Now, that 'urge' need not be complicated or even conscious.
> the latter isn't precluded, I don't think (elemental dignification, come
> to think of it, may well lean the Devil in that direction in a reading), but
> the Devil in itself is more raw and, er, Bestial, than that.
These things would have no special connection to sex, in your
view?
(jk)
Gary Achenbach
>> I don't think that the Devil here is "about" sex (regardless of orifice
>> offered or technical legality in Arkansas) any more than it is "about" a
>> cyclopean mountain goat. Just uses them as various ways of pointing at
>> meaning.
>
>What meaning?
>
The meaning of the card. Which sounds trite, I know. "Urge for its own sake"
would be the summary off the top of my head, imperfect as it may be.
>> The Devil's not concerned with "lust of result", keep in mind. His purpose
> in
>> banging Nuit isn't procreation itself).
>
>So what's the purpose?
>
The purpose isn't something outside the urge; it's just the ecstacy of having
it, and the urge in action, rather than it in completion, or any natural
outcome from the action. "Sublimely careless of result", etc.
>> Animal instincts, sure, but it's more
>> of the raw urge to penetrate
>
>To penetrate what exactly?
>
Does it really matter? I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
waiting. :) I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what it
does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
>> than the more complicated urge to produce new
>> life--
>
>Now, that 'urge' need not be complicated or even conscious.
>
True enough. "More complicated" isn't a good adjective in this case.
>> the latter isn't precluded, I don't think (elemental dignification, come
>> to think of it, may well lean the Devil in that direction in a reading), but
>> the Devil in itself is more raw and, er, Bestial, than that.
>
>These things would have no special connection to sex, in your
>view?
Well, "special" seems a bit vague. No necessary connection. The creative
impulse manifests and drives all sorts of activity, sex included. I think the
Devil depiction uses sexual imagery to point to that impulse rather than to
sex itself--it's a convenient pointer.
--Gar
J. Karlin
Gary Achenbach wrote:
> >So what's the purpose?
> >
> The purpose isn't something outside the urge; it's just the ecstacy of having
> it, and the urge in action, rather than it in completion, or any natural
> outcome from the action. "Sublimely careless of result", etc.
What does all that really mean, say to someone who
has just read Dr. Z's comment:
"When you are freed from all moralistic limitations you
will surrender with utter ecstasy in every manifestation,
tasting the divine in everything. You will enjoy and continue
on, without clinging."
I'm always concerned when we try to reduce something
like---
"If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I
droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is
rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one."
"The formula of this card is then the complete
appreciation of all existing things. He rejoices in
the rugged and the barren no less than in the smooth
and the fertile."
---to the comments quoted above from Gerd Ziegler.
The path of the 'rugged and the barren' versus that of
the 'smooth and the fertile' is not merely talking about
the differences between off- and on-road 'adventures'.
It is necessary, in other words, to appreciate that
'complete appreciation' does not imply amorality
(as Dr. Z. asserts it does), but rather a morality
based, as Nietzche said, in an understanding lying
'beyond good and evil'.
> >To penetrate what exactly?
> >
> Does it really matter?
Well, why make a distinction here between paths
(barren and fertile), or even between gonads?
> I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
> waiting. :)
Maybe not all of them have the same 'fit' or effect.
> I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
> the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what it
> does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
> impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
You mean he does not desire to procreate any particular
thing?
Procreation would not be something that would compel
him to act, and so it can't be said that this is
even a 'natural' urge or motive of his action,
is that right?
Nevertheless, he desires ecstasy. Presumably, he
desires this even in places where there is little
or no obvious chance that he would acquire it.
I mean, if he's really looking for 'all things'
to exalt him, then that seem to indicate ALSO those
things which would make him go limp, right?
And yet, he must find ecstacy there, or the formula
really can't work or be valid, correct?
> >These things would have no special connection to sex, in your
> >view?
>
> Well, "special" seems a bit vague. No necessary connection.
So, please explain to me how one acquires a sense of
ecstasy without recourse to sex (I'm not suggesting that
they'll necessarily get it---but it's the way most
people at least get a glimmer of it). Even if you
argue that the sexless mystics of the world have
found it through spirit, I would say that they,
more than most, were actually consumed by their
sexual passions.
Indeed, what we are really talking about here is
Sex, or SEX!!!, not just sex.
It's wanting to Fuck the Universe. Perhaps the question
here is whether it's also wanting to Buttfuck the
Universe, and what the difference would indicate.
(jk)
yodman
J. Karlin wrote:
> It's wanting to Fuck the Universe.
and while you're at it, Fuck the Millenium
> Perhaps the question
> here is whether it's also wanting to Buttfuck the
> Universe, and what the difference would indicate.
I'm not sure what the difference would indicate though I do measure
the difference to be 2 degrees.
Kenn
--
"Sing on all you want, my dear Cricket;
but I know that I'm going away tomorrow at dawn, ...."
"Le Aventure di Pinocchio"
Carlo Lorenzini, aka Carlo Collodi
J. Karlin
yodman wrote:
>
> J. Karlin wrote:
>
> > It's wanting to Fuck the Universe.
>
> and while you're at it, Fuck the Millenium
I think you'll have to take a number for that one.
There are at least two lines, too.
> > Perhaps the question
> > here is whether it's also wanting to Buttfuck the
> > Universe, and what the difference would indicate.
>
> I'm not sure what the difference would indicate though I do measure
> the difference to be 2 degrees.
Either way.
(jk)
Gary Achenbach
>> The purpose isn't something outside the urge; it's just the ecstacy of having
>> it, and the urge in action, rather than it in completion, or any natural
>> outcome from the action. "Sublimely careless of result", etc.
>
>What does all that really mean, say to someone who
>has just read Dr. Z's comment:
>
>"When you are freed from all moralistic limitations you
>will surrender with utter ecstasy in every manifestation,
>tasting the divine in everything. You will enjoy and continue
>on, without clinging."
>
Well, I've never read Z-Wonder's work, but based on this excerpt it sounds
like his whole idiom is softening the cards? The above is troubling to me
because "you" are not "the Devil" (many would disagree, I'm sure).
>The path of the 'rugged and the barren' versus that of
>the 'smooth and the fertile' is not merely talking about
>the differences between off- and on-road 'adventures'.
>
Agreed.
>It is necessary, in other words, to appreciate that
>'complete appreciation' does not imply amorality
>(as Dr. Z. asserts it does), but rather a morality
>based, as Nietzche said, in an understanding lying
>'beyond good and evil'.
>
Well, I think the Devil *in itself* is a powerfully amoral card--part of why
the quote from Z you provide troubles me--the Devil isn't really something to,
willy-nilly, indulge in. Akin to the folks who think "Do what thou wilt"
means "hey, do whatever you want, man. No consequences!"
I'd note that the last time I read any Nietzsche, I was fourteen. So I've
understandable reluctance to trust my recollections of it to comment on that
descriptor as opposed to "amoral".
>> >To penetrate what exactly?
>> >
>> Does it really matter?
>
>Well, why make a distinction here between paths
>(barren and fertile), or even between gonads?
>
We make distinctions because it's part of being human. The Devil, as a force
or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that. When I say
"does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't matter
for people (it most certainly does)--I'm saying it doesn't much matter, during
the state of the Devil, to the Devil. Which is why it takes that special kind
of morality to control him, and not vice versa.
So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. People
aren't.
>> I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
>> waiting. :)
>
>Maybe not all of them have the same 'fit' or effect.
>
No maybe about it, I'd say. But I don't see the choice between them to be
what the Devil is, in itself, about. Depending on which one, the natural
consequences will vary. "Which one" should come about in the relationships to
other cards, the query, layout place, etc.
>> I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
>> the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what
> it
>> does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
>> impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
>
>You mean he does not desire to procreate any particular
>thing?
>
Not any *particular* thing, yes. Whoever the person, or whatever the forces,
who are causing the Devil to be bounding about a situation, may or may not
have a particular desire in mind.
>Procreation would not be something that would compel
>him to act, and so it can't be said that this is
>even a 'natural' urge or motive of his action,
>is that right?
>
The whole procreation issue was really not phrased well by me. Procreation
(of one sort or another) is a natural enough consequence of the Devil's
actions. I don't have a problem calling the urge to the root of his behavior,
I guess. However, I do think the card isn't about the reasons for it being
what it is and why it does what it does--but simply what it is, and why it
does what it does.
>Nevertheless, he desires ecstasy. Presumably, he
>desires this even in places where there is little
>or no obvious chance that he would acquire it.
>
>I mean, if he's really looking for 'all things'
>to exalt him, then that seem to indicate ALSO those
>things which would make him go limp, right?
>
When the Devil goes limp, he is no longer the Devil. But otherwise, yeah,
more or less. Although I have problems with "looking for"--there's a kind of
blindness to the card.
>And yet, he must find ecstacy there, or the formula
>really can't work or be valid, correct?
>
Right. Whether the people he drags along will is another matter.
>So, please explain to me how one acquires a sense of
>ecstasy without recourse to sex (I'm not suggesting that
>they'll necessarily get it---but it's the way most
>people at least get a glimmer of it). Even if you
>argue that the sexless mystics of the world have
>found it through spirit, I would say that they,
>more than most, were actually consumed by their
>sexual passions.
>
No problem with any of this.
>Indeed, what we are really talking about here is
>Sex, or SEX!!!, not just sex.
>
I think we're in agreement here as well. I said something akin to "the
creative impulse drives all sorts of behavior, sex included." It works just
as well to say, "'Sex' drives all sorts of behavior, 'sex' included." The
Devil uses sexual imagery (that brings 'sex' to mind) to point at a deeper
meaning. Not "about" "sex", but about "Sex". I don't disagree with that
rephrasing, but am troubled by its vagueness.
--Gar
J. Karlin
Gary Achenbach wrote:
> Well, I've never read Z-Wonder's work,
Really, ask Kohoutek about it (course he probably won't
answer you)---he loves the thing, he's always making ads
for it, claims it is better than reading Crowley;s
stuff. Better for what exactly he's not specified.
> but based on this excerpt it sounds
> like his whole idiom is softening the cards?
That's what the pop tarotiers do.
> The above is troubling to me
> because "you" are not "the Devil" (many would disagree, I'm sure).
Like I said in response to one of the myriad
suggestions that jk WAS the Devil---
Vox populi, vox Diaboli.
Of course you were (probably) meaning to say that 'you',
the viewer-reader, is not meant to identify himself
with 'the Devil' or a demon or evil creature, is that
right?
> >The path of the 'rugged and the barren' versus that of
> >the 'smooth and the fertile' is not merely talking about
> >the differences between off- and on-road 'adventures'.
> Agreed.
Good, OK, just to make sure, what do you think IS
being referenced here?
> >It is necessary, in other words, to appreciate that
> >'complete appreciation' does not imply amorality
> >(as Dr. Z. asserts it does), but rather a morality
> >based, as Nietzche said, in an understanding lying
> >'beyond good and evil'.
> >
> Well, I think the Devil *in itself* is a powerfully amoral card--
Explain.
> part of why
> the quote from Z you provide troubles me--
You mean because he appears to agree with you?
> the Devil isn't really something to,
> willy-nilly, indulge in.
Well he does seem to be sticking his willy in a nilly,
you know.
But, anyway, what do you mean here? Why no willy-nilly
indulgence?
> Akin to the folks who think "Do what thou wilt"
> means "hey, do whatever you want, man. No consequences!"
So, are they wrong? How come?
> I'd note that the last time I read any Nietzsche, I was fourteen.
Well, unless you fifteen now, it might be time for a review.
I would simply say that if it weren't for Nietzsche, I doubt
Crowley would have been nearly so clear about what he
thought. N. obviously provides a lot of the philosophical
basis for AC's ideas.
>So I've
> understandable reluctance to trust my recollections of it to comment on that
> descriptor as opposed to "amoral".
Well, do you want some quotes on what 'morality' meant
to Nietsche, or to Crowley?
>> >> >To penetrate what exactly?
> >> >
> >> Does it really matter?
> >
> >Well, why make a distinction here between paths
> >(barren and fertile), or even between gonads?
> >
> We make distinctions because it's part of being human. The Devil, as a force
> or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that.
You sure? You sure it's not instead one of the two main ways to
'get there'?
> When I say
> "does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't matter
> for people (it most certainly does)--I'm saying it doesn't much matter, during
> the state of the Devil, to the Devil.
Yeah, but we don't see an alternative hole, do we?
> Which is why it takes that special kind
> of morality to control him, and not vice versa.
Why do you want to 'control' him? What kind of morality?
Special in what way?
> So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. People
> aren't.
Oh...I kind of think lots of them are REAL careless.
> >> I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
> >> waiting. :)
> >
> >Maybe not all of them have the same 'fit' or effect.
> No maybe about it, I'd say. But I don't see the choice between them to be
> what the Devil is, in itself, about. Depending on which one, the natural
> consequences will vary.
But the point here is that the karmic consequences will
vary too.
> "Which one" should come about in the relationships to
> other cards, the query, layout place, etc.
That's a reading concern, I'm talking about what the card
means, what the symbolism suggests.
Although, which hole to stick it in probably does
nicely summarize the real basis for most of the questions
ever asked of fortune-tellers.
> >> I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
> >> the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what
> > it
> >> does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
> >> impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
> >
> >You mean he does not desire to procreate any particular
> >thing?
> >
> Not any *particular* thing, yes. Whoever the person, or whatever the forces,
> who are causing the Devil to be bounding about a situation, may or may not
> have a particular desire in mind.
Then why do they do anything?
> >Procreation would not be something that would compel
> >him to act, and so it can't be said that this is
> >even a 'natural' urge or motive of his action,
> >is that right?
> The whole procreation issue was really not phrased well by me.
Well, let's ask a question then, what's meant by 'procreation'?
And why is that of no particular concern to this Devil
(of Crowley's).
> Procreation
> (of one sort or another) is a natural enough consequence of the Devil's
> actions.
What are his actions, exactly?
> I don't have a problem calling the urge to the root of his behavior,
> I guess.
What do you mean here? 'calling the urge'?
> However, I do think the card isn't about the reasons for it being
> what it is and why it does what it does--but simply what it is, and why it
> does what it does.
More ??. What do you mean?
> >I mean, if he's really looking for 'all things'
> >to exalt him, then that seem to indicate ALSO those
> >things which would make him go limp, right?
> >
>
> When the Devil goes limp, he is no longer the Devil.
Poor guy, he's under a lot of pressure to perform.
Why is that?
> But otherwise, yeah,
> more or less. Although I have problems with "looking for"--there's a kind of
> blindness to the card.
What kind?
> >And yet, he must find ecstacy there, or the formula
> >really can't work or be valid, correct?
> >
> Right. Whether the people he drags along will is another matter.
Again, explain. Who is he dragging along and why?
Are you talking about the chained figures of Waite's
card or what exactly?
> >Indeed, what we are really talking about here is
> >Sex, or SEX!!!, not just sex.
> >
> I think we're in agreement here as well. I said something akin to "the
> creative impulse drives all sorts of behavior, sex included."
I may not be saying that.
> It works just
> as well to say, "'Sex' drives all sorts of behavior, 'sex' included."
Again, I may not really be saying that.
In other words, when I put the big snake on it I'm
still talking about sex.
> The
> Devil uses sexual imagery (that brings 'sex' to mind) to point at a deeper
> meaning.
What is the deeper meaning?
> Not "about" "sex", but about "Sex". I don't disagree with that
> rephrasing, but am troubled by its vagueness.
All the more reason to explain things---
so in your view, define:
sex---
&
Sex---
and compare and contrast the two with respect to this
card.
Starting to sound like tarot college or something, huh?
(jk)
Gary Achenbach
In article , dra...@abstracttoreply.anet-stl.com (Gary Achenbach) wrote:
> However, I do think the card isn't about the reasons for it being
>what it is and why it does what it does--but simply what it is, and why it
>does what it does.
>
Rather: "simply what it is, and what it does." Damn language hiccups.
--Gar
Mile23
In article <34E1D24A...@texas.net>, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net>
wrote:
>> The
>> Devil uses sexual imagery (that brings 'sex' to mind) to point at a deeper
>> meaning.
>
>What is the deeper meaning?
The deeper meaning one must invent in order to get around one's puritan
upbringing and not be alienated by Crowley's Devil, of course. Aha! The
*real* reason for pop-tarot!
>so in your view, define:
>
>sex---
fucking.
>Sex---
Fucking.
>and compare and contrast the two with respect to this
>card.
There's a lot of fucking going on in this card. It can be capitalized or
not (what capitalization means is up to the one (or two or more) doing the
fucking).
>Starting to sound like tarot college or something, huh?
>
>(jk)
Well, actually, in college I never got laid.
--
Trying to email me without removing 'NOSPAM' from the address will result
in Bad Nasty Awful Things.
Gary Achenbach
>> Well, I've never read Z-Wonder's work,
>
>Really, ask Kohoutek about it
I enjoy the occasional exercise in futility, but that one would just bore me.
?
>> The above is troubling to me
>> because "you" are not "the Devil" (many would disagree, I'm sure).
>
>Of course you were (probably) meaning to say that 'you',
>the viewer-reader, is not meant to identify himself
>with 'the Devil' or a demon or evil creature, is that
>right?
>
Right.
>> >The path of the 'rugged and the barren' versus that of
>> >the 'smooth and the fertile' is not merely talking about
>> >the differences between off- and on-road 'adventures'.
>
>> Agreed.
>
>Good, OK, just to make sure, what do you think IS
>being referenced here?
>
All things and every phenomenon, which are exactly and only what they
are--every adjective and distinction that people apply to the universe, and
parts of it, are after the fact.
When a toddler wants to touch a flower because it's bright and pretty, the
urge to do so has nothing to do with whatever the experience "touching the
flower" is going to be like. When that same kid wants to touch the red-hot
burner on the stove, for the same reasons, the same thing applies. Feeling a
petal beneath fingertips, or burning the hell out of fingertips (and learning
a valuable lesson--hopefully--from the process) are natural consequences,
depending on what the urge has accomplished. The natural consequences are
contextual, based on what the Devil (the urge-in-itself, in my view) causes,
but aren't the Devil-in-itself, except as a secondary issue only.
>> Well, I think the Devil *in itself* is a powerfully amoral card--
>
>Explain.
>
"the impulse to create takes no account of reason, custom, or foresight. It
is divinely unscrupulous, sublimely careless of result." It just plain
doesn't care what happens from what it does. What will happen isn't
necessarily "good" or "bad"--that'll depend on what exactly is being
fucked. That, to me, is "amoral"--in this case, a Nietzschean descriptor may
well be a far better term for it.
>> part of why
>> the quote from Z you provide troubles me--
>
>You mean because he appears to agree with you?
>
From the excerpt you provide, I do not get the impression that he agrees with
me, or vice versa. He seems to be advocating the Devil as the way people
should act (probably does that with all the cards, thus making a fine muddle).
I am certainly not doing that.
>> the Devil isn't really something to,
>> willy-nilly, indulge in.
>
>Well he does seem to be sticking his willy in a nilly,
>you know.
>
>But, anyway, what do you mean here? Why no willy-nilly
>indulgence?
>
If I lived alone, surrounded by a thousand square miles of desert, my actions
would have no (measurable) effect on other people. I don't, and they do.
Every action has natural consequences--willy-nilly indulgence in action, with
blind disregard for those consequences, isn't the smartest way to go about
things.
>> Akin to the folks who think "Do what thou wilt"
>> means "hey, do whatever you want, man. No consequences!"
>
>So, are they wrong? How come?
>
They're wrong about the no consequences part. No one and nothing is in a
vacuum.
>> I'd note that the last time I read any Nietzsche, I was fourteen.
>
>Well, unless you fifteen now, it might be time for a review.
>
It's on the agenda. I've got some Waite to go through first (the benefit of
the hermit-icism thing--a goad).
>>So I've
>> understandable reluctance to trust my recollections of it to comment on that
>> descriptor as opposed to "amoral".
>
>Well, do you want some quotes on what 'morality' meant
>to Nietsche, or to Crowley?
>
Absolutely. If it knocks some ideas into a new alignment, so much the better.
>> We make distinctions because it's part of being human. The Devil, as a force
>> or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that.
>
>You sure? You sure it's not instead one of the two main ways to
>'get there'?
>
Pretty sure, yep. Just one of the 32 bits and pieces of Ye Olde Tree
(although down in the area most practically used in day to day life). I'll
note that I don't mean "small subset" to equal "not very important", or as a
pejorative.
>> When I say
>> "does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't matter
>> for people (it most certainly does)--I'm saying it doesn't much matter,
> during
>> the state of the Devil, to the Devil.
>
>Yeah, but we don't see an alternative hole, do we?
>
On the card? Nope. Does that mean there's only the one there? Nope.
>> Which is why it takes that special kind
>> of morality to control him, and not vice versa.
>
>Why do you want to 'control' him? What kind of morality?
>Special in what way?
>
I favor the notion that the Tree is a useful psychological model, and that
things get unhealthy when all of it doesn't function in balance. Which much
of the time is more of a pendulum's "balance" than a flat rock on flat ground.
Morality in seeing, with as much clarity as one is capable, what consequences
arise from what actions, and thus taking action not reluctantly (out of
cringing), but whole-heartedly because it's the action you've decided upon.
Not wasting gestures and not wobbling, essentially--I tacked "special" onto
that because I think most people spend the bulk of their lives wobbling about
in desperate indecision. Part of the reason for that is being pulled in
contrary directions by various urges--all kinds of nillies out there, but only
the one willy, so to speak.
>> So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. People
>> aren't.
>
>Oh...I kind of think lots of them are REAL careless.
>
True enough. "People aren't necessarily careless about what, just out of
habit", then.
>> No maybe about it, I'd say. But I don't see the choice between them to be
>> what the Devil is, in itself, about. Depending on which one, the natural
>> consequences will vary.
>
>But the point here is that the karmic consequences will
>vary too.
>
"Natural consequences" is exactly the same as "karmic consequences", in my
view. If you try to lick that tasty iron railing in dead winter, your tongue
is going to stick to it. That's a natural consequence; that's karma.
>> "Which one" should come about in the relationships to
>> other cards, the query, layout place, etc.
>
>That's a reading concern, I'm talking about what the card
>means, what the symbolism suggests.
>
Fair enough--I think the "which one" question, though, is something that's
only really of relevance as a reading concern. The symbolism causes it to
arise naturally enough.
>Although, which hole to stick it in probably does
>nicely summarize the real basis for most of the questions
>ever asked of fortune-tellers.
>
I suppose people could have a discussion about whether or not it's moral to
perform a reading for a hole not personally in front of the reader, too.
>> Not any *particular* thing, yes. Whoever the person, or whatever the forces,
>> who are causing the Devil to be bounding about a situation, may or may not
>> have a particular desire in mind.
>
>Then why do they do anything?
>
I really haven't the faintest idea. Why do stars (the astronomical variety)
behave the way they do? Because of the behavior of such and such atoms in
such amount of density and gravity and whatnot, sure, but...why does all that
stuff act the way it does? Ain't no soldier that can kill that particular
hunchback for good. People do what they do because they're people. It's
God's will, or it's their True Will, or the elf in their head commands them,
or it's a really amazing symphony of cascading effects caused by the protein
behavior their DNA drives. I dunno. I don't think it matters, really, except
as a mental exercise.
>> >Procreation would not be something that would compel
>> >him to act, and so it can't be said that this is
>> >even a 'natural' urge or motive of his action,
>> >is that right?
>
>> The whole procreation issue was really not phrased well by me.
>
..or thought out well by me, either. Phrasing's not the thought, but they do
tend to reinforce each other.
>Well, let's ask a question then, what's meant by 'procreation'?
>
To cause new stuff to be.
>And why is that of no particular concern to this Devil
>(of Crowley's).
>
It's of general concern; it doesn't much care about the particulars.
>> Procreation
>> (of one sort or another) is a natural enough consequence of the Devil's
>> actions.
>
>What are his actions, exactly?
>
>> I don't have a problem calling the urge to the root of his behavior,
>> I guess.
>
>What do you mean here? 'calling the urge'?
>
"the urge to [do so]". Phrasing hiccup.
>> However, I do think the card isn't about the reasons for it being
>> what it is and why it does what it does--but simply what it is, and why it
>> does what it does.
..and what it does, as I corrected in another post. Should've taken a drink
of water.
>
>More ??. What do you mean?
>
The search for reasons why does not stop. Ever. I think that looking for
motivations and reasons behind the Devil is a blind alley. You'll find all
sorts of junk back there in the dark, but there isn't an end to it.
It can be said that the Devil does what it does in order to procreate. But
why does it want to do that? And so on.
>> When the Devil goes limp, he is no longer the Devil.
>
>Poor guy, he's under a lot of pressure to perform.
>
>Why is that?
>
I don't think he's under a lot of pressure to perform. "Peforming" is what it
does. You might as well say that that earlier tot touching a hot burner is
under a lot of pressure to burn his hand--he isn't, it just happens. The
Devil isn't under pressure to be the Devil any more than the Moon is under
pressure to be the Moon.
See, "under pressure to [do/be] whatever" implies something being forced to do
something it wouldn't ordinarily do. I don't think that applies here.
>> But otherwise, yeah,
>> more or less. Although I have problems with "looking for"--there's a kind of
>> blindness to the card.
>
>What kind?
>
Blindness towards the consequences of whatever action the urge causes to take
place.
>> >And yet, he must find ecstacy there, or the formula
>> >really can't work or be valid, correct?
>> >
>> Right. Whether the people he drags along will is another matter.
>
>Again, explain. Who is he dragging along and why?
>
People will throw away entire careers for a few minutes of physical pleasure.
In the heat of the moment, people will kill others. People do all sorts of
dumb things due to urges of various strengths--they don't really consider
clearly what may be likely to happen because of that. (If they did, they'd
be more discreet, or establish an alibi.) People have the capacity to see
what consequences will arise from what actions--most don't *use* it to any
extent, but they have it. And, thus, they get drug along.
>Are you talking about the chained figures of Waite's
>card or what exactly?
>
Probably not. Except possibly by accident.
>In other words, when I put the big snake on it I'm
>still talking about sex.
>
Fair enough.
>> The
>> Devil uses sexual imagery (that brings 'sex' to mind) to point at a deeper
>> meaning.
>
>What is the deeper meaning?
>
Blind urge, neither good nor bad in itself. I don't call it "deeper" as in
"more profound"--more widely applicable, if nothing else.
>> Not "about" "sex", but about "Sex". I don't disagree with that
>> rephrasing, but am troubled by its vagueness.
>
>All the more reason to explain things---
>
>so in your view, define:
>
>sex---
>
The basic physical mechanics, involving a rather limited range of combinations
of folks' various convexities and concavities.
>Sex---
>
The urge that drives the former and, I argue, other behaviors as well. You
can hang "genetic behavior" baggage on it, or "spiritual behavior" baggage on
it, and so forth, which is why it'll get vague real damn fast.
>and compare and contrast the two with respect to this
>card.
>
This card uses visual imagery suggestive of "sex", willy and the nilly, as a
signifier of "Sex".
Neither of them, regardless of size of snake, is more spiritual or profound
than the other.
--Gar
Svedeka
jk wrote:
>
>It's wanting to Fuck the Universe. Perhaps the question
>here is whether it's also wanting to Buttfuck the
>Universe, and what the difference would indicate.
>
>
I'm impressed. So would have been Meithras (recently departed Grand master of
the XIth degree), methinks.
---Svedeka
md...@best.com
Gary Achenbach wrote:
> >
> >Well, do you want some quotes on what 'morality' meant
> >to Nietsche, or to Crowley?
I'd love to see both.
MLYoung
Gary Achenbach wrote:
>>To penetrate what exactly?
>>
>Does it really matter? I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
waiting. :)
Different orifices have different results; One has the
possibility of conception. The other does not.
>I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
>the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what
>it
>does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
>impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
The creative impulse implies something is being created--
looks like life to me--particularly given the cell division
taking place between the "balls" on the card.
--margaret (yeah, yeah, finally posting to this thread)
>
>>> than the more complicated urge to produce new
>>> life--
>>
>>Now, that 'urge' need not be complicated or even conscious.
>>
>True enough. "More complicated" isn't a good adjective in this case.
>
>>> the latter isn't precluded, I don't think (elemental dignification, come
>>> to think of it, may well lean the Devil in that direction in a reading),
>but
>>> the Devil in itself is more raw and, er, Bestial, than that.
>>
>>These things would have no special connection to sex, in your
>>view?
>
MLYoung
Jess wrote, quoting Beastie Boy:
>"If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I
>droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is
>rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one."
Sounds like masturbation to me--in fact, there's
some similar Biblical phrase
>"The formula of this card is then the complete
>appreciation of all existing things. He rejoices in
>the rugged and the barren no less than in the smooth
>and the fertile."
>
And the smooth and the fertile sure as hell sounds
like the uterus.
So, it sounds like any casting of one's seed is a cool
thing. That said, the phallic symbol in the card is
going upward--thus heading toward the smooth and
fertile--vaginal sex.
>---to the comments quoted above from Gerd Ziegler.
>
>The path of the 'rugged and the barren' versus that of
>the 'smooth and the fertile' is not merely talking about
>the differences between off- and on-road 'adventures'.
>
>It is necessary, in other words, to appreciate that
>'complete appreciation' does not imply amorality
>(as Dr. Z. asserts it does), but rather a morality
>based, as Nietzche said, in an understanding lying
>'beyond good and evil'.
>
>> >To penetrate what exactly?
>> >
>> Does it really matter?
>
>Well, why make a distinction here between paths
>(barren and fertile), or even between gonads?
>
>> I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
>> waiting. :)
>
>Maybe not all of them have the same 'fit' or effect.
>
>> I'm just trying to get at the concept that the Devil doesn't do
>> the voodoo that it do so well *for the purpose of* anything other than what
>it
>> does. The creative impulse, but he doesn't harbor and act on that creative
>> impulse for the purpose of getting something other done.
>
>You mean he does not desire to procreate any particular
>thing?
>
>Procreation would not be something that would compel
>him to act, and so it can't be said that this is
>even a 'natural' urge or motive of his action,
>is that right?
>
>Nevertheless, he desires ecstasy. Presumably, he
>desires this even in places where there is little
>or no obvious chance that he would acquire it.
>
>I mean, if he's really looking for 'all things'
>to exalt him, then that seem to indicate ALSO those
>things which would make him go limp, right?
>
>And yet, he must find ecstacy there, or the formula
>really can't work or be valid, correct?
I think I'm following you here, but, once again, the
card seems to depict one phallus pointing upward and
the emphasis is on cell division. The card images
don't seem to be about indiscriminate orgasms.
>
>> >These things would have no special connection to sex, in your
>> >view?
>>
>> Well, "special" seems a bit vague. No necessary connection.
>
>So, please explain to me how one acquires a sense of
>ecstasy without recourse to sex (I'm not suggesting that
>they'll necessarily get it---but it's the way most
>people at least get a glimmer of it). Even if you
>argue that the sexless mystics of the world have
>found it through spirit, I would say that they,
>more than most, were actually consumed by their
>sexual passions.
>
>Indeed, what we are really talking about here is
>Sex, or SEX!!!, not just sex.
>
>It's wanting to Fuck the Universe. Perhaps the question
>here is whether it's also wanting to Buttfuck the
>Universe, and what the difference would indicate.
Well, that's the conundrum that interests me. Procreative
v. nonprocreative sex. As I've said before, the visuals
of the card indicate the former as do the Thoth phrases
you include above. I see a reference to masturbation
and to vaginal intercourse, but not to anal sex.
--margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
> I'm not sure what the difference would indicate though I do measure
>the difference to be 2 degrees.
>
men.
--margaret
>
>
MLYoung
Gary wrote:
>jk wrote:
>>Well, why make a distinction here between paths
>>(barren and fertile), or even between gonads?
>>
>We make distinctions because it's part of being human. The Devil, as a force
>
>or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that. When I say
>"does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't matter
Spoken like a guy. Some sex carries the possibility
of new life, some doesn't. That matters.
>
>for people (it most certainly does)--I'm saying it doesn't much matter,
>during
>the state of the Devil, to the Devil. Which is why it takes that special
>kind
>of morality to control him, and not vice versa.
>
>So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. >People
aren't.
>
I think the Devil is as much a principle as an entity in Thoth.
There is no Devil on the card, there's a goat--a beast.
It's a card, among other things, about the nature of the
human animal.
>>> I don't think so. Nuit has more than enough orifices
>>> waiting. :)
>>
>>Maybe not all of them have the same 'fit' or effect.
>>
>No maybe about it, I'd say. But I don't see the choice between them to be
>what the Devil is, in itself, about. Depending on which one, the natural
>consequences will vary. "Which one" should come about in the relationships
>to
>other cards, the query, layout place, etc.
If the Devil is our bestial nature, both good and bad, I
think that bestial nature includes our bestial form of
continuing our species. In many ways, the emphasis
in the drawing is on the testes, which are also dividing
cell, and the roots of a tree.
<snip>
>>So, please explain to me how one acquires a sense of
>>ecstasy without recourse to sex (I'm not suggesting that
>>they'll necessarily get it---but it's the way most
>>people at least get a glimmer of it). Even if you
>>argue that the sexless mystics of the world have
>>found it through spirit, I would say that they,
>>more than most, were actually consumed by their
>>sexual passions.
>>
>No problem with any of this.
>
>>Indeed, what we are really talking about here is
>>Sex, or SEX!!!, not just sex.
>>
>I think we're in agreement here as well. I said something akin to "the
>creative impulse drives all sorts of behavior, sex included." It works just
>as well to say, "'Sex' drives all sorts of behavior, 'sex' included." The
>Devil uses sexual imagery (that brings 'sex' to mind) to point at a deeper
>meaning. Not "about" "sex", but about "Sex". I don't disagree with that
>rephrasing, but am troubled by its vagueness.
Not a Capricorn are you? <g> I think the Devil is,
among other things, the perception of the creative impulse
in its most physical manifestation. The most physical form
of creation is sex and, in a way, all forms of creation are
a type of sex with someone, something, or some idea.
--margaret
>
>--Gar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>>>Sounds like masturbation to me--in fact, there's some similar
>>>Biblical phrase
>
>
Thus, the relationship of the Devil and sex, though in
the Thoth the Devil doesn't seem to be EVIL. After
all, it is a path that leads to Tiphareth--the perfect
manifestation between spiritual and material.
We're talking the big, big O. From what I understand
of Crowley's essay on the card, it doesn't matter
what kind of sex takes place as long as it leads to that
state. However, the card design itself does seem to
depict vaginal sex and I would say Tiphareth is
about the creation of life. The Devil--good, old
sex is one way to create. Also, the devil does
connect to the female side of the Sephiroth--the
Pillar of Severity--form, rather than spirit..
It's interesting to note the other paths--the Hermit,
male/unilateral creation--basically, the creative potential
as sperm about to manifest itself (the lantern). Over
on the other side, there's Justice, or adjustment.
I'd say, among other things, it's a symbol of female
sexuality--in Rider Waite there's a veil--hymen?
The Thoth Adjustment design has a female pubic
triangle--like the Devil and a body that forms, among
other things, a slit. Certainly, Crowley's writings on
this card confirm this. She is wrapped in a "diaphanous
cloak"--another veil. She is the daughter awakening
"the eld of the All-Father"--aka the Hermit. And
Crowley makes no balls about the balls. Or that the
sword is lying between her thighs. She is, according
to Crowley, the female satisfied. And Libra is ruled
by Venus.
Art (Temperance in Rider-Waite) shows an alchemical,
hermaphroditic form of creation--neither male nor female,
but both--the Middle Pillar. The other two paths are
the High Priestess--which seems to be a direct, virginal
path--she's completely behind the veil in Thoth--and
Death, the sexual aspect of which I haven't totally
figured out, but given that it's affiliated with Scorpio,
there's got to be one.
--margaret
>
MLYoung
>>>The creative impulse implies something is being created--
>>>looks like life to me--particularly given the cell division
>>>taking place between the "balls" on the card.
>
>fully-formed "homunculus" and that females' only purpose during pregnancy
>was to incubate that growing individual...
>
Yep, and you'll find that division of the sexes has a
great deal to do with explaining various symbolism on
the cards--the male=animating spirit, light; female=
form, material, dark.
--margaret
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gary Achenbach
>Thus, the relationship of the Devil and sex, though in
>the Thoth the Devil doesn't seem to be EVIL.
Nor GOOD, of course.
>After
>all, it is a path that leads to Tiphareth--the perfect
>manifestation between spiritual and material.
>
>We're talking the big, big O. From what I understand
>of Crowley's essay on the card, it doesn't matter
>what kind of sex takes place as long as it leads to that
>state.
That's my take on it. Probably better stated, to boot, than the rambling
discussion about orifices & natural "vs" karmic consequences. Live and learn.
Of course, I also say that "sex" in this case can be (doesn't have to be, but
can be) metaphorical.
>However, the card design itself does seem to
>depict vaginal sex and I would say Tiphareth is
>about the creation of life. The Devil--good, old
>sex is one way to create.
That's another thing--I don't think the Devil is "good, old sex" in
entirety--simply the male (here used in a sense that may or may not be
independent of the "actual" genders of whoever's involved in the sexual act)
component of it.
> Also, the devil does
>connect to the female side of the Sephiroth--the
>Pillar of Severity--form, rather than spirit..
>
I would prefer the phrasing "form, rather than force", spirit being a tricky
quality to nail down.
--Gar
MLYoung
Gary wrote:
>mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Thus, the relationship of the Devil and sex, though in
>>the Thoth the Devil doesn't seem to be EVIL.
>
>Nor GOOD, of course.
No, of course not. But then, the Devil usually doesn't
have that association. That said, I think there's a
positive use to the path.
>
>>After
>>all, it is a path that leads to Tiphareth--the perfect
>>manifestation between spiritual and material.
>>
>>We're talking the big, big O. From what I understand
>>of Crowley's essay on the card, it doesn't matter
>>what kind of sex takes place as long as it leads to that
>>state.
>
>That's my take on it. Probably better stated, to boot,
> than the rambling
>discussion about orifices & natural "vs" karmic
>consequences. Live and learn.
>
>Of course, I also say that "sex" in this case can be (doesn't have to >be, but
can be) metaphorical.
>
Human to human sex is one version of an interaction,
I think, that takes place in different ways.
>>However, the card design itself does seem to
>>depict vaginal sex and I would say Tiphareth is
>>about the creation of life. The Devil--good, old
>>sex is one way to create.
>
>That's another thing--I don't think the Devil is "good, old sex" in
>entirety--simply the male (here used in a sense that may or may not be
independent of the "actual" genders of whoever's involved in the sexual act)
component of it.
I thnk you're off here. Certainly the phallic tree is hard
to miss, but so is the hole--and the horns of the goat still
look like they dilineate a female public V. Also, the
balls of the tree are also dividing cells--something that
takes place in the uterus. The male component is the
active energy in the card, but the female, receiving
component is very there. The card is giving form. It
does, after all, connect to Tiphareth from the female
pillar of severity.
In contrast, the Hermit seems a card epitomizing the
male principle without the female.
>> Also, the devil does
>>connect to the female side of the Sephiroth--the
>>Pillar of Severity--form, rather than spirit..
>>
>I would prefer the phrasing "form, rather than force",
>spirit being a tricky quality to nail down.
Cool with me.
--margaret.
>
>--Gar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tom Ace
MLYoung wrote:
> Also, the
> balls of the tree are also dividing cells--something that
> takes place in the uterus.
If I understand right, you're viewing the cell division as
mitosis--the division associated with growth by replication,
as in an embryo developing in the uterus.
Could it not instead be a depiction of meiosis, the division
that results in haploid sperm and egg cells? It is, after all,
shown twice on the card. In one nut it's the background for
female figures, in the other it's the background for male ones.
The male figures look to me symbolic of sperm cells. The
uppermost one is trying to subdue the others. Its head is
shown as if penetrating the membrane of an egg.
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Tom Ace
Susan Vaughn wrote:
> >>Could it not instead be a depiction of meiosis, the division
> >>that results in haploid sperm and egg cells? It is, after all,
> >>shown twice on the card. In one nut it's the background for
> >>female figures, in the other it's the background for male ones.
>
> the Thoth renderings, did we have knowledge of meiotic division?
Absolutely.
Check the dates of the items containing the word 'meiosis' in
the chronology at http://www.zoologie.biologie.de/history.html .
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Gary Achenbach
>>That's another thing--I don't think the Devil is "good, old sex" in
>>entirety--simply the male (here used in a sense that may or may not be
>>independent of the "actual" genders of whoever's involved in the sexual act)
>>component of it.
>
>I thnk you're off here. Certainly the phallic tree is hard
>to miss, but so is the hole--and the horns of the goat still
>look like they dilineate a female public V. Also, the
>balls of the tree are also dividing cells--something that
>takes place in the uterus. The male component is the
>active energy in the card, but the female, receiving
>component is very there.
Didn't mean to imply it's not there, but the male is definitely the
focus; something of the reverse of the Moon (but less stylized).
Good analogy's that of the Lovers--Art; the Lovers are primarily "solve"
with the "coagula" bit present; Art's the flip side of that. Neither wholly
one or the other.
>The card is giving form. It
>does, after all, connect to Tiphareth from the female
>pillar of severity.
>
>In contrast, the Hermit seems a card epitomizing the
>male principle without the female.
>
The male principle viewed in (primarily) a generative sense--I maintain that
the Devil is the male principle viewed in (again, primarily) the raw urge
sense. Your point about the female pillar connection is taken, however,
I'd say that none of the sephirah below the abyss are wholly male or
female; and that the female is present (even if minimally) in the Hermit
due to that orphic egg he's moving towards.
--Gar
J. Karlin
MLYoung wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what the difference would indicate though I do measure
> >the difference to be 2 degrees.
> >
> >Kenn
>
> men.
Not necessarily a 'male' thing, but rather an 'order'
thing. It was likely a play on words, supposed difference
in nature between the 9th and 11th 'degrees' of the
OTO.
Of course, one might argue that still reduces it to
a 'male' thing. Uppity women have generally, so far, been
given the gate in OTO.
(jk)
J. Karlin
MLYoung wrote:
> >or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that. When I say
> >"does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't matter
>
> Spoken like a guy.
I'm held (in legend) to be a guy too, you know.
> Some sex carries the possibility
> of new life, some doesn't. That matters.
Maybe the real point is that ALL activity carries with
it the possibility of new life and thus all that we
think and do is sexual.
Then I guess you'd say, "spoken like a 'Freudian'".
> >So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. >People
> aren't.
> >
> I think the Devil is as much a principle as an entity in Thoth.
'principle' of what?
> There is no Devil on the card, there's a goat---
As we know (and Crowley also asserts this) 'goat'=Pan=Devil,
by way of medieval 'blinding', but then we need to ask what
exactly was it they were blinding.
>--a beast.
> It's a card, among other things, about the nature of the
> human animal.
There are many natures to this animal. Even an intelligent
nature (rarely). What exact nature(s) is this card about?
> If the Devil is our bestial nature, both good and bad,
A 'beast' can only be 'good', that is, devoted to his interests
and his view of things. Christians have always inverted that
to say that, therefore, he can only be 'evil'.
>I
> think that bestial nature includes our bestial form of
> continuing our species.
That's just a consequence, not a desire. You're confusing
cultural 'themes' (that we SHOULD all wish to be parents
of replicants) with instinctual drives (to fuck it or kill it---
or, in the 'other' sex, to 'nurture' it).
> In many ways, the emphasis
> in the drawing is on the testes, which are also dividing
> cell, and the roots of a tree.
If so, so what? What's that say? Try to reconcile some
of this with what the man says.
> Not a Capricorn are you? <g> I think the Devil is,
> among other things, the perception of the creative impulse
> in its most physical manifestation.
Which means what?
> The most physical form of creation is sex
OK, what did God do first in Creation, remember?
> and, in a way, all forms of creation are
> a type of sex with someone, something, or some idea.
And extend this to 'all forms of activity are creative
and thus are sexual'.
BUT---the suggestion here is that some paths are 'barren'.
Sounds contradictory, what is being suggested here?
(jk)
Bill Heidrick
93,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>Not necessarily a 'male' thing, but rather an 'order'
>thing. It was likely a play on words, supposed difference
>in nature between the 9th and 11th 'degrees' of the
>OTO.
Not essential to either IXth or XIth degree OTO, as far as the Atu art
is concerned. However, one can extrapolate in those directions.
Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
>Of course, one might argue that still reduces it to
>a 'male' thing. Uppity women have generally, so far, been
>given the gate in OTO.
As are uppity men. Same gate -- oops, almost blew an oath! ;-)
93 93/93
Bill
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> 93,
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
> >Not necessarily a 'male' thing, but rather an 'order'
> >thing. It was likely a play on words, supposed difference
> >in nature between the 9th and 11th 'degrees' of the
> >OTO.
> Not essential to either IXth or XIth degree OTO,
Hah!! I knew that post would get a 'rise' out of you all
(or at least you).
What is not 'essential'? The play on words? Or the
distinction between vaginal and anal sexual intercourse
with respect to those degrees of OTO?
I'm aware that one can play both ways in the IXth,
and you've explained that this is supposed to
the case for the XIth as well. However, and again
maybe this is the point with the Devil---there IS
a distinction in quality and expression between
the two modes (especially when one mixes in gender
and gender preference issues)---what is 'essential'
is in the eye of the beholder, symbolically and
literally.
> as far as the Atu art
> is concerned.
You're the one who started this (albeit, you did suffer
from a x-post to here). The Atu art is hardly benign with
respect to degrees or Degrees.
> However, one can extrapolate in those directions.
Isn't that what you wanted---some extrapolation 'in
those directions'?
> Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
If not 'simply', then what 'complexly'?
> >Of course, one might argue that still reduces it to
> >a 'male' thing. Uppity women have generally, so far, been
> >given the gate in OTO.
>
> As are uppity men. Same gate -- oops, almost blew an oath! ;-)
Or something.
One might argue that Thelema should tend to breed, or
at least attract, 'uppity' people. But then, as you
suggest, this 'gate' is not necessarily the 'exit'
(except I guess it might be, huh).
I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
for their humanity. Not that this is anything uniquely
egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
their cultural prejudices.
However, one hopes for a prophet who will tend to rise above
'gun barrel' diplomacy, if you know what I mean.
Sometimes AC did that, but the thing is he also enthusiastically
sank beneath it too.
(jk)
Svedeka
jk wrote:
>
>However, one hopes for a prophet who will tend to rise above
>'gun barrel' diplomacy, if you know what I mean.
>
>Sometimes AC did that, but the thing is he also enthusiastically
>sank beneath it too.
>
>
and I hear H.B. has taken this somewhat literally
---Svedeka
Bill Heidrick
93,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>Bill Heidrick wrote:
>> Not essential to either IXth or XIth degree OTO,
>What is not 'essential'? The play on words? Or the
>distinction between vaginal and anal sexual intercourse
>with respect to those degrees of OTO?
You don't need the picture on the card to understand the degrees.
What is shown on the card is only slightly suggestive of some things
also in the degrees. For that matter, with obvious exceptions, what
is show on the card is not 100% clear either as a depiction or an
action.
>You're the one who started this (albeit, you did suffer
>from a x-post to here). The Atu art is hardly benign with
>respect to degrees or Degrees.
More than an x-post. Over on the Thelema List, I used the Devil Atu
as an example on the issue of where one might stop if one tried to
"improve" Frieda's art to better conform with Crowley's descriptions.
That was x-posted out of context. Then a question was asked "which
are the buttocks, the ones on the figures?" I replied, more or less;
"No, the pink ones in the sky with blue veins". And now, here we are.
:-)
Somehow, an association with Mars got in there, which has since
mutated into a discussion of sexual PC. Not my topic.
>> However, one can extrapolate in those directions.
>Isn't that what you wanted---some extrapolation 'in
>those directions'?
Beter to extrapolate than to evacuate, given the conformity of the
object.
>> Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
>If not 'simply', then what 'complexly'?
Either that or a related, simple topic.
>I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
>have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
>for their humanity. Not that this is anything uniquely
>egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
>their cultural prejudices.
I can't say I agree with that. Women are about 50% of OTO, run many
of the official bodies, compose half of the IXth degree and can hold
any office in OTO. Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
Crowley's social limitations and 19th century hausfrauism is are not
the guiding lights of OTO. It's a little old fashioned in the
corners, and the rituals were designed by a male. Other than that, it
has been moving right along. Humanity deserves respect, a little
above the level of the respect given to other classes of animal.
Divinity is more the thing, and everybody has that. In OTO, the
divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of man.
Nobody's perfect.
93 93/93
Bill
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> >> Not essential to either IXth or XIth degree OTO,
>
> >What is not 'essential'? The play on words? Or the
> >distinction between vaginal and anal sexual intercourse
> >with respect to those degrees of OTO?
>
> You don't need the picture on the card to understand the degrees.
Did someone suggest otherwise? Indeed, I think it's
the other way about, don't you?
> What is shown on the card is only slightly suggestive of some things
> also in the degrees.
Seems quite suggestive of a number of 'secret instructions'
actually. But that's not an argument you want to have in
public, right?
> For that matter, with obvious exceptions, what
> is show on the card is not 100% clear either as a depiction or an
> action.
Is that like saying that unless John Holmes stars in the
production it's got nothing to do with sex?
> >You're the one who started this (albeit, you did suffer
> >from a x-post to here). The Atu art is hardly benign with
> >respect to degrees or Degrees.
>
> More than an x-post. Over on the Thelema List, I used the Devil Atu
> as an example on the issue of where one might stop if one tried to
> "improve" Frieda's art to better conform with Crowley's descriptions.
>
> That was x-posted out of context.
I think the original context was maintained here.
However...
> Then a question was asked "which
> are the buttocks, the ones on the figures?" I replied, more or less;
> "No, the pink ones in the sky with blue veins". And now, here we are.
...threads do evolve.
I'll remind you that you also remarked..."The ovals at
the bottom are gonads, but there's more."
You're always hinting like this. If there's 'more', then
why not say what 'more' there is and what it means?
But you'll never be able to do that in public, will you?
Oh well.
> Somehow, an association with Mars got in there,
Maybe that's got something to do with people having
big eyes to see with, like the Big Bad Wolf.
> which has since
> mutated into a discussion of sexual PC. Not my topic.
Speaking of topics, the one here is tarot. I would
invite you to discuss Crowley's XV-Devil card in detail.
Tell us everything you know about its true meanings.
> >> However, one can extrapolate in those directions.
>
> >Isn't that what you wanted---some extrapolation 'in
> >those directions'?
>
> Beter to extrapolate than to evacuate, given the conformity of the
> object.
Better to speak clearly, or not waste time.
> >> Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
>
> >If not 'simply', then what 'complexly'?
>
> Either that or a related, simple topic.
You're starting to sound like A. E. Waite, Bill---you know,
Mr. Hint-a-lot.
> >I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
> >have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
> >for their humanity. Not that this is anything uniquely
> >egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
> >their cultural prejudices.
>
> I can't say I agree with that.
You can't say it, because it would violate your responsibilities
as OTO PR guy. Yeah, I know.
> Women are about 50% of OTO,
You mean they are worth half as much?
> run many
> of the official bodies,
How many women have been OHO of OTO?
How many women did Aleister Crowley consider for
succession to OHO of OTO?
How many women did Karl Germer consider for succession to
OHO of OTO?
Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
> compose half of the IXth degree and can hold
> any office in OTO.
Any woman can hold the office of President of the United
States, or Vice-President, or Speaker of the House of
Representatives, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
too.
What's the latest count on the number of women
having held those offices---anyone?
> Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
Any sort of 'idolization' of women by men tends to remove
the need for men to deal with women as human equals.
Sounds pretty Victorian to me.
> Crowley's social limitations and 19th century hausfrauism
Seems to me very much in step with the writings of the
leadership of OTO.
> is are not
> the guiding lights of OTO.
Well, whatever the 'guiding lights' of OTO are today they
look to have dimmed quite a bit since Crowley died.
> Divinity is more the thing, and everybody has that.
It's certainly a good racket to tell people that
anyway. Then you can sign them up for divinity classes
and if they're REAL GOOD, and behave themselves, some
day they too can be in a position to raise the stakes of
membership ever and ever higher.
What's the highest degree in OTO now, X, XI, XII...XXIV...
hike, hike.
> In OTO, the
> divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of man.
'a little more reverenced' by whom? By the men who make all
this shit up?
(jk)
J. Karlin
Svedeka wrote:
It's convenient to suggest that the 'ways' of the prophet
have little to do with the words of the prophet, and it
seems reasonable to not hold a messenger as strictly
accountable for the degree to which his behaviour might
tend to shed light on the true meaning of his message.
However, I seriously doubt most of the members of OTO
are in a position, intellectually or spiritually, to be
able to make that kind of distinction. Again, this is
no particular knock against them or OTO. There is NO
question that most Christians also fail miserably in being
able to synthesize a rational medium between the teachings
and behaviors of Jesus (much less, between those of
Jesus and Paul).
People need to get over the need to belong to a herd
of believers, no matter how interesting or true some
of the ideas of the shepherd might be.
(jk)
J. Karlin
Susan Vaughn wrote:
>
> >>The creative impulse implies something is being created--
> >>looks like life to me--particularly given the cell division
> >>taking place between the "balls" on the card.
>
> This is evocative of early Grecian beliefs -- that male sperm contained a
> fully-formed "homunculus" and that females' only purpose during pregnancy
> was to incubate that growing individual...
So, given this, what would follow? In other words, what
kind of significance would that give to sperm?
Think alchemically, here.
(jk)
Leihla
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) writes:
> [...]--and Death, the sexual aspect of which I haven't
> totally figured out, but given that it's affiliated with Scorpio,
> there's got to be one.
-----------------
Is it the French who refer to orgasm as 'the small death'?
L
Bill Heidrick
93,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>Bill Heidrick wrote:
>> >> Not essential to either IXth or XIth degree OTO,
>> You don't need the picture on the card to understand the degrees.
>Did someone suggest otherwise? Indeed, I think it's
>the other way about, don't you?
No. Knowledge of those OTO degrees can help with an understanding of
one or two points of view on the Atu, but not primarily Tarot oriented
points of view. Better to say that the Atu can be used to illustrate
aspects of those OTO degrees. Those OTO degrees might shed light on
Crowley's choice of design, but his Hymn to Pan is a far more clear
source for a more complete explanation in the same aspect. The card
suits the poem more than the OTO degrees.
>> What is shown on the card is only slightly suggestive of some things
>> also in the degrees.
>Seems quite suggestive of a number of 'secret instructions'
>actually. But that's not an argument you want to have in
>public, right?
If it were so, it is an argument I would be obligated to make in
public, up to a point. The IXth degree of OTO in particular requires
hints. Otherwise, too few will end up with the requisite concepts to
populate the degree. The principal hints are Gnostic Mass, Grimorum
Sanctisimum, Star Saphire, and some passages in Liber Aleph -- all
Crowley texts. This Atu is not as close.
>> For that matter, with obvious exceptions, what
>> is show on the card is not 100% clear either as a depiction or an
>> action.
>Is that like saying that unless John Holmes stars in the
>production it's got nothing to do with sex?
No. Rather that the name "John" is not sufficiently clear in that
regard -- even though it is sometimes used as a slang term for the
male customer of a prostitute, is the name of a former porn movie star
and as the name of Jesus' beloved Apostle has occasioned a good deal
of speculation about homosexual precursors to Christianity. Crowley
used "John" as a catch-all for the Dying god. All that suggests
something but is not 100% clear without more explicit signs. Seeing a
Pope named John would not imply seeing such a notion.
>> >You're the one who started this (albeit, you did suffer
>> >from a x-post to here). The Atu art is hardly benign with
>> >respect to degrees or Degrees.
>>
>> More than an x-post. Over on the Thelema List, I used the Devil Atu
>> as an example on the issue of where one might stop if one tried to
>> "improve" Frieda's art to better conform with Crowley's descriptions.
>>
>> That was x-posted out of context.
>I think the original context was maintained here.
For alt.tarot, but not significantly for the Thelema list origin's of
my remark.
>However...
>> Then a question was asked "which
>> are the buttocks, the ones on the figures?" I replied, more or less;
>> "No, the pink ones in the sky with blue veins". And now, here we are.
>...threads do evolve.
True, else no point in reading them past a day.
>I'll remind you that you also remarked..."The ovals at
>the bottom are gonads, but there's more."
Right. Meosis inside, Female to left, male to right, evocative of
XY, a male characteristic. Grand Hierophant's wand in center from
bottom -- indicating a tie of this card to Crowley's Liber Reguli.
Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit. Gonad activity also
suggestive of the two forms of Horus. Background suggestive of Nuit
intimate, as well as role reversals in form as an alternate
interpretation. Horns of goat suggesting not only the vulva (I had
not considered that before seeing the thought raised here) but a
failure to reach the ultimate depicted at the top of the card. Third
eye of goat of Mendes suggestive of not only the Adjna, but of Da'at
-- thus with the horns, implying a blockage of the attainment of
Keter. There are other aspects: garland, four-fold in the hoofs and
gonads, etc. Even the fact that the genitallia of the goat are not
seen in the same form as the balance of the figure is significant.
>You're always hinting like this. If there's 'more', then
>why not say what 'more' there is and what it means?
Mainly because it stifles thinking. Better to hint and let it run a
while. If there is interest, more can be said after the discussion
boggs down a bit.
>But you'll never be able to do that in public, will you?
Some yes, some no.
>> Somehow, an association with Mars got in there,
>Maybe that's got something to do with people having
>big eyes to see with, like the Big Bad Wolf.
Mars would have played better by looking to Ovid.
>> which has since
>> mutated into a discussion of sexual PC. Not my topic.
>Speaking of topics, the one here is tarot. I would
>invite you to discuss Crowley's XV-Devil card in detail.
>Tell us everything you know about its true meanings.
Not everything. I side with Pilate on that one, Browning's remark
not withstanding.
>> Beter to extrapolate than to evacuate, given the conformity of the
>> object.
>Better to speak clearly, or not waste time.
Ok. Here's a remark corresponding to the Atu and traditional Tarot:
The truth told to a Fool is a lie.
>> >> Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
>>
>> >If not 'simply', then what 'complexly'?
>>
>> Either that or a related, simple topic.
>You're starting to sound like A. E. Waite, Bill---you know,
>Mr. Hint-a-lot.
But my circumlocations are shorter and my eclypsis far less
polysylibic. :-)
>> >I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
>> >have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
>> >for their humanity. Not that this is anything uniquely
>> >egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
>> >their cultural prejudices.
>>
>> I can't say I agree with that.
>You can't say it, because it would violate your responsibilities
>as OTO PR guy. Yeah, I know.
Not on that one. I disagree with it, but lack a certitude of your
exact meaning.
>> Women are about 50% of OTO,
>You mean they are worth half as much?
By numbers, 50%. By tradition, worth more than half of OTO.
>> run many
>> of the official bodies,
>How many women have been OHO of OTO?
None, so far. However, there have been only five in total (Kellner
died before the title came into use).
>How many women did Aleister Crowley consider for
>succession to OHO of OTO?
Difficult to say, since I am not aware that he did say. One of his
Grand Officers was a woman early on.
>How many women did Karl Germer consider for succession to
>OHO of OTO?
Two, apparently -- not obvious that he ever considered anybody to
succeed him, but he did raise the question of two different women, now
dead, as potential members of a triumverate to govern OTO.
>Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
>and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
Aside from a personal problem with her relation to Grady, I don't know
the subject of your allusion. Soror Merel is still alive and active.
>> compose half of the IXth degree and can hold
>> any office in OTO.
>Any woman can hold the office of President of the United
>States, or Vice-President, or Speaker of the House of
>Representatives, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
>too.
Right, haven't got one yet there either.
>> Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
>Any sort of 'idolization' of women by men tends to remove
>the need for men to deal with women as human equals.
True. Unless they think non-linearly. In the latter case, no problem
with this. Manipulation of belief and archetype is essential to
Magick. It doesn't justify overlooking bill-paying time and personal
relations.
>Sounds pretty Victorian to me.
Very.
>> Crowley's social limitations and 19th century hausfrauism
>Seems to me very much in step with the writings of the
>leadership of OTO.
It's a vulnerbility of a lot of males. I don't see it as strongly in
OTO leadership as elsewhere, but it's obviously present to an extent.
OTO Sisters are sometimes know to use it as a gambit with the
Brothers, just as others do in other society.
>What's the highest degree in OTO now, X, XI, XII...XXIV...
>hike, hike.
Initiated, IX. Administrative, XII. XIth not in OTO in that sense.
>> In OTO, the
>> divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of man.
>'a little more reverenced' by whom? By the men who make all
>this shit up?
Formally and in the constitution of the OTO. Otherwise by varying
practice, both male and female.
Reuss put in that a woman unmarried and pregnant is the most valorous
type of person on earth. He wanted to set up a protective facility
for such, but I don't think "Uncle Theo's Home for Wayward Girls"
would have quite passed the mustard. :-)
93 93/93
Bill
Casper
lei...@aol.com (Leihla) wrote:
> Is it the French who refer to orgasm as 'the small death'?
Exactly, oui ! "La petite mort"... But maybe we are not the only ones to call
it so...
;-)
Casper
MLYoung
>> Is it the French who refer to orgasm as 'the small death'?
>
>Exactly, oui ! "La petite mort"... But maybe we are
>not the only ones to call it so...
>;-)
"To die" was also a euphemism for orgasm in
Shakespearean English. However, I'm still
trying to figure out the role being played by
the Death card in the tarot.
I know in alchemy, the two incestuous lovers
(brother sun and sister moon) have intercourse,
peck each other to death, and die. Scorpio
refers to the corruption and distillation of
their bodies that takes place to create the
hermaphrodite, Death is necessary for the
rebirth and finally rendering of the Philosopher's
Stone--the main goal of alchemists as the
stone made it possible to turn one material into
another . . .
But I haven't put all the pieces together.
--margaret (puzzling, puzzling)
>Casper
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> >Did someone suggest otherwise? Indeed, I think it's
> >the other way about, don't you?
>
> No. Knowledge of those OTO degrees can help with an understanding of
> one or two points of view on the Atu
The doctrine of the degrees is intimately woven into the
symbolism of Thoth. You've told me that yourself several
times.
> Better to say that the Atu can be used to illustrate
> aspects of those OTO degrees.
Bill, I've seen copies of Crowley's drafts for the OTO
degree rituals and instructions, and these include
diagrams of the Atu, just like in Golden Dawn, and just
like in Golden Dawn, the symbolism of the cards is
related to the doctrines taught in specific
degrees.
> Those OTO degrees might shed light on
> Crowley's choice of design, but his Hymn to Pan is a far more clear
> source for a more complete explanation in the same aspect. The card
> suits the poem more than the OTO degrees.
I certainly agree that there are some Crowley writings that
are MUCH more clear about 'what things mean' than are
others. Indeed, the most fascinating thing of all is that
Crowley actually wrote very clearly, in his published works,
about what the secrets all are. However, you're just being
misleading to suggest that the cards don't give explicit
and direct indications of ideas connected to specific
levels of initiation in OTO.
> >Seems quite suggestive of a number of 'secret instructions'
> >actually. But that's not an argument you want to have in
> >public, right?
>
> If it were so, it is an argument I would be obligated to make in
> public, up to a point.
I think you're obligated to do just what you are
attempting to do---talk round and about the truth.
> The IXth degree of OTO in particular requires
> hints.
You mean the recognition of it by the managers
of OTO?
All the knowledge of it requires is for someone to give the
recipe for the secret sauce. And then explain how to
use it. Crowley did that, and in plain terms too.
> Otherwise, too few will end up with the requisite concepts to
> populate the degree.
'too few' for what exactly?
What do you mean, 'populate' the degree?
> The principal hints are Gnostic Mass, Grimorum
> Sanctisimum, Star Saphire, and some passages in Liber Aleph -- all
> Crowley texts. This Atu is not as close.
All the Atu are 'as close', cause they all speak (in
varying 'degrees') to the same central theme---Penis as Jesus
(particularly Crowley's penis), and Semen-Sperm as Holy
Water.
> >Is that like saying that unless John Holmes stars in the
> >production it's got nothing to do with sex?
>
> No. Rather that the name "John" is not sufficiently clear in that
> regard --
So, you mean just because it has a big penis and balls on
it doesn't suggest to you a sufficiently clear 'depiction'
or 'action'?
> All that suggests
> something but is not 100% clear without more explicit signs.
More 'explicit' like what?
> >> That was x-posted out of context.
> >I think the original context was maintained here.
> For alt.tarot,
No, for what it was worth. It was a silly thread in
the first place---it's evolved to something potentially
interesting.
> >I'll remind you that you also remarked..."The ovals at
> >the bottom are gonads, but there's more."
>
> Right. Meosis inside, Female to left, male to right, evocative of
> XY, a male characteristic.
So all that stuff is happening just to say---this is
a 'male characteristic'? Sounds lite.
> Grand Hierophant's wand in center from
> bottom -- indicating a tie of this card to Crowley's Liber Reguli.
A 'tie'? What does that mean exactly? Is this wand only mentioned
there?
> Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit.
And what is Hadit, and what has it to do with Devil.
> Gonad activity also
> suggestive of the two forms of Horus.
Which are?
> Background suggestive of Nuit
> intimate,
What background? Be specific.
> as well as role reversals in form as an alternate
> interpretation.
What does that mean? What alternate interpretation?
> Horns of goat suggesting not only the vulva (I had
> not considered that before seeing the thought raised here)
Wait a minute, you're figuring this out as you read
here? Be sure and thank someone.
> but a
> failure to reach the ultimate depicted at the top of the card.
To reach 'the ultimate' what? And why does this 'vulva'
not get to the ultimate?
> Third
> eye of goat of Mendes suggestive of not only the Adjna, but of Da'at
And that indicates what?
> -- thus with the horns, implying a blockage of the attainment of
> Keter.
How come?
> There are other aspects: garland, four-fold in the hoofs and
> gonads, etc. Even the fact that the genitallia of the goat are not
> seen in the same form as the balance of the figure is significant.
In what way?
> >You're always hinting like this. If there's 'more', then
> >why not say what 'more' there is and what it means?
>
> Mainly because it stifles thinking.
Not always. Sometimes people can't even start thinking until
some explicit information is provided to them.
> Better to hint and let it run a
> while.
For most people ambiguity and hinting don't accomplish much
except to bore them.
> If there is interest, more can be said after the discussion
> boggs down a bit.
In other words, whatever swine are left standing after the
pearls are not cast get some plastic ones as a reward.
Well...that's certainly traditional.
> >But you'll never be able to do that in public, will you?
>
> Some yes, some no.
Precisely.
> >> Somehow, an association with Mars got in there,
>
> >Maybe that's got something to do with people having
> >big eyes to see with, like the Big Bad Wolf.
>
> Mars would have played better by looking to Ovid.
Maybe it's got something to do with Mars being 'exalted'.
> >Speaking of topics, the one here is tarot. I would
> >invite you to discuss Crowley's XV-Devil card in detail.
> >Tell us everything you know about its true meanings.
>
> Not everything.
Right.
> I side with Pilate on that one,
Washing your hands of us, huh?
> >> Beter to extrapolate than to evacuate, given the conformity of the
> >> object.
>
> >Better to speak clearly, or not waste time.
>
> Ok. Here's a remark corresponding to the Atu and traditional Tarot:
> The truth told to a Fool is a lie.
Or what was the EST spin on that chestnut---the truth
believed (by anyone) is a lie.
What about the truth told to the Devil? What's that?
> >You're starting to sound like A. E. Waite, Bill---you know,
> >Mr. Hint-a-lot.
>
> But my circumlocations are shorter and my eclypsis far less
> polysylibic. :-)
Actually, Waite's hinting IS almost instructive---yours is
often desultory.
> >How many women did Karl Germer consider for succession to
> >OHO of OTO?
>
> Two, apparently --
Really, who?
> not obvious that he ever considered anybody to
> succeed him,
That begs its own questions.
> but he did raise the question of two different women, now
> dead, as potential members of a triumverate to govern OTO.
But then he gave up on that?
> >Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
> >and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
>
> Aside from a personal problem with her relation to Grady,
She had more than a personal problem, and it was with
more than Grady, as you well know.
> I don't know
> the subject of your allusion. Soror Merel is still alive and active.
Like she said, you guys couldn't afford to throw her out.
> >> Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
>
> >Any sort of 'idolization' of women by men tends to remove
> >the need for men to deal with women as human equals.
>
> True. Unless they think non-linearly.
Non-linear thinking often means, in the occult, convoluted
nonsense.
> In the latter case, no problem
> with this. Manipulation of belief and archetype is essential to
> Magick.
What does that have to do with this 'idolization' you
non-linearly practice?
> It doesn't justify overlooking bill-paying time and personal
> relations.
What's that got to with it?
> It's a vulnerbility of a lot of males.
All males. Comes with the juice dispenser.
But all people come with another dispenser called
a brain---which can be used to diminish the effects
of the juice, or the poison.
> I don't see it as strongly in
> OTO leadership as elsewhere,
The leadership of Texaco thought they were a bastion of
racial sensitivity, too---cause they knew a lot of
plantation humor.
> OTO Sisters are sometimes know to use it as a gambit with the
> Brothers,
In other words, you all play the same stupid gender games
as the 'unenlightened'.
> >What's the highest degree in OTO now, X, XI, XII...XXIV...
> >hike, hike.
>
> Initiated, IX. Administrative, XII. XIth not in OTO in that sense.
How do you know?
> Reuss put in that a woman unmarried and pregnant is the most valorous
> type of person on earth.
But that's because he wanted to make sure there were
plenty of Germans to fight the World Wars.
> He wanted to set up a protective facility
> for such, but I don't think "Uncle Theo's Home for Wayward Girls"
> would have quite passed the mustard. :-)
I think the Nazis actually adopted this idea, didn't
they.
(jk)
MLYoung
>MLYoung wrote:
>
>> >or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that. When I
>say
>> >"does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't
>matter
>>
>> Spoken like a guy.
>
>I'm held (in legend) to be a guy too, you know.
You outing yourself?
>
>> Some sex carries the possibility
>> of new life, some doesn't. That matters.
>
>Maybe the real point is that ALL activity carries with
>it the possibility of new life and thus all that we
>think and do is sexual.
>
>Then I guess you'd say, "spoken like a 'Freudian'".
Yeah, but I'd agree with you. That seems very much
the point of the Devil. The question, to me, is about
the female sexual aspect of the card. I think we all
have an idea about the tree trunk happily shooting
its wad (dropping its acorns). Its in the foreground--the
first thing you see, the question is what's behind it?
>
>> >So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what. >People
>> aren't.
>> >
>> I think the Devil is as much a principle as an entity in Thoth.
>
>'principle' of what?
The principle of all activity being sexual--what you stated
quite well above. The card is linked with Capricorn--
a sign that has very male associations--its ruler is Saturn
the father; it's cardinal, thus acting outward on the environment,
but is feminine; it's an earth sign, the most passive and concrete
of all the elements--the darkest and heaviest. What's
created in the Devil is acutely linked to the material.
>
>> There is no Devil on the card, there's a goat---
>
>As we know (and Crowley also asserts this) 'goat'=Pan=Devil,
>by way of medieval 'blinding', but then we need to ask what
>exactly was it they were blinding.
I know. I'm simply trying to get away from the traditional
notion of Satan. This goat is the life force as much as
anything.
>
>>--a beast.
>> It's a card, among other things, about the nature of the
>> human animal.
>
>There are many natures to this animal. Even an intelligent
>nature (rarely). What exact nature(s) is this card about?
The urge to create on its most visceral level--without
heed for conventional morality. It has a Nietzschean
aspect.
>
>> If the Devil is our bestial nature, both good and bad,
>
>A 'beast' can only be 'good', that is, devoted to his interests
>and his view of things. Christians have always inverted that
>to say that, therefore, he can only be 'evil'.
It, like animals and gods, is beyond good and evil;
it either fulfills its nature or not.
>
>>I
>> think that bestial nature includes our bestial form of
>> continuing our species.
>
>That's just a consequence, not a desire. You're confusing
>cultural 'themes' (that we SHOULD all wish to be parents
>of replicants) with instinctual drives (to fuck it or kill it---
>or, in the 'other' sex, to 'nurture' it).
Creating and ensuring the survival of one's spawn
both seem to be instinctual. Male and female strategies
are going to differ slightly for obvious biological reasons.
>
>> In many ways, the emphasis
>> in the drawing is on the testes, which are also dividing
>> cell, and the roots of a tree.
>
>If so, so what? What's that say? Try to reconcile some
>of this with what the man says.
Let's see, "this card especially represents the masculine
energy at its most masculine." I'd say that its erect and
about to go. No flaccidity here; the act of penetration.
Oh, and the base of the tree contains the "innumerable
leapings of sap"--all them dancing folks.
>
>> Not a Capricorn are you? <g> I think the Devil is,
>> among other things, the perception of the creative impulse
>> in its most physical manifestation.
>
>Which means what?
Using the physical to create the material--sex, sex, sex.
>
>> The most physical form of creation is sex
>
>OK, what did God do first in Creation, remember?
Created heaven and earth.
Okay, created earth--so, God is in a sense Pan,
the all-begettor of the physical realm. So this card
is another version--a reflection of the Hermit. The
Hermit stands between above and below; the
Devil is the creation of below.
>
>> and, in a way, all forms of creation are
>> a type of sex with someone, something, or some idea.
>
>And extend this to 'all forms of activity are creative
>and thus are sexual'.
>
>BUT---the suggestion here is that some paths are 'barren'.
>
>Sounds contradictory, what is being suggested here?
Except barren is just as good as fertile--Pan doesn't
distinguish between the two--the creative force it
represents delights in both. It doesn't discriminate;
for its purposes it doesn't need to.
--margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>I think we all
>>>have an idea about the tree trunk happily shooting
>>>its wad (dropping its acorns). Its in the foreground--the
>>>first thing you see, the question is what's behind it?
>
>Acorns are female "fruits" -- ovaries that have fully developed and
>matured... They each carry only one seed, which is ready for dispersal and
>germination...
>
Oh, great, now you're really going to confuse the
OTO dudes wandering about. Next you'll be saying
women aren't just reverenced vessels . . .
--margaret
(Homonculi, homoncula, homuculi,
homoncula-la-la-la-la-la-la-la)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>> > I'm not sure what the difference would indicate though I do measure
>> >the difference to be 2 degrees.
>> >
>> >Kenn
>>
>> men.
>
>thing. It was likely a play on words, supposed difference
>in nature between the 9th and 11th 'degrees' of the
>OTO.
Thinking that the only difference between orifices
is a degree definitely shows a male POV.
>
>Of course, one might argue that still reduces it to
>a 'male' thing. Uppity women have generally, so far, been
>given the gate in OTO.
So, I'm gathering
--margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>You don't need the picture on the card to understand
>100% clear either as a depiction or an
>action.
Oh, really? I think Frieda, at least, was expressing
herself quite clearly.
>
>>You're the one who started this (albeit, you did suffer
>>from a x-post to here). The Atu art is hardly benign with
>>respect to degrees or Degrees.
>
>More than an x-post. Over on the Thelema List, I used the Devil Atu
>as an example on the issue of where one might stop if one tried to
>"improve" Frieda's art to better conform with Crowley's descriptions.
>
>That was x-posted out of context. Then a question was
>asked "which are the buttocks, the ones on the
>figures?" I replied, more or less;
>"No, the pink ones in the sky with blue veins". And now, here we are.
>:-)
Yep. You need to check out vein patterns on buttocks.
Maybe Beastie Boy didn't have strong preferences
regarding orifices, but methinks Frieda did.
>Somehow, an association with Mars got in there, which has since
>mutated into a discussion of sexual PC. Not my topic.
>
>>> However, one can extrapolate in those directions.
>
>>Isn't that what you wanted---some extrapolation 'in
>>those directions'?
>
>Beter to extrapolate than to evacuate, given the conformity of the
>object.
>
>>> Crowley probably intended something of the kind, but not simply.
>
>>If not 'simply', then what 'complexly'?
>
>Either that or a related, simple topic.
>
>>I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
>>have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
Hmmm being considered a passive vessel for the all-
important prick doesn't sound much like idolization to
me.
>>for their humanity. Not that this is anything uniquely
>>egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
>>their cultural prejudices.
>
>I can't say I agree with that. Women are about 50% of
> OTO, run many of the official bodies, compose half
> of the IXth degree and can hold
>any office in OTO. Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
>Crowley's social limitations and 19th century
> hausfrauism is are not
>the guiding lights of OTO. It's a little old fashioned in the
>corners, and the rituals were designed by a male.
Yep, that's getting real apparent.
Other than that, it
>has been moving right along. Humanity deserves respect, a little
>above the level of the respect given to other classes of animal.
>Divinity is more the thing, and everybody has that. In OTO, the
>divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of >man. Nobody's
perfect.
That's big of you. But frankly, this carries the definite odor
of the Victorian Angel of the House.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
(jk) asked:
>How many women have been OHO of OTO?
>
>How many women did Aleister Crowley consider for
>succession to OHO of OTO?
>
>How many women did Karl Germer consider for succession to
>OHO of OTO?
>
>Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
>and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
>
>> compose half of the IXth degree and can hold
>> any office in OTO.
>
>Any woman can hold the office of President of the United
>States, or Vice-President, or Speaker of the House of
>Representatives, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
>too.
>
>What's the latest count on the number of women
>having held those offices---anyone?
>
>> Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
>
>Any sort of 'idolization' of women by men tends to remove
>the need for men to deal with women as human equals.
>
>Sounds pretty Victorian to me.
Hold it, Jess, you're sounding like a feminist. Don't
you know this will confuse tarot-l?
--margaret
MLYoung
Big Cheese Bill decided to spill forth some answers:
>
>"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>
>>Bill Heidrick wrote:
<snip>
Those OTO degrees might shed light on
>Crowley's choice of design, but his Hymn to Pan is a far more clear
>source for a more complete explanation in the same aspect. The card
>suits the poem more than the OTO degrees.
Okay, Hymn to Pan. . . (scribbles down name)
>
The principal hints are Gnostic Mass, Grimorum
>Sanctisimum, Star Saphire, and some passages in Liber Aleph -- all
>Crowley texts. This Atu is not as close.
(More scribbling)
<snip>
>
>>> Then a question was asked "which
>>> are the buttocks, the ones on the figures?" I replied, more or less;
>>> "No, the pink ones in the sky with blue veins". And now, here we are.
>
>>...threads do evolve.
>
>True, else no point in reading them past a day.
>
>>I'll remind you that you also remarked..."The ovals at
>>the bottom are gonads, but there's more."
>
>Right. Meosis inside, Female to left, male to right, evocative of
>XY, a male characteristic.
Aha! Score one each for Tom and Susan.
Grand Hierophant's wand in center from
>bottom -- indicating a tie of this card to Crowley's Liber Reguli.
>Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit. Gonad activity also
>suggestive of the two forms of Horus. Background
>suggestive of Nuit
>intimate, as well as role reversals in form as an alternate
>interpretation. Horns of goat suggesting not only the vulva (I had
>not considered that before seeing the thought raised here) but a
Sigh, that's the problem in the nutshell. It's not suggestive
of the vulva, per se, but the entire area. And, frankly, if
I picked it up it's not subtle. It sounds to me like a bit
of free-lancing on Frieda's part. There may be varieties
in the rituals, but I suspect Frieda wanted to get female
accross loud and clear.
>failure to reach the ultimate depicted at the top of the card. Third
Well, the top's lopped off.
>eye of goat of Mendes suggestive of not only the Adjna, but of Da'at
>-- thus with the horns, implying a blockage of the attainment of
>Keter. There are other aspects: garland, four-fold in the hoofs and
>gonads, etc. Even the fact that the genitallia of the goat are not
>seen in the same form as the balance of the figure is significant.
Where are the goat genitalia--they appear to be discreetly
hidden behind that caudeceus.
<hedging snipped>
>
>
>>Better to speak clearly, or not waste time.
Thank you, Jess.
>
>
>>> Women are about 50% of OTO,
>
>>You mean they are worth half as much?
>
>By numbers, 50%. By tradition, worth more than half of OTO.
Wearing out the vessels, are you?
>
>>> run many
>>> of the official bodies,
>
>>How many women have been OHO of OTO?
>
>None, so far. However, there have been only five in total (Kellner
>died before the title came into use).
Five chances to disregard 50 percent of your
population?
<snip>
>
>>> Idolized, yes, but not in a utilitarian way.
>
>>Any sort of 'idolization' of women by men tends to remove
>>the need for men to deal with women as human equals.
>
>True. Unless they think non-linearly. In the latter
>case, no problem with this. Manipulation of belief
>and archetype is essential to
>Magick. It doesn't justify overlooking bill-paying time and >personal
relations.
Maybe it's time for evolving those archetypes.
>
>>Sounds pretty Victorian to me.
>
>Very.
>
>>> Crowley's social limitations and 19th century hausfrauism
>
>>Seems to me very much in step with the writings of the
>>leadership of OTO.
>
>It's a vulnerbility of a lot of males. I don't see it as strongly in
>OTO leadership as elsewhere, but it's obviously present to an
Ooh, boy . . . .
extent.
>OTO Sisters are sometimes know to use it as a gambit with the
>Brothers, just as others do in other society.
Hmmm, I think you've got some holes to fill--not
just the usual ones.
>
>>What's the highest degree in OTO now, X, XI, XII...XXIV...
>>hike, hike.
>
>Initiated, IX. Administrative, XII. XIth not in OTO in that sense.
>
>>> In OTO, the
>>> divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of man.
>
>>'a little more reverenced' by whom? By the men who make all
>>this shit up?
>
>Formally and in the constitution of the OTO. Otherwise by varying
>practice, both male and female.
>
>Reuss put in that a woman unmarried and pregnant is the most valorous
>type of person on earth. He wanted to set up a protective facility
>for such, but I don't think "Uncle Theo's Home for Wayward Girls"
>would have quite passed the mustard. :-)
Ah, women doing their vessel thing while the men go off
merrily shooting seeds.
Much more of this and Motherpeace's going to make
sense.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
J. Karlin
Susan Vaughn wrote:
> >>So, given this, what would follow? In other words, what
> >>kind of significance would that give to sperm?
> >>Think alchemically, here.
It's the glittery part, Susan.
If you mix it together with its vaginal or anal counterpart
(assuming this mixing is done in 'context' with ritualized
holy humping by those in the know) you get, according to some
people, 'potable gold', and I do mean potable---the Elixir
of Life.
Similar claims are made for its power and efficacy as
are made for any other nostrum, with the addition that
it's supposed to be particularly useful for sliming the
talismans (or the direct objects) of magick spells.
As with baking, which ALSO calls for an exceptional
care paid to measurements, timing, and proportions,
even failed experiments with this stuff can be fun,
and the results, from what I know of baking and from
what I understand of the 'other', are often edible (or
potable, as the case may be). Of course, in baking,
if you fuck up, you usually won't go straight to Hell
(unless you're working for a French pastry chef).
DISCLAIMER: Lots of people who have practiced this kind
of alchemy have died of complications from a host of
venereal diseases and bad moods. This is blood sporting---
be warned. Also, repeated applications of the 'Elixir'
will grow hair on your tongue and lead to a waxy buildup on
'talismans'.
Appendix: the following comes from "The Magical World
of Aleister Crowley", by Francis King [NOTE: Oddly, this
book received a rather harsh review from Bill Heidrick
when it came out]. This quote details one particular
'business' Crowley went into in his later years---
"Besides answering his correspondence Crowley devoted
a great deal of thought to ways of making money to supplement
what was given him by his disciples, notably Karl Germer
[NOTE: Germer become head of OTO after Crowley's death].
Some of his ventures of this sort, for example his planned
Black Magic Restaurant, never got off the ground. He did
however have a certain amount of success with his 'Elixir
of Life Pills' which he sold at the rate of 25 guineas
[NOTE: rough estimate but in the 1930s this would have
been about $125.00] for a week's dosage. According to
Crowley's case-records those who took these benefited greatly.
'Case 73. Army Officer, 54, long service, mostly in India.
Had been impotent for over 15 years...I insisted on change
of climate before taking the case. His health improved
greatly...Potency returned after the first dose, but not
satisfactorily. After the fourth he was like an exceptionally
strong man of 40. Unfortunately he abused his powers, got
into the clutches of a loose woman, and took to drinking
heavily.' It is unlikely that this retired army officer,
or anyone else who took doses of 'Elixir of Life Pills',
realized that they were manufactured from a neutral
base combined with Crowley's own semen."
(jk)
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>Bill Heidrick wrote:
>> No. Knowledge of those OTO degrees can help with an understanding of
>> one or two points of view on the Atu
>The doctrine of the degrees is intimately woven into the
>symbolism of Thoth. You've told me that yourself several
>times.
Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
deck is Thelema and Liber AL. OTO aspects do come in to some extent,
but more on the Charioteer and Lust than the Devil Atu. At that, OTO
aspects are greatly subbordinated to Thelema aspects, being only an
also-ran for the latter. Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
echoed initiatory systems of those times. Even so, the innovations
were primarily to a pattern, such as the introduction of Masonic
elements on the "High Priestess" from descriptions of the Temple of
Solomon rather than the Masonic Lodge itself. The Chariot Trump from
Levi on did emphasize Royal Arch a bit more than that, but mostly the
Tarot Trumps were just given a little "push" to make them easier to
use in lecture and study for such organizations.
>> Better to say that the Atu can be used to illustrate
>> aspects of those OTO degrees.
>Bill, I've seen copies of Crowley's drafts for the OTO
>degree rituals and instructions, and these include
>diagrams of the Atu, just like in Golden Dawn, and just
>like in Golden Dawn, the symbolism of the cards is
>related to the doctrines taught in specific
>degrees.
Exactly so. More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.
>I certainly agree that there are some Crowley writings that
>are MUCH more clear about 'what things mean' than are
>others. Indeed, the most fascinating thing of all is that
>Crowley actually wrote very clearly, in his published works,
>about what the secrets all are. However, you're just being
>misleading to suggest that the cards don't give explicit
>and direct indications of ideas connected to specific
>levels of initiation in OTO.
On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
word of the degree? :-) Some secrecy is necessarily a part of
initiations, else they are just plays.
>> >Seems quite suggestive of a number of 'secret instructions'
>> >actually. But that's not an argument you want to have in
>> >public, right?
>>
>> If it were so, it is an argument I would be obligated to make in
>> public, up to a point.
>I think you're obligated to do just what you are
>attempting to do---talk round and about the truth.
Mut is a loving goddess, even if she has bad breath. To circle a
carcus is to point to something. Not direct, but getting people
thinking is more important than constantly dictating to them. It's a
trade-off.
>> The IXth degree of OTO in particular requires
>> hints.
>You mean the recognition of it by the managers
>of OTO?
At one time, that was the rule. More people now know externals of the
secret, and parotting is in the way of such recognition. Since the
essence of the secret is a particular balance of mind and body in
action and sequence of internal states, a direct description of one of
many technical methods is misleading. The rule was always to hint, on
the theory that gradual approach to the notion from association of
ideas is more likely to lead an individual to actual possession of the
secret than exterior illustration. -- in metaphor, a sheet of music
in hand does not make a person a musician. Anyone with reasonable
dexterity and application can do something with the music. However,
interpretation, adaptation and many other qualities are necessary for
the music to actually be performed.
>All the knowledge of it requires is for someone to give the
>recipe for the secret sauce. And then explain how to
>use it. Crowley did that, and in plain terms too.
Far from it. The "sauce" is nothing by itself. Everything is in the
attention of the cook and the stiring. When to fold in the the
ingrediients makes quite a difference in batter, as does temperature,
leavening and the use of the bread board. If all that is necessary to
make a kuggle hopf, what more for this?
>> Otherwise, too few will end up with the requisite concepts to
>> populate the degree.
>'too few' for what exactly?
OTO. We only need a dozen to function at the present level, although
more would help. Much below three, and continuation is a problem.
>What do you mean, 'populate' the degree?
Numbers.
>> The principal hints are Gnostic Mass, Grimorum
>> Sanctisimum, Star Saphire, and some passages in Liber Aleph -- all
>> Crowley texts. This Atu is not as close.
>All the Atu are 'as close', cause they all speak (in
>varying 'degrees') to the same central theme---Penis as Jesus
>(particularly Crowley's penis), and Semen-Sperm as Holy
>Water.
Catchy, but I've never thought of it that way. :-)
> >Is that like saying that unless John Holmes stars in the
>> >production it's got nothing to do with sex?
>>
>> No. Rather that the name "John" is not sufficiently clear in that
>> regard --
>So, you mean just because it has a big penis and balls on
>it doesn't suggest to you a sufficiently clear 'depiction'
>or 'action'?
It's not the meat, it's the motion -- for some purposes, if not the
present subject exactly.
>> All that suggests
>> something but is not 100% clear without more explicit signs.
>More 'explicit' like what?
What is the goat, and what is the thought?
>> >> That was x-posted out of context.
>
>> >I think the original context was maintained here.
>
>> For alt.tarot,
>No, for what it was worth. It was a silly thread in
>the first place---it's evolved to something potentially
>interesting.
Quite so. :-)
>> >I'll remind you that you also remarked..."The ovals at
>> >the bottom are gonads, but there's more."
>>
>> Right. Meosis inside, Female to left, male to right, evocative of
>> XY, a male characteristic.
>So all that stuff is happening just to say---this is
>a 'male characteristic'? Sounds lite.
Not just to say, also.
>> Grand Hierophant's wand in center from
>> bottom -- indicating a tie of this card to Crowley's Liber Reguli.
>A 'tie'? What does that mean exactly? Is this wand only mentioned
>there?
First part of Liber Reguli, association to chakras involved with the
cross members of the HG cross. Also visible on Waite deck for
Hierophant and Justice Trumps, same locations.
>> Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit.
>And what is Hadit, and what has it to do with Devil.
Nothing to do with the Devil, except for a leg-pull remark by Crowley
in MTP and one or two other places. Hadit is the deity of the point
in the center of the circle or individuation, etc. in Liber AL. The
Ba-hadi is the winged sun of Egyptian art and iconography. The Stele
of Reveling used by Crowley and cited into Liber AL has this feature
depicted and described -- however, the "Ba" was omitted from the
heirogliphics on the Stele. The result of this is the usage "Hadit"
instead of "Ba-Hadi". The full word in Egyptian means "In(to) the
disk (of the Sun)". The "Ba" is the In(to) part.
>> Gonad activity also
>> suggestive of the two forms of Horus.
>Which are?
Read chapter III Liber AL.
>> Background suggestive of Nuit
>> intimate,
>What background? Be specific.
Top of the card, down the sides a bit.
>> as well as role reversals in form as an alternate
>> interpretation.
>What does that mean? What alternate interpretation?
Various combinations of gender and human interactions. No more from
me on this particular point. More explicit will prejudice the notions
to social accidents.
>> Horns of goat suggesting not only the vulva (I had
>> not considered that before seeing the thought raised here)
>Wait a minute, you're figuring this out as you read
>here? Be sure and thank someone.
The lady has my thanks. If all this were rote from long ago, I would
be bored. Meaningful things live, with new ideas coming continually.
>> but a
>> failure to reach the ultimate depicted at the top of the card.
>To reach 'the ultimate' what? And why does this 'vulva'
>not get to the ultimate?
It may or may not be a vulva. It doesn't look like a vulva to me.
>> Third
>> eye of goat of Mendes suggestive of not only the Adjna, but of Da'at
>And that indicates what?
Read Crowley's Vision and Voice (new edition coming out of Weiser in
Equinox IV, No. 2). The vision of Choronzon in particular. The
symbolism is not obvious, but for the Da'at aspect, Choronzon is the
manifestation of failue to cross the Abyss on the Tree of Life -- in
part by demanding meaning in terms of literal ideas already possessed.
>> -- thus with the horns, implying a blockage of the attainment of
>> Keter.
>How come?
It sheres off like the horns of the mercury symbol on the Tree in the
Golden Dawn drawing.
>> There are other aspects: garland, four-fold in the hoofs and
>> gonads, etc. Even the fact that the genitallia of the goat are not
>> seen in the same form as the balance of the figure is significant.
>In what way?
I want to leave something.
>> >You're always hinting like this. If there's 'more', then
>> >why not say what 'more' there is and what it means?
>>
>> Mainly because it stifles thinking.
>Not always. Sometimes people can't even start thinking until
>some explicit information is provided to them.
Some, they get. All cannot be given. Too much stifles.
>> Better to hint and let it run a
>> while.
>For most people ambiguity and hinting don't accomplish much
>except to bore them.
I am not interested in such people -- unless the ambiguity and hinting
are excessive to the point of mush.
>> If there is interest, more can be said after the discussion
>> boggs down a bit.
>In other words, whatever swine are left standing after the
>pearls are not cast get some plastic ones as a reward.
>Well...that's certainly traditional.
The dinner will get cold if all the dishes are put on the table at the
same moment.
>> >> Somehow, an association with Mars got in there,
>>
>> >Maybe that's got something to do with people having
>> >big eyes to see with, like the Big Bad Wolf.
>>
>> Mars would have played better by looking to Ovid.
>Maybe it's got something to do with Mars being 'exalted'.
Yes, but not all that much.
>> I side with Pilate on that one,
>Washing your hands of us, huh?
I might of mis-attributed. On second though, it was probably from
Bacon in his Essay on Truth: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and
didn't wait for an answer".
>Or what was the EST spin on that chestnut---the truth
>believed (by anyone) is a lie.
Something in that. Truth is to apprehend, not believe.
>What about the truth told to the Devil? What's that?
That there is no Devil. The kicker is in the unspoken "and ...".
>> >You're starting to sound like A. E. Waite, Bill---you know,
>> >Mr. Hint-a-lot.
>>
>> But my circumlocations are shorter and my eclypsis far less
>> polysylibic. :-)
>Actually, Waite's hinting IS almost instructive---yours is
>often desultory.
It's an ephemeral medium.
>> >How many women did Karl Germer consider for succession to
>> >OHO of OTO?
>>
>> Two, apparently --
>Really, who?
Jane Wolfe was one. Mildred Burlingame was also considered. The
latter also considered by Grady McMurtry. These are from letters
written by those two heads.
>> but he did raise the question of two different women, now
>> dead, as potential members of a triumverate to govern OTO.
>But then he gave up on that?
Didn't follow through.
>> >Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
>> >and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
>>
>> Aside from a personal problem with her relation to Grady,
>She had more than a personal problem, and it was with
>more than Grady, as you well know.
Sorry, I don't know. Aside from matters related to her personal
feelings about Grady, most of her criticisms are of a type either
derived from that relationship or of a sort that I and others have
voiced in the normal course of trying to get OTO going where it's
going.
>> I don't know
>> the subject of your allusion. Soror Merel is still alive and active.
>Like she said, you guys couldn't afford to throw her out.
Wrong. However, I am very glad we came to peace on the issues of
substance.
>Non-linear thinking often means, in the occult, convoluted
>nonsense.
That's not thinking. Linear thinking carried to extremes is nonsense,
as the Socratic method amply demonstrates.
>> In the latter case, no problem
>> with this. Manipulation of belief and archetype is essential to
>> Magick.
>What does that have to do with this 'idolization' you
>non-linearly practice?
Why have a picture instead of a clear sentence? You get more
associations that go to more ideas.
>> It doesn't justify overlooking bill-paying time and personal
>> relations.
>What's that got to with it?
This is a manichean world with real injury in it. You have to tend to
some pragmatic stuff.
>> It's a vulnerbility of a lot of males.
>All males. Comes with the juice dispenser.
>But all people come with another dispenser called
>a brain---which can be used to diminish the effects
>of the juice, or the poison.
I'll believe that when you can find me a lady who's only a little bit
pregnant. :-)
>> OTO Sisters are sometimes know to use it as a gambit with the
>> Brothers,
>In other words, you all play the same stupid gender games
>as the 'unenlightened'.
And?
>> >What's the highest degree in OTO now, X, XI, XII...XXIV...
>> >hike, hike.
>>
>> Initiated, IX. Administrative, XII. XIth not in OTO in that sense.
>How do you know?
I'm there, Charlie. I'm the one who records the membership data and
authorities.
>> Reuss put in that a woman unmarried and pregnant is the most valorous
>> type of person on earth.
>But that's because he wanted to make sure there were
>plenty of Germans to fight the World Wars.
Swiss.
>> He wanted to set up a protective facility
>> for such, but I don't think "Uncle Theo's Home for Wayward Girls"
>> would have quite passed the mustard. :-)
>I think the Nazis actually adopted this idea, didn't
>they.
Like I said, didn't pass.
93 93/93
Bill
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
> Other than that, it
>>has been moving right along. Humanity deserves respect, a little
>>above the level of the respect given to other classes of animal.
>>Divinity is more the thing, and everybody has that. In OTO, the
>>divine aspect of woman is a little more reverenced than that of >man. Nobody's
>perfect.
>That's big of you. But frankly, this carries the definite odor
> of the Victorian Angel of the House.
>--margaret
It certainly does, and that would be a problem if the Sisters of OTO
didn't kick the Brother's in the privates when it gets distasteful.
Well meaning attempts to address it from the male side by supporting
the formation of woman's groups within OTO have an unfortunate
history. Some things work in that way, but not most. It seems to be
best addressed by letting people be people without regard for gender
in matters not directly related to gender symbolism-physiology. The
heritage of "Og the Hursite" and "Momma E-Cup" is far older than
Vickie and Dear, Dead Albert (who wore the ring in the family). We
all have a lot of working out to do. Quick cures and bandaids don't
do it.
OTO isn't unique in this problem, but it is more determined to address
equity than many other institutions.
93 93/93
Bill
Paul Hume
Jess -
>
> I meant of course that women in OTO, certainly up till recently,
> have been idolized more for their utility, than respected
> egregious on OTO's part---OTO male managers simply reflected
> their cultural prejudices.
>
Define recently. Since 1970-ish? Frankly, even since the 1940's. If you
are referring to Crowley's issues with incarnate women (messier by far
than the discarnate and avowedly Divine type) then I venture to suggest
this is a Crowley issue, not an OTO one. But from Soror Meral's role
onward in the progress of the Order since then, not to mention Sisers at
Agape Lodge who were active in all aspects of the Order's life, this
assertion is open to serious challenge.
Paul
MLYoung
Paul wrote:
This would be more convincing if one of your
sisters actually came forth . . . .
--margaret (getting less convinced of sexual equality
in the OTO post by post)
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
In other words, folks, you learn all the trade secrets,
dare the wrath of hell, hunt down suitable vessels,
lie to them if necessary.
And what do you get in return that makes it all worth
it?
WHY, a cure for male impotence.
Yep, it all comes down to getting it up.
Boy, what an unreliable organ.
---margaret
>
>(jk)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
yodman
BH wrote:
Even the fact that the genitallia of the goat are not seen in the same
form as the balance of the figure is significant.
(jk) asked:
In what way?Do you suppose he means that the goat has both male and
female genitalia?
from the commentary of verse 7 of "Liber AL" in "The Law is for All",
describing associations to Aiwass and ALePh, thus the Fool :
"So we see him fully armed as Bacchus Diphues, male and female in
one, bearing the Thyrsus-rod, and a cluster of grapes for a wineskin,
while a tiger leaps up by his side."
"Almost identical symbols are those of the secret Godof the
Templars, the bisexual Baphomet, and of Zeus Arrhenothelus, equally
bisexual, the Father-Mother of All in One Person. (He is shown in this
full form in the Tarot Trump XV, "The Devil.")"
As for whether the card depicts heterosexuality or homosexuality that
would make the question somewhat mute. However, if I had to chose
between the two I would say that the card is more hetero than not. In
fact, the card to look at for information on the degree XI would be the
Tower, apparently. From "The Book of Thoth" describing Trump XVI:
"Besides this, there is a special technical magic meaning , which
is explained openly only to initiates of the Eleventh degree of the O.
T. O.; a grade so secret that it is not even listed in the official
documents. It is not even to be understood by study of the Eye in Atu
XV. Perhaps it is lawful to mention that the Arab sages and the Persian
poets have written, not always guardedly, on the subject."
All of this sexual associations has led me to reinterpret Waite's
Heirophant. The card is depicting two men who have become bald because
of the overproduction of testosterone due to incessant masturbation.
The Heirophant (who has chosen to simply wear a hat to cover up the fact
that he has lost all of his hair) holds up two fingers revealing a
taoist practice of sexual conservation.
Oh please, don't anyone take that seriously (or if you do please
remember to massage the perenium afterwards).
Kenn
--
"Sing on all you want, my dear Cricket;
but I know that I'm going away tomorrow at dawn, ...."
"Le Aventure di Pinocchio"
Carlo Lorenzini, aka Carlo Collodi
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> 93 Jess,
>
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>
> >Bill Heidrick wrote:
>
> >> No. Knowledge of those OTO degrees can help with an understanding of
> >> one or two points of view on the Atu
>
> >The doctrine of the degrees is intimately woven into the
> >symbolism of Thoth. You've told me that yourself several
> >times.
>
> Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
> deck is Thelema and Liber AL.
So, if your comment here is to be taken seriously, we
should not expect to find much mention of Thelema and Liber
AL with respect to the rituals and teachings of OTO.
Of course, in order to do that one needs necessarily
to ignore comments such as the following:
"But remember this clearly, that the Law cometh from the A...A...,
not from the O.T.O. This Order is but the first of the great religious
bodies to accept this Law officially, and its whole Ritual has
been revised and reconstituted in accordance with this decision."
Echoing this, we can read at the OTO US Grand Lodge website,
(http://www.otohq.org/oto/otohq.html):
"O.T.O. is the first of the great Old Ćon orders to accept
The Book of the Law, received by Aleister Crowley in 1904
EV. This book proclaims a New Ćon in human thought, culture
and religion. The Ćon arises from a single supreme injunction:
the Law of Thelema, which is Do what thou wilt."
and later...
"...many worthy aspirants to the Great Work of
Thelema have a genuine need for information, guidance,
fellowship, or the opportunity to assist their fellow aspirants
and serve humanity. Such aspirants will find welcome in O.T.O."
I simply find it curious that the Grand Poohbah General of
the OTO would find it necessary to suggest that, by inclusion
of Thelemic ideas in 'Book of Thoth', Aleister Crowley had
little interest in communicating ideas which would ALSO
be of specific 'ritual' interest and concern to members
of OTO.
> OTO aspects do come in to some extent,
How could they avoid doing so?
> but more on the Charioteer and Lust than the Devil Atu.
Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
offer this information except to suggest that the real
secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
in OTO initiations. Indeed, the fact he sees fit to make
mention of these things at all, considering that they ARE
supposed to be secrets, indicates that AC both desired
to promote the Order through the deck (again, connecting the
ideas of the deck to those taught in OTO), and to suggest
that it was ONLY through the Order that most people were
going to have any chance of realizing the truth of what
he was trying to say.
> At that, OTO
> aspects are greatly subbordinated to Thelema aspects,
It is truer to say that this was done long before Book
of Thoth was created and that the deck merely reflects
this reality in the use of Thelemic ideas which have
expression ALSO in OTO.
> being only an
> also-ran for the latter.
Or for A.'.A.'.
> Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
> the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
> echoed initiatory systems of those times.
They didn't just echo them. That degrades and mocks the true
importance of tarot in the systems of these innovators.
The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity---and consequently,
it had to show, or be made to show, the very elements
from which the occultist was claiming to draw both his
ideas and his authority. No one could admit, for example,
that all he was doing was layering an often pretentious
pile of bullshit onto a symbolic medium that was
operating perfectly happily BEFORE the occultist
appropriated it. NO, it's always the case that the
occultist is rescuing the 'livre primitif' from
its mundane bonds, and is engaged in 'rectification',
or, as Crowley put it, in maintaining 'the Eternal' by
revolutionizing tarot for the New Aeon.
Tarot is at the very center of things for these occultists
(and for the modern ones as well)---and it really boils
down to the same thing it always has---if you can mystify
the ancient book, claim it's unreadable without the 'secret
key' or decoder ring (which your brand of secret order
just happens to possess in exclusion to all other brands)
you stand to convince some parts of the prospective audience
that your line of shit stinks better than everyone else's.
Nothing very mysterious OR spiritual. It's just marketing,
plain and simple. That the Americans (maybe a Canadian in there
too), who've assumed management of OTO, would tend to be better at
it than other people is not very surprising.
Their tendency to leave out certain details in the promotional
literature is---SOP (or SOS) for marketing interests.
> >Bill, I've seen copies of Crowley's drafts for the OTO
> >degree rituals and instructions, and these include
> >diagrams of the Atu, just like in Golden Dawn, and just
> >like in Golden Dawn, the symbolism of the cards is
> >related to the doctrines taught in specific
> >degrees.
>
> Exactly so. More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
> rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.
And the difference would be?
> >However, you're just being
> >misleading to suggest that the cards don't give explicit
> >and direct indications of ideas connected to specific
> >levels of initiation in OTO.
>
> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
> word of the degree? :-)
Thelema.
Everything follows from that, right? But, if you don't
bother to tell people the details of how and why, you
also don't have to get into some of the logical problems
associated with the assumptions of the 'word'.
Example: how many people are REALLY going to be comfortable
belonging to a group that promotes the following:
"5. All children and young people, although they may not be able to
understand the more exalted heavens of our horoscope, may always be
taught to rule their lives in accordance with the Law. No efforts
should be spared to bring them to this emancipation. The misery caused
to children by the operation of the law of the slave-gods
[note: i.e., Judeo-Christian gods] was, one may say, the primum
mobile of Our first aspiration to overthrow the Old Law [note:
that of Judeo-Christianity]."
I'm not sure what is meant by 'No efforts should be spared to
bring them to this emancipation,' but I'm pretty sure few people
I know are wise enough to intelligently interpret it (especially
for other people's 'children and young people').
Right after this we read (again, in support of the obvious
linkage of OTO to Thelema):
"6. By all manner of means shall all strive constantly to increase the
power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O.; for thereby will
come efficiency in the promulgation of the Law."
> Some secrecy is necessarily a part of
> initiations, else they are just plays.
But that's not really your concern, is it? Some secrecy
is necessary to maintain, or else you can't tell the difference
between Coke and Pepsi. Again, it's a business consideration,
one intended, as we see articulated above, to "increase the
power and freedom of the Headquarters of the O.T.O."
> >I think you're obligated to do just what you are
> >attempting to do---talk round and about the truth.
>
> Mut is a loving goddess, even if she has bad breath.
Maybe you're talking about 'mutt'.
> To circle a
> carcus is to point to something.
Yeah, something fucking dead and bloated. We know.
> Not direct, but getting people
> thinking is more important than constantly dictating to them.
How much more compelling that would sound if Aleister
Crowley had written one or two books of suggestions with
respect to the 'Law', instead of piles of obscure
commentaries, laced with these kinds of warnings and
commandments to readers (here offered in 'comment'
upon Liber Legis, Book of the Law):
"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to
destroy this copy after the first reading.
"Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and
peril. These are most dire.
"Those who discuss the contents of this Book are
to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
"All questions of the Law are to be decided only
by appeal to my writings, each for himself.
Maybe Crowley was a Calvinist.
> It's a trade-off.
Between integrity and megalomania?
> >> The IXth degree of OTO in particular requires
> >> hints.
>
> >You mean the recognition of it by the managers
> >of OTO?
>
> At one time, that was the rule.
What was the rule, recognition by OTO? That's still the
rule with respect to the validity of claims to OTO
degrees, isn't it?
> More people now know externals of the
> secret,
What do you mean 'externals'?
> and parotting is in the way of such recognition.
In other words, it's the OTO brand of initiation
or nothing.
> Since the
> essence of the secret is a particular balance of mind and body in
> action and sequence of internal states, a direct description of one of
> many technical methods is misleading.
Then I'd suggest to you only those who were likely to not
be misled would much care about that. In other words, as
Crowley said---
"Again, though the secret itself is of such
tremendous import, and though it is so simple that
I could disclose it...in a short paragraph, I might
do so without doing much harm. For it cannot be used
indiscriminately...I have found in practice that the
secret of the O.T.O. cannot be used unworthily...."
> The rule was always to hint, on
> the theory that gradual approach to the notion from association of
> ideas is more likely to lead an individual to actual possession of the
> secret than exterior illustration.
Isn't 'actual possession' almost entirely a function of belief
that the 'association of ideas' has anything more than a
conceptual significance, that it exists 'in fact' and in effect,
rather than merely as a philosophical construct?
In other words, isn't the 'gradual approach' required to
instill a religiosity to what is, after all, supposed to
be a 'scientific' principle? By the time one has invested
so much time and money trying to acquire an 'actual
possession', he's hardly so likely to dismiss the thing
as he would be if, for example, it was simply put to him
that the great secret of OTO reduced to 'eat your sperm'
(which three words I once found erased, but still visible,
on an original Crowley manuscript, wherein the claim was
made by him that the secret could be reduced to three words).
>-- in metaphor, a sheet of music
> in hand does not make a person a musician.
Nor does one become one without it.
Indeed, the analogy only serves to support the notion
that OTO wishes NO ONE to become a musician (or magician)
before ITS time.
> >All the knowledge of it requires is for someone to give the
> >recipe for the secret sauce. And then explain how to
> >use it. Crowley did that, and in plain terms too.
>
> Far from it.
Far from what? Far from general distribution, you mean?
> The "sauce" is nothing by itself.
In other words, the 'swine' could never benefit
from just hearing the secret. They'll need the OTO to
parcel it out to them on OTO's schedule.
> Everything is in the
> attention of the cook and the stiring. When to fold in the the
> ingrediients makes quite a difference in batter, as does temperature,
> leavening and the use of the bread board. If all that is necessary to
> make a kuggle hopf, what more for this?
The problem is, and again your choice of metaphors is
hardly helpful for your case, one can not make a specific
recipe until he knows it. Indeed, it is the many 'makings' which
provide a knowledge of HOW to cook.
The way you would have it, the Culinary Institute would
provide the cookbook AFTER one had graduated and completed
his professional career---kind of a serious cart before
the horse issue there.
> >All the Atu are 'as close', cause they all speak (in
> >varying 'degrees') to the same central theme---Penis as Jesus
> >(particularly Crowley's penis), and Semen-Sperm as Holy
> >Water.
>
> Catchy, but I've never thought of it that way. :-)
Well, maybe you need to have someone nebulize to you
in Heidrick-speak, so you'll have sufficiently
fuzzy ground upon which to base some thinking.
> >So, you mean just because it has a big penis and balls on
> >it doesn't suggest to you a sufficiently clear 'depiction'
> >or 'action'?
>
> It's not the meat, it's the motion --
mantra for the 'meatless'.
> >> All that suggests
> >> something but is not 100% clear without more explicit signs.
>
> >More 'explicit' like what?
>
> What is the goat, and what is the thought?
The Walrus is Paul, that's been established.
Furthermore, when you ask 'what is the goat', that
suggests there IS an explicit sign---perhaps what
you mean to say is that you can't provide an answer
unless explicit proof is given to you that your
querent already possesses and believes in the answer
(re: the meaning of that sign) you are prepared to
deliver.
Doesn't sound very brave---for a thelemite. But it's
certainly wise---for a salesman.
> >A 'tie'? What does that mean exactly? Is this wand only mentioned
> >there?
>
> First part of Liber Reguli,
You mean this?:
The Vertical Component of the Enchantment.
1. Let him describe a circle about his head, crying NUIT!
2. Let him draw the Thumb vertically downward and touch the
Muladhara Cakkra, crying, HADIT!
3. Let him, retracing the line, touch the centre of his breast and
cry RA-HOOR-KHUIT!
> association to chakras involved with the
> cross members of the HG cross. Also visible on Waite deck for
> Hierophant and Justice Trumps, same locations.
I can see how you might draw that conclusion
in Hierophant, but not in Justice. At any rate, can
you quote something from Waite that would suggest he
saw things similarly to Crowley regarding this symbolism?
> >> Top Bahadi of that wand indicating Hadit.
>
> >And what is Hadit, and what has it to do with Devil.
>
> Nothing to do with the Devil, except for a leg-pull remark by Crowley
> in MTP and one or two other places.
So why mention it, unless you also are just providing
'leg-pull remarks'?
Or, maybe, what you've just said isn't true.
After all, I'm sure you've bothered to read (but perhaps
conveniently forget) the following:
"The Devil" is, historically, the God of any people that one
personally dislikes. This has led to so much confusion of thought
that THE BEAST 666 has preferred to let names stand as they are,
and to proclaim simply that AIWAZ --- the solar-phallic-hermetic
"Lucifer" is His own Holy Guardian Angel, and "The Devil" SATAN
or HADIT of our particular unit of the Starry Universe. This
serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods
of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade "Know Thyself!" and
taught Initiation. He is "the Devil" of the Book of Thoth, and
His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of
arcane perfection. The number of His Atu is XV, which is Yod
He, the Monogram of the Eternal, the Father one with the Mother,
the Virgin Seed one with all-containing Space. He is therefore
Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is Ayin, the Eye;
he is Light, and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that
leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty."
> The
> Ba-hadi is the winged sun of Egyptian art and iconography. The Stele
> of Reveling used by Crowley and cited into Liber AL has this feature
> depicted and described -- however, the "Ba" was omitted from the
> heirogliphics on the Stele. The result of this is the usage "Hadit"
> instead of "Ba-Hadi". The full word in Egyptian means "In(to) the
> disk (of the Sun)". The "Ba" is the In(to) part.
The facts are these:
1. The word depicted on the Stele of Revealing is that
for Horus in his aspect as Solar god. The word used for
Horus is 'Behdet' (Budge uses 'Behutet'), the word Bill
calls 'Ba-hadi'.
2. It was common in Egyptian writing to refer to a god by
the name of the town in which his worship was centered.
Here, the word, 'Behdet', actually refers to the god,
'Horus', by reference to his town, the modern Edfu. We know
this by the fact that there is town determinant in the name
(the little cross in a circle which depicts a crossroads
with a wall). The whole top of the stele is actually a
dedication to the great god, Horus.
3. The translator Crowley hired to decipher the stele
simply missed this, or wrote a shorthand, 'hut-t', or
'Hadit', which does mean 'winged disk', but is not really
the word depicted here (he probably figured it was good enough
for some ignorant Brit tourist). Lastly, I don't think
the word, whether in short of long form, suggests
'into' anything, but rather refers to the 'seat' or
'throne' of the winged disk, which would be Edfu.
The point is that Crowley was not really interested in
Egyptology, he was much more concerned to use the stele
(whatever the hell it might have said), and his trip to Egypt,
to fire his imagination to help him ward off the ever-present
threat of boredom with his new wife.
From this kind of desparate search for novelty came Liber
Legis.
> >> >Why did Phyllis Seckler feel as she did about the rituals
> >> >and teachings of OTO? Was she just an uppity bitch?
> >>
> >> Aside from a personal problem with her relation to Grady,
>
> >She had more than a personal problem, and it was with
> >more than Grady, as you well know.
>
> Sorry, I don't know. Aside from matters related to her personal
> feelings about Grady, most of her criticisms are of a type either
> derived from that relationship or of a sort that I and others have
> voiced in the normal course of trying to get OTO going where it's
> going.
Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the criticism
of a woman as anything more than an expression of 'her
personal feelings'. It's also possible she was expressing
some 'personal thoughts', some of which I doubt you
shared (since they were directed against the nature
of your behaviors re: OTO).
> >Like she said, you guys couldn't afford to throw her out.
>
> Wrong.
She certainly did say that, Bill. Are you saying she
was wrong in her estimation of her situation?
> >Non-linear thinking often means, in the occult, convoluted
> >nonsense.
>
> That's not thinking. Linear thinking carried to extremes is nonsense,
> as the Socratic method amply demonstrates.
The Socratic method amply demonstrates an 'extreme of
linear thinking'?
It's merely a method to get people to think for themselves
while at the same time analyzing their arguments.
Do you have a problem with that?
(jk)
Paul Hume
Margaret -
93,
Try subscribing to the Thelema-L list. Not much I can do if most of my
Sisters don't bother with alt.tarot.
Paul
MLYoung
Oh, boy, an invitation to ensuing reverenced vesselhood.
Just what me and my uterus have always dreamed of.
Why do I think you guys are more interested in 69
than 93?
Well, then again, given the problem with recognize
female anatomy some have manifested, maybe not.
But thanks, Paul,
--margaret
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
Sorry to take so long to respond to this one. My Well account seems
to be missing about half the posts to alt.tarot and my AOL account is
not functioning properly. I retrieved from AOL but the system crashed
before I could post. It might be better if you direct email me a copy
when you want my response.
Also, shorter is better. I don't have the time to write a book on
demand.
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me.
>> Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
>> deck is Thelema and Liber AL.
>
>So, if your comment here is to be taken seriously, we
>should not expect to find much mention of Thelema and Liber
>AL with respect to the rituals and teachings of OTO.
That does not logically follow.
>I simply find it curious that the Grand Poohbah General of
>the OTO would find it necessary to suggest that, by inclusion
>of Thelemic ideas in 'Book of Thoth', Aleister Crowley had
>little interest in communicating ideas which would ALSO
>be of specific 'ritual' interest and concern to members
>of OTO.
That isn't even traceable to inspiration. :-)
>Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
>Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
>cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
>offer this information except to suggest that the real
>secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
>in OTO initiations.
Strike "real secrets" to "in OTO". Replace with "ideas are also used
in OTO".
>suggest
>that it was ONLY through the Order that most people were
>going to have any chance of realizing the truth of what
>he was trying to say.
About OTO, sometimes yes. Generally, usually no.
>It is truer to say that this was done long before Book
>of Thoth was created and that the deck merely reflects
>this reality in the use of Thelemic ideas which have
>expression ALSO in OTO.
About the length of your posts --that last para. would have done for a
start to your post, thus eliminating about three screens of
unnecessary verbiage.
>> Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
>> the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
>> echoed initiatory systems of those times.
>
>They didn't just echo them. That degrades and mocks the true
>importance of tarot in the systems of these innovators.
To you. Not to me. "Echo" means use by at least partial duplication.
>The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
>WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity
A few sometimes exaggerate to that extreme. The notion is impossible
on the face. Tarot is a convenient means, not the only holy book or
source of ideas.
>Tarot is at the very center of things for these occultists
Exaggeration, although some do overspecialize in it.
>> Exactly so. More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
>> rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.
>
>And the difference would be?
The former is decoration. The latter is custom merchandise.
>> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
>> word of the degree? :-)
>
>Thelema.
Never the full word of any degree. It has its use as a term, but it
is not of the character of narrow application that a primary key word
would have to have for something so specialized as the summation of a
degree.
>Example: how many people are REALLY going to be comfortable
>belonging to a group that promotes the following:
All this part is off topic for alt.tarot and biased to some extent out
of context to promote verbiage. If you want to discuss these things,
try alt.magick.order.
>How much more compelling that would sound if Aleister
>Crowley had written one or two books of suggestions with
>respect to the 'Law', instead of piles of obscure
>commentaries, laced with these kinds of warnings and
>commandments to readers (here offered in 'comment'
>upon Liber Legis, Book of the Law):
All this part is off topic and should be taken up on the Thelema list
-- although some of it might fly on alt.magick.
>Maybe Crowley was a Calvinist.
Yes, he was. It colors his notions of Thelema. The Plymouth Brethren
did hold Calvinist doctrines during his childhood.
>> More people now know externals of the
>> secret,
>
>What do you mean 'externals'?
Things capable of observation and explicit description.
>> and parotting is in the way of such recognition.
>
>In other words, it's the OTO brand of initiation
>or nothing.
That does not follow and is factually incorrect in this illustration.
>Isn't 'actual possession' almost entirely a function of belief
>that the 'association of ideas' has anything more than a
>conceptual significance, that it exists 'in fact' and in effect,
>rather than merely as a philosophical construct?
No. Actual possession in this sense means that the individual knows
and can do.
>>-- in metaphor, a sheet of music
>> in hand does not make a person a musician.
>
>Nor does one become one without it.
Tell that to most musicians. I think you will find that playing by
ear is quite common in the profession, outside orchestras.
>In other words, the 'swine' could never benefit
>from just hearing the secret. They'll need the OTO to
>parcel it out to them on OTO's schedule.
Drop "swine" and the second sentence.
>The way you would have it, the Culinary Institute would
>provide the cookbook AFTER one had graduated and completed
>his professional career---kind of a serious cart before
>the horse issue there.
Definitely, that's the best way to do it. A serious cook should learn
from a cook, not a cookbook.
>I can see how you might draw that conclusion
>in Hierophant, but not in Justice. At any rate, can
>you quote something from Waite that would suggest he
>saw things similarly to Crowley regarding this symbolism?
In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
balance arm of the scales.
>1. The word depicted on the Stele of Revealing is that
>for Horus in his aspect as Solar god. The word used for
>Horus is 'Behdet' (Budge uses 'Behutet'), the word Bill
>calls 'Ba-hadi'.
No. Heru is Horus. Ba-hadi or Behutet is a modifier on the name of
one or more variations of Horus, as in Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi = Ra the
Hawk who flies into the disk of the sun.
>Here, the word, 'Behdet', actually refers to the god,
>'Horus', by reference to his town, the modern Edfu.
Too loose by far. Naming a town to pun part of the attribute of a god
is not the same thing as naming the god after the town.
>3. The translator Crowley hired to decipher the stele
>simply missed this, or wrote a shorthand, 'hut-t', or
>'Hadit', which does mean 'winged disk', but is not really
>the word depicted here
The first translation wasn't all that good, but "Ba-Hadi" is a very
common feature on stellae. It is one of the most common decorations
(winged sun) on post Seti I Egyptian architecture and is cited very
frequently in associated inscriptions.
>Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the criticism
>of a woman as anything more than an expression of 'her
>personal feelings'.
That's simply an abusive remark. Waste of bytes.
>The Socratic method amply demonstrates an 'extreme of
>linear thinking'?
>
>It's merely a method to get people to think for themselves
>while at the same time analyzing their arguments.
The Socratic method is a retorical device for winning an argument by
using the definitions or assumptions of the opponent. It can lead to
insights, and it can be used to argue a point of view by skillful
manipulation. Aside from head exercise, it does not promote much
innovative thinking. What method Socrates actually imployed is
unknown. All examples come via Plato. A parody of Socrates' school
by a Greek contempory playwrite suggests something quite different.
93 93/93
Bill
Gary Achenbach
mly...@aol.com wrote:
> >MLYoung wrote:
> >
> >> >or state of consciousness or whatnot, is a small subset of that. When I
> >say
> >> >"does it really matter?" I don't mean it (making distinctions) doesn't
> >matter
> >>
> >> Spoken like a guy.
> >
The statement "making distinctions matters" is a 'guy thing'? Never
thought of it that way.
> >> Some sex carries the possibility
> >> of new life, some doesn't. That matters.
Absolutely--depending on intent and what kind of "new life" one is
after (consciously or unconsciously). It matters to people, that is.
As a principle, the Devil doesn't really give a fuck about
particulars--or, rather, gives a kind of universal fuck.
> Yeah, but I'd agree with you. That seems very much
> the point of the Devil. The question, to me, is about
> the female sexual aspect of the card. I think we all
> have an idea about the tree trunk happily shooting
> its wad (dropping its acorns). Its in the foreground--the
> first thing you see, the question is what's behind it?
>
Well, its complement, obviously enough. Speaking more of reading
concerns than the card in itself, the background's actually the
primary question, I find. There's this urge at play--what context
(orifice) is receiving it? Which is pretty much a rephrasing of the
above--I do think, however, that bringing assumptions about whether
the card itself shows vagina or anus (or eyesocket) *in specific*
being penetrated will tend to cloud that reading concern.
> >
> >> >So, the Devil wants to penetrate, and he's careless about what.
> >> People aren't.
> >> >
> >> I think the Devil is as much a principle as an entity in Thoth.
> >
I think principles *are* entities. Six of one.
> >'principle' of what?
>
> The principle of all activity being sexual--what you stated
> quite well above. The card is linked with Capricorn--
> a sign that has very male associations--its ruler is Saturn
> the father; it's cardinal, thus acting outward on the environment,
> but is feminine; it's an earth sign, the most passive and concrete
> of all the elements--the darkest and heaviest. What's
> created in the Devil is acutely linked to the material.
>
Will tend to be, sure. Still, while it's near to Malkhut, it's not a
direct connection. Of course, I find "material" to be more and more
of a slippery term the longer one looks at it.
> I know. I'm simply trying to get away from the traditional
> notion of Satan. This goat is the life force as much as
> anything.
>
Was this thread ever at the traditional notion of Satan? (It may well
have been in the large chunks that I've missed; my ISP's newsserver is
getting increasingly twitchy. Damnable thing is, I fear that if it
doesn't improve, making me pull up stakes and move to another, dr.
turi will claim a dead-on hit about it.)
> >>--a beast.
> >> It's a card, among other things, about the nature of the
> >> human animal.
> >
> >>I
> >> think that bestial nature includes our bestial form of
> >> continuing our species.
> >
> >That's just a consequence, not a desire. You're confusing
> >cultural 'themes' (that we SHOULD all wish to be parents
> >of replicants) with instinctual drives (to fuck it or kill it---
> >or, in the 'other' sex, to 'nurture' it).
>
> Creating and ensuring the survival of one's spawn
> both seem to be instinctual.
The Devil plays a major role in the "creating" part. But in the
latter?
> >> and, in a way, all forms of creation are
> >> a type of sex with someone, something, or some idea.
Which is why I said the "which orifice" question doesn't much matter
in regards to the card itself--as a reading concern, it does.
> >
> >And extend this to 'all forms of activity are creative
> >and thus are sexual'.
> >
> >BUT---the suggestion here is that some paths are 'barren'.
> >
> >Sounds contradictory, what is being suggested here?
>
> Except barren is just as good as fertile--Pan doesn't
> distinguish between the two--the creative force it
> represents delights in both. It doesn't discriminate;
> for its purposes it doesn't need to.
>
As does this, really.
--Gar
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> 93 Jess,
Or not.
> It might be better if you direct email me a copy
> when you want my response.
It might be better if you were actually responsive
in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
the world a 'better' place.
> Also, shorter is better.
No problem, don't beg so many questions and I won't
have to give you so many answers.
> I don't have the time to write a book on
> demand.
Who was demanding you write anything? I simply replied
to what you wrote. And you wrote a REAL fucking long
post.
Check the meter on your own bloated prose before you
start helping the other guy.
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me.
> >> Somewhat, but the main theme aside from Golden Dawn usage in the Thoth
> >> deck is Thelema and Liber AL.
> >
> >So, if your comment here is to be taken seriously, we
> >should not expect to find much mention of Thelema and Liber
> >AL with respect to the rituals and teachings of OTO.
>
> That does not logically follow.
Sure it does---the main theme in Thoth, according to you,
has little to do with the rituals and teachings of OTO,
and much to do with Thelema and Liber AL. It certainly follows
then that we'd not expect to find much about Thelema and Liber
AL in the rituals and teachings of OTO. Of course, we do find
those things, as I illustrated in my reply to you (which
illustrations, by the way, made up a substantial amount
of the length you're whining about).
To simply blurt 'it does not logically follow' without explaining
why not is evasive.
> >I simply find it curious that the Grand Poohbah General of
> >the OTO would find it necessary to suggest that, by inclusion
> >of Thelemic ideas in 'Book of Thoth', Aleister Crowley had
> >little interest in communicating ideas which would ALSO
> >be of specific 'ritual' interest and concern to members
> >of OTO.
>
> That isn't even traceable to inspiration. :-)
What isn't traceable? My comment, or your dissembling?
> >Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
> >Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
> >cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
> >offer this information except to suggest that the real
> >secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
> >in OTO initiations.
>
> Strike "real secrets" to "in OTO".
Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
you there.
> Replace with "ideas are also used
> in OTO".
If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.
> >suggest
> >that it was ONLY through the Order that most people were
> >going to have any chance of realizing the truth of what
> >he was trying to say.
>
> About OTO, sometimes yes. Generally, usually no.
Well, here, I heartily agree with you. I am quite sure
OTO has SELDOM led the general population of its members
to realizing whatever truth Crowley was trying to articulate.
It is refreshing to see the GPG admit to this as well.
> >It is truer to say that this was done long before Book
> >of Thoth was created and that the deck merely reflects
> >this reality in the use of Thelemic ideas which have
> >expression ALSO in OTO.
>
> About the length of your posts --that last para. would have done for a
> start to your post, thus eliminating about three screens of
> unnecessary verbiage.
My dear, when thelemites start complaining about
'unnecessary verbiage' you're only serving notice
that you don't like the nature of the verbiage.
Someone should just publish a book on your 'trademark'
responses to criticism---it would limit your own plentiful
'unnecessary verbiage' since people could simply 'cut &
paste' your non-responses from the book.
> >> Recall that for G.'.D.'., Levi and others,
> >> the 19th century and early 20th century Tarot innovations frequently
> >> echoed initiatory systems of those times.
> >
> >They didn't just echo them. That degrades and mocks the true
> >importance of tarot in the systems of these innovators.
>
> To you. Not to me. "Echo" means use by at least partial duplication.
What does '"Echo" means use by at least partial duplication,'
mean in English?
> >The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
> >WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity
> A few sometimes exaggerate to that extreme.
Crowley certainly did, and he certainly believed that
about Book of Thoth.
He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---
"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious
"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which
will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought
for the next 2000 years."
AND, commenting on the deck which his replaced, he wrote:
"Hadit is the fire that hath burnt up the book Tarot. For in
the book Tarot was preserved all of the wisdom (for the Tarot was
called the Book of Thoth), of the Aeon that is passed."
Of course, there is no 'Hadit', so maybe it was a
match or a cigarette lighter.
> The notion is impossible
> on the face.
Your prophet didn't think that was an issue.
> Tarot is a convenient means,
For making ridiculous claims of importance?
Yep.
> not the only holy book or
> source of ideas.
Doesn't have to be 'only' to be 'main' or 'central'.
> >Tarot is at the very center of things for these occultists
>
> Exaggeration, although some do overspecialize in it.
That's not an exaggeration. The 'great secret' that the
occultists have battled over through the years, the Holy
Grail that people believed was proof or denial of one's
special connection to occult truth, was the ability to supply
the correct key to the Tarot. Without that consideration,
without that key, the claims for the preternatural
origins of Liber AL are just bullshit.
Tarot keys are THE way in which Crowley asserted the validity of
his revelation. It was THE symbolic focus of his magical
activities for his entire adult life (once he encountered
it in Golden Dawn) and his magical understanding is poured
out into Book of Thoth. And that includes, indeed it
accentuates, the information concerning initiations and
instructions of OTO.
> >> Exactly so. More a case of modeling the sets and sayings of the
> >> rituals on Tarot than Tarot on the rituals.
> >
> >And the difference would be?
>
> The former is decoration. The latter is custom merchandise.
There we go, 'merchandise'. Again, that's the only concern
here---OTO treats the rituals as 'trade secrets', and does
not want it known that those secrets are explicitly
portrayed in a commercially-distributed tarot deck.
As Bill once noted:
"Any trick of production or instruction leading to some
publicly accessible result can be a common law tradesecret --
but such things are not registered, since that would disclose
them and cause them to cease to be a secret. If Tarot is used
in an OTO initiation, under secrecy oath, that would be an
example of a tradesecret. Even if, as has happened, someone
publishes that secret, it remains the common law property of
OTO, defensible in a court of law, in the exact manner of
the use in ritual -- so long as OTO does not publicly admit
the accuracy of the pirate publication in sufficient detail."
> >> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
> >> word of the degree? :-)
> >
> >Thelema.
>
> Never the full word of any degree.
It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
Hardly a surprise, given that Thelema and Agape are the
two Greek words for 'Will' and 'Love'---'Love under
Will'. Woman under Man.
What would you have us think it was gonna be?
Boris and Natasha?
OK, you can go ahead and fulfill your official duty and issue
your denial now.
> It has its use as a term,
What use do you make of it?
> but it
> is not of the character of narrow application that a primary key word
Let's see, we have---
"Word"
"Full word"
"Primary Key word"
Any more meaningless jargon to throw in here?
How about:
'primary secret full key word'
> would have to have for something so specialized as the summation of a
> degree.
Take it up with your designer.
> >Example: how many people are REALLY going to be comfortable
> >belonging to a group that promotes the following:
>
> All this part is off topic for alt.tarot
I give a certain latitude to topics, as long as they aren't
ads. And any discussion of Crowley's ideas, as they are supposed
to be promoted in OTO, necessarily requests an examination of
his more problematic declarations.
I'm not surprised to see you come up with an excuse for
not replying with substance, but one would have hoped,
that regardless of your estimate of the topicality of
the quote, you could have seen fit to offer a reason
why OTO finds comfort in the premise that children should
be indoctrinated in Thelemic ideas. I'm just curious, does
OTO plan to 'emancipate' Christian and Jewish children too?
Moslems? Hindus? Atheists?
> and biased to some extent out
> of context to promote verbiage.
The 'bias' is to 'promote verbiage'?
Well, again, blame your prophet, he's the long-winded
bastard who wrote this stuff.
> If you want to discuss these things,
> try alt.magick.order.
You mean, where no one here will be likely to read it?
Nah. This is perfectly relevant to alt.tarot (or just about
anywhere that the topic of OTO comes up). A lot of people
who read this newsgroup have an interest in "Book of Thoth" tarot
and they deserve to hear any and all of Crowley's ideas, and
they also deserve to get more than a curtly indifferent reply
from an OTO officer when some of those ideas are offered in
illustration of the suggestion that OTO might be pursuing a
threatening policy.
> >How much more compelling that would sound if Aleister
> >Crowley had written one or two books of suggestions with
> >respect to the 'Law', instead of piles of obscure
> >commentaries, laced with these kinds of warnings and
> >commandments to readers (here offered in 'comment'
> >upon Liber Legis, Book of the Law):
>
> All this part is off topic
Why? Cause you don't want to talk about it in respect to
Book of Thoth tarot?
Like I said, we don't have strict rules about topics here.
In tarot it would be difficult and unwise to try to impose
any such rules. Of course, if you just think the readers
of alt.tarot are unworthy of hearing your reply, that
would seem to be YOUR problem, not that of the group
or the nature of the comments I made.
> and should be taken up on the Thelema list
> -- although some of it might fly on alt.magick.
Then it will 'fly' fine here.
Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
by OTO is not, however.
> >Maybe Crowley was a Calvinist.
>
> Yes, he was. It colors his notions of Thelema. The Plymouth Brethren
> did hold Calvinist doctrines during his childhood.
Oh Pastor Paul---you too can be a Thelemite, dear.
> >> More people now know externals of the
> >> secret,
> >
> >What do you mean 'externals'?
>
> Things capable of observation and explicit description.
You mean the secrets are 'out'. Yeah, I know.
> >> and parotting is in the way of such recognition.
> >
> >In other words, it's the OTO brand of initiation
> >or nothing.
>
> That does not follow
Doesn't it Bill? If OTO 'recognition' is dependent on
OTO recognizing someone's knowledge, and if the knowledge
is now available to people outside the order, so that the
'recognition' is irrelevant, then the only purpose you
could have for complaining about 'parroting' being
in the way is to demand that ONLY OTO's dissemination
of the truth is valid.
> and is factually incorrect in this illustration.
So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
member of OTO, right?
And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?
Or was he?
> >Isn't 'actual possession' almost entirely a function of belief
> >that the 'association of ideas' has anything more than a
> >conceptual significance, that it exists 'in fact' and in effect,
> >rather than merely as a philosophical construct?
>
> No. Actual possession in this sense means that the individual knows
Knows what exactly?
> and can do.
'can do' implies that there is a belief that there is
something TO do.
> >>-- in metaphor, a sheet of music
> >> in hand does not make a person a musician.
> >
> >Nor does one become one without it.
>
> Tell that to most musicians.
Be happy to. Especially since the kind of musician
(or magician) we are talking about (someone who
goes to Juliard or who imagines a magical Juliard
exists in OTO) definitely will need to learn how
to read music (or magick).
> I think you will find that playing by
> ear is quite common in the profession, outside orchestras.
I think you will find that reading music is
also quite common, since most musicians have bothered
to learn at least some notation in their lives.
The point here is that OTO does not 'recognize'
playing by ear.
> >In other words, the 'swine' could never benefit
> >from just hearing the secret. They'll need the OTO to
> >parcel it out to them on OTO's schedule.
>
> Drop "swine"
And put what in its place---'little piggies'?
> and the second sentence.
And then it would spin better for OTO.
> >The way you would have it, the Culinary Institute would
> >provide the cookbook AFTER one had graduated and completed
> >his professional career---kind of a serious cart before
> >the horse issue there.
>
> Definitely, that's the best way to do it.
You mean the medieval way---where one has to apprentice
to a master to obtain knowledge? That's why we have
books (and Internet), Bill, to spread the wealth of knowledge
to everyone.
> A serious cook should learn
> from a cook, not a cookbook.
What if 'a cook' doesn't know something? What then?
Guess he'll have to look it up in a cookbook, huh?
And OTO has those.
The thing about OTO is that it not only wants to
keep the cookbook to itself, it expects its students
to apprentice for years, paying increasing membership fees,
before they might even be considered worthy to read the
most basic information about HOW TO COOK.
> >I can see how you might draw that conclusion
> >in Hierophant, but not in Justice. At any rate, can
> >you quote something from Waite that would suggest he
> >saw things similarly to Crowley regarding this symbolism?
>
> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
> balance arm of the scales.
Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
that view?
> >1. The word depicted on the Stele of Revealing is that
> >for Horus in his aspect as Solar god. The word used for
> >Horus is 'Behdet' (Budge uses 'Behutet'), the word Bill
> >calls 'Ba-hadi'.
>
> No. Heru is Horus.
Egyptian gods go by many names, Bill, as you mention
below. Hadn't you ever bothered to look this up before?
> Ba-hadi or Behutet is a modifier on the name of
> one or more variations of Horus,
The variation is 'Horus of Behutet' (or Edfu).
I quote from Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, Vol I, page
473:
"Heru-Behutet---This is one of the greatest and most important
of all the forms of Horus, for he represents that form of
Heru-khuti [NOTE:that is, 'Horus of the two Horizons', who could
be represented as a form of Ra, but generally represented
the Sun in its course across the sky] which prevailed in
the southern heavens at midday, and as such typified the
greatest power of the heat of the Sun."
Later, we are told (page 477)---
"At this juncture Thoth declared that Horus, son of Ra,
should be called Heru-Behutet, and Behutet (Edfu) should
be called the city of Horus; and Ra referred with pleasure
to the blood which his son had shed and which he likened
to grapes."
And, from a manual on hieroglyphics:
"Behdet (the town of Edfu)---this town was sacred to the solar
Horus (winged disk), and one of the greatest and best preserved
of all Egyptian temples still stands there. Behdet is to
be read "He of Behdet", or "the solar Horus"; that is,
the god's name is written by means of the name of his
city."
There is no 'Hadit' on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There never
was. 'Hadit' is simply a creation of Crowley's imagination
based on an error in translation' of the word, Behdet.
> as in Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi
Bill, there are two deities:
1. Ra-Heru-Khuti (which is the 'Ra' form of 'Heru-Khuti')
2. Heru-Behdet (again, meaning 'Horus of Behdet')
Heru-Behdet is the son of Ra-Heru-Khuti. Indeed, one of the
titles of Ra-Heru-Khuti is 'the dweller in Behdet'. Behdet
is the town of Edfu.
>= Ra the
> Hawk who flies into the disk of the sun.
What is your source for this 'phrase' and this translation?
> >Here, the word, 'Behdet', actually refers to the god,
> >'Horus', by reference to his town, the modern Edfu.
>
> Too loose by far. Naming a town to pun part of the attribute of a god
> is not the same thing as naming the god after the town.
You need the study the connection of the town to the god.
You're simply ignorant about this. Or worse.
> >3. The translator Crowley hired to decipher the stele
> >simply missed this, or wrote a shorthand, 'hut-t', or
> >'Hadit', which does mean 'winged disk', but is not really
> >the word depicted here
>
> The first translation wasn't all that good,
Precisely.
Indeed, in subsequent translations of the Stele I've seen in OTO
pubs, the word 'Behdet' is given with a little note indicating
that perhaps this could be the word originally translated as
'Hadit'.
I am surprised no one has called you on this before---except,
of course I did, about two years ago, and you gave me your
'Ba-Hadi' story. After bothering to research this question
I came to realize that you were either enthusiastically
ignorant, or were lying.
> but "Ba-Hadi" is a very
> common feature on stellae.
Again, 'Behdet' is the translation and it's the town of
Edfu. That it would occur often in Egyptian writings
is, given what we've seen here concerning its role in myth
and history, hardly surprising.
> >Perhaps you have difficulty accepting the criticism
> >of a woman as anything more than an expression of 'her
> >personal feelings'.
>
> That's simply an abusive remark.
Guess she was right about how you take criticism.
> >The Socratic method amply demonstrates an 'extreme of
> >linear thinking'?
> >
> >It's merely a method to get people to think for themselves
> >while at the same time analyzing their arguments.
>
> The Socratic method is a retorical device for winning an argument
Not necessarily. Have you actually ever read Plato, Bill,
I mean like in the last 20 or 30 years?
Let me suggest it to you. It's never too late for you to
re-start your education.
(jk)
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me.
>It might be better if you were actually responsive
>in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
>the world a 'better' place.
This one made it on my ISP. On responsive: I am by my standards. If
that doesn't suit your standards, narrow topic, shorten posts and we
will work at it.
>> Also, shorter is better.
>No problem, don't beg so many questions and I won't
>have to give you so many answers.
Don't one-shot so many questions at a time. Also, the nature of the
subject is such that some things have precise meaning, most have
multiple meanings and many have conceptual limitations.
>Sure it does---the main theme in Thoth, according to you,
>has little to do with the rituals and teachings of OTO,
>and much to do with Thelema and Liber AL. It certainly follows
>then that we'd not expect to find much about Thelema and Liber
>AL in the rituals and teachings of OTO.
Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields. OTO is a
moderately large field with substantially narrower focus in its
rituals and teachings. A preponderance of Thelemic/AL influence upon
the Thoth deck does not exclude a substantial influence of Thelema/AL
in OTO. The area of overlap is smaller between OTO content and Thoth
than between OTO and Tarot in general, but not insignificant. Recall
that the OTO rituals in the main pre-date the Thoth deck by more than
20 years. The former is private, the latter public.
>> >Actually, specific OTO degrees (I believe three of them,
>> >Vth, IXth, and XIth) are mentioned with respect to several
>> >cards in the deck. There's little reason for Crowley to
>> >offer this information except to suggest that the real
>> >secrets of the symbolism reside in the keys revealed
>> >in OTO initiations.
>>
>> Strike "real secrets" to "in OTO".
>Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
>no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
>you there.
The usage "real secrets" implies that there is "one true meaning" to
everything involved in the Thoth deck. There are multiple meanings,
although selection of particular design elements may have had a
particular meaning at the time it was done. OTO uses Tarot in a
limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO. That does not mean
the Thoth deck was designed for that exclusive purpose in any regard,
only that OTO has use for some of the things in the design for OTO's
purposes.
>If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
>there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
>with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.
The Book of Thoth would not have been published if it were not for OTO
contributions to the publishing fund. Tipping the hat to OTO by
oblique reference at points in the book enriches the value of the book
to OTO members and helps on the next pass of the hat.
>Well, here, I heartily agree with you. I am quite sure
>OTO has SELDOM led the general population of its members
>to realizing whatever truth Crowley was trying to articulate.
Correct, an advise that is given to the members at the first
initiation into OTO. All OTO can do is offer help.
>My dear, when thelemites start complaining about
>'unnecessary verbiage' you're only serving notice
>that you don't like the nature of the verbiage.
You have a point on that one. The Thelema list has gone into 200+
messages a day, perhaps five of which are worth record and less worth
response.
>What does '"Echo" means use by at least partial duplication,'
>mean in English?
Same idea and some duplication of language in at least two
presentations.
>> >The point was that tarot, according to these occultists,
>> >WAS the symbolic bible of all humanity
>
>> A few sometimes exaggerate to that extreme.
>Crowley certainly did, and he certainly believed that
>about Book of Thoth.
>He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---
>"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious
>"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which
>will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought
>for the next 2000 years."
Almost as catachy a slogan for sales as: "Burn this book after reading
it!" :-)
>Of course, there is no 'Hadit', so maybe it was a
>match or a cigarette lighter.
Asked and answered -- in re meaning of Hadit.
>Tarot keys are THE way in which Crowley asserted the validity of
>his revelation.
"A support to..." Crowley often considered his latest work his best
and most key, until the next.
> It was THE symbolic focus of his magical
>activities for his entire adult life (once he encountered
>it in Golden Dawn) and his magical understanding is poured
>out into Book of Thoth. And that includes, indeed it
>accentuates, the information concerning initiations and
>instructions of OTO.
Exaggeration, even if Crowley also says it.
>> >> On that, if a picture is worth a 1,000 words, which of those is the
>> >> word of the degree? :-)
>> >
>> >Thelema.
>>
>> Never the full word of any degree.
>It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
No, simply. Not an evasion, just wrong. -- at least for IXth and in
the issue of prime word for any of the OTO degrees. If you have
King's book, better read it again.
>why OTO finds comfort in the premise that children should
>be indoctrinated in Thelemic ideas. I'm just curious, does
>OTO plan to 'emancipate' Christian and Jewish children too?
>Moslems? Hindus? Atheists?
Children of Thelemites should have a childhood exposure to the
religion/philosophy of their parents, in the manner appropriate to
children and in the same way as Christian, Jewish etc. OTO doesn't
offer that, but it's a normal and proper cultural function.
>Why? Cause you don't want to talk about it in respect to
>Book of Thoth tarot?
Perhaps if you would return to matters of Tarot, we could find some
occasion for discussion here.
>Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
>Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
>by OTO is not, however.
No. The Thoth deck is a tarot deck. The Book of Thoth is a book
about that deck, written by the designer of the deck.
>Doesn't it Bill? If OTO 'recognition' is dependent on
>OTO recognizing someone's knowledge, and if the knowledge
>is now available to people outside the order, so that the
>'recognition' is irrelevant, then the only purpose you
>could have for complaining about 'parroting' being
>in the way is to demand that ONLY OTO's dissemination
>of the truth is valid.
Nonsense. OTO has the right to recognize it's own members, not to
adjudicate universal truth.
>So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
>member of OTO, right?
Grant was a member. At that time he had a degree in OTO. Since he is
not now a member and hasn't been since mid 1955, he has no degree in
OTO to recognize. If he were readmitted, an unlikely event, that
would probably be the degree he would have on resumption of
membership.
>And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?
>Or was he?
Motta was never a member of OTO. Thus, he never had a degree of
membership in OTO of any kind. He argued that possession of
instructional papers for IXth degree OTO from the hand of the then
head of OTO made him a IXth degree in OTO. It did not.
>The point here is that OTO does not 'recognize'
>playing by ear.
If it's close enough, it's there. However, I think you are confusing
possession of a "secret" with membership. The degrees require
membership, since they are categories of membership.
>> Drop "swine"
>And put what in its place---'little piggies'?
Something about Tarot would be nice.
>> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
>> balance arm of the scales.
>Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
>that view?
Try looking at the card now and then.
>"Behdet (the town of Edfu)---this town was sacred to the solar
>Horus (winged disk),
Didn't I say that?
>There is no 'Hadit' on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There never
>was. 'Hadit' is simply a creation of Crowley's imagination
>based on an error in translation' of the word, Behdet.
Does not follow. The misspelling is on the Stele itself. As to the
rest, that's what Crowley saw in it.
>Let me suggest it to you. It's never too late for you to
>re-start your education.
It's not too late to actually discuss Tarot on this thread either.
Try it. You might enjoy it.
93 93/93
Bill
thomas.odonnell
In article <34F5BC72...@texas.net>,
If I could interject... What is your opinion of the works of Amado Crowley? He
said he had an unusual pack that perplexed his dad? Also, Crowley and his ilk
are unlikely to give away great secrets in anything he wrote, and would more
likely have sport with their readers. Anyway life is short, death is near, and
symbol systems are only a means to an end. I have a sneaking suspicion that
Tarot and Kabbalah and popular magic in general are a circus to keep the
drones amused and publishers in the black.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Bill Heidrick
93 Thomas,
thomas.odonnell <thomas....@virgin.net> wrote:
>If I could interject... What is your opinion of the works of Amado Crowley?
My opinion is that "Amado's" works are poorly done fiction.
>He
>said he had an unusual pack that perplexed his dad?
He has written a number of factually incorrect things, the main one of
which is that he is the natural and acknowledged son of Aleister
Crowley. Amado Crowley is not the son of Aleister Crowely. To judge
by his accounts, in conflict with Crowley's own diaries of where
Crowley was when, Amado appears not to have even met Crowley.
> Also, Crowley and his ilk
>are unlikely to give away great secrets in anything he wrote, and would more
>likely have sport with their readers.
Both, actually. Crowley did occasionally put in blinds, but he also
attemped to explain matters properly characterized as "secret". As to
great secrets, the difficulty is inherent. Many of these matters are
less a question of assemblige of facts and more an issue of acquiring
new ideas or points of view -- like studying mathematics, there are
levels of understanding that require new concepts. Explicit
descripition in terms of concepts already held can only go so far. It
is necessary not merely to examine cultural pre-conceptions but to
explode them through confrontation with the absurd and with stressful
notions. To that end, some clarity is necessarily lost, since nailing
everything down leads to lack of ability to innovate.
> Anyway life is short, death is near, and
>symbol systems are only a means to an end. I have a sneaking suspicion that
>Tarot and Kabbalah and popular magic in general are a circus to keep the
>drones amused and publishers in the black.
Definitely the latter is true in the main. However, symbol systems
are a means to other ends as well. They enable the mind to function
more swiftly and in novel ways. Just as a good vocabulary of words
permits clearer expression, a good and well integrated skill with
symbol systems promotes rapid and creative thought. There are ways,
apparently having to do with human instinct, to use symbols, shapes
and colors to reach states other than normal for human consciousness.
The details vary, but exploration in this interests me.
93 93/93
Bill
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> 93 Jess,
?! Bill.
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me.
>
> >It might be better if you were actually responsive
> >in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
> >the world a 'better' place.
>
> This one made it on my ISP. On responsive: I am by my standards.
That's why your 'standards' have become an issue.
> >No problem, don't beg so many questions and I won't
> >have to give you so many answers.
>
> Don't one-shot so many questions at a time.
Like I said, don't beg so many questions.
> Also, the nature of the
> subject is such that some things have precise meaning,
When will any of those be forthcoming from you?
> most have
> multiple meanings and many have conceptual limitations.
Or is it rather that it is in OTO's interest to promote
that view, since the 'secrets' are then buried underneath
multiple conjectures?
> >Sure it does---the main theme in Thoth, according to you,
> >has little to do with the rituals and teachings of OTO,
> >and much to do with Thelema and Liber AL. It certainly follows
> >then that we'd not expect to find much about Thelema and Liber
> >AL in the rituals and teachings of OTO.
>
> Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.
As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL.
> OTO is a
> moderately large field with substantially narrower focus
Again, that 'focus' has been explored in this thread, and
you've offered no explanations for the number of quotes which
have been posted showing that Crowley's view of OTO WAS as
a social organ of recruitment and devotion to Thelema
and Liber AL.
You can't just keep posting 'that's not logical' or 'that's
not true', and expect that alone, in light of evidence to the
contrary, to be very convincing.
> in its
> rituals and teachings.
And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
willingness to lie in public about the connection of
Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
is suspect, to say the least.
> A preponderance of Thelemic/AL influence upon
> the Thoth deck does not exclude a substantial influence of Thelema/AL
> in OTO.
And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
is that the connection is far more than coincidental
and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed'
knowledge. The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course
of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists
beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with
Aleister Crowley.
Only someone, such as yourself, whose professional duties include
issuing misinformation to the public, would (or reasonably COULD)
argue otherwise.
> The area of overlap is smaller between OTO content and Thoth
> than between OTO and Tarot in general,
Bill, you're just trying to mislead (again) here. Thoth
IS tarot (in general), as far as Crowley was concerned.
It is the deck which replaces that of the Old Aeon and
matches symbolically the new metaphors which come into
effect as a result of the 1904 revealing of Liber AL.
It is absurd for you to make the distinctions you are
making. OTO accepts the validity of Liber AL, and is devoted
to its ideas and the spread of its teaching. OTO would,
therefore, also accept Thoth as the tarot which naturally
reflects and reveals the nature of its rituals. We've
already seen the quote where Crowley admits to this.
> but not insignificant. Recall
> that the OTO rituals in the main pre-date the Thoth deck by more than
> 20 years.
Precisely, the symbolism of those rituals, rewritten
by Crowley to reflect the teachings of Liber AL, MUST be
represented in the deck which serves as the symbolic
'encyclopedia' of the New Aeon.
You're trying to represent these things as disconnected
though somewhat related phenomena and that's simply
misleading. They are part of a complex social-magickal
organization with OTO serving as a public church (or
Brüderschaft, depending on your views of such things), designed
to recruit new members (and their money) and, as we've seen,
"to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of
the O.T.O.", all devoted to promoting and serving the
dictates of Liber AL.
> >Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
> >no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
> >you there.
>
> The usage "real secrets" implies that there is "one true meaning" to
> everything involved in the Thoth deck. There are multiple meanings,
Again, this is standard OTO obfuscation---validating the largely
nonsensical conjectures of the despised swine (and their
little swineherds, the pop tarot writers). Think about
it for a moment. OTO seldom publicly attacks the likes
of a Mary Greer or Angeles Arrien, or the Akron-Banzhof boys,
despite the unmitigated trash that these writers have
promulgated concerning Thoth and Crowley (of course, on
this newsgroup, OTO doesn't have to defend Crowley from those
idiots since we all do it for them). And the reason OTO is so
tolerant of these mass-market nitwits is that OTO is perfectly
happy to have Thoth POORLY understood by just about everyone.
> OTO uses Tarot in a
> limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO.
Those 'internal notions' are, as we've repeatedly
illustrated, devoted to Liber AL and Thelema.
> That does not mean
> the Thoth deck was designed for that exclusive purpose
Again, the purpose is clearly stated by Crowley, and
follows 'logically' the philosophical development of occult tarot
since 1781.
> in any regard,
> only that OTO has use for some of the things in the design for OTO's
> purposes.
Which is simply to repeat what we've been saying here---OTO's
'purposes' are intimately related in the symbolism of Thoth.
> >If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
> >there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
> >with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.
>
> The Book of Thoth would not have been published if it were not for OTO
> contributions to the publishing fund.
Why would OTO be concerned to supply these funds for a project having
so very little to do with their 'designs'?
> Tipping the hat to OTO by
> oblique reference at points
The references are more than oblique. One could simply
say 'the symbolism is particularly pertinent to
understandings to be had in OTO'. But Crowley rather, several
times, is much more explicit than this:
Example:
in reference to 'Six of Cups', 'Pleasure'---
"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
Degree of the O.T.O."
That seems to me a very explicit kind of 'hat-tipping',
and to assert, as I noted before, that one NEEDS to
'know, understand, and experience' the symbolism of
Thoth with respect to the specific ritual experience and
teachings supplied in OTO. You may be right to suggest
this is offered (partly) by way of advertising, you are
misleading to imply that this is ALL it is.
> in the book enriches the value of the book
> to OTO members and helps on the next pass of the hat.
I've no doubt that hat-passing was always a primary
concern for AC.
> >Well, here, I heartily agree with you. I am quite sure
> >OTO has SELDOM led the general population of its members
> >to realizing whatever truth Crowley was trying to articulate.
>
> Correct, an advise that is given to the members at the first
> initiation into OTO. All OTO can do is offer help.
One of the other things they could do is to eliminate
the hierarchical structure of OTO, do away with grades
of initiation, and provide ALL printed materials to
anyone (members or not) who is interested in them.
As pointed out earlier, no damage to OTO would likely
come in doing this. Instead, OTO could take a lead in
publicly confronting the more problematic and troubling
aspects of Thelemic ideology (including those contained in
the 'secret' documents) INSTEAD of taking the lead
in doing continual damage (and thought) control through
evasion and lying.
> >He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---
>
> >"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious
> >"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which
> >will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought
> >for the next 2000 years."
>
> Almost as catachy a slogan for sales as: "Burn this book after reading
> it!" :-)
Bill, if you don't believe Crowley meant this, then you're
a hypocrite. You yourself noted back in 1985, responding
to the implications that maybe your 'service' to McMurtry
was ill-advised:
"I'm bothered because it seems to declare to the world at
large that I was a total imbecile for abandoning my career to
serve Mr. McMurtry's ends. I have devoted essentially the balance
of my life from 1977 to this purpose. And it's very trying."
Having obtained 'Mr. McMurtry's ends', and having, presumably,
devoted the years since 1985 in service to his successor's
'ends', does this mean that those objectives have little to do with
those articulated for the order by Aleister Crowley?
Or are you suggesting Crowley was a fraud?
Either way, I'm curious, if the opinion of the 'world at large'
was of much concern to you, why did you join up with
a group like OTO in the first place?
> >Tarot keys are THE way in which Crowley asserted the validity of
> >his revelation.
>
> "A support to..." Crowley often considered his latest work his best
> and most key, until the next.
Maybe he was anal-retentive.
He could have written considerably less than he did
and made his point.
I generally find his shorter and more casual works much better,
both with respect to their literary merits and any
occult 'wisdoms' worth articulating.
> > It was THE symbolic focus of his magical
> >activities for his entire adult life (once he encountered
> >it in Golden Dawn) and his magical understanding is poured
> >out into Book of Thoth. And that includes, indeed it
> >accentuates, the information concerning initiations and
> >instructions of OTO.
>
> Exaggeration, even if Crowley also says it.
Well, Bill, why even have a conversation about this then?
Neither of us knew Aleister Crowley, so neither of us
has anything other than his writings (and the testimony
of some witnesses) by which to judge the man's motives.
I'm willing to admit that he wavered from time to time
in terms of his conviction about Thelema and Liber AL. I'm
not however willing to (conveniently) dismiss everything
he wrote merely because I know his words can only
varyingly be trusted on the surface. In short, it is
entirely possible for someone like Crowley to write something
as absurdly presumptuous as his claims for Thoth's
multi-millenial significance, knowing and appreciating its
absurdity, AND for him to still quite literally mean it.
Again, to think otherwise is to admit that Liber AL
is just bullshit, the scribblings of a pathetic creature,
trying to create some romantic commonality between
himself and his wife (who, as it turns out, was to have
the last and longest laugh on her husband).
> >> Never the full word of any degree.
>
> >It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
>
> No, simply.
You're lying, simply.
Prove otherwise.
> Not an evasion, just wrong. -- at least for IXth and in
> the issue of prime word for any of the OTO degrees. If you have
> King's book, better read it again.
So you're saying King's book gives this 'prime word' (whatever
that is) for the IXth degree?
Interesting admission, given your admitted policy of denial with
respect to published accounts of your 'secrets'.
Aren't you in violation of some 'code' or the other?
Of course, whatever you might say about this is compromised
by the fact that your 'policy' (and its application) destroys
your credibility.
> >why OTO finds comfort in the premise that children should
> >be indoctrinated in Thelemic ideas. I'm just curious, does
> >OTO plan to 'emancipate' Christian and Jewish children too?
> >Moslems? Hindus? Atheists?
>
> Children of Thelemites should have a childhood exposure to the
> religion/philosophy of their parents,
The remark does not concern merely 'children of Thelemites'.
Indeed, if one wishes a child to 'do as it wilt' then
he would not need to expose it to ANY religion or
philosophy---if, on the other hand, this remark is
to suggest that such comments as, for example,
'a woman has no soul' should make a good philosophical basis
for teaching healthy gender-consciousness to children,
then I doubt you'll find too many intelligent takers.
Of course---you all don't.
> >Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
> >Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
> >by OTO is not, however.
>
> No. The Thoth deck is a tarot deck. The Book of Thoth is a book
> about that deck, written by the designer of the deck.
Actually, they are referenced by the same title.
Book of Thoth IS a book about the Book of Thoth, the
traditional occult name for tarot.
Your quibbling is---Heidrickian.
> >Doesn't it Bill? If OTO 'recognition' is dependent on
> >OTO recognizing someone's knowledge, and if the knowledge
> >is now available to people outside the order, so that the
> >'recognition' is irrelevant, then the only purpose you
> >could have for complaining about 'parroting' being
> >in the way is to demand that ONLY OTO's dissemination
> >of the truth is valid.
>
> Nonsense. OTO has the right to recognize it's own members,
Which OTO would that be, Bill? The one viewed by the 1st Circuit
as "nothing more than an idea in the mind of Aleister Crowley",
or the one CREATED by the 9th Circuit as sole heir to Crowley's
estate (never mind all the people around the world who
might have had competing claims)?
> >So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
> >member of OTO, right?
>
> Grant was a member. At that time he had a degree in OTO. Since he is
> not now a member and hasn't been since mid 1955, he has no degree in
> OTO to recognize.
But you claimed yourself that his expulsion was improper.
Indeed, given Germer's views of OTO, and his position in it,
it's questionable whether he possessed any authority to act
as he did re: Grant.
> If he were readmitted, an unlikely event, that
> would probably be the degree he would have on resumption of
> membership.
Why 'probably'? Wonder what degree he'd give you, if you
are ever admitted to HIS version of OTO?
> >And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?
>
> >Or was he?
>
> Motta was never a member of OTO.
He claimed he was. He claimed Germer initiated him into
the degree. So, why ignore his claims?
>Thus, he never had a degree of
> membership in OTO of any kind. He argued that possession of
> instructional papers for IXth degree OTO from the hand of the then
> head of OTO made him a IXth degree in OTO. It did not.
Actually, possession of that paper, 'Emblems and Mode of
Use', WAS, at one time, a key method for determining one's
possession of the degree, wasn't it? And the fact is that OTO
did recognize people who possessed that paper, and no other
proof of membership, AS possessors of IXth degree
in OTO.
> >The point here is that OTO does not 'recognize'
> >playing by ear.
>
> If it's close enough, it's there. However, I think you are confusing
> possession of a "secret" with membership.
I'm not the one doing the 'confusing'---you all have
spent a lot of energy working on keeping things as confusing
as is possible.
For that matter, perhaps YOU are confusing 'membership' with
the possession of a 'secret' (or any knowledge worth having).
> >> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
> >> balance arm of the scales.
>
> >Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
> >that view?
>
> Try looking at the card now and then.
Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
that view?
> >"Behdet (the town of Edfu)---this town was sacred to the solar
> >Horus (winged disk),
>
> Didn't I say that?
No, you didn't.
In fact, you've enthusiastically ignored the facts concerning
this word, and its proper translation, for years now.
I quote you, from one of your several attempts at creating
a 'Ba-hadit' mythology---
""Hadit" is the spelling of "Bahadit" found on the Stele.
This is unusual in that most Egyptian spelling of the period
maintained the "Ba" prefix. Crowley adopted the spelling from
the Stele, and it is common as well in Liber AL. This "Hadit" or
"Bahadit" is the winged sun disk, used over the entrances of temple
doorways, at the tops of stel and elsewhere in Egyptian art and
architecture. Interestingly, the full name of Ra-Hoor-Khuit is
Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi, Ra-Horus who flies into the disk of the sun.
--- information researched by Fr. Ebony. Liber AL was received
during that part of the year in which Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi was said
by the ancient Egyptians to rule the decan occupied by the Sun.
It is not known if Crowley was aware of this particular deity being
astrologically "on official watch" at the time."
This 'analysis' is so full of misapprehensions and errors in
fact that I must say it is a damning thing indeed.
Let's examine Bill's myth, point by point---
1. Bill states "Hadit" is the spelling of "Bahadit" found on the
Stele."
First off, it's helpful to know that in hieroglyphic
transliteration one generally does NOT know the sound
of vowels (Egyptian hieroglyphs are consonants, the
readers of the language were expected to fill in the
vowels). So, a convention developed amongst translators
whereby the vowel 'e' was substituted for all vowels
(exceptions being made for when the correct vowel sound
might be guessed from other sources or to simply add some
variation to a word). Thus, what Bill writes as
'Bahadit', or 'Ba-Hadit', is generally written
'Behdet' or (as in Budge) 'Behutet'.
Indeed, as pointed out before, in later editions of
'Equinox of the Gods' the word is, in fact, given as
'Behdet', the correct translation.
Now, the way in which we get this word is by the combination
of certain hieroglyphs, in this case they are:
a. 'tusk'='b' or 'b(e)h'
b. 'hand'='d'
c. 'cake'='t'
In addition, as I pointed out earlier, this word possesses
a special glyph (the circle with cross), known as a 'determinative',
which expresses a particular characteristic of the word,
in this case, that 'Behdet' is the name of a town (modern
'Edfu').
If what Bill claims is true, and the 'b' (or, as he says, 'ba')
sound is absent on the 'Stele of Revealing', we should not expect
to find the 'tusk' hieroglyph.
But in fact we DO find it.
Indeed, the word 'Behdet' appears on MANY such votive stelae
of the Saite and Late Periods. There is the stele of
Wedjarenes, for example, which depicts a scene similar to that
found on the 'Stele of Revealing', and which is inscribed almost
identically---'the great god, lord of heaven, he of variegated
plumage---Behdet'.
The hieroglyphs for the word, 'Behdet', are exactly the same
here as for that found on the 'Stele of Revealing'.
There is NO misspelling of the word on the 'Stele of Revealing'.
The word was mistranslated and Crowley simply accepted
the error as the great Thelemic deity, 'Hadit'.
2. While Bill allows that 'This "Hadit" or "Bahadit" is the
winged sun disk, used over the entrances of temple doorways, at
the tops of stel and elsewhere in Egyptian art and architecture",
he fails to understand that 'Behdet' is a very particular
expression of this winged disk (as Horus), which identifies
him with the town of Edfu (a center of his myth and worship).
Indeed, because Bill wishes the word to actually be TWO words,
meaning, according to him, 'into the disk of the sun', he claims
that it is 'hadit' which means 'disk of the sun'. As I pointed out
before, it is possible that such a name (Hadit) was used as shorthand
by the translator---but THAT word is NOT present in the name
of Horus given at the top of the 'Stele of Revealing'---it
is instead 'BHDT'---'Behdet', correctly spelled, incorrectly
translated and incorrectly understood and used by Crowley.
3. Finally, I don't know who 'Frater Ebony' is, but his understanding
of even basic hieroglyphics appears to be poor. As far
as I know, there is NO mention in Egyptian mythology of
a god, 'Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi', (I've already explained the
difference between Ra-Heru-Khuti and Heru-Behdet AND
the description, Ra-Heru-Khuti ( dweller in) Behdet).
If Bill knows of a translation whereby the meaning he gave for
'Ra-Heru-Khuti-Ba-Hadi' could be reasonably considered as
accurate, I challenge him to explain it.
> >There is no 'Hadit' on the 'Stele of Revealing'. There never
> >was. 'Hadit' is simply a creation of Crowley's imagination
> >based on an error in translation' of the word, Behdet.
>
> Does not follow.
It follows quite clearly, Bill. But since you're relying on
a third party for your information (just like Crowley did),
how the hell would you know?
It seems to me, given the importance of this word in your
'beliefs' (here again, assuming you actually believe in
something other than just collecting dues for the 'order')
that you would have considered it worth your time to personally
investigate this question many years ago. It's clear, however,
that you never bothered to do this (or, if you did, that you have
subsequently decided to lie about your knowledge). People can draw
whatever conclusions they will about that. I've drawn mine.
> The misspelling is on the Stele itself.
I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this
claim.
> As to the
> rest, that's what Crowley saw in it.
Agreed, but that's my point---'how he saw it' had nothing to do
with 'how it was'. More than this, that you are are SO sensitive
about the fact that your 'Hadit' is just a mistake that you
would concoct an elaborate and ridiculous lie to cover Crowley's
scholarly indifference is, I believe, reason enough to doubt
the 'word' of OTO, and particularly YOU, on just about everything.
And that's too bad, given that Crowley's legacy is in your hands
(for the time being).
(jk)
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me:
>> >It might be better if you were actually responsive
>> >in your response. Perhaps we can work together to make
>> >the world a 'better' place.
>>
>> This one made it on my ISP. On responsive: I am by my standards.
>That's why your 'standards' have become an issue.
Tough.
>> Also, the nature of the
>> subject is such that some things have precise meaning,
>When will any of those be forthcoming from you?
When you focus on the matter at hand instead of taper off into
invective.
>> most have
>> multiple meanings and many have conceptual limitations.
>Or is it rather that it is in OTO's interest to promote
>that view, since the 'secrets' are then buried underneath
>multiple conjectures?
No. Some things are not absolute. Some things are, in defined
context. The former needs discussion. The latter needs explicit
remark. OTO's confidental matter is extremely limited in extent.
>> Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.
>As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
>in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
>to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
>acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL.
It is a key to the present primary purpose, since Crowley's taking
charge of OTO as OHO in the 1920's
>> OTO is a
>> moderately large field with substantially narrower focus
>Again, that 'focus' has been explored in this thread, and
>you've offered no explanations for the number of quotes which
>have been posted showing that Crowley's view of OTO WAS as
>a social organ of recruitment and devotion to Thelema
>and Liber AL.
Next to nothing has appeared on that content in this thread. Mention
is about all.
>You can't just keep posting 'that's not logical' or 'that's
>not true', and expect that alone, in light of evidence to the
>contrary, to be very convincing.
This does not bother me. When I make such a remark, it is simply a
demure to the thinking in the statement evoking the remark. I have no
need or desire to convince. I do want to go on record from time to
time to say I disagree and to indicate why in simplest terms.
Otherwise, I enjoy discussing substance.
>> in its
>> rituals and teachings.
>And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
>admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
>willingness to lie in public about the connection of
>Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
>with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
>as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
>is suspect, to say the least.
That is slander.
>And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
>connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
>evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
>is that the connection is far more than coincidental
>and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
>Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed'
>knowledge.
Not at all. It is used in Liber AL, as are many other things. It is
not seminal to Liber AL or Thelema. Crowley's views may differ.
Tarot is very useful for a variety of purposes. So is English,
Astrology, Hebrew and any number of other modes of representation.
> The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
>which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course
>of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
>clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists
>beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with
>Aleister Crowley.
That's crap. It doesn't matter who said it or what else of value that
person may have said. At the most polite, this is a hyperbolic
statement, literally untrue but usable as a sort of exaggerated remark
to indicate some focus. Tarot did not exist even 1,000 years ago, let
alone furnish the ultimate key to the whole ancient shebang.
>Only someone, such as yourself, whose professional duties include
>issuing misinformation to the public, would (or reasonably COULD)
>argue otherwise.
Vague, but I suppose slanderous. Where I am remarking slander, I am
not threating litigation, just dismissing as abusively and personally
untrue.
>> The area of overlap is smaller between OTO content and Thoth
>> than between OTO and Tarot in general,
>Bill, you're just trying to mislead (again) here. Thoth
>IS tarot (in general), as far as Crowley was concerned.
>It is the deck which replaces that of the Old Aeon and
>matches symbolically the new metaphors which come into
>effect as a result of the 1904 revealing of Liber AL.
>It is absurd for you to make the distinctions you are
>making. OTO accepts the validity of Liber AL, and is devoted
>to its ideas and the spread of its teaching. OTO would,
>therefore, also accept Thoth as the tarot which naturally
>reflects and reveals the nature of its rituals. We've
>already seen the quote where Crowley admits to this.
No. I used "Thoth" to refer directly to Crowley and Harris' Thoth
Tarot, book and deck. There is no question of "Accepting" this deck
in the same sense as Liber AL. It is a work of art, not a Class A,
A.'.A.'. creation. Crowley does sometimes use "Book T" and "Book of
Thoth" to refer to a mystical thing like the "Invisible Torah" --
instead of the material book or deck of those names. This distinction
is very important. Otherwise, rediculous conclusions arise
identifying the material object for the mystical ideal notion.
Crowley is not always very clear in these distinctions. In
particular, as you well know, the Thoth Deck sometimes deviates from
Crowley's planed symbolism. It is not even the absolute impress of
his intention, let alone a trans-aeonic direct voice of deity.
>> but not insignificant. Recall
>> that the OTO rituals in the main pre-date the Thoth deck by more than
>> 20 years.
>Precisely, the symbolism of those rituals, rewritten
>by Crowley to reflect the teachings of Liber AL, MUST be
>represented in the deck which serves as the symbolic
>'encyclopedia' of the New Aeon.
Somewhat, slightly, it is. Crowley points to most of that in The Book
of Thoth.
>You're trying to represent these things as disconnected
>though somewhat related phenomena and that's simply
>misleading. They are part of a complex social-magickal
>organization with OTO serving as a public church (or
>Brüderschaft, depending on your views of such things), designed
>to recruit new members (and their money) and, as we've seen,
>"to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of
>the O.T.O.", all devoted to promoting and serving the
>dictates of Liber AL.
You start and end with sense, but you insert obloqy. Clean it up and
let's talk.
>> >Why should I strike 'real secrets'? Maybe there are
>> >no 'real secrets' in OTO. I might tend to agree with
>> >you there.
>>
>> The usage "real secrets" implies that there is "one true meaning" to
>> everything involved in the Thoth deck. There are multiple meanings,
>Again, this is standard OTO obfuscation
And yours the standard jk obfuscation -- to bitch and moan instead of
deal with a subject. The former OTO matter is an opening to
discussion, naturally vague since the discussion has not commenced.
The latter jk matter is a refusal to discuss, disguised as
indignation.
>OTO seldom publicly attacks the likes
Why would OTO want to attack? Many of those people you mentioned have
good ideas some of the time, as do most people who express themselves.
All have a right to their opinions, although more accurate information
is sometimes to be desired. If the trash proportion is too high, it
boots nothing to just stand by and yell: "Trash! Trash!"
>> OTO uses Tarot in a
>> limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO.
>Those 'internal notions' are, as we've repeatedly
>illustrated, devoted to Liber AL and Thelema.
Some of the time. Most of the time it's just use of symbols for
saying something else in a ritual or other setting. We like Tarot,
especially Crowley-Harris' Thoth Tarot. That doesn't mean that we
have to salam and drool every time we use Tarot. Tarot, including
Thoth Tarot, is a versatile symbol set able to express many things in
addition to Thelema and Liber AL aspects.
>> That does not mean
>> the Thoth deck was designed for that exclusive purpose
>Again, the purpose is clearly stated by Crowley, and
>follows 'logically' the philosophical development of occult tarot
>since 1781.
Ok. Quote and let's discuss under a separate thread.
>> in any regard,
>> only that OTO has use for some of the things in the design for OTO's
>> purposes.
>Which is simply to repeat what we've been saying here---OTO's
>'purposes' are intimately related in the symbolism of Thoth.
This is getting into words, words, words. Please re-title a separate
thread for this: "Bill Clinton denies sexual relations with Frieda
Harris" -- So I can ignore it more easily. If you want to talk about
substance, ok, but realize that I am not going to break oath about
certain details of OTO usage, however minor.
>> >If it were a matter of their only ALSO being used, then
>> >there's no point in AC remarking about the 'secrets'
>> >with respect to specific OTO degrees and rituals.
>>
>> The Book of Thoth would not have been published if it were not for OTO
>> contributions to the publishing fund.
>Why would OTO be concerned to supply these funds for a project having
>so very little to do with their 'designs'?
Crowley fandom and personal loyalty. Also, Tarot and Thelema is
important to OTO as a category. This was Crowley's last big
project,save one, and OTO wanted to support. What emerged, a deck
functional as "holy cards" for Liber AL and a good book, justified the
support. The money ain't bad either.
>> Tipping the hat to OTO by
>> oblique reference at points
>The references are more than oblique. One could simply
>say 'the symbolism is particularly pertinent to
>understandings to be had in OTO'. But Crowley rather, several
>times, is much more explicit than this:
Right.
>Example:
>in reference to 'Six of Cups', 'Pleasure'---
>"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
>one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
>realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
>to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
>Degree of the O.T.O."
In that A.C. is saying the IXth degree OTO has something that adds
meaning to his interpretation of this card. "Necessary" is an
exaggeration here, if it is taken to mean that one would also have to
be in OTO and a IXth degree member to understand the matter. It is
also incorrect to assume that a IXth degree member of OTO would have
to look to this card to be such.
Unfortunately, by expressing that in simple terms, Crowley sets me up.
I can't come right on top of it and say: "He means xyz" without
breaching OTO oath. I can talk about a variety of things on that card
which might include this, but not point it out plainly as being IXth
degree.
>> in the book enriches the value of the book
>> to OTO members and helps on the next pass of the hat.
>I've no doubt that hat-passing was always a primary
>concern for AC.
So much so that Gerald Yorke, in his lifetime the greatest collector
of Crowleyanna, often wrote that he would be glad to receive copies of
any Crowley letters, except those that ask for money. :-)
>One of the other things they could do is to eliminate
>the hierarchical structure of OTO, do away with grades
>of initiation, and provide ALL printed materials to
>anyone (members or not) who is interested in them.
Oh, Bunnies! Where would you like OTO to lay down while it destroys
itself utterly for your whim?
>As pointed out earlier, no damage to OTO would likely
>come in doing this.
True, utter voiding of all characteristics would be rather more than
damage.
>> >He wrote, concerning his tarot deck---
>>
>> >"To me this Work on the Tarot is an Encyclopoedia of all serious
>> >"occult" philosophy. It is a standard Book of Reference, which
>> >will determine the entire course of mystical and magical thought
>> >for the next 2000 years."
>>
>> Almost as catachy a slogan for sales as: "Burn this book after reading
>> it!" :-)
>Bill, if you don't believe Crowley meant this, then you're
>a hypocrite. You yourself noted back in 1985, responding
>to the implications that maybe your 'service' to McMurtry
>was ill-advised:
Slander again. I didn't say that. As to the other, Crowley would
have called "MWT" "Magick for the Millions" if he had thought of it.
It is to my eternal relief that he didn't call the Thoth Tarot: "Mr.
Thoth" like the microphones and coffee makers of recent decades. :-)
Genius does not necessarily cover all human areas of endeavor, nor
necessarily manifest as tasteful expression.
>"I'm bothered because it seems to declare to the world at
>large that I was a total imbecile for abandoning my career to
>serve Mr. McMurtry's ends. I have devoted essentially the balance
>of my life from 1977 to this purpose. And it's very trying."
Right. That was my testimony in open court as to the manner in which
I considered myself libeled and injured by Motta in his book.
Contrast this to what you have said above.
>Either way, I'm curious, if the opinion of the 'world at large'
>was of much concern to you, why did you join up with
>a group like OTO in the first place?
Nonsequitor. The judge didn't buy my point as demonstrating libel.
I'm working as I was, since this is what it is my will to do.
>Maybe he(Crowley, not the Judge) was anal-retentive.
Could be. He did have an upset stomach from time to time.
>He could have written considerably less than he did
>and made his point.
What can I say? He started his reading in these subjects with Waite
and Levi.
>I generally find his shorter and more casual works much better,
>both with respect to their literary merits and any
>occult 'wisdoms' worth articulating.
Often. I particularly like the transitional paragraphs in MTP -- just
as he goes off topic for a protracted time. Those have deeper
insights into his thinking, in my opinion.
>> Exaggeration, even if Crowley also says it.
>Well, Bill, why even have a conversation about this then?
There's more to a book than its cover, also more to a production than
the pitch.
>Neither of us knew Aleister Crowley, so neither of us
>has anything other than his writings (and the testimony
>of some witnesses) by which to judge the man's motives.
Speak for yourself. I never met him, but I've known people who did --
to a considerable extent beyond testimony. Impact on lives gives
quite a bit of insight too.
>I'm willing to admit that he wavered from time to time
>in terms of his conviction about Thelema and Liber AL
Yes, and stamped about shouting too. :-)
>I'm
>not however willing to (conveniently) dismiss everything
>he wrote merely because I know his words can only
>varyingly be trusted on the surface. In short, it is
>entirely possible for someone like Crowley to write something
>as absurdly presumptuous as his claims for Thoth's
>multi-millenial significance, knowing and appreciating its
>absurdity, AND for him to still quite literally mean it.
Ok. I'll credit you 10% of the same slack if you do as much for me.
>> >> Never the full word of any degree.
>>
>> >It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
>>
>> No, simply.
>You're lying, simply.
>Prove otherwise.
Do I need to show that dung comes from an ass? No more need I refute
this. Now what? Echo?
>> Not an evasion, just wrong. -- at least for IXth and in
>> the issue of prime word for any of the OTO degrees. If you have
>> King's book, better read it again.
>So you're saying King's book gives this 'prime word' (whatever
>that is) for the IXth degree?
No, but he makes mention of something less for another degree than
IXth. I will neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of that mention,
due to oaths.
>Indeed, if one wishes a child to 'do as it wilt' then
>he would not need to expose it to ANY religion or
>philosophy---if, on the other hand, this remark is
>to suggest that such comments as, for example,
>'a woman has no soul' should make a good philosophical basis
>for teaching healthy gender-consciousness to children,
>then I doubt you'll find too many intelligent takers.
Need another thread there, although I doubt it would interest
alt.tarot. This opens up the entire issue of Thelemic Will, in
conjunction with child rearing.
>> >Book of Thoth is a tarot deck. The ideas which go into
>> >Thoth are of interest to us. The misinformation promoted
>> >by OTO is not, however.
>>
>> No. The Thoth deck is a tarot deck. The Book of Thoth is a book
>> about that deck, written by the designer of the deck.
>Actually, they are referenced by the same title.
Inaccurate attribution is not helpful, when done by Crowley, by you or
by me.
>Book of Thoth IS a book about the Book of Thoth, the
>traditional occult name for tarot.
>Your quibbling is---Heidrickian.
Guilty.
>> Nonsense. OTO has the right to recognize it's own members,
>Which OTO would that be, Bill? The one viewed by the 1st Circuit
>as "nothing more than an idea in the mind of Aleister Crowley",
>or the one CREATED by the 9th Circuit as sole heir to Crowley's
>estate (never mind all the people around the world who
>might have had competing claims)?
9th circuit. OTO was not a litigant involved in the 1st circuit case
and usage of "OTO" in that case's issue goes to SOTO, not OTO.
>> >So then, you still recognize Kenneth Grant as a IXth-degree
>> >member of OTO, right?
>>
>> Grant was a member. At that time he had a degree in OTO. Since he is
>> not now a member and hasn't been since mid 1955, he has no degree in
>> OTO to recognize.
>But you claimed yourself that his expulsion was improper.
>Indeed, given Germer's views of OTO, and his position in it,
>it's questionable whether he possessed any authority to act
>as he did re: Grant.
In a personal opinion, written to Grant by me without prejudice to
OTO, I stanted that more due-process handling of the expulsion would
have been proper practice in OTO as it presently functions. I don't
respect Germer's manner in doing this. I do acknowledge that he did
it with full authority.
>> If he were readmitted, an unlikely event, that
>> would probably be the degree he would have on resumption of
>> membership.
>Why 'probably'? Wonder what degree he'd give you, if you
>are ever admitted to HIS version of OTO?
His version is not OTO, neither would I care to be a member of it --
if indeed it has members in that sense.
>> >And Marcello Motta? He was a IXth-degree, right?
>>
>> >Or was he?
>>
>> Motta was never a member of OTO.
>He claimed he was. He claimed Germer initiated him into
>the degree. So, why ignore his claims?
We didn't ignore his claims. We did eventually come to realize that
he was tallking through his hat.
>>Thus, he never had a degree of
>> membership in OTO of any kind. He argued that possession of
>> instructional papers for IXth degree OTO from the hand of the then
>> head of OTO made him a IXth degree in OTO. It did not.
>Actually, possession of that paper, 'Emblems and Mode of
>Use', WAS, at one time, a key method for determining one's
>possession of the degree, wasn't it? And the fact is that OTO
>did recognize people who possessed that paper, and no other
>proof of membership, AS possessors of IXth degree
>in OTO.
Never. It was given to OTO members who had already entered the IXth
degree. It was also given, however ill advisedly, to others who never
were and never became OTO members.
>> >> In the Waite deck Justice, it's the cross-piece of the sword and the
>> >> balance arm of the scales.
>>
>> >Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
>> >that view?
>>
>> Try looking at the card now and then.
>Like I said, do you know anything in Waite's writings to support
>that view?
Not off-hand. Waite's writings on Tarot give me a rash. I get as far
as the remark that the Emperor seen in profile has no meaning and then
I spit like a frustrated kit.
>Let's examine Bill's myth, point by point---
I'm skipping this part. Make as little or as much of that as you
will. I've said my piece on it.
>I challenge you to provide evidence supporting this
>claim.
Ankle biter. :-)
93 93/93
Bill
Svedeka
>Your quibbling is---Heidrickian.
I like this. I'm surprised the word isn't in regular usage already.
Thoroughly enjoying this thread.
---Svedeka
Svedeka
I have a question concerning the Stele of Revealing.
I have heard it stated that the type of stele, plaster over wood, was unusual
for the period in which it was found, and that the shade of blue used on nuit
was also unusual. However, in a recent display of egyptian artifacts (not even
a very extensive one) at the Dallas Museum of Art, there were two other steles
that used the plaster over wood construction, and one of them the same
blue-green color that is on the Stele of Revealing. This color of paint was
also on a plaster-on-wood sarcophagus from a similar period as the two stele.
What is the date given to the stele of revealing that makes it so unusual?
---Svedeka
J. Karlin
Svedeka wrote:
>
> >Your quibbling is---Heidrickian.
>
> I like this. I'm surprised the word isn't in regular usage already.
Well, now everyone can start. I'll dedicate its use to
Phyllis Seckler, who so correctly analyzed the Heidrickian
problem, 20 years ago.
> Thoroughly enjoying this thread.
Glad to hear it.
(jk)
MLYoung
>
>>> Also, the nature of the
>>> subject is such that some things have precise meaning,
>
>>When will any of those be forthcoming from you?
>
>When you focus on the matter at hand instead of taper off into
>invective.
Hmmm, you know, I have to say that jk is being pretty
mild mannered here, but hell, I'm only a vessel, so
what do I know?
>
>>> most have
>>> multiple meanings and many have conceptual limitations.
>
>>Or is it rather that it is in OTO's interest to promote
>>that view, since the 'secrets' are then buried underneath
>>multiple conjectures?
>
>No. Some things are not absolute. Some things are, in defined
>context. The former needs discussion. The latter needs explicit
>remark. OTO's confidental matter is extremely limited in extent.
And yet, you've been dodging the explicit like crazy--
that the Devil does indeed portray a specific sexual
act, for example. Hint: the hole's in the wrong place
for sodomy--not to mention that charming clitoral garland
on the goat--and Crowley's own comment on the Devil
in the Book of Lies.
Not to mention, you didn't say a word when I asked
you about it here--you only responded when jk
spoke the magick words to provoke you.
>
>>> Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.
>
>>As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
>>in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
>>to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
>>acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL.
>
>It is a key to the present primary purpose, since Crowley's taking
>charge of OTO as OHO in the 1920's
Evasion, and not particularly adept evasion.
>
>>> OTO is a
>>> moderately large field with substantially narrower focus
>
>>Again, that 'focus' has been explored in this thread, and
>>you've offered no explanations for the number of quotes which
>>have been posted showing that Crowley's view of OTO WAS as
>>a social organ of recruitment and devotion to Thelema
>>and Liber AL.
>
>Next to nothing has appeared on that content in this thread. Mention
>is about all.
Dodge, dodge. This would be much more convincing
if you had addressed the hieroglyphics argument that
you excised.
>
>>You can't just keep posting 'that's not logical' or 'that's
>>not true', and expect that alone, in light of evidence to the
>>contrary, to be very convincing.
>
>This does not bother me. When I make such a remark, it is simply a
>demure to the thinking in the statement evoking the remark. I have no
>need or desire to convince. I do want to go on record from time
Too bad. Your unwillingess to be clear says little for
you.
to
>time to say I disagree and to indicate why in simplest terms.
>Otherwise, I enjoy discussing substance.
No, I don't think you do. You enjoy being the holder
of secrets; of being the authority.
>
>>> in its
>>> rituals and teachings.
>
>>And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
>>admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
>>willingness to lie in public about the connection of
>>Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
>>with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
>>as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
>>is suspect, to say the least.
>
>That is slander.
For a word squeezer, you're quite sloppy. There's
no slander or libel here. You've made it clear
that you've little interest in speaking the truth for
its own sake.
>
>>And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
>>connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
>>evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
>>is that the connection is far more than coincidental
>>and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
>
>Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
I think you know it goes both ways--all are
manifestations of a particular man's occult philosophy.
>
>>Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed'
>>knowledge.
>
>Not at all. It is used in Liber AL, as are many other things. It is
>not seminal to Liber AL or Thelema. Crowley's views may differ.
>Tarot is very useful for a variety of purposes. So is English,
>Astrology, Hebrew and any number of other modes of representation.
More word games. More dodging.
>
>> The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
>>which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course
>>of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
>>clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists
>>beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with
>>Aleister Crowley.
>
>That's crap. It doesn't matter who said it or what else of value that
>person may have said. At the most polite, this is a hyperbolic
>statement, literally untrue but usable as a sort of exaggerated remark
>to indicate some focus. Tarot did not exist even 1,000 years ago, let
>alone furnish the ultimate key to the whole ancient shebang.
Your answer, you realize, does not address the point jk
is making?
>
>>Only someone, such as yourself, whose professional duties include
>>issuing misinformation to the public, would (or reasonably COULD)
>>argue otherwise.
>
>Vague, but I suppose slanderous. Where I am remarking
slander, I am
>not threating litigation, just dismissing as abusively and personally
>untrue.
You're being extremely sloppy in your use of language.
I think, perhaps, this is a side effect of trying to conceal
rather than reveal.
<snip>
>
>No. I used "Thoth" to refer directly to Crowley and Harris' Thoth
>Tarot, book and deck. There is no question of "Accepting" this deck
>in the same sense as Liber AL. It is a work of art, not a Class A,
>A.'.A.'. creation.
Must have been why Beastie Boy spent years on it--and
nagged poor Frieda over and over. It's not simply
a work of art, but a symbolic codification of Beastie Boy's
philosophy. Why even bother denying this?
Crowley does sometimes use "Book T" and "Book of
>Thoth" to refer to a mystical thing like the "Invisible Torah" --
>instead of the material book or deck of those names. This distinction
>is very important. Otherwise, rediculous conclusions arise
>identifying the material object for the mystical ideal notion.
>Crowley is not always very clear in these distinctions. In
Which should tell YOU something.
>particular, as you well know, the Thoth Deck sometimes deviates from
>Crowley's planed symbolism. It is not even the absolute impress of
>his intention, let alone a trans-aeonic direct voice of deity.
I suspect that its a lot closer to what Crowley wanted than
your post-mortem interpretations.
>
<snip>
>
>>You're trying to represent these things as disconnected
>>though somewhat related phenomena and that's simply
>>misleading. They are part of a complex social-magickal
>>organization with OTO serving as a public church (or
>>Brüderschaft, depending on your views of such things), designed
>>to recruit new members (and their money) and, as we've seen,
>>"to increase the power and freedom of the Headquarters of
>>the O.T.O.", all devoted to promoting and serving the
>>dictates of Liber AL.
>
>You start and end with sense, but you insert obloqy. Clean it up and
>let's talk.
Funny, that was one of the clearer paragraphs in this
exchange. Why don't you be more precise about what
it is you think is off?
I don't care much for obfuscation and hedging and
find your arguments for it notably unconvincing--
right up there with the we're-sexist-but-not-as-sexist-as
-other-people rationalizing you did earlier.
But, hey, I'm just an anonymous vessel.
--margaret
>
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>Hmmm, you know, I have to say that jk is being pretty
>mild mannered here, but hell, I'm only a vessel, so
>what do I know?
Compared to his norm, yep. As to your being a only vessel, ask jk.
That seems to be his theory about Frieda's role in the Thoth deck. I
think she was rather more important than that, especially in view of
Crowley's own art style.
>>No. Some things are not absolute. Some things are, in defined
>>context. The former needs discussion. The latter needs explicit
>>remark. OTO's confidental matter is extremely limited in extent.
>And yet, you've been dodging the explicit like crazy--
>that the Devil does indeed portray a specific sexual
>act, for example. Hint: the hole's in the wrong place
>for sodomy--not to mention that charming clitoral garland
>on the goat--and Crowley's own comment on the Devil
>in the Book of Lies.
Still looks like DC a la AC to me.
>Not to mention, you didn't say a word when I asked
>you about it here--you only responded when jk
>spoke the magick words to provoke you.
I think I did mention it in passing, but perhaps I wasn't up to speed
at that point. I haven't posted often to Usenet of late.
>>>> Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.
>>
>>>As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
>>>in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
>>>to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
>>>acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL.
>>
>>It is a key to the present primary purpose, since Crowley's taking
>>charge of OTO as OHO in the 1920's
>Evasion, and not particularly adept evasion.
Nope, just dealing with a generality in a general sort of way.
>to
>>time to say I disagree and to indicate why in simplest terms.
>>Otherwise, I enjoy discussing substance.
>No, I don't think you do. You enjoy being the holder
>of secrets; of being the authority.
Matter of opinion.
>>>And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
>>>admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
>>>willingness to lie in public about the connection of
>>>Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
>>>with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
>>>as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
>>>is suspect, to say the least.
>>
>>That is slander.
>For a word squeezer, you're quite sloppy. There's
>no slander or libel here. You've made it clear
>that you've little interest in speaking the truth for
>its own sake.
There's a difference between calling someone a lier and calling
someone excessively restrained in expression.
>>>And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
>>>connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
>>>evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
>>>is that the connection is far more than coincidental
>>>and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
>>
>>Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
>I think you know it goes both ways--all are
>manifestations of a particular man's occult philosophy.
More the case with the Thoth Tarot than with OTO, since Crowley made
many more changes from what was there before him in the case of the
former than the latter.
>>> The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
>>>which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course
>>>of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
>>>clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists
>>>beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with
>>>Aleister Crowley.
>>
>>That's crap. It doesn't matter who said it or what else of value that
>>person may have said. At the most polite, this is a hyperbolic
>>statement, literally untrue but usable as a sort of exaggerated remark
>>to indicate some focus. Tarot did not exist even 1,000 years ago, let
>>alone furnish the ultimate key to the whole ancient shebang.
>Your answer, you realize, does not address the point jk
>is making?
Doesn't change my apprasal of the notion. It is true that 18th
century France saw the beginning of a movement to Egyptinize Tarot and
elevate its position as a key of mysteries. That seems to have
crested with Paul Christian and myths about secret halls underground
between the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid. Afterward, this notion
became part of the pool of myths and modes common in mystical western
traditions. The Golden Dawn and the 19th century French approaches
took this a step forward by formulating more Qabalah with Tarot. That
still does not make the myth more than a myth. Tarot is quite useful,
even though its original meaning is obscured by such goings on. The
systems that resulted from this work are very useful in themselves,
but as systems, not as universal ancient truths.
>>No. I used "Thoth" to refer directly to Crowley and Harris' Thoth
>>Tarot, book and deck. There is no question of "Accepting" this deck
>>in the same sense as Liber AL. It is a work of art, not a Class A,
>>A.'.A.'. creation.
>Must have been why Beastie Boy spent years on it--and
>nagged poor Frieda over and over. It's not simply
>a work of art, but a symbolic codification of Beastie Boy's
>philosophy. Why even bother denying this?
When did I deny that? Class A is Crowley's A.'.A.'. category for
revelation. Matters like the Thoth deck are not on that level in his
system. It's a very fine thing and indeed a symbolic codification of
many of his ideas. It isn't uniformly integrated in it's parts, but
it is rather an assembledge of insights made consistent in the main by
the artist. The Charioteer fits better with Lust than some of the
other Major Atu's with one another. There are uneaven transitions in
design, and the work on the Minors is sometimes less than significant
in the details -- the Treys are particularly minimal, although the
Fives tend to be good in details. The placement of planetary decan
rulers and signs on the Minors is faulty, since it tends to be read as
"planet in sign" rather than "planet ruling ten-degress of sign". His
ideas for the Courts varied, with the male cards getting most of the
attention. Frieda's handling is better with the female Courts than
Crowley's ideas, in my opinion.
>>particular, as you well know, the Thoth Deck sometimes deviates from
>>Crowley's planed symbolism. It is not even the absolute impress of
>>his intention, let alone a trans-aeonic direct voice of deity.
>I suspect that its a lot closer to what Crowley wanted than
>your post-mortem interpretations.
Often, but tell that to the water bug on the Moon Atu or the
"ABRACADABRA" instead of "ABRAHADABRA" on the Charioteer canopy.
>I don't care much for obfuscation and hedging and
>find your arguments for it notably unconvincing--
>right up there with the we're-sexist-but-not-as-sexist-as
>-other-people rationalizing you did earlier.
What arguments? So far, not much substance has come up in either
Jess' posts on this round or yours.
>But, hey, I'm just an anonymous vessel.
>--margaret
Something off there....
93 93/93
Bill
J. Karlin
Bill Heidrick wrote:
> >That's why your 'standards' have become an issue.
> Tough.
It seems to be tough on you. You're a whiny little boy,
aren't you, Bill?
> >> Also, the nature of the
> >> subject is such that some things have precise meaning,
>
> >When will any of those be forthcoming from you?
>
> When you focus on the matter at hand
The matter at hand is that you have a stated policy of not
telling the truth, one which you articulated quite clearly in the
quote of yours I posted.
That serves to affect consideration of all other 'matters
at hand'.
Nevertheless, you've had numerous opportunities in this
thread to respond with forthright and honest replies
to the evidence I've offered and the conclusions I've
made (about OTO and YOU).
You simply ignored those opportunities.
> instead of taper off into
> invective.
Is it 'invective' to quote you explaining your policy of
lying with respect to OTO secrets? Is it 'invective' to try
to educate you and everyone else about how you've invented a
ridiculous lie to cover the fact that Aleister Crowley had an
indifferent attitude about what should have been the most important
facts in his life (like how to read the stupid 'Stele of
Revealing')?
Or is it rather that the truth appears, to you, to 'slander' you?
> >Or is it rather that it is in OTO's interest to promote
> >that view, since the 'secrets' are then buried underneath
> >multiple conjectures?
>
> No. Some things are not absolute. Some things are, in defined
> context.
Bill, there's little point in this. Everything you say,
is colored (and covered) by your policy.
> >Again, that 'focus' has been explored in this thread, and
> >you've offered no explanations for the number of quotes which
> >have been posted showing that Crowley's view of OTO WAS as
> >a social organ of recruitment and devotion to Thelema
> >and Liber AL.
>
> Next to nothing has appeared on that content in this thread. Mention
> is about all.
I would think, if 'next to nothing' has appeared you would
have found some way to reply with more than nothing in
response. Isn't it quite the other way about, Bill?
Isn't it that you HAVE no good answers for those statements
which were quoted here concerning the objectives of OTO
and its relationship to Liber AL and Thelema because
those statements accurately represent those objectives
and relationships? Isn't it also true that those comments
you've made with respect to your willingness to lie
in public are also accurate representations of your
public behavior?
You see, Bill, it's pointless---you're compromised
in even being able to honestly answer those questions.
> >You can't just keep posting 'that's not logical' or 'that's
> >not true', and expect that alone, in light of evidence to the
> >contrary, to be very convincing.
>
> This does not bother me.
Don't worry...be happy.
> >> in its
> >> rituals and teachings.
>
> >And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
> >admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
> >willingness to lie in public about the connection of
> >Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
> >with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
> >as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
> >is suspect, to say the least.
>
> That is slander.
You mean that I think your credibility is suspect
slanders you? Well, I've got news for you, Bill.
After your performance here, there's a whole lot
of people guilty of the same 'thought-crime' against
you.
Maybe you can bring a suit at the Ministry of Love.
> >And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
> >connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
> >evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
> >is that the connection is far more than coincidental
> >and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
>
> Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
Then how do you explain the quotes which suggest otherwise?
How do you explain your OWN statement which talks about the need
for you to lie in the face of public revelations of the true
connections between tarot and OTO rituals and teachings?
> >Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed'
> >knowledge.
>
> Not at all. It is used in Liber AL, as are many other things. It is
> not seminal to Liber AL or Thelema. Crowley's views may differ.
But then he was just the prophet so who cares? Yeah, it's
interesting how often you've needed to completely dismiss
'Crowley's views' here in order to make your version of
OTO function properly. Again, of course, this is your
'policy' at work. Although, maybe it's more than this,
and actually represents a moment of truth, wherein you
admit that Crowley's ideas are only of use to you when
he's sufficiently vague so that you can encourage 'many
opinions'.
> > The nature of tarot, as THE 'book' of hieroglyphs
> >which determine, not just illustrate, the 'the entire course
> >of mystical and magical thought' of each Aeon or Age is
> >clearly stated, in evolving detail, by a the chain of occultists
> >beginning with Antoine Court de Gebelin and culminating with
> >Aleister Crowley.
>
> That's crap. It doesn't matter who said it
Actually, unless it serves your 'ends', it really doesn't
matter what anyone said about anything, does it Bill?
You're not really interested in the facts, or the history,
or the truth about tarot or Crowley or anything, are you?
You're just here to protect the interests of the 'Order'
in case someone might actually mention a 'secret'.
And that means protecting those interests from everyone and
everything, including from the words of your own prophet.
You seem kind of pathetic, Bill. Not thelemic.
> >Only someone, such as yourself, whose professional duties include
> >issuing misinformation to the public, would (or reasonably COULD)
> >argue otherwise.
>
> Vague, but I suppose slanderous. Where I am remarking slander, I am
> not threating litigation,
Actually, for you, the cry of 'slander' is merely an attempt to
integrate some variety into your evasions.
> just dismissing as abusively and personally
> untrue.
You can't even hedge without being vague.
> No. I used "Thoth" to refer directly to Crowley and Harris' Thoth
> Tarot, book and deck. There is no question of "Accepting" this deck
> in the same sense as Liber AL.
Of course there's no question---you all certainly aren't going
to be using Motherpeace in your rituals.
> In
> particular, as you well know, the Thoth Deck sometimes deviates from
> Crowley's planed symbolism.
Isn't that where we came in?
I even question your stories about the 'errors'.
I suspect, in some twisted manner, these have been deemed
now 'holy imperfections' and provided with their own myths
which seek to rectify and sanctify the 'paradox'.
> It is not even the absolute impress of
> his intention,
Which I would think, given its creator, would make it the
'absolute impress of his intention'.
> let alone a trans-aeonic direct voice of deity.
That's not what he called it, Bill. He said it was an
encyclopedia. It really seems quite doubtful that this
encyclopedia would not include a pretty large section
devoted to OTO. Given Crowley's comments (from which you
now are seen to distance yourself more and more) it
seems that this is a reasonable view.
> >Precisely, the symbolism of those rituals, rewritten
> >by Crowley to reflect the teachings of Liber AL, MUST be
> >represented in the deck which serves as the symbolic
> >'encyclopedia' of the New Aeon.
>
> Somewhat, slightly, it is.
Is it 'somewhat' or 'slightly' or what?
Never mind. Again, your policy is in the way.
> You start and end with sense, but you insert obloqy. Clean it up and
> let's talk.
You had many chances to talk.
Instead, you chose to start blathering about being 'slandered'.
If that's your only 'argument', then you're lost.
> >> The usage "real secrets" implies that there is "one true meaning" to
> >> everything involved in the Thoth deck. There are multiple meanings,
>
> >Again, this is standard OTO obfuscation
>
> And yours the standard jk obfuscation -- to bitch and moan instead of
> deal with a subject.
You might check how many 'dealings' in this thread you sat
out.
> The former OTO matter is an opening to
> discussion,
Bill, we're way into this thread, and you're only NOW
thinking about providing an 'opening to discussion'?
It's too late. You fucked around too much. You
evaded and misled too much and basically, you acted
like Heidrick too much. That shit isn't going to work
here. You can talk straight or you can go fuck yourself.
If that's not clear to you, I won't bother with
the sugar-coating.
> >OTO seldom publicly attacks the likes
>
> Why would OTO want to attack?
Why would OTO want the truth to be told?
I guess they don't want it told. I think that's what I
said.
> Many of those people you mentioned have
> good ideas some of the time,
Way to go Bill---you just took whatever tiny amount
of respect you might have had left and knocked it
clear out of the ballpark.
When you crash and burn, you don't fuck around.
> If the trash proportion is too high, it
> boots nothing to just stand by and yell: "Trash! Trash!"
Especially when you're depending on the trash to
get in people's way.
Precisely.
> >> OTO uses Tarot in a
> >> limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO.
>
> >Those 'internal notions' are, as we've repeatedly
> >illustrated, devoted to Liber AL and Thelema.
>
> Some of the time.
Uh-oh, it's getting bigger---it's gone from almost never
and nothing to 'some of the time'.
> >> That does not mean
> >> the Thoth deck was designed for that exclusive purpose
>
> >Again, the purpose is clearly stated by Crowley, and
> >follows 'logically' the philosophical development of occult tarot
> >since 1781.
>
> Ok. Quote and let's discuss under a separate thread.
I've already provided the quotes and you just ignored them.
Like I said, you had your chance---IN THIS THREAD.
> >Which is simply to repeat what we've been saying here---OTO's
> >'purposes' are intimately related in the symbolism of Thoth.
>
> This is getting into words, words, words.
Yep, it's a written medium, Bill. And lots of those 'words,
words, words' are obviously things you can't handle.
Like you said---'tough'.
> Also, Tarot and Thelema is
> important to OTO as a category.
Look, I'm going to forget for a moment that you're a jackass
and I'm going to offer you some advice.
When you write something like "Tarot and Thelema is
important to OTO as a category", it's so vague
that it's meaningless.
Your prose is riddled with these kinds of comments and
one can only draw the conclusion with respect to your
'tendency' that you are intentionally trying to be misleading
and ambiguous OR that you are a painfully incompetent writer.
I suspect the former is the case, for the reasons I've stated
(although the latter may be true as well).
> This was Crowley's last big
> project,save one, and OTO wanted to support.
Yeah, well how sweet of OTO to see it that way.
I mean, after all, if Crowley had asked and they had
refused the money, I'm sure he wouldn't have expelled
everybody in sight.
Yeah, right.
> The money ain't bad either.
Look, an anomalous truthful remark. Must be an attempt
to mislead.
> >The references are more than oblique. One could simply
> >say 'the symbolism is particularly pertinent to
> >understandings to be had in OTO'. But Crowley rather, several
> >times, is much more explicit than this:
>
> Right.
>
> >Example:
>
> >in reference to 'Six of Cups', 'Pleasure'---
>
> >"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
> >one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
> >realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
> >to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
> >Degree of the O.T.O."
>
> In that A.C. is saying the IXth degree OTO has something that adds
> meaning to his interpretation of this card. "Necessary" is an
> exaggeration here,
Again, Crowley 'couldn't' have meant it, cause Heidrick finds
Crowley's choice of words, 'inconvenient'.
> if it is taken to mean that one would also have to
> be in OTO and a IXth degree member to understand the matter.
Here you go with the freshman sophistry routine again.
OK---here we go:
1. What is stated here is that it is necessary to know the
SECRET of the IXth degree OTO.
2. As Bill well knows, Crowley understood that
very few people outside of OTO would have had the
knowledge of the IXth degree OTO at the time Crowley
wrote this (the same is not true today---the 'secret' is
no longer secret).
3. Therefore, for someone to possess this secret, he also
would need to "be in OTO and a IXth degree member to understand
the matter."
Clearly the intent here is to point out that the card's
symbolism (which is related to several other cards in
the deck) can only be fully understood, as Crowley intended
it, if one possessed the IXth-degree secret, and you would
get that from OTO.
> It is
> also incorrect to assume that a IXth degree member of OTO would have
> to look to this card to be such.
Neither Crowley, nor I, ever said that, either.
Only YOU said that. So, maybe you're telling us something
(secret).
> Unfortunately, by expressing that in simple terms, Crowley sets me up.
See, I told you, he blames Crowley for being explicit.
On the other hand, Crowley does not mean what Bill seems
to think he does, so Crowley can hardly be held at
fault for Bill's confusion.
> I can't come right on top of it and say: "He means xyz" without
> breaching OTO oath.
And if someone DOES talk about the pertinent secret, your 'policy'
says you've got to lie about it and claim that it's NOT
the secret.
Makes for a pretty dull conversation.
> I can talk about a variety of things on that card
> which might include this, but not point it out plainly as being IXth
> degree.
If it were only the case that you could only talk around
and about the truth, then you'd just be a tedious bore.
But it's worse than that, as we've seen. Your 'policy'
is to mislead and misdirect people from the truth.
> >One of the other things they could do is to eliminate
> >the hierarchical structure of OTO, do away with grades
> >of initiation, and provide ALL printed materials to
> >anyone (members or not) who is interested in them.
>
> Oh, Bunnies! Where would you like OTO to lay down while it destroys
> itself utterly for your whim?
Actually, that suggestion was offered to insure its
longevity---and relevance.
> >As pointed out earlier, no damage to OTO would likely
> >come in doing this.
>
> True, utter voiding of all characteristics would be rather more than
> damage.
No surprise that you would equate telling the truth with
'voiding of all characteristics'.
Maybe the 'voiding' is overdue.
> >> Almost as catachy a slogan for sales as: "Burn this book after reading
> >> it!" :-)
>
> >Bill, if you don't believe Crowley meant this, then you're
> >a hypocrite. You yourself noted back in 1985, responding
> >to the implications that maybe your 'service' to McMurtry
> >was ill-advised:
>
> Slander again. I didn't say that.
You didn't say what?
> >"I'm bothered because it seems to declare to the world at
> >large that I was a total imbecile for abandoning my career to
> >serve Mr. McMurtry's ends. I have devoted essentially the balance
> >of my life from 1977 to this purpose. And it's very trying."
>
> Right. That was my testimony in open court as to the manner in which
> I considered myself libeled and injured by Motta in his book.
> Contrast this to what you have said above.
Please feel free to detail for this 'court' exactly how I
'slandered' you in my remarks. Be specific.
> >Either way, I'm curious, if the opinion of the 'world at large'
> >was of much concern to you, why did you join up with
> >a group like OTO in the first place?
>
> Nonsequitor.
I think it follows just fine.
> The judge didn't buy my point as demonstrating libel.
And that surprised you?
> I'm working as I was, since this is what it is my will to do.
And you don't want the 'world at large' to think you're
a quitter. Or 'a total imbecile'?
> >> >> Never the full word of any degree.
> >>
> >> >It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
> >>
> >> No, simply.
>
> >You're lying, simply.
>
> >Prove otherwise.
>
> Do I need to show that dung comes from an ass?
To demonstrate that you don't have to violate a secrecy oath.
Or do you?
> >> Not an evasion, just wrong. -- at least for IXth and in
> >> the issue of prime word for any of the OTO degrees. If you have
> >> King's book, better read it again.
>
> >So you're saying King's book gives this 'prime word' (whatever
> >that is) for the IXth degree?
>
> No,
Oh, so there ISN'T any point of us looking there then.
OK. Just checking.
> >Actually, possession of that paper, 'Emblems and Mode of
> >Use', WAS, at one time, a key method for determining one's
> >possession of the degree, wasn't it? And the fact is that OTO
> >did recognize people who possessed that paper, and no other
> >proof of membership, AS possessors of IXth degree
> >in OTO.
>
> Never.
Wasn't this the only proof Phyllis Seckler had that
she was an OTO IXth-degree member? She testified this
was the ONLY document she received from Germer which could
attest to her possession of the degree.
> >Let's examine Bill's myth, point by point---
>
> I'm skipping this part.
That's not the only thing you're skipping.
(jk)
MLYoung
>Bill wrote:
jk wrote:
>> True, utter voiding of all characteristics would be rather more than
>> damage.
>
>No surprise that you would equate telling the truth with
>'voiding of all characteristics'.
Yes, curious isn't it? Just how much avoidance there
is of simply telling the truth.
>
>Maybe the 'voiding' is overdue.
Perhaps, too, one should question the value of any
truth that shrivels under the light of revelation.
So to speak.
--margaret
J. Karlin
MLYoung wrote:
> >No surprise that you would equate telling the truth with
> >'voiding of all characteristics'.
> Yes, curious isn't it? Just how much avoidance there
> is of simply telling the truth.
Well, you know, he imagines himself as Pontius Pilate.
The truth is not so much avoided by him as it is
sent off to be crucified.
> >Maybe the 'voiding' is overdue.
> Perhaps, too, one should question the value of any
> truth that shrivels under the light of revelation.
That presumes there was anything there to shrivel in the
first place.
(jk)
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
Since you don't want to talk about Tarot in most of your posts on this
string, I will be snipping more after this.
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote, quoting me:
>The matter at hand is that you have a stated policy of not
>telling the truth, one which you articulated quite clearly in the
>quote of yours I posted.
Lying to call another falsely a lier is hardly worth remark.
>Nevertheless, you've had numerous opportunities in this
>thread to respond with forthright and honest replies
>to the evidence I've offered and the conclusions I've
>made (about OTO and YOU).
>You simply ignored those opportunities.
Of course. The "conclusions" you propose about OTO are frequently
wrong, but also frequently involve matters not to be discussed by an
OTO member in direct context -- as you well know.
The "conclusions" you offer about me are largely irrelevent, not worth
the trivial attention I have given them.
>> instead of taper off into
>> invective.
>Is it 'invective' to quote you explaining your policy of
>lying with respect to OTO secrets?
It is, since I have no such policy.
> Is it 'invective' to try
>to educate you and everyone else about how you've invented a
>ridiculous lie to cover the fact that Aleister Crowley had an
>indifferent attitude about what should have been the most important
>facts in his life (like how to read the stupid 'Stele of
>Revealing')?
Some invective in that, but mainly to cover your own adamant adherence
to irrelivance.
>I would think, if 'next to nothing' has appeared you would
>have found some way to reply with more than nothing in
>response. Isn't it quite the other way about, Bill?
Stop skipping and read.
>Isn't it that you HAVE no good answers for those statements
>which were quoted here concerning the objectives of OTO
>and its relationship to Liber AL and Thelema because
>those statements accurately represent those objectives
>and relationships? Isn't it also true that those comments
>you've made with respect to your willingness to lie
>in public are also accurate representations of your
>public behavior?
The statements you have offered on those matters are by and large
trivial. I've answered them as they were asked, mainly a matter of
correction of gross prejudice. You continually assert that I lie, in
the evident fantasy that your saying a falsehood a sufficient number
of times makes it a truth.
>> >And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
>> >connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
>> >evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
>> >is that the connection is far more than coincidental
>> >and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
>>
>> Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
>Then how do you explain the quotes which suggest otherwise?
Go back and read it again.
>How do you explain your OWN statement which talks about the need
>for you to lie in the face of public revelations of the true
>connections between tarot and OTO rituals and teachings?
No such statement exists.
>> >Tarot is the basis of Liber AL's validity as 'revealed'
>> >knowledge.
>>
>> Not at all. It is used in Liber AL, as are many other things. It is
>> not seminal to Liber AL or Thelema. Crowley's views may differ.
>But then he was just the prophet so who cares? Yeah, it's
>interesting how often you've needed to completely dismiss
>'Crowley's views' here in order to make your version of
>OTO function properly. Again, of course, this is your
>'policy' at work. Although, maybe it's more than this,
>and actually represents a moment of truth, wherein you
>admit that Crowley's ideas are only of use to you when
>he's sufficiently vague so that you can encourage 'many
>opinions'.
Why should I respond to that? You obviously aren't reading what I
have said in response before.
>That's not what he called it, Bill. He said it was an
>encyclopedia. It really seems quite doubtful that this
>encyclopedia would not include a pretty large section
>devoted to OTO. Given Crowley's comments (from which you
>now are seen to distance yourself more and more) it
>seems that this is a reasonable view.
Yes, a sort of symbolic encyclopedia, a compendium of pictures
expounded by association with one another.
>> >Precisely, the symbolism of those rituals, rewritten
>> >by Crowley to reflect the teachings of Liber AL, MUST be
>> >represented in the deck which serves as the symbolic
>> >'encyclopedia' of the New Aeon.
>>
>> Somewhat, slightly, it is.
>Is it 'somewhat' or 'slightly' or what?
Somewhat the rituals were re-written to reflect Thelema.
Slightly, a few of the same elements introduced into the OTO rituals
are also found in the Thoth deck. Those are small things for the OTO
rituals, although important for OTO. The changes that bring in
Thelema to the OTO rituals are rarely found above 5% of the text. The
main effort in Crowley's rewrite was to condense the rituals and avoid
conflict with Freemasonry.
>> >> OTO uses Tarot in a
>> >> limited way to illustrate internal notions of OTO.
>>
>> >Those 'internal notions' are, as we've repeatedly
>> >illustrated, devoted to Liber AL and Thelema.
>>
>> Some of the time.
>Uh-oh, it's getting bigger---it's gone from almost never
>and nothing to 'some of the time'.
A fraction of a fraction is not larger than the initial portion.
>> Ok. Quote and let's discuss under a separate thread.
>I've already provided the quotes and you just ignored them.
>Like I said, you had your chance---IN THIS THREAD.
I responded. You chose to pretend otherwise.
>When you write something like "Tarot and Thelema is
>important to OTO as a category", it's so vague
>that it's meaningless.
It means the the involvement of Tarot with Thelema is something
important enough for study, lecture and discussion within OTO.
>> >Example:
>>
>> >in reference to 'Six of Cups', 'Pleasure'---
>>
>> >"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
>> >one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
>> >realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
>> >to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
>> >Degree of the O.T.O."
>>
>> In that A.C. is saying the IXth degree OTO has something that adds
>> meaning to his interpretation of this card. "Necessary" is an
>> exaggeration here,
>Again, Crowley 'couldn't' have meant it, cause Heidrick finds
>Crowley's choice of words, 'inconvenient'.
See what I mean about ignoring things? You asked and I answered.
Somehow you took that agreement, within limits, as a disagreement.
>OK---here we go:
>1. What is stated here is that it is necessary to know the
>SECRET of the IXth degree OTO.
That's what he said.
>2. As Bill well knows, Crowley understood that
>very few people outside of OTO would have had the
>knowledge of the IXth degree OTO at the time Crowley
>wrote this (the same is not true today---the 'secret' is
>no longer secret).
That's what he evidently thought.
>3. Therefore, for someone to possess this secret, he also
>would need to "be in OTO and a IXth degree member to understand
>the matter."
That doesn't follow the full facts. Crowley himself expressed the
secret in print before he joined OTO, by his own account in
_Confessions_..
>Clearly the intent here is to point out that the card's
>symbolism (which is related to several other cards in
>the deck) can only be fully understood, as Crowley intended
>it, if one possessed the IXth-degree secret, and you would
>get that from OTO.
Not so simple. The matter mentioned by Crowley in his discussion of
this card is not limited to the IXth degree secret, but in his remark
it is exemplified by that secret. You don't learn the IXth degree
secret from OTO. OTO members in that degree acquire the secret
beforehand as one of the requirements for admission to that degree.
The acquisition is from reading and studying a number of sources,
including this description of this card. Some obtain the secret
without recourse to Crowley's hints.
>> It is
>> also incorrect to assume that a IXth degree member of OTO would have
>> to look to this card to be such.
>Neither Crowley, nor I, ever said that, either.
No, but it is a conclusion that might easily be drawn from your loose
way of writing. Also, it is one of many means leading to acquisition
of the secret.
>> Unfortunately, by expressing that in simple terms, Crowley sets me up.
>See, I told you, he blames Crowley for being explicit.
>On the other hand, Crowley does not mean what Bill seems
>to think he does, so Crowley can hardly be held at
>fault for Bill's confusion.
>> I can't come right on top of it and say: "He means xyz" without
>> breaching OTO oath.
>And if someone DOES talk about the pertinent secret, your 'policy'
>says you've got to lie about it and claim that it's NOT
>the secret.
No. If it were possible to communicate the heart of the secret in
writing or speech, I would simply not acknowledge it. Although it is
possible to express and to summarize the matter in that fashion, it is
not possible to explain it to the extent that anyone hearing or
reading would then definitely possess it. That's a different matter
entirely. This is a thing to do, not a thing simply to know words
about. Most people either aren't able to learn the method or find it
utterly uninteresting, as Crowley himself remarked in print and
letter.
>> I can talk about a variety of things on that card
>> which might include this, but not point it out plainly as being IXth
>> degree.
>If it were only the case that you could only talk around
>and about the truth, then you'd just be a tedious bore.
Exactly so. Which leads me to wonder why you keep repeating yourself.
>But it's worse than that, as we've seen. Your 'policy'
>is to mislead and misdirect people from the truth.
No, quite the opposite. However, telling them that this card, the
Gnostic Mass, The Star Saphire ritual, Grimorum Sanctissimum and
several other things all present the secret in varying approaches,
portions and representations does tend to get ignored. This card
represents one small part of what is presented in the Gnostic Mass.
The same part is presented in the Star Saphire, very briefly; but it's
skipped over in Grimorum Sanctissimum.
>> >"I'm bothered because it seems to declare to the world at
>> >large that I was a total imbecile for abandoning my career to
>> >serve Mr. McMurtry's ends. I have devoted essentially the balance
>> >of my life from 1977 to this purpose. And it's very trying."
>>
>> Right. That was my testimony in open court as to the manner in which
>> I considered myself libeled and injured by Motta in his book.
>> Contrast this to what you have said above.
>Please feel free to detail for this 'court' exactly how I
>'slandered' you in my remarks. Be specific.
You presented my complaint of injury as though it was a statement of
my own belief in the essence of the misrepresentation.
>> The judge didn't buy my point as demonstrating libel.
>And that surprised you?
Not greatly.
>> >> >> Never the full word of any degree.
>> >>
>> >> >It is the word of the IXth, and the reply is 'Agape'.
>> >>
>> >> No, simply.
>>
>> >You're lying, simply.
>>
>> >Prove otherwise.
>>
>> Do I need to show that dung comes from an ass?
>To demonstrate that you don't have to violate a secrecy oath.
>Or do you?
Ok, silly as it is: Thelema and Agape are the two words most widely
connected to this philosophy and/or religion. They are short forms of
the greetings between Thelemites. It is not possible for words
exchanged in public constantly, explained when asked about, and widely
known as greetings to be used as secret passwords. They can be used
for instruction, even in the manner of passwords. They cannot in fact
be used as the key passwords for degrees, since they are not private
or secret. They could not function to identify members of a degree to
oneanother, since every Thelemite knowns that Thelema and Agape are
associated.
>Wasn't this the only proof Phyllis Seckler had that
>she was an OTO IXth-degree member? She testified this
>was the ONLY document she received from Germer which could
>attest to her possession of the degree.
Since her name wasn't on it, it was only contributory attestation to
the degree. It was not adequate to demonstrate it. Witness to her
having the degree by other surviving members of that degree was
sufficient. Germer didn't write it down or give her any paper
attesting by her name that she was a member of the degree. All she
had is the instructional paper, which many others have who are not in
the degree. That is what she testified.
93 93/93
Bill
Gordon Dahlquist
Here I sit
broken hearted
tried to invest myself in a self-aggrandizing, hypocritical,
pseudo-mystical, pseudo-religion based on the contradictory,
self-serving, self-interested writings of a charismatic,
victorian, eccentric, addled, insecure, loathesome, difficult,
bourgeoise, occultiste egomaniac
and reaped the expected reward.
R. Brzustowicz
>>
>> >"It ['the idea of Pleasure-Putrefaction as a Sacrament'] is
>> >one of the master-keys to the Gate of Initiation. To
>> >realize and to enjoy this fully it is NECESSARY to know,
>> >to understand, and to experience, the Secret of the Ninth
>> >Degree of the O.T.O."
>>
>> In that A.C. is saying the IXth degree OTO has something that adds
>> meaning to his interpretation of this card. "Necessary" is an
>> exaggeration here,
>
>Again, Crowley 'couldn't' have meant it, cause Heidrick finds
>Crowley's choice of words, 'inconvenient'.
>
>> if it is taken to mean that one would also have to
>> be in OTO and a IXth degree member to understand the matter.
>
>Here you go with the freshman sophistry routine again.
>
>OK---here we go:
>
>1. What is stated here is that it is necessary to know the
>SECRET of the IXth degree OTO.
It says,
>> >" To realize and to enjoy this fully it is necessary to know ...
[I have changed "NECESSARY" to "necessary" ]
It doesn't say that it's necessary to know the secret in order to realize or
enjoy "the idea of Plesure-Putrefaction as a sacrament" in any way
whatsoever -- only to realize and enjoy it fully.
The passage doesn't specify whether, without knowing the OTO IX degree
secret, one can only realize & enjoy it (say) 50%, or whether one can go as
far as (say) 99.9%.
rb
MLYoung
>
>Compared to his norm, yep. As to your being a only
>vessel, ask jk. That seems to be his theory about Frieda's role in >the Thoth
deck. I think she was rather more important than that, >especially in view of
Crowley's own art style.
Sorry, Bill, the pot/kettle routine doesn't wash.
I know enough about jk's opinions in this matter to
say your off-base--what you say is much more a
reflection of your own limitations.
>>on the goat--and Crowley's own comment on the Devil
>>in the Book of Lies.
>
>Still looks like DC a la AC to me.
Then I suggest you take an anatomy class. The vein
patterns are wrong, the orifice is misplaced.
Also, there's AC's little description of the Devil in
the Book of Lies--you know, the lines about his
will and seed being "lost within the Body of Our
Lady of the Stars" and "this heaven which draweth
me into her Womb." That's womb, not anus.
Don't know what you guys are doing, but the symbolism
is quite clear. Sounds like you folks just like substitutes.
>
>>Not to mention, you didn't say a word when I asked
>>you about it here--you only responded when jk
>>spoke the magick words to provoke you.
>
>I think I did mention it in passing, but perhaps I wasn't up to speed
>at that point. I haven't posted often to Usenet of late.
Bill--you wrote "the lady has my thanks"--to jk. It was
clear you couldn't even be bothered to remember by
name. Or, for that matter, really consider what I said.
Do you have any idea, any idea at all, why this is
a problem? You don't SEE. It's hard to take you
seriously when you repeatedly miss the obvious.
>
>>>>> Illogical. Thelema and Liber AL are very large fields.
>>>
>>>>As we've seen, those fields are found deeply planted
>>>>in OTO. It is at the heart of OTO's existence as an organization
>>>>to further the spread of Thelema and the application (or
>>>>acceptance) of the Law, according to Liber AL.
>>>
>>>It is a key to the present primary purpose, since Crowley's taking
>>>charge of OTO as OHO in the 1920's
>
>>Evasion, and not particularly adept evasion.
>
>Nope, just dealing with a generality in a general sort of way.
No, you evade. Perhaps you don't see that anymore--a
long habit of evasion is hard on perception.
>
>>to
>>>time to say I disagree and to indicate why in simplest terms.
>>>Otherwise, I enjoy discussing substance.
>
>>No, I don't think you do. You enjoy being the holder
>>of secrets; of being the authority.
>
>Matter of opinion.
Yes and one derived from watching you. A shame. I'd
always been disposed to think well of you, but your
tactics and arrogance here do you no credit.
>
>>>>And again, we have your quote offered here where you even
>>>>admit to the reasoning behind and the nature of your
>>>>willingness to lie in public about the connection of
>>>>Thoth to OTO's rituals and teachings (even noting this
>>>>with specific respect to tarot). Your credibility
>>>>as a spokesperson for the truth regarding these issues
>>>>is suspect, to say the least.
>>>
>>>That is slander.
>
>>For a word squeezer, you're quite sloppy. There's
>>no slander or libel here. You've made it clear
>>that you've little interest in speaking the truth for
>>its own sake.
>
>There's a difference between calling someone a lier and calling
>someone excessively restrained in expression.
Yes, but there's still no libel or slander here. There is
no reason to think jk is speaking other than what he
perceives as truth. He thinks you lie. He has legitimate
reasons to think this. You can, of course, show how
you are not lying, but you have not done this. Instead,
you have evaded issues repeatedly.
Personally, I would characterize you as intellectually
dishonest.
>
>>>>And, on the surface, this logically suggests there may be a
>>>>connection between Thelema/AL, Thoth, and OTO. Given the
>>>>evidence which supports that suggestion, the conclusion
>>>>is that the connection is far more than coincidental
>>>>and is indeed, fundamental and intended.
>>>
>>>Yes, for OTO. Not for Tarot or Thoth.
>
>>I think you know it goes both ways--all are
>>manifestations of a particular man's occult philosophy.
>
>More the case with the Thoth Tarot than with OTO, since Crowley made
>many more changes from what was there before him in the case of the
>former than the latter.
Sure, you keep telling yourself that.
>>Your answer, you realize, does not address the point jk
>>is making?
>
>Doesn't change my apprasal of the notion. It is true that 18th
>century France saw the beginning of a movement to Egyptinize Tarot and
>elevate its position as a key of mysteries. That seems to have
>crested with Paul Christian and myths about secret halls underground
>between the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid. Afterward, this notion
>became part of the pool of myths and modes common in mystical western
>traditions. The Golden Dawn and the 19th century French approaches
>took this a step forward by formulating more Qabalah with Tarot. That
>still does not make the myth more than a myth. Tarot is quite useful,
>even though its original meaning is obscured by such goings on. The
>systems that resulted from this work are very useful in themselves,
>but as systems, not as universal ancient truths.
Then you don't understand the nature of myth. No one's
arguing that tarot's a 1,000 years old, but then why are
universal truths only uncovered in the far distant past?
Occult tarot evolved, quite consciously. Crowley obviously
felt he knew the key to the universe and that it could
symbolized in his deck. The history you give does not
change this.
>
>>>No. I used "Thoth" to refer directly to Crowley and Harris' Thoth
>>>Tarot, book and deck. There is no question of "Accepting" this deck
>>>in the same sense as Liber AL. It is a work of art, not a Class A,
>>>A.'.A.'. creation.
>
>>Must have been why Beastie Boy spent years on it--and
>>nagged poor Frieda over and over. It's not simply
>>a work of art, but a symbolic codification of Beastie Boy's
>>philosophy. Why even bother denying this?
>
>When did I deny that? Class A is Crowley's A.'.A.'. category for
>revelation. Matters like the Thoth deck are not on that level in his
>system. It's a very fine thing and indeed a symbolic codification of
>many of his ideas. It isn't uniformly integrated in it's parts, but
>it is rather an assembledge of insights made consistent in the main by
>the artist. The Charioteer fits better with Lust than some of the
>other Major Atu's with one another. There are uneaven transitions in
>design, and the work on the Minors is sometimes less than significant
>in the details -- the Treys are particularly minimal, although the
>Fives tend to be good in details. The placement of planetary decan
>rulers and signs on the Minors is faulty, since it tends to be read as
>"planet in sign" rather than "planet ruling ten-degress of sign". His
>ideas for the Courts varied, with the male cards getting most of the
>attention. Frieda's handling is better with the female Courts than
>Crowley's ideas, in my opinion.
In other words it was a collaboration. Gee, umm, like
this is obvious? You're making a point no one's disputed
while ignoring what has been said.
We could have a discussion on what you've said--it's
pretty subjective, but you'd have to be willing to hear.
I don't think you are.
>
>>>particular, as you well know, the Thoth Deck sometimes deviates from
>>>Crowley's planed symbolism. It is not even the absolute impress of
>>>his intention, let alone a trans-aeonic direct voice of deity.
>
>>I suspect that its a lot closer to what Crowley wanted than
>>your post-mortem interpretations.
>
>Often, but tell that to the water bug on the Moon Atu or the
>"ABRACADABRA" instead of "ABRAHADABRA" on the Charioteer canopy.
Yes, yes, we know. That you're focusing on what are
minor artistic differences while missing the larger
point of what I'm saying is telling.
>
>>I don't care much for obfuscation and hedging and
>>find your arguments for it notably unconvincing--
>>right up there with the we're-sexist-but-not-as-sexist-as
>>-other-people rationalizing you did earlier.
>
>What arguments? So far, not much substance has come up in either
>Jess' posts on this round or yours.
Oh, jeez. LOOK, you made an argument earlier for
keeping OTO trade secrets, for not revealing what you
knew, for obfuscating the truth.
The round no. doesn't matter.
>
>>But, hey, I'm just an anonymous vessel.
>
>>--margaret
>
>Something off there....
Yes, it's time for you to enter the 20th century before
it exits.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
--Mopery snipped 50%--
>>>on the goat--and Crowley's own comment on the Devil
>>>in the Book of Lies.
>>
>>Still looks like DC a la AC to me.
>Then I suggest you take an anatomy class. The vein
>patterns are wrong, the orifice is misplaced.
Two people at work. Frieda may have veined it, but Crowley described
it. Outside of Togo, I don't think you will find a vulva that shape.
>Also, there's AC's little description of the Devil in
>the Book of Lies--you know, the lines about his
>will and seed being "lost within the Body of Our
>Lady of the Stars" and "this heaven which draweth
>me into her Womb." That's womb, not anus.
That's why it's in the sky, anyway. However, options remain.
>Bill--you wrote "the lady has my thanks"--to jk. It was
>clear you couldn't even be bothered to remember by
>name. Or, for that matter, really consider what I said.
>Do you have any idea, any idea at all, why this is
>a problem? You don't SEE. It's hard to take you
>seriously when you repeatedly miss the obvious.
I remembered seeing it. As to the rest, you are an able reminder.
>Then you don't understand the nature of myth. No one's
>arguing that tarot's a 1,000 years old, but then why are
>universal truths only uncovered in the far distant past?
>Occult tarot evolved, quite consciously. Crowley obviously
>felt he knew the key to the universe and that it could
>symbolized in his deck. The history you give does not
>change this.
Except for the first sentence, I agree in the main. However, the
initial point was more sweeping and I don't agree with that.
>>Often, but tell that to the water bug on the Moon Atu or the
>>"ABRACADABRA" instead of "ABRAHADABRA" on the Charioteer canopy.
>Yes, yes, we know. That you're focusing on what are
>minor artistic differences while missing the larger
>point of what I'm saying is telling.
Ok, let me see if I have a grasp on this. If I mention a detail, that
doesn't count. If you mention a detail, it does.
>Oh, jeez. LOOK, you made an argument earlier for
>keeping OTO trade secrets, for not revealing what you
>knew, for obfuscating the truth.
No argument from me on that. I said that. The flutter is from the
other side of the discussion.
>>>But, hey, I'm just an anonymous vessel.
>>
>>>--margaret
>>
>>Something off there....
>Yes, it's time for you to enter the 20th century before
>it exits.
Hint: was there a name writting by the vessel in question?
Also, edit "before". Replace with "while". While Crowley may have
been before his time and entered the 20th century before it came to
be, I cannot claim that honor.
93 93/93
Bill
MLYoung
>93 Margaret,
>
>--Mopery snipped 50%--
Amping up the bitchery quotient, I see.
>
>>>>on the goat--and Crowley's own comment on the Devil
>>>>in the Book of Lies.
>>>
>>>Still looks like DC a la AC to me.
>
>>Then I suggest you take an anatomy class. The vein
>>patterns are wrong, the orifice is misplaced.
>
>Two people at work. Frieda may have veined it, but Crowley described
>it. Outside of Togo, I don't think you will find a vulva that shape.
Good thing it doesn't show the vulva then, The female parts
are a pubic triangle dilineated by the horns; a clitoris shown
by the blue wreath of buds (cute, Frieda); a vagina (the
hole being entered up top); and spread thighs. Notice that
the pink background does not go to the bottom of the card,
but angles out. The shadowing also darkens along its inner
edge, suggesting the curve of a thigh.
You wouldn't see the vulva from the angle being depicted.
As for what Crowley described, in the Book of Lies and
the Book of Thoth, he describes vaginal sex, though
general jerking off seems to be an option as far as
behavior is concerned.
>
>>Also, there's AC's little description of the Devil in
>>the Book of Lies--you know, the lines about his
>>will and seed being "lost within the Body of Our
>>Lady of the Stars" and "this heaven which draweth
>>me into her Womb." That's womb, not anus.
>
>That's why it's in the sky, anyway. However, options remain.
Yes, so the card is indeed portraying a sky uterus--
whatever real-life options there may be.
Thanks Bill, it's about time you simply agreed.
>
>>Bill--you wrote "the lady has my thanks"--to jk. It was
>>clear you couldn't even be bothered to remember by
>>name. Or, for that matter, really consider what I said.
>>Do you have any idea, any idea at all, why this is
>>a problem? You don't SEE. It's hard to take you
>>seriously when you repeatedly miss the obvious.
>
>I remembered seeing it. As to the rest, you are an able reminder.
Skip the condescension and head patting, you've
not earned it and it makes you look
ridiculous. The point is: your attitude towards
women makes people cringe.
You said yourself there was a shortage of women at
certain levels. I can say, after this, I can't think of
a self-respecting woman who'd put up with your
reverenced-vessel nonsense.
>
>>Then you don't understand the nature of myth. No one's
>>arguing that tarot's a 1,000 years old, but then why are
>>universal truths only uncovered in the far distant past?
>>Occult tarot evolved, quite consciously. Crowley obviously
>>felt he knew the key to the universe and that it could
>>symbolized in his deck. The history you give does not
>>change this.
>
>Except for the first sentence, I agree in the main. However, the
>initial point was more sweeping and I don't agree with that.
No, of course you can't admit you don't understand
something. What do you think myth is? Why do you
think we create them? What purpose do they serve?
>
>>>Often, but tell that to the water bug on the Moon Atu or the
>>>"ABRACADABRA" instead of "ABRAHADABRA" on the Charioteer canopy.
>
>>Yes, yes, we know. That you're focusing on what are
>>minor artistic differences while missing the larger
>>point of what I'm saying is telling.
>
>Ok, let me see if I have a grasp on this. If I mention a detail, that
>doesn't count. If you mention a detail, it does.
No, you don't a have a grasp on this. The detail matter if
it's the topic of discussion--i.e. what is occurring in the
Devil card. When considering whose work reflects
Crowley's intentions, Bill Heidrick or Frieda Harris,
details such as water bug v. dung bug are minor quibbles.
After all, In what way does the bug exchange
affect the meaning of the Moon card or the
misspelling on the Chariot card?
In contrast, what is being penetrated on the
Devil card does matter in terms
of the implications of its symbolism. Here, I'll grant that
Frieda Harris might have putting in her own two cents
here. Crowley might think it doesn't matter where the
seed is cast. Frieda, as would any woman, knew better.
Crowley, however, certainly supports her rendition in
his writing in the Book of Lies and the Book of Thoth.
>>Oh, jeez. LOOK, you made an argument earlier for
>>keeping OTO trade secrets, for not revealing what you
>>knew, for obfuscating the truth.
>
>No argument from me on that. I said that. The flutter is from the
>other side of the discussion.
Yes, and I said I found your arguments unconvincing. You
then evaded the issue with talk of this not being in this
round. I clarified. Instead of trying to pass the buck, you
should thank me for being someone who is willing to make
clear what she is saying. But then, clarity doesn't seem
to be a virtue you appreciate.
>
>>>>But, hey, I'm just an anonymous vessel.
>>>
>>>>--margaret
>>>
>>>Something off there....
>
>>Yes, it's time for you to enter the 20th century before
>>it exits.
>
>Hint: was there a name writting by the vessel in question?
Yes, Bill, there was a name there as well when I made
my initial comments--you know, the ones for which you
thanked me third-hand as "the lady"?
>
>Also, edit "before". Replace with "while". While Crowley may have
>been before his time and entered the 20th century before it came to
>be, I cannot claim that honor.
Bill, don't even go down this path, seriously. Your writing's
not nearly good enough to play these kind of games. Your
*correction* is not, actually, correct and your mindset is
frozen at about 1893.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
GGLWOLF
Margaret wrote in response to Bill Heidrick:
>Skip the condescension and head patting, you've
>not earned it and it makes you look
>ridiculous. The point is: your attitude towards
> women makes people cringe.
>You said yourself there was a shortage of women at
>certain levels. I can say, after this, I can't think of
>a self-respecting woman who'd put up with your
>reverenced-vessel nonsense.
>>
Agreed Margaret-- the obvious 'go away little girl' attitude is extremely sad
from someone who supposedly has tread a path of ' enlightenment'. This entire
thread has either been a good expose of OTO's nonofficial-official policy
towards women (as well as other issues) or a damn disservice to those members
who might not share such archaic, self-serving views. The sarcasm and
dismissasl by Mr. Heidrick has been at best disappointing- but frankly pretty
nauseating.
shadow
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
Congratulations, mopery significantly reduced. I only cut 40% of it
this time.
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>Good thing it doesn't show the vulva then, The female parts
>are a pubic triangle dilineated by the horns; a clitoris shown
>by the blue wreath of buds (cute, Frieda); a vagina (the
>hole being entered up top); and spread thighs. Notice that
>the pink background does not go to the bottom of the card,
>but angles out. The shadowing also darkens along its inner
>edge, suggesting the curve of a thigh.
Possible, but doesn't convince me that it was intentional. It's not
as obvious as the facade on a cathedral.
>As for what Crowley described, in the Book of Lies and
>the Book of Thoth, he describes vaginal sex, though
>general jerking off seems to be an option as far as
>behavior is concerned.
He describes a good deal more than that in both, including cacafrasia.
>No, of course you can't admit you don't understand
>something. What do you think myth is? Why do you
>think we create them? What purpose do they serve?
Myths can serve a number of purposes, but tend to grow from tale
telling and other natural expressions of local societies. Artificial
myths are compositions of poets and other writers. Natural myths are
intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a purposeful thing.
>>Ok, let me see if I have a grasp on this. If I mention a detail, that
>>doesn't count. If you mention a detail, it does.
>No, you don't a have a grasp on this. The detail matter if
>it's the topic of discussion--i.e. what is occurring in the
>Devil card. When considering whose work reflects
>Crowley's intentions, Bill Heidrick or Frieda Harris,
>details such as water bug v. dung bug are minor quibbles.
>After all, In what way does the bug exchange
>affect the meaning of the Moon card or the
>misspelling on the Chariot card?
In those cases, it utterly blows Crowley's intentions. In the case of
the water bug, the notion of the Sun of Midnight is eclipsed. In the
case of the spelling change, a primary Thelemic word is distorted. To
the present Atu, these examples indicate that Frieda may be
responsible for elements not noticed, not desired and even contrary to
Crowley's intentions for the design. This means one should study the
card with both the design details and Crowley's descriptions to hand,
being ready to find flaws in the design where the descriptions are
contradicted. No scarab on the Moon, if taken to be Crowley's intent,
would suggest the card represents astral illusion simply, instead of
initiation or a variant related to the NOX formula. The misspelling
on the canopy of the Charioteer would point to obsolescence from the
old Aeon, rather than depiction of the new on the Atu. In like manner
these annotomical details you see but I do not could be a divergence
from the intended symbolism of the Atu in Crowley's part of the work.
> In contrast, what is being penetrated on the
> Devil card does matter in terms
>of the implications of its symbolism. Here, I'll grant that
>Frieda Harris might have putting in her own two cents
>here. Crowley might think it doesn't matter where the
>seed is cast. Frieda, as would any woman, knew better.
>Crowley, however, certainly supports her rendition in
>his writing in the Book of Lies and the Book of Thoth.
Very important to Crowley, where the seed is cast. He developed
formuli for different modes, complete with symbol collections and
other associations. If anal, this is A.C.'s notion of the goat of the
sabbot, as well as Pan in Crowley's poem. If vaginal, this goat is a
fertility symbol, greatly limiting the scope of the card.
>>Also, edit "before". Replace with "while". While Crowley may have
>>been before his time and entered the 20th century before it came to
>>be, I cannot claim that honor.
>Bill, don't even go down this path, seriously. Your writing's
>not nearly good enough to play these kind of games.
Very true, however if I can get you off on doing your mopery with word
usage, it will be easier to cut. :-)
> Your
>*correction* is not, actually, correct and your mindset is
>frozen at about 1893.
Then change the century. 18th is rather a good one. :-)
93 93/93
bill
MLYoung
Bill Heidrick wrote:
>Congratulations, mopery significantly reduced. I only cut 40% of it
>this time.
Do illuminate us, Bill, as to what you consider "mopery"--
my pointing out that you're a jerk--particularly in
regards to women? It's okay, Bill, at this point, we all
know you practice sex-magick with the lights out.
>
>mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Good thing it doesn't show the vulva then, The female parts
>>are a pubic triangle dilineated by the horns; a clitoris shown
>>by the blue wreath of buds (cute, Frieda); a vagina (the
>>hole being entered up top); and spread thighs. Notice that
>>the pink background does not go to the bottom of the card,
>>but angles out. The shadowing also darkens along its inner
>>edge, suggesting the curve of a thigh.
>
>Possible, but doesn't convince me that it was intentional. It's not
>as obvious as the facade on a cathedral.
You know, this is sort of pathetic--the way you're clinging
onto this out of some sort of misguided need to protect
your ego. Of course, your inflated sense of self-worth
is what got you into trouble in the first place: you can't
imagine someone else--particularly an ignorant vessel--
seeing something you didn't see. How on earth could
I say anything possibly worth considering, let alone
right? After all, that might make you have to reconsider
your opinion and we can't have that.
>
>>As for what Crowley described, in the Book of Lies and
>>the Book of Thoth, he describes vaginal sex, though
>>general jerking off seems to be an option as far as
>>behavior is concerned.
>
>He describes a good deal more than that in both, including cacafrasia.
You mean coprophagia? Please tell us more about which
sections refer to shit eating. Quotes and citations would
be nice. Go ahead. We might as well discuss it because
we've certainly been dealing with your coprolites.
>
>>No, of course you can't admit you don't understand
>>something. What do you think myth is? Why do you
>>think we create them? What purpose do they serve?
>
>Myths can serve a number of purposes, but tend to grow from tale
>telling and other natural expressions of local societies. Artificial
>myths are compositions of poets and other writers. Natural myths are
>intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a purposeful thing.
Yes, as I thought, you don't understand the purpose of myths.
They're not simply byproducts. Far from it.
Okay, show that it diverges from Crowley's intended
symbolism. Go ahead. I've been citing stuff
that seems to support it. Go ahead, show that it's
off. It's all I've ever asked you to do. So, do it.
>
>> In contrast, what is being penetrated on the
>> Devil card does matter in terms
>>of the implications of its symbolism. Here, I'll grant that
>>Frieda Harris might have putting in her own two cents
>>here. Crowley might think it doesn't matter where the
>>seed is cast. Frieda, as would any woman, knew better.
>>Crowley, however, certainly supports her rendition in
>>his writing in the Book of Lies and the Book of Thoth.
>
>Very important to Crowley, where the seed is cast. He developed
>formuli for different modes, complete with symbol collections and
>other associations. If anal, this is A.C.'s notion of the goat of the
>sabbot, as well as Pan in Crowley's poem. If vaginal, this goat is a
>fertility symbol, greatly limiting the scope of the card.
Why? Why must that limit the symbolism of the goat? Or,
for that matter, why disregard the womb also mentioned in
the poem?
>
>>>Also, edit "before". Replace with "while". While Crowley may have
>>>been before his time and entered the 20th century before it came to
>>>be, I cannot claim that honor.
>
>>Bill, don't even go down this path, seriously. Your writing's
>>not nearly good enough to play these kind of games.
>
>Very true, however if I can get you off on doing your mopery with word
>usage, it will be easier to cut. :-)
Play with words, Bill, and you're playing with my weapon
of expertise, not yours. Part of the reason your quibbling
is so unconvincing is that you're quite sloppy in your own
word usage and writing. You lack precision.
For example, what does "can get you off on doing your
mopery with word usage" actually mean. "Mopery," among
other things, isn't a word in any of my dictionaries. What
you mean to say is you want me to stop moping. Of course,
the thing is, I'm not moping. Even as an insult, it's
a ludicrously inept description of what I've written. (Then
there's the string of prepositions "off on"--bad writing.)
Also, of course, women would be your "revered vessels,"
not "reverenced"; you confuse slander with libel (misunder-
standing both); and repeatedly misspelled "liar" as "lier."
That's just off the top of my head. Your writing should
embarrass you.
>
>> Your
>>*correction* is not, actually, correct and your mindset is
>>frozen at about 1893.
>
>Then change the century. 18th is rather a good one. :-)
Classify you with the Age of Reason ? I think not.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Leihla
heid...@well.com (Bill Heidrick) writes:
>[...] To the present Atu, these examples indicate that Frieda may be
>responsible for elements not noticed, not desired and even contrary to
>Crowley's intentions for the design. This means one should study the
>card with both the design details and Crowley's descriptions to hand,
>being ready to find flaws in the design where the descriptions are
>contradicted.[...]
-------------
Sounds like you're suggesting, whenever we don't understand
something as it's depicted we should assume Frieda went
ape-shit and Crowley was too dense or preoccupied to notice?
...the poor guy went right on writing his true intentions for his
own deck even while his art vessel corrupted them without his
knowledge...
Amused,
L
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>>Congratulations, mopery significantly reduced. I only cut 40% of it
>>this time.
>Do illuminate us, Bill, as to what you consider "mopery"--
>my pointing out that you're a jerk--particularly in
>regards to women? It's okay, Bill, at this point, we all
>know you practice sex-magick with the lights out.
I use the term to indicate remarks intended only to offend, in the
case of those remarks being ignored. The last three lines above are
an example for content.
"Mopery" was first used in a joke, by a professional comic who's name
escapes me. It refered to the "crime" of flashing blind people.
Sadly, your mopery has relapsed.
>>>As for what Crowley described, in the Book of Lies and
>>>the Book of Thoth, he describes vaginal sex, though
>>>general jerking off seems to be an option as far as
>>>behavior is concerned.
>>
>>He describes a good deal more than that in both, including cacafrasia.
>You mean coprophagia?
Yes, but this version of the word comes from a rude nick-name given to
Paracelsus. His actual middle name was "Bombastus", and may have
given "bombast" to the English language. The "Cacafrastus" nickname
refered to his practice of examining feces as a medical diagnostic
procedure. Somehow, it seemed appropriate here. :-)
> Please tell us more about which
>sections refer to shit eating.
_Book of Lies_, item No.87, "Mandarin-Meals.
>>Myths can serve a number of purposes, but tend to grow from tale
>>telling and other natural expressions of local societies. Artificial
>>myths are compositions of poets and other writers. Natural myths are
>>intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a purposeful thing.
>Yes, as I thought, you don't understand the purpose of myths.
>They're not simply byproducts. Far from it.
Read again.
>Okay, show that it diverges from Crowley's intended
>symbolism. Go ahead. I've been citing stuff
>that seems to support it. Go ahead, show that it's
>off. It's all I've ever asked you to do. So, do it.
What is your antecedent for "it"? If to the topic of this thread,
somewhat remarked below, from the post you quoted:.
>>Very important to Crowley, where the seed is cast. He developed
>>formuli for different modes, complete with symbol collections and
>>other associations. If anal, this is A.C.'s notion of the goat of the
>>sabbot, as well as Pan in Crowley's poem. If vaginal, this goat is a
>>fertility symbol, greatly limiting the scope of the card.
>Why? Why must that limit the symbolism of the goat? Or,
>for that matter, why disregard the womb also mentioned in
>the poem?
The poem of my reference is "Hymn to Pan". You cited from _Book of
Lies_, written before Crowley developed a consistent theory of sexual
magick. Hymn to Pan, as well as the Prologue of the Unborn from Liber
Lapidis Lazuli and much of Liber LXV also deal with these matters.
Those are relatively early references, but they cross the period of
Crowley's entrance into OTO and explore sexual notions in greater
detail than do the items in _Book of Lies_, written before Crowley
joined OTO.
>Also, of course, women would be your "revered vessels,"
>not "reverenced"; you confuse slander with libel (misunder-
>standing both); and repeatedly misspelled "liar" as "lier."
Your attributions of my attitude toward women are your own remarks,
not mine. Internet traffic, although it would appear to logically be
considered for libel when of a false, malicious and otherwise damaging
character in the written word, has none-the-less been designated
slander in recent court decisions. No threat intended.
>>Then change the century. 18th is rather a good one. :-)
>Classify you with the Age of Reason ? I think not.
Alright, 21st century then. :-)
93 93/93
Bill
B Heidrick
93 L,
lei...@aol.com (Leihla) wrote:
>Sounds like you're suggesting, whenever we don't understand
>something as it's depicted we should assume Frieda went
>ape-shit
Not that, exactly.
>Crowley was too dense or preoccupied to notice?
That, very likely.
>...the poor guy went right on writing his true intentions for his
>own deck even while his art vessel corrupted them without his
>knowledge...
This deck is the product of two independent minds, mostly working together but
not entirely in agreement. Crowley wrote more than Frieda did about the cards.
Thus, you can try to sort out which is which in the design elements and motifs
by looking at the cards with Crowley's text to hand. With all this continued
talk about who did or wanted what depicted, it's worthwhile to see if these two
influences can be distinguished in the designs of individual cards. Frieda
often has something to say, but it's hard to find without first catching
Crowley.
93 93/93
Bill
MLYoung
The Heidrick follies continued:
>>>Congratulations, mopery significantly reduced. I only cut 40% of it
>>>this time.
>
>>Do illuminate us, Bill, as to what you consider "mopery"--
>>my pointing out that you're a jerk--particularly in
>>regards to women? It's okay, Bill, at this point, we all
>>know you practice sex-magick with the lights out.
>
>I use the term to indicate remarks intended only to offend, in the
>case of those remarks being ignored. The last three lines above are
>an example for content.
At least one of us knows when we're offending. You, on
the other hand, seem to have no sense why you're
offensive. Instead of the coy superior act, why not
take a look at yourself and figure out why you're
offending people?
>
>"Mopery" was first used in a joke, by a professional comic who's name
>escapes me. It refered to the "crime" of flashing blind people.
>
>Sadly, your mopery has relapsed.
So, you see yourself as blind?
Today's writing lesson: Don't use non-words, such as
"mopery" when their meaning is not clear from their
context. Also, if you're going use non-words, use
them consistently. If "mopery" refers ("referred" has
three "r"s, by the way) to a crime, it does not relapse.
One would have a relapse "into" or "of."
Before you whine about this, Bill, do keep in mind
that if you pay attention, your writing will improve.
>
>>>>As for what Crowley described, in the Book of Lies and
>>>>the Book of Thoth, he describes vaginal sex, though
>>>>general jerking off seems to be an option as far as
>>>>behavior is concerned.
>>>
>>>He describes a good deal more than that in both, including cacafrasia.
>
>>You mean coprophagia?
>
>Yes, but this version of the word comes from a rude nick-name given to
>Paracelsus. His actual middle name was "Bombastus", and may have
>given "bombast" to the English language. The "Cacafrastus" nickname
>refered to his practice of examining feces as a medical diagnostic
>procedure. Somehow, it seemed appropriate here. :-)
So, you were deliberately obscure for no good reason?
Your usual problem. Something to think about: Yeats
was a far better poet than Crowley. Crowley's poetry
was hurt by his difficulty in writing cleanly. Yeats'
late, great poems were masterpieces of clarity.
>
>> Please tell us more about which
>>sections refer to shit eating.
>
>_Book of Lies_, item No.87, "Mandarin-Meals.
In other words, it is not in the chapter on the Devil,
whereas the sky womb is, but it somehow takes
precedence? Because it's a sacrament? There
appear to be more than one of those.
>
>>>Myths can serve a number of purposes, but tend to grow from tale
>>>telling and other natural expressions of local societies. Artificial
>>>myths are compositions of poets and other writers. Natural myths are
>>>intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a purposeful thing.
>
>>Yes, as I thought, you don't understand the purpose of myths.
>>They're not simply byproducts. Far from it.
>
>Read again.
I did, "Natural myths are intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a
purposeful thing." This statement is problematic. Myths
are not simply results. Not to mention that the notion of
"natural" myth is a curious one--ironic, even.
>
>>Okay, show that it diverges from Crowley's intended
>>symbolism. Go ahead. I've been citing stuff
>>that seems to support it. Go ahead, show that it's
>>off. It's all I've ever asked you to do. So, do it.
>
>What is your antecedent for "it"? If to the topic of this thread,
>somewhat remarked below, from the post you quoted:.
The design of the Devil card, of course.
>
>>>Very important to Crowley, where the seed is cast. He developed
>>>formuli for different modes, complete with symbol collections and
>>>other associations. If anal, this is A.C.'s notion of the goat of the
>>>sabbot, as well as Pan in Crowley's poem. If vaginal, this goat is a
>>>fertility symbol, greatly limiting the scope of the card.
>
>>Why? Why must that limit the symbolism of the goat? Or,
>>for that matter, why disregard the womb also mentioned in
>>the poem?
>
>The poem of my reference is "Hymn to Pan". You cited from _Book of
>Lies_, written before Crowley developed a consistent theory of sexual
>magick. Hymn to Pan, as well as the Prologue of the Unborn from Liber
>Lapidis Lazuli and much of Liber LXV also deal with these matters.
>Those are relatively early references, but they cross the period of
>Crowley's entrance into OTO and explore sexual notions in greater
>detail than do the items in _Book of Lies_, written before Crowley
>joined OTO.
In other words, you don't have any direct references to
the Devil card that support your views--you've looked
at his other work and decided, despite what the card
shows and what Crowley writes about the card, that it
can't possibly show what it seems to show--that Crowley
can't have intended that.
Why? Because upsets your literal-minded house of cards.
Your mind is closed and you don't want to open it.
>
>>Also, of course, women would be your "revered vessels,"
>>not "reverenced"; you confuse slander with libel (misunder-
>>standing both); and repeatedly misspelled "liar" as "lier."
>
>Your attributions of my attitude toward women are your own >remarks, not mine.
Bill, they are logical deductions that apparently everyone,
but you, can see. You show all the earmarks of someone
who assumes he has intellectual superiority over the people
with whom he is dealing. It's ironic, your disgrace here
could have been avoided, given a little less
arrogance on your part. You could simply have given
me the reasons why you thought my interpretation of
the Devil card was wrong while acknowledging there
were reasons to see it that way, but you didn't. It's
not even clear that you can.
Internet traffic, although it would appear to logically be
>considered for libel when of a false, malicious and otherwise damaging
>character in the written word, has none-the-less been designated
>slander in recent court decisions. No threat intended.
Depends on the situation and the case. Either way, you're
way off base.
>>Classify you with the Age of Reason ? I think not.
>
>Alright, 21st century then. :-)
No, your blindness is quite Victorian--goes along
with your Royal Geographic Society taste in porn.
--margaret
>
>93 93/93
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>and Crowley's descriptions to hand,
>>being ready to find flaws in the design where the descriptions are
>>contradicted.[...]
>-------------
>something as it's depicted we should assume Frieda went
>
>...the poor guy went right on writing his true intentions for his
>own deck even while his art vessel corrupted them without his
>knowledge...
That's right--it's her fault. She did it. She did it!!!
It's the Blame Eve Brigade.
But it's okay, Bill's going to save Beastie boy from
Frieda's artistic clutches--that is, when Arriens, Greer
& Co. aren't saving Frieda from the Beast . . . .
--margaret
>
>Amused,
>L
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
J. Karlin
Billy-Bob Heidrick wrote:
> 93 Margaret,
>
> mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
> >>Congratulations, mopery significantly reduced. I only cut 40% of it
> >>this time.
While keeping your own dopery at its typically elevated levels.
> >Do illuminate us, Bill, as to what you consider "mopery"--
> >my pointing out that you're a jerk--particularly in
> >regards to women? It's okay, Bill, at this point, we all
> >know you practice sex-magick with the lights out.
>
> I use the term to indicate remarks intended only to offend,
What about remarks intended only to mislead and self-aggrandize?
I (and I suspect a lot of others) consider those as pretty
offensive but you don't seem to mind specializing in their
production in your posts.
> "Mopery" was first used in a joke, by a professional comic who's name
> escapes me.
In other words, trust him. Right.
> It refered to the "crime" of flashing blind people.
>
> Sadly, your mopery has relapsed.
And your dopery is as virulent as ever.
> >You mean coprophagia?
>
> Yes, but this version of the word comes from a rude nick-name given to
> Paracelsus. His actual middle name was "Bombastus", and may have
> given "bombast" to the English language.
Probably not. There are more obvious explanations. OED
specifically rejects the Paracelsus origin.
> The "Cacafrastus" nickname
> refered to his practice of examining feces as a medical diagnostic
> procedure.
What is your source for this 'story'?
> Somehow, it seemed appropriate here. :-)
If you mean it seemed appropriate to compare the rigors
of people trying to find meaning in your posts with those of
Paracelsus trying to find 'indications' in the shit of
corpses, I'd say you have a point.
> > Please tell us more about which
> >sections refer to shit eating.
>
> _Book of Lies_, item No.87, "Mandarin-Meals.
Note that the 'gnostic sigil' spells 'shit'.
Cakes of 'light', used for the sacrament, are actually
'fermented' cakes of something rather darker (though they
twinkie it for most purposes).
Cake=caca.
Get it?
And yes, that's 'fermented' (inside a person) liquid
used for the 'wine'.
You have to recall that the anti-Christian dogma
which so absorbs the 'liturgy' and spin of thelema,
works by way of literal inversion of the 'normal'
sacraments, so that what is considered vile and dead by
Christians (and most other people) is savored as the true
'body and blood' of God (or actually Satan) by the
OTO initiate.
How surprising it must be, after the long road is travelled
by the initiate, and he's finally given the secret
instructions of the IXth degree, that he learns it's
ALL just been about the worship of his Lord Jesus Christ.
Which simply refers to a point of this card---for Crowley
Christ and Satan are synonamous (although technically
Jesus symbolizes the opposite path---13-Death), they both
get you 'there' (to Tiphareth, wherein the opposites
combine for true Christ---if not necessarily Christian---
consciousness).
> >>Myths can serve a number of purposes, but tend to grow from tale
> >>telling and other natural expressions of local societies. Artificial
> >>myths are compositions of poets and other writers. Natural myths are
> >>intrinsic to humanity, a product more than a purposeful thing.
>
> >Yes, as I thought, you don't understand the purpose of myths.
> >They're not simply byproducts. Far from it.
>
> Read again.
Fine, one purpose a myth can serve, as you've illustrated,
is to lie to people about the 'mystery' of one's beliefs.
Please explain to us how come you all saw fit to concoct the
myth of the Stele of Revealing? Why lie about its translation
and about its 'special qualities'?
Did the myth of 'Hadit' SO dearly depend on there actually
having BEEN a Hadit (in some place other than Crowley's
imagination) that you needed to stoop to canards about
how it's 'all really on the Stele'?
> The poem of my reference is "Hymn to Pan". You cited from _Book of
> Lies_, written before Crowley developed a consistent theory of sexual
> magick. Hymn to Pan, as well as the Prologue of the Unborn from Liber
> Lapidis Lazuli and much of Liber LXV also deal with these matters.
> Those are relatively early references, but they cross the period of
> Crowley's entrance into OTO and explore sexual notions in greater
> detail than do the items in _Book of Lies_, written before Crowley
> joined OTO.
Uh-oh, looks like Bill is admitting that Crowley's ideas
about sexual magick obtained clarity BY his membership
in OTO. Given that, it follows that references to OTO
rituals in 'Book of Thoth' likely have more than the
merely commercial purpose Heidrick claims for them.
> >Also, of course, women would be your "revered vessels,"
> >not "reverenced"; you confuse slander with libel (misunder-
> >standing both); and repeatedly misspelled "liar" as "lier."
>
> Your attributions of my attitude toward women are your own remarks,
So, your attitude toward women couldn't possibly have
anything to do with the perception women have about it?
Well, that's certainly par for the kind of 'reasoning'
you seem to cultivate.
> not mine. Internet traffic, although it would appear to logically be
> considered for libel when of a false,
The problem is that when you claim someone is 'slandering'
you, you're either correct about it, OR you're guilty of
slander yourself by making a false charge.
By attempting to make it appear that any criticism of you
is 'slander' you wish to restrain free speech by making
people fearful of speaking their mind about you and OTO.
That's pro-forma behavior for a cult.
Is that what OTO is, Bill?
> has none-the-less been designated
> slander in recent court decisions.
That's interesting. Name one.
(jk)
MLYoung
In article <35002083...@texas.net>, "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> Jess
Karlin
writes:
>Cake=caca.
>
>Get it?
>
>And yes, that's 'fermented' (inside a person) liquid
>used for the 'wine'.
>
>You have to recall that the anti-Christian dogma
>which so absorbs the 'liturgy' and spin of thelema,
>works by way of literal inversion of the 'normal'
>sacraments, so that what is considered vile and dead by
>Christians (and most other people) is savored as the true
>'body and blood' of God (or actually Satan) by the
>OTO initiate.
>
In other words, Billy-Bob Muckrick is both literally and figuratively
full of shit?
Er, how transcendent . . .
--margaret (who really does have better things to do with her taste
buds, sense of smell, and digestive system. Let us bless modern
plumbing.)
GGLWOLF
jk wrote:
>The problem is that when you claim someone is 'slandering'
>you, you're either correct about it, OR you're guilty of
>slander yourself by making a false charge.
>
>By attempting to make it appear that any criticism of you
>is 'slander' you wish to restrain free speech by making
>people fearful of speaking their mind about you and OTO.
>
>That's pro-forma behavior for a cult.
>
>Is that what OTO is, Bill?
>
>> has none-the-less been designated
>> slander in recent court decisions.
>
>That's interesting. Name one.
>
I'd like to add my request to jk's on the court cases- since none that I've
reviewed seem to comport with this evaluation- although I've not taken a look
lately. Someone who throws out such statements so casually should easily
provide supportive documentation.
Legal terms are easily banted about--but understanding the terms, the caselaw
and applying that to the particular fact situation require a bit more than
reading Grisham or even sitting through a trial.
shadow
Bill Heidrick
93 Jess,
Mopery mostly snipped
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote:
>> The "Cacafrastus" nickname
>> refered to his practice of examining feces as a medical diagnostic
>> procedure.
>What is your source for this 'story'?
A biography of Paracelsus. Not to hand, but in my library in San
Anselmo.
>> > Please tell us more about which
>> >sections refer to shit eating.
>>
>> _Book of Lies_, item No.87, "Mandarin-Meals.
>Note that the 'gnostic sigil' spells 'shit'.
...
>You have to recall that the anti-Christian dogma
>which so absorbs the 'liturgy' and spin of thelema,
>works by way of literal inversion of the 'normal'
>sacraments, so that what is considered vile and dead by
>Christians (and most other people) is savored as the true
>'body and blood' of God (or actually Satan) by the
>OTO initiate.
Read more carefully. Crowley wrote this before joining OTO. However,
the same cannot be said of Layla Sublime. Both references are to his
personal practices, not OTO.
>Which simply refers to a point of this card---for Crowley
>Christ and Satan are synonamous (although technically
>Jesus symbolizes the opposite path---13-Death), they both
>get you 'there' (to Tiphareth, wherein the opposites
>combine for true Christ---if not necessarily Christian---
>consciousness).
Crowley is not the first to suggest some sort of meta-identity between
the two. Similar notions in Eqyptian mythology associate Horus and
Set in one a particular deity.
>Please explain to us how come you all saw fit to concoct the
>myth of the Stele of Revealing? Why lie about its translation
>and about its 'special qualities'?
Check the hieroglyphics, particularly in the viniette. For that
matter the issue is irrelevant to Liber AL, since you have noted that
Crowley saw a translation that omitted the Ba.
>Uh-oh, looks like Bill is admitting that Crowley's ideas
>about sexual magick obtained clarity BY his membership
>in OTO. Given that, it follows that references to OTO
>rituals in 'Book of Thoth' likely have more than the
>merely commercial purpose Heidrick claims for them.
What mere commercial purpose? I've stated that they have importance
for Thelema beyond that. As to Crowley learning more about sex magick
through OTO, that's what he himself wrote in Confessions.
93 93/93
Bill
Bill Heidrick
93,
ggl...@aol.com (GGLWOLF) wrote:
>>> has none-the-less been designated
>>> slander in recent court decisions.
>>
>>That's interesting. Name one.
>>
>I'd like to add my request to jk's on the court cases- since none that I've
>reviewed seem to comport with this evaluation- although I've not taken a look
>lately. Someone who throws out such statements so casually should easily
>provide supportive documentation.
All I have on that is 3rd hand. In the process of discussion on a
matter of this nature (in Germany), another OTO officer told me of
this decision. I didn't pursue for details.
>Legal terms are easily banted about--but understanding the terms, the caselaw
>and applying that to the particular fact situation require a bit more than
>reading Grisham or even sitting through a trial.
Quite right, and I'm certainly no lawyer.
93 93/93
Bill
MLYoung
Billy-Bob Mudrick declared:
>All I have on that is 3rd hand. In the process of discussion on a
>matter of this nature (in Germany), another OTO officer told me of
>this decision. I didn't pursue for details.
Germany! You're looking to Germany for guidance
on what constitutes libel or slander in the United
States?
--margaret
GGLWOLF
Bill Heidrick wrote:
>All I have on that is 3rd hand. In the process of discussion on a
>matter of this nature (in Germany), another OTO officer told me of
>this decision. I didn't pursue for details.
Its ok- really, details of a german case have no relevancy in any action
here...
May I suggest sir that you NOT rely on German law as a basis for accusing
someone in the United States of slander. Despite jursidictional arguments aside
about the internet- any claim for slander (which has not been present btw in
this thread- doesn't meet the thresholds for the elements nor the damages) or
libel would have to meet the state laws- which while somewhat standard across
the contries (except for places like louisiana) still is construed under the
particularities of state courts and case law.
It is as potentially as harmful from a litigious standpoint to falsely accuse
someone of slander as to actually slander someone. If not from a legal
perspective, then certainly from a standpoint of credibility.
>
>>Legal terms are easily banted about--but understanding the terms, the
>caselaw
>>and applying that to the particular fact situation require a bit more than
>>reading Grisham or even sitting through a trial.
>
>Quite right, and I'm certainly no lawyer.
>
That's ok- after the german law statement my expectations were dashed anyway.
One never knows what may have popped up in the case law since the last search
however.
shadow
Bill Heidrick
93 Margaret,
mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>Billy-Bob Mudrick declared:
>>All I have on that is 3rd hand. In the process of discussion on a
>>matter of this nature (in Germany), another OTO officer told me of
>>this decision. I didn't pursue for details.
>Germany! You're looking to Germany for guidance
>on what constitutes libel or slander in the United
>States?
Reading lesson: Parse more than once before jumping to conclusions.
The subject of the discussion was an OTO case currently in the German
courts, for libel and copyright ripoff. The matter of a US federal
court finding that internet traffic invoved slander instead of libel
arose during that discussion. As I recall, the finding was within the
last two months.
Definitely, I am not qualified either by education of by
credentials to give legal advice anywhere. I do not give legal
advice, now or in the past. However, I have a better than average
layman's involvement with things of this nature. I have been deposed
under oath a number of times, have testified in open court and have
assisted OTO attorneys in California, New York, and several overseas
countries in prep of cases and court documents in matters of libel,
slander, copyright, trademark, contract and estate. I have filed
papers, instructed attorneys in cases from plaintiff side and
variously done co-litigant work. I can't tell anyone what the law is
or how to go about litigation. I do have enough personal experience
to have a layman's informed opinion, over 20 years and a dozen or so
cases, one of which went through appeals up to the US Supreme Court..
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
J. Karlin
Bill 'Rehnquist' wrote:
> >I'd like to add my request to jk's on the court cases- since none that I've
> >reviewed seem to comport with this evaluation- although I've not taken a look
> >lately. Someone who throws out such statements so casually should easily
> >provide supportive documentation.
>
> All I have on that is 3rd hand.
Isn't that the hand you always depend upon?
> In the process of discussion on a
> matter of this nature (in Germany),
'Attorney' Billy-Bob, please tell this 'court' what you
know about the difference between free speech protections
in the United States and those in Germany.
> another OTO officer told me of
> this decision.
Yeah, I'll bet finding new and better ways to squelch free
speech is ALWAYS of interest to OTO officers.
'Do what thou wilt---as long as you don't say anything
that hurts OTO's feelings'.
You call yourselves Thelemites? You're just mites.
>I didn't pursue for details.
What good could those be when your only object is
to try and deflect people's criticism of you and OTO with
impertinent, irrelevant and immaterial gossip?
> >Legal terms are easily banted about--but understanding the terms, the caselaw
> >and applying that to the particular fact situation require a bit more than
> >reading Grisham or even sitting through a trial.
>
> Quite right, and I'm certainly no lawyer.
Then how come you feel comfortable casually making accusations,
which would ONLY have relevance in the United States, based on
your 3rd-hand understanding of German case law?
This has a very hieroglyphical feel to it.
(jk)
B Heidrick
93 Shadow,
ggl...@aol.com (GGLWOLF) wrote,
>details of a german case have no relevancy
See my later post.
>any claim for slander (which has not been present btw in
>this thread- doesn't meet the thresholds for the elements nor the
>damages)
I consider an unfounded and possibly malicious charge of lying, made in public,
to be slanderous. However, I don't represent that to be a serious matter, even
to the level of legal standard and certainly not to the level of actual damage.
My remark was a dimure, simply, to a remark out of place and untrue in itself.
The occasion was rude, pointless and of a character I have since labeled
"mopery". This in humor, not anger. Jess and I have in the past agreed to
occasionally heated argument here. Margaret seems to be of like inclination.
However, I find that the noise ratio has exceeded my standards for toleration
of frittering nonsense.
Enough said?
93 93/93
Bill
B Heidrick
93 Jess,
The following is layman's opinion, not legal advice and not represented to be
reliable beyond personal experience.
>tell this 'court' what you
>know about the difference between free speech protections
>in the United States and those in Germany.
It's pretty ugly. US seems to be quite open, only taking restraint where
damage is done and falsehood is evident in civil matters. National security is
an exception, as are the usual matters of promoting actual crime.
In Germany, criminal charges are possible in cases of libel and slander. Some
matters considered distasteful but free speach in the USA are crimes in Germany
-- notably denying the Nazi genocide, promoting certain unpopular political
views and even some religious questions. OTO members in Germany have lost jobs
simply because they were professed Thelemites, with apparently no legal
recourse. Further, there are copyright laws in Germany which bring old
publications out of the public domain if revived by a 3rd party and considered
of historical importance. There are restraints on the number of translations
into German that can be legally published of any particular work.
Most mopery snipped.
>how come you feel comfortable casually making accusations,
Hi pot! You can call me kettle. :-)
93 93/93
Bill
J. Karlin
B Heidrick wrote:
> 93 Shadow,
>
> ggl...@aol.com (GGLWOLF) wrote,
>
> >details of a german case have no relevancy
>
> See my later post.
>
> >any claim for slander (which has not been present btw in
> >this thread- doesn't meet the thresholds for the elements nor the
> >damages)
>
> I consider an unfounded and possibly malicious charge of lying, made in public,
> to be slanderous.
The problem for you is that what I said about you was founded
upon your own statements. Furthermore, given your concern that
OTO rituals be considered 'trade secrets', you'd have no choice
but to post misleading and false statements concerning the accuracy
of such publications as, for example, 'Secret Rituals of the OTO'.
The fact is that both you and Grady McMurtry (in 1985) have
affirmed that 'Secret Rituals of the OTO' is a facsimile (meaning
accurate) reproduction of Crowley's OTO rituals.
According to your own statements re: the danger of making
any such admission, you've lost the right to claim
the rituals AS trade secrets.
Why not just accept this? And carry on?
> However, I don't represent that to be a serious matter,
How could you?
> even
> to the level of legal standard and certainly not to the level of actual damage.
What 'damage' can you suffer from having your own statements
concerning your veracity revealed to the public?
Either the statement you made was true, in which case you are an
admitted liar, or the statement was false, in which case
you are an admitted liar.
Which 'case' is it, Bill?
> My remark was a dimure,
You mean a 'demure'? At least spell the legal jargon, Bill,
if you feel the need to ignorantly cast it about.
> simply, to a remark out of place and untrue in itself.
No, on the contrary, you accused me of slander several times,
for a number of remarks (your reasoning for some of the
charges was vague at best).
Your intent was clearly to substitute slander charges for
actually answering the questions (and some answers) I
put to you regarding the OTO policy of lying about
the accuracy of published accounts of your secrets.
> The occasion was rude, pointless and of a character I have since labeled
> "mopery".
Is that a change suggested because of legal considerations?
You were teetering on the edge of accusing all your critics
here of 'slander'---not a very wise thing for you to be
doing.
>This in humor, not anger.
I think the humor works both ways, but I think at the bottom
of any mutual snideness and sarcasm in this thread is
also a serious question about whether OTO has a policy of
lying about the accuracy of published collections of its
rituals and 'secret' instructions.
Based on the statement you made to me and which I posted
here, AND considering some basic facts, I would have
expected more of a response from you than an accusation
that I was maliciously lying about you.
> Jess and I have in the past agreed to
> occasionally heated argument here.
It's not a question of 'agreement' Bill. I'm not in the
OTO, and I don't have to 'agree' with you about what I
can and can not discuss here or anywhere.
This is instead a question of 'continuing education' for all
concerned---including myself.
The problem I have with you is surely not personal
(we don't know each other except through our net conversations)
but is purely journalistic---I don't believe you can be
trusted to tell the truth. That's different than my
understanding that you can't violate secrecy oaths. And while
I do understand your motives for thinking the way you do, I
don't agree with them. If you think there is something in
OTO worth knowing but which must be kept secret, then shut up.
On the other hand, if OTO is so fragile that it can't survive
people openly discussing its 'secrets' (which I would argue
are NOT secrets at all), then it can hardly
rightly be called a thelemic church (which ought to
flourish, not wither, in the light).
> Margaret seems to be of like inclination.
Margaret simply noticed something about you which you
seem quite happy to ignore about yourself. Well,
'old dogs and new perceptions'.
> However, I find that the noise ratio has exceeded my standards for toleration
I believe your own 'noise level' (even when seated on a
congenial carrier wave) is precisely the problem I'm
discussing here.
(jk)
J. Karlin
B Heidrick wrote:
> >how come you feel comfortable casually making accusations,
>
> Hi pot! You can call me kettle. :-)
Another Heidrickian ploy---matching legitimate criticism with
vague accusation.
Bill, as noted in several other posts in this
thread, I'm quite serious about the questions (and conclusions)
I put to you.
And I'm quite unimpressed with your response.
(jk)
MLYoung
>mly...@aol.com (MLYoung) wrote:
>
>>Billy-Bob Mudrick declared:
>
>>>All I have on that is 3rd hand. In the process of discussion on a
>>>matter of this nature (in Germany), another OTO officer told me of
>>>this decision. I didn't pursue for details.
>
>>Germany! You're looking to Germany for guidance
>>on what constitutes libel or slander in the United
>>States?
>
>Reading lesson: Parse more than once before jumping to conclusions.
>The subject of the discussion was an OTO case currently in the German
>courts, for libel and copyright ripoff.
No, Bill, the subject was your misuse of the word
"slander," when applying to statements made by
members of this newsgroup. I pointed out that
you were confusing "libel" and "slander." You
defended yourself by claiming that what was posted
on the Internet was considered "slander."
When pressed about this, you veered over to comments
about libel and slander law in Germany, which is
COMPLETELY inapplicable to the dealings between
you and other American members of alt.tarot.
Now, you're vaguely referring to some federal
court case about which you've no details.
Your performance here really is quite unimpressive.
Your spouting about being deposed giving you some
sort of superior legal knowledge absurd.
--margaret (learned her media law at Stanford's law
school)
>
>
>
>
>
MLYoung
>>any claim for slander (which has not been present btw in
>>this thread- doesn't meet the thresholds for the elements nor the
>>damages)
>
>I consider an unfounded and possibly malicious charge
>of lying, made in public, to be slanderous. However, I don't >represent that
to be a serious matter, even
>to the level of legal standard and certainly not to the level of >actual
damage.
Don't use legal terms when talking on non-legal matters
then. Particularly, when you can't use them correctly.
> My remark was a dimure, simply, to a remark out of place and untrue in
>itself.
> The occasion was rude, pointless and of a character I have since labeled
>"mopery". This in humor, not anger. Jess and I have in the past agreed to
>occasionally heated argument here. Margaret seems to be of like inclination.
No, that is inaccurate. If anything, the problem is that you
have repeatedly evaded actual argument by attempting
to patronise and dismiss what I've said. I have simply
and repeatedly pointed this out. By not deigning to
actually discuss Devil imagery with me, you have come
off as an arrogant, sexist and bumbling fool. The joke
is that you probably DO have some arguments on your
side, which, as a student, I would consider. I am not
wedded to my interpretation.
But, as I've said before, you have repeatedly evaded
an actual dialogue and refused to address your own
failings. The result is that you are getting pinned--in
public--repeatedly by jk on the issue of scholarship
and credibility and by me on your arrogance and
evasiveness.
Cheers,
--margaret
Mary Cain
jk wrote:
Bill, as noted in several other posts in this thread, I'm quite serious
about the questions (and conclusions) I put to you.
kc:
I don't have the time and helpfulness to others invested in this ng to
really expect anything as far as responses are concerned but, for what
it's worth,
I am also very seriously interested in the resolutions of these
questions and the validity of text being referred to. I think there
are quite a few "lurkers" like myself that would love to see some
answers like, what is *leg-jerk* or warped sense of humor and what was
actually a 'sacrament' ?
Thanks to anyone and everyone that can shed light on these
matters.....you have my vote :-)
Karen Cain
late...@webtv.net