sources for aleister crowley critiscisms
@.com gea
"english magician and occultist self described as the "Beast of the
appocalypse",and called by the media "the wickedest man in the world"
crowley was a man of no small ego, both enraged and fascinated by others
with his rites of sex magic and blood sacrifice."
" crowley was drawn to the occult at a young age and was fascinated by
blood, torture and sexual degradation."
"in1934 ,desperate for money,crowley sued sculptress nina hamnett for
libel in her biography of him , laughing torso [1932],in which she stated
that crowley practised black magic and indulged in .
human sacrifice
the testimony given at the trial so repulsed the judge and jury that the
trial was stopped and the jury filed in favour of hammett "
this is just a snippet from the above book,
gea
White Rabbit
gea wrote:
> from the above book;
>
> "english magician and occultist self described as the "Beast of the
> appocalypse",and called by the media "the wickedest man in the world"
> crowley was a man of no small ego, both enraged and fascinated by others
> with his rites of sex magic and blood sacrifice."
he was a pervert for sure
>
>
> " crowley was drawn to the occult at a young age and was fascinated by
> blood, torture and sexual degradation."
english corrections maybe? :-)
>
>
> "in1934 ,desperate for money,crowley sued sculptress nina hamnett for
> libel in her biography of him , laughing torso [1932],in which she stated
> that crowley practised black magic and indulged in .
> human sacrifice
> the testimony given at the trial so repulsed the judge and jury that the
> trial was stopped and the jury filed in favour of hammett "
>
> this is just a snippet from the above book,
so I am not that wrong after all!
theo
>
>
> gea
--
"Nonsense is nonsense only when we have not yet found that point of view from
which it makes sense""
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Asiya
news:a1hav9$7c2$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
Gea also wrote elsewhere:
"i suppose it was the human sacrifice, blood rituals and using his
illegimate
children in these rituals,"
"his obsession with blood, torture and sexual degradation, used in and
out of
his black magic rituals."
Alright, Gea.
Do you unquestioningly believe everything you read? Do you take
everything you read literally? Have you read some of Crowley's writings?
I do not defend Crowley the man. He had many flaws. Nor am I a
"Crowleyian". However, what the 'Harpers Encyclopaedia of Mystical and
Paranormal Experiences' wrote is incorrect, in regards to the subjects
of the quotes I added made by you. Conjecture, and symbolism
misunderstood by uninitiates.
Asiya
**********
www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Eat the meatballs to email me.
@.com gea
--
Gea
"Asiya" <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a1hg4m$9u1$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
well, we are talking about someone who is dead and most of the information
on him is written [ do you have any other]
so i suppose it is like the bible, take out the bits that fit your own
beliefs and leave the rest
if you can tell me of something i can read which disputes this i will read
it, even his mother called him the beast.
i actually find it all rather sad , i used to think most of the awful things
said about crowley were hype, but now having a look at a few things,
including his letters to lady frieda harris, quite revealing.
so i am not a fan of his,
Gea
TarotHrmt
>gea wrote:
>
>> from the above book;
>>
>> "english magician and occultist self described as the "Beast of the
>> appocalypse",and called by the media "the wickedest man in the world"
>> crowley was a man of no small ego, both enraged and fascinated by others
>> with his rites of sex magic and blood sacrifice."
>
> he was a pervert for sure
>
>>
>>
>> " crowley was drawn to the occult at a young age and was fascinated by
>> blood, torture and sexual degradation."
>
> english corrections maybe? :-)
>
>>
>>
>> "in1934 ,desperate for money,crowley sued sculptress nina hamnett for
>> libel in her biography of him , laughing torso [1932],in which she stated
>> that crowley practised black magic and indulged in .
>> human sacrifice
>> the testimony given at the trial so repulsed the judge and jury that the
>> trial was stopped and the jury filed in favour of hammett "
>>
>> this is just a snippet from the above book,
>
>so I am not that wrong after all!
>theo
>
>>
>>
Totally denying Crowley is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. But
certainly be discerning.
Tarot Hermit
melisande
"gea" <gea @.com> wrote in message news:a1hma6$q96$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
IIRC, his mother started calling him the beast when he was like FOUR YEARS
OLD.
His parents were relatively harsh (by today's standard) narrow-minded
Christians.
So are most of his critics.
You can find other views quite easily, yourself. Use a search engine.
There are also resources at amazon.com
But if it interests you, University of Utah folkloricist Jan Brunvand has
researched the issue of Satanic sacrifices for over twenty years and
repeatedly
found no evidence whatsoever that ANY such practice has ever existed,
anywhere.
So, please post any evidence you have (other than third or fourth hand urban
legend
material) that such practices existed in England last century.
>
> i actually find it all rather sad , i used to think most of the awful
things
> said about crowley were hype, but now having a look at a few things,
> including his letters to lady frieda harris, quite revealing.
> so i am not a fan of his,
It's obvious you're not a fan. I can think of only three or four persons
of whom I am a fan (and none of them is Crowley). However, the man
was brilliant, exhibited a kind of thinking rare in the world (and much
needed) and, well, there's no point in going on here. You aren't going to
read him and that's fine. But you might want to exercise some care in
expressing supposed "facts" about Crowley without better research.
Surely you're aware that there's a large Christian propaganda machine
determined to disparage anything that appears occult or witchy? (Including
tea leaf reading). People are burning _Harry Potter_ books in New Mexico,
for Christ's sake.
Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain that?
Melisande
J. Karlin
> Totally denying Crowley is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. But
> certainly be discerning.
How so?
If someone says someone says someone did or said something,
then what does that actually mean?
What is implied or indicated?
How are you obliged, if you are, to make a determination
or judgment of the truth in such a case, and of what the
truth SHOULD further oblige you to do or not to do?
(jk)
**********************************************
Read the alt.tarot FAQ:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/tarotfaq.html
More tarot resources available at:
http://lonestar.texas.net/~r3winter/alttarotqa.html
**********************************************
J. Karlin
> People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> for Christ's sake.
Precisely.
And what's wrong with that?
> Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
> chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain that?
Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
Asiya
>
> so i suppose it is like the bible, take out the bits that fit your
own
> beliefs and leave the rest
No, not even necessarily like that.
> if you can tell me of something i can read which disputes this i will
read
> it,
Keywords: Aleister Crowley, Thelema
Sheesh. You expect all the answers to be handed to you.
> i actually find it all rather sad , i used to think most of the awful
things
> said about crowley were hype, but now having a look at a few things,
> including his letters to lady frieda harris, quite revealing.
> so i am not a fan of his,
Not many people are a fan of Crowley the man. His writings are another
thing altogether.
Hieronymous707
>And what's wrong with that?
"Christ's sake" sounds like a sacramental whine.
-hi-
starwoman
--
gea <gea @.com> wrote in message news:a1hav9$7c2$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
Gea:
You have been asked this question 3 or 4 times. Have you ever read Crowley's
work????? If you are going to venture an opinion about the man's relevance
and importance in occult studies, then I think it is fair that you let us
know how well versed you are on his writings and philosophy.
Star
White Rabbit
melisande wrote:
> "gea" <gea @.com> wrote in message news:a1hma6$q96$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gea
> > "Asiya" <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:a1hg4m$9u1$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "gea" <gea @.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a1hav9$7c2$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > > >
> > > > "english magician and occultist self described as the "Beast of the
> > > > appocalypse",and called by the media "the wickedest man in the world"
> > > > crowley was a man of no small ego, both enraged and fascinated by
> > > others
> <SNIP>
>
> Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
> chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain that?
>
and about sects that use all sort of abuse with their members ,
do you think that their adepts are all jerks ?
there are a lot of clever money maker socially active
people also .. but with a glitch in their minds
Lady Frieda Harris had probably also some!
Before all gay were said to be clever
there are plenty stupid as stones---
kids abuser are clever also .. and many trolls are
as well so being very clever is not en excuse for
his perversions ,
on the contrary !
>
> Melisande
~tiny ibis~
>
> Not many people are a fan of Crowley the man.
Did you ever meet Crowley?
> His writings are another
> thing altogether.
Would his writings be what they are if he hadn't been the man he was?
~tiny ibis~
--
"Walk this world with me"
J. Karlin
>
> > Asiya wrote:
> >
> > Not many people are a fan of Crowley the man.
>
> Did you ever meet Crowley?
>
> > His writings are another
> > thing altogether.
>
> Would his writings be what they are if he hadn't been the man he was?
No. But that confronts people with a difficult challenge,
to validate the writing is to at least accept the "man
he was" as necessary to that validation. So, in some
people's view, that is a way of validating the "man
he was" as well, including the things he did, which
were often all too human.
That's the thing about being a humanist---you have to
really like (or at least take) human beings for what
they are, and for what you can perceive they could
be, and the fact is that most people don't like
human beings for any reason whatsoever. They ARE
usually in love with themselves, and can graciously
allow that THEIR human condition, flaws and all, is
obviously necessary for the Cosmos to have any meaning,
but our most notable souls sometimes are forced to
exist superhumanly in a perfect form and condition
presently unavailable to anyone except in the
demented fantasies of megalomaniacs and the
usually self-righteous fools that follow them.
As Nietzsche pointed out:
"One does not credit clever people with their follies;
what a loss of human rights!"
melisande
"J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3C3C644C...@texas.net...
> melisande wrote:
>
> > People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> > for Christ's sake.
>
> Precisely.
>
> And what's wrong with that?
They're welcome to do so, of course. But it doesn't prove
that Harry Potter books cause people to go to hell.
Nor does the fact that AC upset Christians prove that he
is guilty of perversion.
>
> > Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
> > chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain that?
>
> Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
> used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
> obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
>
> That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
Yep. And it sounds delusional, in any context.
MR
Paul Hume
> on him is written [ do you have any other]
Talking to his contemporaries while they lived - Regardie, York,
McMurtry?
> so i suppose it is like the bible, take out the bits that fit your own
> beliefs and leave the rest
You really think that dealing with living testimony written in the
last hundred years is the same as scripture several millenia old? You
must have been a smash in history classes.
> if you can tell me of something i can read which disputes this i will read
> it, even his mother called him the beast.
Eye in the Triangle (Regardie)
The Great Beast (John Symonds)
The Confessions of Aleister Crowley (Crowley)
> i actually find it all rather sad , i used to think most of the awful things
> said about crowley were hype, but now having a look at a few things,
> including his letters to lady frieda harris, quite revealing.
> so i am not a fan of his,
>
This entitles you to spread tabloid nonsense about him as fact? Only
those you are a "fan" of deserve honest examination? And the rest you
get to pick and choose?
Juan Herberto
wrote) .."what's wrong with that?"- well... nothing- especially to
Texans, who are wont to stack firewood in 30' piles prior to important
football games, so that the world will understand how 'bad' they are
(and a lot more people died from adventures of the latter kind than will
ever be truly warmed by a smoldering pile of "Potter"). ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
Juan Herberto
that what AC was really after, by his act of bringing suit, was the
wider broadcast of his notoriety? Could he have wished for (or demanded)
a retraction of the alleged libel?.. or was simple payment likely enough
to satisfy the alleged wrong done to his reputation? When one commits to
various intrigues to promulgate a particular reputation, does the Truth
figure into it? Is the Truth important in such matters equally to all
concerned?.. & will it be the Same Truth?
J. Karlin
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C644C...@texas.net...
> > melisande wrote:
> >
> > > People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> > > for Christ's sake.
> >
> > Precisely.
> >
> > And what's wrong with that?
>
> They're welcome to do so, of course. But it doesn't prove
> that Harry Potter books cause people to go to hell.
Do you think they burn the books because they think
that offers proof of the evil nature of the books?
One does not throw out the trash because that proves
the evil nature of the trash but because one doesn't
like the trash being so near and so offensive.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating things
one find hateful, and then doing something about that.
It's part of being a free human being.
> Nor does the fact that AC upset Christians prove that he
> is guilty of perversion.
Really? Well, then he would have considered himself a failure.
> > Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
> > used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
> > obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
> >
> > That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
>
> Yep. And it sounds delusional, in any context.
Unless it's written by lower-tier anthropologists.
The point being, as you yourself only recently discovered,
there is much in Tarot that is either intended as, or
necessarily functions as, a veil. Often the only thing
separating the reader from the truth is the will to
look beyond the veil, or behind the curtain.
Hieronymous707
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating things
>one find hateful, and then doing something about that.
I think you mean finds, not find.
...
Don't you just hate when I do that?
-hi-
J. Karlin
You also like to say a lot of really stupid things, huh?
melisande
> melisande wrote:
>
> > "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C3C644C...@texas.net...
> > > melisande wrote:
> > >
> > > > People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> > > > for Christ's sake.
> > >
> > > Precisely.
> > >
> > > And what's wrong with that?
> >
> > They're welcome to do so, of course. But it doesn't prove
> > that Harry Potter books cause people to go to hell.
>
> Do you think they burn the books because they think
> that offers proof of the evil nature of the books?
I think that they think the more people who show up for the
book-burning, the more proof of evil. False appeal to numbers.
Many fundamentalist ministers keep little tally charts near the
pulpits, giving the numbers of who came to what thing. I think
numbers are important to them.
>
> One does not throw out the trash because that proves
> the evil nature of the trash but because one doesn't
> like the trash being so near and so offensive.
Well, in the New Mexico case, the minister actually went
out and bought the trash, brought it near to himself, and
then burned it. Proving his immunity to evil. (This according
to letters to the editor in the Alamagordo Daily News).
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating things
> one find hateful, and then doing something about that.
Nope, got to admire that. But gea's confusing the hatred
some have toward Crowley with facts about him.
>
> It's part of being a free human being.
Yep.
>
> > Nor does the fact that AC upset Christians prove that he
> > is guilty of perversion.
>
> Really? Well, then he would have considered himself a failure.
LOL. Good point.
>
> > > Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
> > > used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
> > > obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
> > >
> > > That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
> >
> > Yep. And it sounds delusional, in any context.
>
> Unless it's written by lower-tier anthropologists.
No, even there. (And Arrien isn't even on the tier of anthropologists,
since she doesn't have an earned degree, although she can call
herself one - anyone can, that's part of human freedom too).
>
> The point being, as you yourself only recently discovered,
> there is much in Tarot that is either intended as, or
> necessarily functions as, a veil. Often the only thing
> separating the reader from the truth is the will to
> look beyond the veil, or behind the curtain.
>
> (jk)
>
Well put.
MR
, ,
Sue
If you would read more than one book _about_ Crowley, you might find you
outlook about him altered from the one you have at present.
You might even decide to read some of what Crowley actually wrote, instead
of shunning it all due to the opinions of others.
Do you always let other people dictate your own viewpoints?
--
"Leave your body at the door"
A.K.
wrote:
>"Leave your body at the door"
Is that what I think it is? (Oingo Boingo, Dead Man's Party)
}..{
Agnieszka
Sue
Yes.
--
Crowfoot
<melis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3C644C...@texas.net...
> > melisande wrote:
> >
> > > People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> > > for Christ's sake.
> >
> > Precisely.
> >
> > And what's wrong with that?
>
> They're welcome to do so, of course. But it doesn't prove
> that Harry Potter books cause people to go to hell.
>
> Nor does the fact that AC upset Christians prove that he
> is guilty of perversion.
>
> >
> > > Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
> > > chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain
> > > that?
> >
> > Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
> > used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
> > obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
> >
> > That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
>
>
> Yep. And it sounds delusional, in any context.
>
> MR
Not to any student of patterns in history; although in earlier times
it wasn't always "stealing" per se, but a woman using a man's name
to publish her work under to avoid being strung up for trying to be
artistically creative like a REAL person, instead of just, you know,
fecund, the way mere female creatures were supposed to be. I'm
thinking specifically of Fanny Mendelsohn, some of whose piano
composition were published under Felix' name, but there are other
examples if anyone cares to go dig them out, mostly in music but
some in literature and in recent science and scholarship, where
male-female collaborations have a tendency to come out with the female
name disappeared -- see Watson and Crick (but not, oh, what'shername,
oh never mind who cares), and the woman recently written up for having
essentially invented the computer.
It is, alas, way too common a situation; whether something like this
obtained between Crowley and Harris I have no idea, but the
possibility is by no means far-fetched. Crowley seems to have been
exploitive by inclination, so maybe; or, if Harris was tough and
smart enough not to let herself be exploited, maybe not.
--
Crow
carolyn cain
Jk wrote:
>One does not throw out the trash because that
>proves the evil nature of the trash but because one
>doesn't like the trash being so near and so
>offensive.
???? What is so offensive about Harry Potter?
I guess we'll need to toss in the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, and a whole
bunch of others too. Or better still....why not just add lobotomy to
the list of required immunizations. Hey kids...don't bother looking
for the yellow brick road...it's been recalled!
Your imagination is now public enemy number one.
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with hating things
>one find hateful, and then doing something about
>that.
I've found that hate in the full sense of the word is impossible to
retain as one evolves. Preserving, momentary hate is about the most
you can achieve and even that is subject to fall away and leave you
vulnerable without prior notice.
>It's part of being a free human being.
Free human being is an oxymoron.
Karen Cain
melisande
"carolyn cain" <Night...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21620-3C...@storefull-138.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Then so are related pairings of "human" with other adjectives, such
as good, bad, loving, etc.
I used the adjective "free" to denote qualities that count as freedom
within the constraints of human nature.
Sort of like when you say "good dog" the word "good" has a different
meaning/content than when you say "good cat" or "good boy."
Seems to me some human beings are freer than others, anyway.
How does having hate leave you make a person vulnerable, especially
if you understand it's momentary nature? How, in this example, is
Pastor Bob (or whatever his name is) vulnerable once he stops hating
Harry Potter? (If he does, which I doubt. I truly doubt his hate is
momentary).
Melisande
>
> Karen Cain
>
melisande
"Crowfoot" <suz...@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:a1m61h$ter$1...@iruka.swcp.com...
> In article <nH4%7.1523$97.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, "melisande"
> <melis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "J. Karlin" <r3wi...@texas.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C3C644C...@texas.net...
> > > melisande wrote:
> > >
> > > > People are burning "Harry Potter" books in New Mexico,
> > > > for Christ's sake.
> > >
> > > Precisely.
> > >
> > > And what's wrong with that?
> >
> > They're welcome to do so, of course. But it doesn't prove
> > that Harry Potter books cause people to go to hell.
> >
> > Nor does the fact that AC upset Christians prove that he
> > is guilty of perversion.
> >
> > >
> > > > Remember, Lady Harris was a bright and discerning woman, and she
> > > > chose to associate herself closely with Crowley. Can you explain
> > > > that?
> > >
> > > Obviously, the evil MAN pulled the wool over her eyes and just
> > > used and abused her and then stole all the credit for what was
> > > obviously, truly and really, WOMAN'S work.
> > >
> > > That sound familiar, even outside this particular context?
> >
> >
> > Yep. And it sounds delusional, in any context.
> >
> > MR
>
> Not to any student of patterns in history;
Okay, let's here your explanation of how any historian knows that
women were confused (Wool Pulled Over Eyes) as sheep in the past.
Give me some citation, somewhere that demonstrates this. Or just
your bits of evidence.
And that men acted out of ill will in stealing women's work.
although in earlier times
> it wasn't always "stealing" per se,
Yes, but many feminist scholars say it IS stealing, precisely
and exactly. Which is what is delusional, imo. My interpretation
of what little history I've lived through is that women willingly
enter into (and remain in) relationships in which they give certain
things to men (and expect/receive things FROM men).
I suppose you might see the problem if the terms were reversed.
Evil women stealing from men, whose eyes the wool covered?
but a woman using a man's name
> to publish her work under to avoid being strung up for trying to be
> artistically creative like a REAL person, instead of just, you know,
> fecund, the way mere female creatures were supposed to be.
Okay, you're off on some tangent. A woman using a man's name
to publish is not a man stealing a woman's work, is it?
I'm
> thinking specifically of Fanny Mendelsohn, some of whose piano
> composition were published under Felix' name,
so you're saying Felix was evil?
but there are other
> examples if anyone cares to go dig them out, mostly in music but
> some in literature and in recent science and scholarship, where
> male-female collaborations have a tendency to come out with the female
> name disappeared -- see Watson and Crick (but not, oh, what'shername,
> oh never mind who cares),
Yes, what IS her name? I've never heard that there was a woman
significantly involved in the discovery of DNA. Which is interesting,
since I teach a basic course in genetics.
and the woman recently written up for having
> essentially invented the computer.
Read all the details on that one.
And by the way, this kind of "forgetting" happens to men, too, a lot.
Some people are evil (and some steal). But I don't think it's only men
from women.
>
> It is, alas, way too common a situation; whether something like this
> obtained between Crowley and Harris I have no idea, but the
> possibility is by no means far-fetched. Crowley seems to have been
> exploitive by inclination, so maybe; or, if Harris was tough and
> smart enough not to let herself be exploited, maybe not.
> --
> Crow
Harris specifically states that when the whole ordeal of card-painting
is over, she hopes she is not in any way associated with it, because she
prefers anonymity. I suppose she's deluded (woolly eyed?) In that
case, people really should study how Crowley managed to induce
in her a state (desiring anonymity) that she believes is part of her nature.
You know, really, if you're going to cling to the "evil man/woman sheep"
thing, and claim it's gone on for a huge period of time, you might as
well go on to state the rather obvious assumption behind this bit of
"theory":
that men are more likely to be evil and exploitative (than women) and women
are more likely to be sheep-like.
Does that sound familiar?
Melisande
carolyn cain
Melisande wrote:
>Harris specifically states that when the whole ordeal
>of card-painting is over, she hopes she is not in any
>way associated with it, because she prefers
>anonymity. I suppose she's deluded (woolly eyed?)
>In that case, people really should study how
>Crowley managed to induce in her a state (desiring
>anonymity) that she believes is part of her nature.
And yet, (allegedly co-conspired, which doesn't raise my eyebrows much),
it is decided that Crowley's name will not be attached in any way to the
cards (water color paintings) at the time they go on display. It's at
this point, so far as the information I've been able to unearth is
concerned, that the project comes to a screeching halt. I personally
couldn't tell you which one was pulling the wool over the other one's
eyes....or even if there was any wool in the equation.
>You know, really, if you're going to cling to the "evil
>man/woman sheep" thing, and claim it's gone on for
>a huge period of time, you might as well go on to
>state the rather obvious assumption behind this bit
>of "theory":
>that men are more likely to be evil and exploitative
>(than women) and women are more likely to be
>sheep-like.
Of the people I've known, it seems pretty evenly divided but it does
seem that male or female know who they *can* exploit. If that's their
intent.
>Does that sound familiar?
Depends also on time periods and cultures. In the case of
Crowley/Harris....I'd be inclined to give him a bit more of the creative
credit. Not because I would wish to undermine her talent and effort in
the matter, but because she worked under his dictate and direction on
the project. If she had been left on her own to do it....I'd then say
it reflected her more than Crowley.
>Melisande
Karen Cain
carolyn cain
Melisande wrote:
>Then so are related pairings of "human" with other
>adjectives, such as good, bad, loving, etc.
I'd have to agree...at least on the surface. The term 'human being'
implies, to my thinking, a connectedness that the other words you use
might not.
>I used the adjective "free" to denote qualities that
>count as freedom within the constraints of human
>nature.
>Sort of like when you say "good dog" the word
>"good" has a different meaning/content than when
>you say "good cat" or "good boy."
?? I don't get what you're saying. The word 'good' has the same basic
meaning in all of the examples you give...to my thinking. The secondary
words are where I would draw difference in meaning. Could you please
elaborate?
>Seems to me some human beings are freer than
>others, anyway.
Appearances can be deceiving. But, I'm making a distinction in the term
human being that might not be commonly applied. To me, freedom gained
in one area incurs greater responsibility in another area.
>How does having hate leave you make a person
>vulnerable, especially if you understand it's
>momentary nature? How, in this example, is Pastor
>Bob (or whatever his name is) vulnerable once he
>stops hating Harry Potter? (If he does, which I
>doubt. I truly doubt his hate is momentary).
Generally: Hate is a preserving mechanism (the type hate I'm speaking
of). It gives the drive necessary to fight physically against an
aggressor
but at any moment, the aggressor can be seen as mortal and damaged.
Hate is not the only way one can defend, it's just the more common one.
Descipline is another method.
Specifically, if the Pastor doesn't have a focus for the evil he is
fighting against....many would tend to draw the conclusion that there
was no evil. It's a senseless, but dangerous, hype...IMO. If he's
really concerned about the pollution of young minds, there's lots of
stuff out there that should have stoked the fire before Harry Potter.
I find nothing offensive in the Harry Potter books and for a child to
become warped from reading them means that the Grimms Brothers, Mother
Goose, and a lot of other stuff would need to go too....not to mention
what they see on tv. RIP---RIF?
>Melisande
Karen Cain
Juan Herberto
We're not that different. You're just better educated; so the stupid
things you say have a lot more literary value. ^..^
Juan Herberto
exploitative (than women).."- Is there anything evil about "might makes
right"?.. &/or is this just an extension of Pope's corollary "Whatever
is, is right"? I don't know about sheep, but in the old days (& I agree
that 'the old days' could still be going on today, somewhere) I'm sure
that strong, successful breeders among the female population were valued
by those in the community that stood to gain the most thereby,,, which
was not necessarily their immediate family. And in these days of 'free
human beings' I've seen the film of anonymity roll down like a screen
over the eyes of my mestizo campadres when 'confronted' by the
'righteous indignation' of a 'pureblood' with a lineage back to old
Castile- but from across the street they're all just Mexicans... It'd be
interesting to see a comparison of average life expectancies for the
sexes in the Middle Ages... or Early Roman Empire... ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
melisande
>
> Melisande wrote:
>
> >Then so are related pairings of "human" with other
> >adjectives, such as good, bad, loving, etc.
>
> I'd have to agree...at least on the surface. The term 'human being'
> implies, to my thinking, a connectedness that the other words you use
> might not.
>
> >I used the adjective "free" to denote qualities that
> >count as freedom within the constraints of human
> >nature.
> >Sort of like when you say "good dog" the word
> >"good" has a different meaning/content than when
> >you say "good cat" or "good boy."
>
> ?? I don't get what you're saying. The word 'good' has the same basic
> meaning in all of the examples you give...to my thinking. The secondary
> words are where I would draw difference in meaning. Could you please
> elaborate?
Sure. Aside from the meaning "positive," good has actual content.
A good dog is one that doesn't run in the street, doesn't bite children,
doesn't leap on visitors, etc. In other words, when I speak the phrase
"good dog," it conjures up some image in your mind of a dog behaving
well (and I'll bet most people have a similar view of good dog behavior,
but that's a different point).
A good human surely doesn't bite children or leap on visitors, but
when I say "good human," a host of qualities usually come up: doesn't
lie, doesn't deliberately hurt others, etc. (With humans, there will be
much more different content to the word "good," I'm sure JK's views on
"good human" would be different than Theo's, for example).
People who use words like "good" act as if the full meaning is the same
always (in the case of "good," people act as if it means "positive" or
"desirable,"
which it does, but everyone knows that is not the full meaning of "good" in
any phrase like "good human.") There would be far fewer pointed
disagreements
if people could specify what they mean by good, especially when there is
disagreement (vast disagreement in some cases) about its specific content.
>
> >Seems to me some human beings are freer than
> >others, anyway.
>
> Appearances can be deceiving. But, I'm making a distinction in the term
> human being that might not be commonly applied. To me, freedom gained
> in one area incurs greater responsibility in another area.
Interesting. Actually, the terms "free" and "responsibility" are
very interesting. If, to some folks, "free" means a lessening of
responsibility, then some people would find your statement incomprehensible.
It makes sense to me, though. My cousin told me the other day
that I'm a "free spirit" and I've been trying to ponder what she meant.
(Well, she means I'm the one that wears flip-flops at night in mid-winter,
but she's also generalizing to some other quality of mine). I think she
means "free" as in "more likely to do what one wishes or wants."
The way you make the connection between freedom and responsiblity
helps explain (to me) anyway, why people get so upset with A. Crowley.
He obviously went "for freedom" (doing as he wished), but the big
complaints (and I'm surprised none of his detractors here knows about
them) were in the "lack of responsibility" department.
>
> >How does having hate leave you make a person
> >vulnerable, especially if you understand it's
> >momentary nature? How, in this example, is Pastor
> >Bob (or whatever his name is) vulnerable once he
> >stops hating Harry Potter? (If he does, which I
> >doubt. I truly doubt his hate is momentary).
>
> Generally: Hate is a preserving mechanism (the type hate I'm speaking
> of). It gives the drive necessary to fight physically against an
> aggressor
> but at any moment, the aggressor can be seen as mortal and damaged.
> Hate is not the only way one can defend, it's just the more common one.
> Descipline is another method.
>
> Specifically, if the Pastor doesn't have a focus for the evil he is
> fighting against....many would tend to draw the conclusion that there
> was no evil. It's a senseless, but dangerous, hype...IMO. If he's
> really concerned about the pollution of young minds, there's lots of
> stuff out there that should have stoked the fire before Harry Potter.
> I find nothing offensive in the Harry Potter books and for a child to
> become warped from reading them means that the Grimms Brothers, Mother
> Goose, and a lot of other stuff would need to go too....not to mention
> what they see on tv. RIP---RIF?
>
So the Pastor actually manages to create evil (or the perception of it,
and since evil may be only perception, that's pretty important) by
burning books. Is that close to what you're saying (about the vulnerability
issue)?
If your view is correct, then hate not only makes people vulnerable
(to what they end of hating/conjuring up) but it permanently connects
folks to the evil they say they don't want to be near. Or something like
that.
This seems quite different than JK's view, btw.
Thanks for discussing this, Karen. I may seem a little
dense sometimes, but it's because I'm trying hard to understand what
each person is saying. So while you believe every person has the right
to hate, you'd want to warn them about the consequences (if I've got
your meaning right).
>
> Karen Cain
>
melisande
>
> Melisande wrote:
>
> >Harris specifically states that when the whole ordeal
> >of card-painting is over, she hopes she is not in any
> >way associated with it, because she prefers
> >anonymity. I suppose she's deluded (woolly eyed?)
> >In that case, people really should study how
> >Crowley managed to induce in her a state (desiring
> >anonymity) that she believes is part of her nature.
>
> And yet, (allegedly co-conspired, which doesn't raise my eyebrows much),
> it is decided that Crowley's name will not be attached in any way to the
> cards (water color paintings) at the time they go on display. It's at
> this point, so far as the information I've been able to unearth is
> concerned, that the project comes to a screeching halt. I personally
> couldn't tell you which one was pulling the wool over the other one's
> eyes....or even if there was any wool in the equation.
That was my point. Indeed, the more a relationship becomes
a man/woman kind of thing, the more potential "wool-pulling"
can occur (but in _both_ directions). (It doesn't have to be
literally a man and a woman, I mean that kind of two-person, intense
relationship that has elements of yin/yang, dominance/submission,
etc. that many of us strike up in life).
>
> >You know, really, if you're going to cling to the "evil
> >man/woman sheep" thing, and claim it's gone on for
> >a huge period of time, you might as well go on to
> >state the rather obvious assumption behind this bit
> >of "theory":
> >that men are more likely to be evil and exploitative
> >(than women) and women are more likely to be
> >sheep-like.
>
> Of the people I've known, it seems pretty evenly divided but it does
> seem that male or female know who they *can* exploit. If that's their
> intent.
That's my experience, too.
>
> >Does that sound familiar?
>
> Depends also on time periods and cultures. In the case of
> Crowley/Harris....I'd be inclined to give him a bit more of the creative
> credit. Not because I would wish to undermine her talent and effort in
> the matter, but because she worked under his dictate and direction on
> the project. If she had been left on her own to do it....I'd then say
> it reflected her more than Crowley.
I agree there, too. Finding the inspiration to start and finish a work
is the main difference between an author or artist and the rest of the
(unaccomplished!) masses.
MR
melisande
"Juan Herberto" <rid...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17078-3C...@asg-storefull-1112.public.svc.webtv.net...
> (Melisande wrote) .."that men are more likely to be evil and
> exploitative (than women).."
I wrote that _as a criticism_ of another poster's thinking. I really don't
like the way you took it out of context. Troublemaking? I was asking
the poster if that was their view.
- Is there anything evil about "might makes
> right"?.. &/or is this just an extension of Pope's corollary "Whatever
> is, is right"? I don't know about sheep, but in the old days (& I agree
> that 'the old days' could still be going on today, somewhere) I'm sure
> that strong, successful breeders among the female population were valued
> by those in the community that stood to gain the most thereby,,, which
> was not necessarily their immediate family.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you're
saying that highly fertile women who didn't die in childbirth were
valued by...the establishment?
And in these days of 'free
> human beings' I've seen the film of anonymity roll down like a screen
> over the eyes of my mestizo campadres when 'confronted' by the
> 'righteous indignation' of a 'pureblood' with a lineage back to old
> Castile- but from across the street they're all just Mexicans... It'd be
> interesting to see a comparison of average life expectancies for the
> sexes in the Middle Ages... or Early Roman Empire... ^..^
I have that data somewhere, at least some data. There are places in
early modern France where one in five women died in childbirth (or
related complications) prior to age 30. Men, of course, were dying
in other arenas. In many places, life expectancy was nearly identical.
In fact, in Japan and Russia, life expectancy was nearly identical (within
one year)
for men and women in 1900, but the gap so many think is "normal" (women
living 5 to 8 years longer than men) appeared in the period of progress
and modernization.
Were the survivors especially valued? Not necessarily. In many of the
same places, older women (who had borne many children) were marginalized
(and often became the targets of witch accusations, especially in France).
>
> Got Problems?
> Get RIDOVEM
>
carolyn cain
Melisande wrote:
Of the portion snipped....I thank you for the response and found it very
interesting. Only snipped because I've nothing to add to it.
Especially appreciate your expansion on the word good!
>So the Pastor actually manages to create evil (or
>the perception of it, and since evil may be only
>perception, that's pretty important) by burning
>books. Is that close to what you're saying (about the
>vulnerability issue)?
Yes...but not a direct hit (exactly) on the point of vulnerability. It
is said by experts in the field that persons who do 'hate crimes' have
reduced their victim to an object, that if you can reach past their
focus of the moment and impress upon them your human reality, you very
well might save your life in the process.....and possibly the lives of
others.
That's a two-way street.....as surely as you can reach in and impress
the perpetrator, you can also see a perpetrator as human rather than
object when utilizing hate as a self-defense mechanism. That leaves a
point of vulnerability. Even people who have relied more on discipline
(as law officers, etc.)
can hit that moment of weakness where the perpetrator becomes all too
human and they are, at least momentarily, vulnerable.
Giving people a false focal point and enciting hatred upon it is
dangerous ground. It also works as an excellent tool to deflect
scrutiny from the self.
>If your view is correct, then hate not only makes
>people vulnerable (to what they end of
>hating/conjuring up) but it permanently connects
>folks to the evil they say they don't want to be near.
>Or something like that.
Yes! Binding has a dual nature....it seeks to cripple the object of its
binding while also bonding the person to it in the process. This is how
religion gets married to its adversary.
>This seems quite different than JK's view, btw.
>Thanks for discussing this, Karen. I may seem a
>little dense sometimes, but it's because I'm trying
>hard to understand what each person is saying. So
>while you believe every person has the right to hate,
>you'd want to warn them about the consequences (if
>I've got your meaning right).
You don't seem at all dense to me and I thank you for the points you
clarified that I was slow on. Probably if you blend jk's POV with mine,
you come out with something in between that's better than the both of
us.:-)
Yes, hate perpetuates with equal ease to love. Love won't spare you
from hurts but....neither will hate in the long run. That's the most
common reason for people to hate.....because they've been hurt by love
and are trying to not be hurt again.
Karen Cain
Ben H
> I personally
> couldn't tell you which one was pulling the wool over the other one's
> eyes....or even if there was any wool in the equation.
They both made statements which were later contradicted.
Harris says she would happily be anonymous as the painter and then goes on
to exhibit some of the paintings under her name, without mentioning Crowley
as she considered any connection with him would be detrimental to
fund-raising (or so she writes).
Crowley, at one point writes 'If Lady Harris likes, she can give it [the
book] away with the cards, I do not want any money out of it: and she can
say she wrote it, I don't care.' Subsequently he issues the statement from
the 'Society of Hidden Masters' to publicise his involvement.
Crowley typically believed that any artist coming under his influence was
vastly improved by his genius. He also took credit for all that was good in
their work. So his claims that he was responsible for every idea with
regards to the symbolism in the cards cannot necessarily be taken as true;
it may be that Harris contributed ideas which were incorporated. They
certainly discussed the symbolism at length.
Be that as it may, the cards would not have been realised in their current
form if Harris had not interpreted Crowley's ideas as she did, regardless of
his direction.
--
Ben H
Juan Herberto
that they say they don't want to be near.."- For those whom hate is an
emotional cathartic, this makes perfect sense. If you 'get off' doing
something, why remove the stimulus (or oneself from proximity to it),
just because it may 'make sense' from a purely intellectual point of
view?
As far as vulnerability when one ceases to hate, it may make sense in
light of one's emotional equilibrium using hate as a prop. To cease
hating may cause one to 'lose one's balance,' since there will likely be
a moment of chaos &/or indecision in the mind of anyone who has
radically altered thier perceptions.
Some 'hate' probably falls into the "bliss of rage" category that was
the essential emotional 'background noise' to the 'warrior' life-state
in the wheel of 6 life-conditions described in the Kargyutpa Buddhist
worldview... ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
melisande
> (melisande wrote) .."it (hate) permanently connects folks to the evil
> that they say they don't want to be near.."- For those whom hate is an
> emotional cathartic, this makes perfect sense.
Yes, it does. Perfect sense. But not rational sense,
at least not in the traditional view of what's rational.
If you 'get off' doing
> something, why remove the stimulus (or oneself from proximity to it),
> just because it may 'make sense' from a purely intellectual point of
> view?
Exactly. I don't know many people where
Intellect is King and Sole Ruler, do you?
> As far as vulnerability when one ceases to hate, it may make sense in
> light of one's emotional equilibrium using hate as a prop. To cease
> hating may cause one to 'lose one's balance,' since there will likely be
> a moment of chaos &/or indecision in the mind of anyone who has
> radically altered thier perceptions.
And, I'm thinking, it may go on for more than a moment,
if the person in question has to give up moral superiority
and status in the universe, which has been based on their
"fight against evil." That could be really imbalancing. If
the person is also insightful, they might also have to review
their past through a new lense (one in which they themselves
exhibit flaws, and the evil is less distinct or, heaven forbid,
completely non-existent).
> Some 'hate' probably falls into the "bliss of rage" category that was
> the essential emotional 'background noise' to the 'warrior' life-state
> in the wheel of 6 life-conditions described in the Kargyutpa Buddhist
> worldview... ^..^
Nice (transition). And, that's sort of how I've been thinking about
JK.
MR
>
> Got Problems?
> Get RIDOVEM
>
@.com gea
--
Gea
"starwoman" <res...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:uM__7.61347$wa.44...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
>
> --
> gea <gea @.com> wrote in message news:a1hav9$7c2$2...@helle.btinternet.com...
> > from the above book;
> >
> > "english magician and occultist self described as the "Beast of the
> > appocalypse",and called by the media "the wickedest man in the world"
> > crowley was a man of no small ego, both enraged and fascinated by others
> > with his rites of sex magic and blood sacrifice."
> >
> > " crowley was drawn to the occult at a young age and was fascinated by
> > blood, torture and sexual degradation."
> >
> > "in1934 ,desperate for money,crowley sued sculptress nina hamnett for
> > libel in her biography of him , laughing torso [1932],in which she
stated
> > that crowley practised black magic and indulged in .
> > human sacrifice
> > the testimony given at the trial so repulsed the judge and jury that the
> > trial was stopped and the jury filed in favour of hammett "
> >
> > this is just a snippet from the above book,
> >
> > gea
> >
> Gea:
>
> You have been asked this question 3 or 4 times. Have you ever read
Crowley's
> work????? If you are going to venture an opinion about the man's relevance
> and importance in occult studies, then I think it is fair that you let us
> know how well versed you are on his writings and philosophy.
>
> Star
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> yes, but i always have to stop because i feel a repulsion, a lot of the
things he said condraticted his actions, so i am not so sure whether his
"words
" mean an awful lot, the fact that he was clever [ in my eyes] made him
more dangerous.
gea
carolyn cain
Ben wrote:
>They both made statements which were later
>contradicted.
It's been awhile since I read the letters so I'm not completely
confindent in my sequencing of events.
Think I've still got a good link to them in another account. I'll wing
it for this response and let you proof me for errors.:-) (fun way to
say lazy, right?)
>Harris says she would happily be anonymous as the
>painter and then goes on to exhibit some of the
>paintings under her name, without mentioning
It's a tad more complicated than that, as I recall. Either they agreed
(as both intimated at first) or she convinced Crowley to be a silent
partner in the production as his reputation would damage sales, she
feared, (as you stated). He tells a slightly different version in that
he states her concern was for her reputation....that she did not wish to
be known to associate with him.
However, she did, according to the letters and all that can be gleaned
between the lines, put the art work on display in her name and he claims
this was behind his back entirely. She immediately casts aspersions on
his mental/emotional health as a rebuttal (if my sequencing is correct).
Additionally, she sabotages his efforts to get the deck into print
claiming distrust of his business arrangements (which point, there is
ample evidence to at least sympathize with).
>Crowley as she considered any connection with him
>would be detrimental to fund-raising (or so she
>writes).
>Crowley, at one point writes 'If Lady Harris likes,
>she can give it [the book] away with the cards, I do
>not want any money out of it: and she can say she
>wrote it, I don't care.' Subsequently he issues the
>statement from the 'Society of Hidden Masters' to
>publicise his involvement.
And is meeting with a lawyer and complaining in correspondence to at
least one other person, IIRC.
>Crowley typically believed that any artist coming
>under his influence was vastly improved by his
>genius. He also took credit for all that was good in
>their work. So his claims that he was responsible for
>every idea with regards to the symbolism in the
>cards cannot necessarily be taken as true; it may be
>that Harris contributed ideas which were
>incorporated. They certainly discussed the
>symbolism at length.
Well, for your first sentence (directly above)...that was her position
as well. It would seem that you are stating a case for her having been
used but, to know to what extent, it would be necessary to know how much
she knew about tarot/their order, etc. prior to being consigned to the
task. Also, she is in a position of (to some degree) being hired to do
a task. As a rule, if one is compensated, that's pretty much the whole
of it. I realize there are other issues that tend to complicate this
particular matter a bit, especially their having established a
partnership. I don't know if there was anything legally binding
concerning said partnership which might give clues to the behavior of
both. Perhaps at some point she felt entitled to more than one third?
>Be that as it may, the cards would not have been
>realised in their current form if Harris had not
>interpreted Crowley's ideas as she did, regardless of
>his direction.
This, while true enough, is a bit of a tangle. It is possible that
someone else could have done an equal or better job and "his direction"
cannot be brushed aside. If so, then movies based on best selling books
will no longer have to give credit to the author or need said author's
permission in the production. Or, so it seems to me.
There is ample evidence that she was heavily coached and caused to go
back to the drawing board multiple times to get them the way *he* wanted
them. While this, along with everything else can work in either
direction...it does make her the pen and he the hand, IMO.
At the end of the day it seems impossible to say if she picked his brain
to do a work she thought would be lucrative and then tried to dump him
after it was completed or if he used her to get the ideas from his head
into artistic form. Based strictly on the text currently available, I'd
have to vote in favor of him though I wouldn't be totally comfortable
with it.
A lot might hinge on the nature of their relationship in the years after
that (until his death) and, possibly just beyond.
>--
>Ben H
Karen Cain
Ben H
> >Crowley typically believed that any artist coming
> >under his influence was vastly improved by his
> >genius. He also took credit for all that was good in
> >their work. So his claims that he was responsible for
> >every idea with regards to the symbolism in the
> >cards cannot necessarily be taken as true; it may be
> >that Harris contributed ideas which were
> >incorporated. They certainly discussed the
> >symbolism at length.
>
> Well, for your first sentence (directly above)...that was her position
> as well. It would seem that you are stating a case for her having been
> used ...
That was not my intention.
I don't recall her opining that her artistic ability was improved.
But then I've only read what was at the URL given earlier in this thread.
Her knowledge of the occult certainly was improved by her contact with
Crowley.
> >Be that as it may, the cards would not have been
> >realised in their current form if Harris had not
> >interpreted Crowley's ideas as she did, regardless of
> >his direction.
>
> This, while true enough, is a bit of a tangle. It is possible that
> someone else could have done an equal or better job and "his direction"
> cannot be brushed aside.
It isn't my intention to brush his direction aside.
Someone other than Harris would have done a *different* job.
That was my point.
> A lot might hinge on the nature of their relationship in the years after
> that (until his death) and, possibly just beyond.
She was one of the few people at his funeral, and did not seem to bear him
any ill will.
--
Ben H
White Rabbit
Ben H wrote:
> "carolyn cain" wrote:
>
> > >Crowley typically believed that any artist coming
>
> >SNIP>
> She was one of the few people at his funeral, and did not seem to bear him
> any ill will.
In her mails you could feel she was really admiring him and under his
influence at some extent
she did not seemed particularly brilliant to me but she was deeply
sincere in her friendship
Strange destiny of a such a "genius" to die alone like a mangy dog
Divine justice or Satan's mockery ?
Satan loves to play around with his servants :-)( Mephistopheles smirk)
Theo
>
>
> --
> Ben H
--
"Nonsense is nonsense only when we have not yet found that point of view from
which it makes sense""
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
carolyn cain
Ben,
It's been on my mind since I responded to your post that I didn't really
take into consideration the matter of the stipend. You may have already
considered it.
I never did figure out exactly what the stipend was for and it seemed a
little outside the equation but, it is possible that Frieda was paying
AC to tutor her in the tarot. Could serve to strengthen your position
if you hadn't already considered it. Maybe someone else knows more
about that angle of their relationship.
Karen Cain
Juan Herberto
childbirth were of particular value to whomever dominated 'the
Establishment' at a time when feudal structures were in place... for the
same reason that similar women were valued on the plantations in the
American South (and many other locations)...
Juan Herberto
the period of progress & modernization.."- I guess progress &
modernization _have_ been a lot tougher on us guys... whatever happened
to that promise of 'leisure time,' anyhow?.. (buried under 'Information"
somewhere...) ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM
White Rabbit
are coming to
death levels like men because of smoke, pills ,drigs and alcohol ...women
are not examples of virtue anymore :-)
Bacco ntabacco e venere riducono l'uomo in cenere
Bacchus Tobacco and venus/apollon reduce wo/ men to ashes !
Theo
Juan Herberto wrote:
--
melisande
Gotcha.
>
> Got Problems?
> Get RIDOVEM
>
TarotHrmt
>Does anyone recall the alleged libel of AC? Does it seem at all likely
>that what AC was really after, by his act of bringing suit, was the
>wider broadcast of his notoriety?
That could very possibly be true, especially frome what has been written about
him by the people that might know.
>Could he have wished for (or demanded)
>a retraction of the alleged libel?.. or was simple payment likely enough
>to satisfy the alleged wrong done to his reputation? When one commits to
>various intrigues to promulgate a particular reputation, does the Truth
>figure into it? Is the Truth important in such
matters equally to all
>concerned?.. & will it be the Same Truth?
Perceptive observation.
Tarot Hermit
TarotHrmt
<snip>
> Finding the inspiration to start and finish a work
>is the main difference between an author or artist and the rest of the
>(unaccomplished!) masses.
That depends on how you measure accomplishments.
melisande
"TarotHrmt" <taro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115003408...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Of course it does.
MR
MLYoung
>is the main difference between an author or artist and the rest of the
>(unaccomplished!) masses.
>
>MR
>
Leonardo da Vinci was famous for not
finishing his works. Does that mean
he was less of an artist than Ruebens?
--margaret
Hieronymous707
>Does that mean
>he was less of an artist than Ruebens?
I've got a picture of Ruben. That's my sister's boy. Terrible two.
Wanna see?
-hi-
melisande
"MLYoung" <mly...@aol.comZAPTHIS> wrote in message
news:20020119161321...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Leonardo may well be an exception to many rules. But my
words were "start and finish." At least he got started. I should
have said finish and/or start.
A person who never starts or finishes anything will be
rather less accomplished, don't you think? Or is there a
meaning of the word "accomplishment" that I'm missing?
MR
Sir Tekeli Lee
technical terms. Worse, it goes unread due to a certain stigma about me. One
cannot detest something without knowing what they are detesting; the strictest
atheist cannot refute Holy Scripture without having read it first."
"We must cast out Fear by Love."
"The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the
Particular."
"Love is the law; love under will."
"Love is all virtue, since the pleasure of love is but love, and the pain of
love is but love. Absence exalteth love, and presence exalteth love. Love
moveth ever from height to height of ecstasy and faileth never. The wings of
love droop not with time, nor slacken for life or for death."
All of these statements were made, of course, by Aleister Crowley. I bring
them up to show that it is impossible to look at only one aspect of the
individual. Classifications are meaningless and confuse the levels of reality.
By dubbing someone Good or Evil, Free or Imprisoned, you add another level,
and create a greater and greater seperation between the Individual and the
Word. Dislike or love Crowley, it is of course your will. But do not follow
one path or another because of meaningless labels such as Good or Evil. And
seek an objective enough viewpoint to present a proper argument. I could
always quote Second Kings, Chapter 2, Verse 23, and use it as an example of
God's cruelty, but that would be unfair unless I balance it with a quote of
First John, Chapter Four, Verse Seven, to show God's eternal love. Then, the
reader of both is able to realize that he is not looking at something focused
only on cruelty or only on love, but rather a multi-faceted creature capable of
both. Make decisions without labels, and without discrimination, or you will
push the levels further and further apart.
-Sir Tekeli Lee
Pineal...@aol.com
---
Jesus Died For Your Sins. Won't You Die For His?
Uberwachen Sie die Himmel!
Er kommt!
Er hat einen Esel fur einen Kopf!
Alle wir beten zu ihm!
White Rabbit
I am selling anti personal mines and every year I give
about X00k $ for helping kids in developing countries !
Do not be fuzzy about the cruelty of mines , is the good intention and my love
for kids that is important , I help developing the know how for artificial limbs
help turn the industry that gives work to a lot of families, pay taxes and
others
Please do not jump to wrong conclusion about my intentions
Theo
Sir Tekeli Lee wrote:
--
Sir Tekeli Lee
Asiya
news:20020120131149...@mb-mk.aol.com...
Hey great post!
Asiya
**********
www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
Eat the meatballs to email me.
Juan Herberto
Bottom? ^..^
Got Problems?
Get RIDOVEM