=====================================================
    ADMIN: Monthly Moderation Minder
-------------------------------------

Do as you please.

Thank you for your participation in Thelema93-L Yahoogroup. From
time to time our subscribers need a reminder of what has proven to
be a valuable and effective style of posting in order to preserve
the integrity and enjoyment of this forum. What follows is a brief
list of stylistic guidelines we strongly recommend:

PLEASE

try to limit the number and length of your posts, avoid short
personal notes (like "me too!" and "I agree!" or "hi!"),
taking those to private email, and generally referencing URLs
for longer textfiles rather than posting them unless you
know there is widespread interest. those with insufficient
new contributions will be deleted without comment!

_____________________________________________________________________

  VVVVVVVVV--- hey you! important! look at the note below ---VVVVVVVV
_____________________________________________________________________


DO THIS
AND SAVE YOURSELF
NEEDLESS HASSLE
WAITING FOR POSTS

    *  format your post so that your material appears after quoted
         material which is prepended with carats like this:

             "(ANGRY THELEMITE'S NAME)" wrote:
    	     > **QUOTED MATERIAL ABOUT THELEMA**
             > **MORE QUOTED MATERIAL ABOUT**

             YOUR NEW TEXT

         if this format isn't followed we may reformat it for you,
         or simply delete your contribution to the forum;
         or we may explain briefly what we'd approve;

                                                EVERYBODY'S DOING IT!!
                                                       REALLY! HOW CAN
                                              IT REALLY BE DANGEROUS?!
                                                          TO CONFORM??
_____________________________________________________________________

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^        IMPORTANT NOTE:  LOOK ABOVE         ^^^^^^^^^^^
_____________________________________________________________________

METADISCUSSION????  (really! look above, what it says about formats!)


If you have feedback about the quality of T93-L's content or
policies, please feel free to send email to one or more of the
list-owners/moderators at

			 thelema93-l-owner@yahoogroups.com

Please do not respond to this text in the email list.

Fay ce que vouldras. ;)

thelema93-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
=================================

REV 4-19-06 M.'.M.'.M.'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelema93-l/files/T93-L/t93-lmmm.txt
EOF

2008/5/23 333 <nagasiva@...>:
>
> "Jake Stratton-Kent" <jakestrattonkent@...>:
> # 333 <nagasiva@...>:
> #> "Jake Stratton-Kent" <jakestrattonkent@...>:
> #>#> camlion@...:
> # Crowley, Crowley? The name rings a bell but can't place him.
> # Oh I remember now, nineteenth century libertine wasn't he -
> # contributed bugger all to the study of goetia despite claiming to be
> # the big bad black magician and whinging when folks believed it.;-)
>
> come on, didn't he publish a fairly intact version of the Lemegeton

no, he pinched Mathers work on the first book of the Lemegeton out of
five (the one called Goetia), that's a fifth, not exactly intact, and
not his own work. Also every reference to goetia in Crowley's work is
only to this book, whereas Mathers and Waite at least knew that goetia
referred to the whole genre of conjure books, and originated in an
ancient Greek term older than the European use of the word Magic. But
then Crowley never made any contributions to the scientific study of
magical history (Scientific Iluminism apparently doesn't include the
Science of History)

> after AEWaite tried to foist off a "Black Magic and Pacts" blinded
> version of the grimoires? didn't AC "fix" Waite's hamstrung problem?

Waite was antagonistic to Goetia, but gave a clearer idea of its
relation to the grimoires in general. Certainly his book has major
faults, but at least it was his! -) BTW Reading it is credited in one
of Crowley's autobiographical notes as the beginning of his occult
career.

> didn't he put forward bits of Shaw and Swinburne or other poets with
> whom he was not competing? wasn't some portion of his periodicals
> peddled by his students who were in some cases his best ghostwriters
> (Soror Virakam comes to mind)?

what this has to do with goetia is obscure to me, unless you mean the
devalued meaning of 'cheating'.
> # which of course true gnosticism was not, it was virtually expected
> # that the student eventualy founded their own system, rather than
> # slavishly promoting that of their mentor. Anything less was seen as
> # failure.
>
> I like that style, but i don't like the world-hating aspects of
> the Gnostic corpus (arguably the ascetic aspects of Gnosticism).
> any idea what drove those or for what applications they are best
> suited? is it akin to the Saivite sadhus twisting their body parts
> into pretzels?

Compare the changes in Egyptian and Cretan art after major natural
disasters and external threats - it changed from positive depiction of
the good life: eating, dancing, hunting, the natural environment - to
depictions of the Underworld and threatening gods. The Roman
destruction of various cultures introduced a similar note of pessimism
into the religious expression of those cultures, particularly in the
East (there is nothing particularly negative about Zoroastrianism, but
its reinterpretation in the Iranian strand of the Gnosis exhibits
exactly these pessimistic developments). Same goes for Jewish
apocalyptic literature, its a reaction to Roman domination, looking
forward to the End Days when the evil invaders will be destroyed and
the persecuted faithful rewarded.


> you're willing to run with the 'not one and only true key' hypothesis.
> I find context sufficiently drives ideology where these are concerned
> and that predicament may determine cognitive tool form. if Jews or
> Thelemites want to believe predestination or apocalyptic fantasies
> and it helps them optimize their experience (mysticism), then more
> power to them. they should not expect me to agree with them, though,
> and the promotion of one cult's fantasies over another seems rude.

see above, maybe Thelemites who have these fantasies feel dis
empowered and look forward to a time when they will be rewarded and
the dominant culture punished? ;-)

> # Seriously though, prophecy means different things to different folks,
>
> detail some of the variations?

the one that matters is nothing to do with prediction, rather an
expression of the God through the Prophet, concerned with - say -
mystical practice and expressions of its results. This whole area
involves semantic problems  - some connected with the Revealed/Natural
dichotomy - like the difference between an Oracle and a Revelation
(one is from the Earth, the other from Heaven).

>
> role-playing systems might inspire the modern mage. whereas the
> 'grimoires' of the past commanded attention due to their key
> terms and the romance of their construction (post-Jewish
> "Solomonic" magic, cast out of synagogues and churches),

it was never in the synagogues in the first place, the first Key of
Solomon is in Greek, and the first Jewish one is translated from
another Gentile language, up to and including the original Christian
elements. Sadly 'everyone knows' the Goetia of Solomon is connected to
Solomon but few of them know what goetia means or where the term comes
from. Fact is Solomon has nothing to do with the history of Western
magic, and Goetia has a great deal to do with it from its earliest
origins (before the adoption of the term magic even) to the present.

As said, Scientific Illuminism has conspicuously failed to clarify a
darned thing about the real history of magic, Crowley even went so far
as to write yet another freakin' book about Atlantis, not to mention
his Egyptian past lives - puh-leeze! ;-)

Of course these outre excursions will be excused as allegory, but that
leaves the Science rather lacking, however Illumined they may or may
not be.

> Currents rush and bunch and eddy and retrace and plunge under.
> where we are during the time of its action and what our skill
> set includes will determine our best mode of operation. you're
> likely the vanguard of independents who operate amongst those
> who are trying to establish orthodoxies. are they helpful for
> the lost or benighted? do the masses, does the Herd need their
> leadership? or examples of us being individual geniuses?

LOL - yes I guess I do rather aspire to something like that, and enjoy
the idea of pointing the way into important but unexplored areas.

That is what bugs me about modern thelema (mid-eighties onwards) - too
much focus on the dated work of Crowley and too little on continuing
and updating, and going into areas he scarcely touched on: his vaunted
'Our work is therefore historically authentic the rediscovery of the
Sumerian Tradition' for instance. Which seems to have begun and ended
with the discovery a Persian gentleman had the name Aiwass (never
proven to be the name of a Sumerian deity despite AC's assertions).

  Or what he never touched on at all (a decent history of magic
debunking all the phoney baloney and showing  a serious line of
development. Apart from ripping off Mathers Goetia and Enochian he did
nothing to put magical history forwards, and a good deal to put it
backwards.In that at least he has been successfully imitated!

Or got entirely wrong: his terrible instructions on pranayama, which
if the AA is to be a real scientific magical elite are in serious need
of revision rather than perpetuation.


> # aye, good systems converge in practice and experience,
> # not in detail.
>
> that explains a somewhat different motive than previous
> generations have expressed regarding One True Knowledge
> they were offering up in simplified form (whether simply
> metaphysical, like about gods, or cosmological, such as
> on astronomy). Crowley's disenchantment with the 777
> data didn't stop others from trying to 'complete it'.
> we should be comparing and contrasting these systems,
> seeing how they differ and of what they are composed.
> I recently reviewed one by a Stephen Skinner. I know
> there's a couple others, or comparable table-like sets.

My estimation is that in practice they are usually interpreted as
rigid classifications, They weren't meant to be seen that way, rather
they are examples of associative thinking, what is needed is training
that develops that, it produced correspondences in the first place,
and represents their real value.

> # Revealed Religion never created magic, only adapted and
> # distorted it to conform to its own models.
>
> neat assertion. I'll try to come up with exceptions. where will we
> be able to draw the line between revealed and natural?

Revealed and Natural, I didn't invent the terms, and hey need to be
capitalised to preserve or at least help find the original context.

are there
> 'natural revelations' 'revealed nature'?? is the criterion somehow
> the source of the data being touted as revealed? if we ignore it
> and there is no perceivable difference in our experience or the
> universe, does this mean that the revelation was insignificant
> and/or false? how do we winnow through these "revelations"?

for now I prefer to discard them all, and return to the Natural.
Perhaps I should provide a more extended account of what I mean by
these terms (Natural vs Revealed, Chthonic vs Celestial) before you
launch into a premature critique. ;-)  In the meantime while I'm no
expert on religions of the Far East, or the pre-colonial Americas, the
division makes a good deal of sense of the religions of the ancient
Near East, Mediterranean and later West. It is also a very convenient
handle for grasping the real context of goetia before the People of
the Book got a hold of it.

So, brief outline essay follows shortly.

ALWays

Jake

> for now I prefer to discard them all, and return to the Natural.
> Perhaps I should provide a more extended account of what I mean by
  >these terms (Natural vs Revealed, Chthonic vs Celestial) before you
  >launch into a premature critique. ;-)  In the meantime while I'm no
> expert on religions of the Far East, or the pre-colonial Americas, the
> division makes a good deal of sense of the religions of the ancient
> Near East, Mediterranean and later West. It is also a very convenient
> handle for grasping the real context of goetia before the People of
> the Book got a hold of it.
>
> So, brief outline essay follows:

  Natural vs Revealed, Chthonic vs Celestial

   All ancient religions differ from modern religions in several major
   respects. We're used to seeing things from a cultural perspective at
   least partly defined by what is known as *Revealed Religion*, in which
   *Revelation* (ultimately in the form of a Book) is received from on
   high (what we might term the *Celestial* region). The centre of
   gravity of this type of religion is the Celestial region, even though
   other realms of experience are considered - such as Earth, Hell and
   the physical universe in general..

   Ancient religions, and 'primitive' religion generally, is significantly
   different. Collectively they are termed Natural Religion (not to be
   confused with Nature Religion) which in contrast with Revelation from
   the Celestial realm evolves from the ground up, via deductive
   reasoning and observation of the world, including perceived
   supernatural components. It's centre of gravity is Chthonic - it is
   notable that the Greeks at every stage of religious development
   considered the Earth the source of oracular power (contrasting Oracles
   with Revelations). Note again that this centre of gravity does not
   exclude consideration of other regions of experience, and thus gods of
   thunder, Sun, Moon etc. are not excluded by this focus..

   In the subsequent development of Greek religion the Celestial gained
   in importance, while  the Chthonic powers for a long time retained
   divine status (notwithstanding some unpleasant characters in the
   underworld and elsewhere). My comparison of goetia with African
   Traditional Religions is intended to reflect this earlier status, and
   the chthonic 'centre of gravity' from which it evolved. The comparison
   is part of an effort to provide a position from which the
   pre-devaluation form of goetia may be understood in something like its
   own terms. In the past -  whether in traditional sources, later
   publications or in discussions on the internet - goetia and dealing
   with the underworld has almost invariably been seen and described in
   terms of the later 'Revealed Religion' and has assumed the Celestial
   centre of gravity. That this gives an entirely false idea of how
   goetia originally operated  - prior to devaluation - is obvious once
   this is taken on board. Otherwise it is very difficult to get past the
   perspective of Revealed Religion etc. which has prevailed in our
   culture for upwards of 2000 years.

   That goetia survived alongside Revealed religion does not detract
from the fact
   they had different frames or reference. In later magic goetia is not
   understood in its own original terms, having become a survival within
   a host tradition with another perspective. My use of chthonic and
   celestial refers to this aspect of the discussion, and as should be
   obvious I'm interested in recovering the perspective of goetia rather
   than of the host tradition (with which we're all familiar in various
   guises).

ALWays

Jake

Suspendid in an ocean of brilliance, countless stars shining like
jewels upon the face of the deep, matter embracing matter in an
endless dance of love: tis the nature of cosmos.

As matter we have an unconscious desire to know ourselves, to know
the universe, creating evercganging expressions of love and
interconectiveness throught space and time. truly the underlying
purpose of life itself is to accomplish the cosmic desire for matter
to know and understand itself through the expression of
consciousness. essentially we are all the pieces of the universe
gazing in upon itself, although it is an unconsciouss desire only
brought to reilization by inter an intra observation in realation to
the rest of everything else. If we watch carefully enough we begin to
relize when we observe the cosmos we are really observing ourselves.
everything, every action, expression, observation, movement is
dedicated to this one task, and is no more obvious then in the form
of life as it is expressed within our deepest and most meaninfull
questions. the mystery of life: what is its porpose?, where do we
come from?, where are we going? some of the most obvious cunundrums
such as why is life self- sustaining?, why does it exist at all? from
this we can only extract one conclusion, which is that matter desires
to exist as a conscious pattern, it wishes to inherit consciousness
instead of unconsciousness. we fear death because matter itself fears
death. what other chemical reaction consciously wishes to continue.
logic tells us that inanimate objects such as rocks couldent care
less which form they manifest in, but as we can see in the penominon
such as life all evidence points to the fact that piecec of inanimate
matter indeed wishe to be be alive, and onece it is alive it will
stop it nothing to stay that way, this is called survival. is this no
more obvious than in evolution? creatures have for milenia struggled
to adapt and grow in numbers for the sheer purpose of staying alive,
creating evermore complex forms, all racing toward the same goal. I
believe this goal has just now began to acheve itself in the form of
man, which is of corse selfconsciousness. the desire for matter to
understand and know itself. thuss we must conclude that
unconsciousness is such an undesireable existance that our singular
purpose is to sustain consciousness indefinately at all costs.
although this process is still imperfect, i think that ultimately
life will spread over the entire universe so that all inanimate
matter may be able to become alive, and eventually live forever so
that it may never have to go back to an inanimate state of existance.
in our creation myths  this struggle of existance is expressed, and
is never far from the true history of the universe. i believe this is
because as matter we can never really forget our oragins. even though
we may stray from the reality of what really happened in the begining
the symbology of every creation myth is in most ways symbolically
similar. the fact that we have creation myths only proves that we
have some ides that at one time we did not exist, and that the
nothing desired to change this. it is an unconsciouss expression for
existance, but to exist as rocks and gas is not enough, we must have
mind facilitating the tool to express creation in a thousand forms,
to celabrate consciousness. existance is therefore pure joy, we are
an expression of cosmic love for itself, for matter loves matter. it
is our inherant birthright as conscious matter to spread ourselves
throught the cosmos to accomplish the one desire of matter. this is
the great work. we are all one, a small piece of the universe that
desires to understand itself, as if a small child that has just begun
to relize its own existance. let us then worship ourselves and
worship the infinate universe and life itself so that we may
accomplish the great work, and the single desire and purpose of the
universe.
As Crowley once wrote:
O man! Behold thyself! with what pains was thou fashoned! What ages
have gone to thy shaping! The history of the planet is woven into the
very substance of thy brain! Was all for naught? Is there no purpose
in thee? was thou made thuss that thou shouldest eat, and breed, and
die? Think it not so! Thou dust incorperate so many elements, thou
art the fruit of so many aeons of labor, thou art fashoned thus as
thou art, and not otherwise for some colossal end.

----- Forwarded message from Nick Tharcher <nick@...> -----

TO OUR FRIENDS,

Hi everyone, this is Nick Tharcher, formerly of "New Falcon
Publications" and Linda Miller, the widow of Alan R. Miller, Ph.D.
(aka Christopher S. Hyatt). Today we are announcing the opening of a
new press: "The Original Falcon Press".

WHO IS "THE ORIGINAL FALCON PRESS"?

Because of recent events, some of which are described below, we have
felt compelled to create "The Original Falcon Press".

Linda and Nick are well-qualified to do so. They created "Falcon
Press" with Alan and a small team around 1980. Linda was his wife for
30 years and is a highly respected and experienced registered nurse;
Nick was his friend for over 35 years and managed the day-to-day
operations at Falcon for the last 20 years.

"The Original Falcon Press" begins operations with the release of Dr.
Hyatt's audio and video works, among them the Energized Hypnosis and
Radical Undoing series. This includes the newest, Radical Undoing Volume 4: The
Core .
In the months to come, we will add many of his books as well as previously
unreleased material and titles from other well-known authors such an
Antero Alli...

We're delighted to be back and invite you to visit our website at
http://www.originalfalcon.com

WHAT HAPPENED TO "NEW FALCON PUBLICATIONS"?

First, Who's "In Charge"? His name is Michael Robert Miller. He is
the biological son of Alan and his first wife, and works at Los
Angeles City College as Athletic Director and Head Basketball Coach.
He is a successful community college basketball coach, but has no
experience, background, training or interest in book publishing,
metaphysics, psychology or philosophy. According to him, he has never
read any of the books published by New Falcon Publications, including
Dr. Hyatt's.

SO, HOW DID MICHAEL MILLER COME TO CONTROL "NEW FALCON PUBLICATIONS"?

The story is very sad and quite sordid.

"New Falcon Publications" is a division of a California religious
corporation called "The United States Ecclesiastical Society and
Seminary" ("USESS"). Alan was the sole director of USESS. As it turns
out, his being sole director was a critical weakness in the
organization.

In July 2007, Alan was diagnosed with inoperable, metastatic
esophageal cancer. As the year progressed, his condition worsened
despite an aggressive course of chemotherapy. His wife, Linda, took a
leave of absence from her work to care for him full time. Nick
continued to run the business. And despite Alan's increasing weakness,
he and Nick tried to create as much new material as possible...while
there was still time. No thought was given to the directorship of
USESS: Alan had legally appointed Nick as his successor many years
earlier and it was planned that Nick would carry on New Falcon and its
publishing traditions after Alan's death.

By December, Alan was largely bedridden. He suffered from numerous
issues related to the cancer, including blood clots. Despite
medication he began suffering small strokes. By January 2008, he had
become increasingly non-communicative and was unable to care for
himself. In mid-January he was taken to the hospital for treatment of
dehydration. Just one day after he was released, he fell out of bed
and was again taken to the hospital. Neurological tests, including an
MRI and CT scan, confirmed that he had suffered at least 7 distinct
strokes. A physician explained that it was as if someone had fired a
shotgun into his brain. The tests showed that he was both
neurologically and cognitively impaired. He was released from the
hospital on home-hospice care. Around this time Michael came to stay
at Alan and Linda's home.

From January 22nd through the 25th (just 2 weeks before Alan's death
on February 9th, and without the knowledge or approval of Alan, Linda
or Nick), Michael called Alan's lawyer of many years. The attorney,
Paul Basile, had handled many matters for Alan over the years,
including drawing up and filing the corporate documents for USESS as
well as handling all of Alan's personal, trust, estate and succession
planning.

Michael informed Basile that his father was gravely ill, and
instructed Basile to prepare a document appointing himself as the sole
director of USESS/Falcon. He had not been authorized to do so, nor was
Basile authorized to so much as talk with Michael about USESS'
business. Nonetheless, Basile did not attempt to contact Alan, Linda
or Nick to verify what Michael had told him. Instead, he prepared the
document and sent it to Michael. On January 26th Michael had a notary
and a witness come to Alan and Linda's home where he had his
nearly-comatose and heavily-medicated father "sign" the document.
Based entirely on this, and with the support of Paul Basile, Michael
acquired control of USESS and Falcon. To add to the unsavory quality
of the situation, Nick and Linda were informed of this by Basile in a
face-to-face meeting on February 13th, the day after Alan was buried.
Michael was not present.

Within a few days Michael began to cut Nick off from Falcon's bank
accounts, warehouse, mail and website. Consequently, on March 31,
2008, Nick resigned from USESS/Falcon.

You may ask why we don't simply go to a judge and have the document
declared invalid. That was our initial thought, too, but we soon
learned that such an action would be very expensive and could take
years...by which time we expected nothing would be left. Such is the
U.S. legal system.

For those who have speculated that Alan intended this to happen, or
that he left Falcon to Michael "in his will," etc., nothing could be
further from the truth.

Other than the "document" that Michael Miller put under his dying
father's hand on January 26, there is not the slightest shred of
credible evidence to suggest that Alan ever intended Michael to be
involved with Falcon in any way. To the contrary, there is abundant
evidence that he did not.

Nonetheless, as of today, Michael is "in charge", and in just a few
short months "New Falcon Publications" has gone from a respected
publisher to a travesty. He is selling "magickal artifacts" which he
claims were Alan's...but which neither Linda nor Nick recognize. He
claims to be selling books from the "Regardie Library"...though we
know of no way he could legitimately have acquired them...if, in fact,
they are books Regardie ever owned. And his treatment of customers and
authors has been nothing short of outrageous.

THE ORIGINAL FALCON PRESS

So we are here to restore the Falcon Press that once was: "The
Original Falcon Press". We deeply appreciate the support that so many
of you have given us in recent months (thank you all!), and invite you
to visit us soon.

Warmly,

Nick Tharcher & Linda Miller

PS: Of course, this is only the barest description of what has
happened.  If there is enough interest, we will create a forum to
fully detail these and subsequent events including documentation to
support our claims.

The Original Falcon Press
1753 East Broadway Road #101-277
Tempe, AZ 85282
U.S.A.

Phone: (602) 708-1409
Fax: (602) 708-1410

Email: info@...
Website: http://www.originalfalcon.com

Háils!!!


(First, I beg your pardon for my mistakes)


Bellini and the Devil, tells the story of detective Remo Bellini,
who gets pulled into a web of death and mysteries that take him to a
world of illusions where everything around him is a self created
fantasy. He's taken by this evil inside that makes him lose a sense
of reality with visions (Liber Al Vel Legis), anguish and loneliness
where everything surrounding him takes him down a path of no
return.  He can't understand what's happening to him but the deaths
surrounding him are getting closer and closer.  It's a race against
time before it's all too late.


But, the counselor for symgols and terms about occultism for this
movie ( AND THE DARK WIZARD IN THE MOVIE), is Senectus Serpiens, an
occultist linked with the Swart Sunna Magic, Setian Traditions and
One Practitioner of Al Asif (Necronomicon).
See this link (this not a virus):

http://br.geocities.com/serpente_sombria/

All pictures except the picture of Iblis, pertain to Senectus
Serpiens.

In the movie, He is the Sorcerer that strike the earth with a Dorge
in a inner circle of fire.

Grimmwotan.

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:
>
> In response to claims made by enthusiasts of English Qaballa ("EQ")
> regarding Roman numerals and a unique interaction between them and EQ
> using gematria, I wrote a program to investigate their claims, and
> learned that all ordinal gematria systems will perform in the same
> manner as EQ does.


Main thing I don't understand about the writing of Liber AL...  did
Aiwass specifically tell Crowley when to begin a new paragraph?  If not,
what significance if any, could the Roman Numbers have?

ALWays,

Sandi

--- On Sun, 6/15/08, exarp2000 <seagal@...> wrote:


>Main thing I don't understand about the writing of Liber AL...  did

>Aiwass specifically tell Crowley when to begin a new paragraph?  If not,

>what significance if any, could the Roman Numbers have?


The main clue that began comparative research with English Gematria systems and
Roman Numerals was the fact that all of Crowley's 'holy writings' have Roman
Numeral sub-headings  (Liber CCXX for example). So too does the Thoth Tarot
contain Roman Numerals in the trump numbering.Later, it became apparent that,
since Roman digits can be substituted for English Gematria ciphers, a 'recursive
iteration' process which was devised by Joel Love, began to be researched in
detail. From this research, theurgical applications began to become apparent,
especially when adapted to the "Timed Astrological Rites" theorem of many
Thelemic magicians.For many of us, Roman Numerals and English Qaballah remain
significant.

T.



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> The main clue that began comparative research with English Gematria systems
and Roman Numerals was the fact that all of Crowley's
> 'holy writings' have Roman Numeral sub-headings  (Liber CCXX for
example). So too does the Thoth Tarot contain Roman
> Numerals in the trump numbering. >

You're say that Crowley devised this system?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Taammuz wrote:











             >> The main clue that began comparative research with English
Gematria systems and Roman Numerals was the fact that all of Crowley's

>> 'holy writings' have Roman Numeral sub-headings& nbsp; (Liber CCXX
for example). So too does the Thoth Tarot contain Roman

>> Numerals in the trump numbering.

Sandi wrote:
>>You're say that Crowley devised this system?


Nope, never said he devised the system at all, using Roman Numerals as footnotes
or sub-headings is a common practice. I'm not sure if anyone else besides
Crowley used them as Tarot Trump numberings. As I said...it was a clue, not an
item of dogma. The main correlation is between the similar glyphs of English
Letters and Roman Numerals. As I recall, the question arose one day like this:
"How far back could an English Gematria system be operant?"Answer: "Back to the
Latin Alphabet."From there, recursively substituting Roman/English gematria
became the basis for this tangent. Some lucid critical work regarding this
process has come to light, at least in the context of probability.  Despite
that, the use of this system in a theurgical context  has yielded profound
exegetical results, which have also been criticized as well. It follows that any
unorthodox approach will provoke kneejerk critique from representatives of 
'traditional systems'.

T.

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I'm not sure if anyone else besides Crowley used them as Tarot Trump
numberings.

I'm not sure, but I think all Tarot Trump are Roman Numerated, and the Bible.

> the use of this system in a theurgical context  has yielded profound
exegetical results, which have also been criticized as well.

Would you please  describe the results, if I promise not to criticize?

Sandi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

93!

Sandi Peterson wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if anyone else besides Crowley used them as Tarot Trump
> numberings.
>
> I'm not sure, but I think all Tarot Trump are Roman Numerated, and the
> Bible.
>





The first deck of Tarot cards with numbered trumps was the Sola Busca
deck, probably produced in 1491. Before that (and in many decks made
after that date), all the extant decks have trumps that are not numbered
at all, although they certainly had an implicit order due to the nature
of trump games. The Sola Busca deck numbers each trump with a Roman
numeral, but also numbers the Fool with an Arabic zero and has
illustrated pip cards - both traits that many writers believe to be
relatively modern.

93 93/93
RIKB

RIKB wrote:

> all the extant decks have trumps that are not numbered at all

I'm no expert on Tarot decks but the Rider-Waite cards are Roman Numbered and
all others I've seen.

93 Sandi

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

93!

Sandi Peterson wrote:
>
> RIKB wrote:
>
> > all the extant decks have trumps that are not numbered at all
>
> I'm no expert on Tarot decks but the Rider-Waite cards are Roman
> Numbered and all others I've seen.
>






What I meant to say, and was apparently not clear about, is that most of
the earliest Tarot decks did not have numbered trumps. Rider-Waite is
modern, of course.

93 93/93
RIKB

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, tom chaudoin <taammuz@...> wrote:
>
>
> Taammuz wrote:
>
>...it was a clue, not an item of dogma.

Hmmmm... okay.  Thanks, makes sense to me now - really glad you
cleared this up.

> Taammuz wrote:

> Despite that, the use of this system in a theurgical context has
> yielded profound exegetical results, which have also been
> criticized as well. It follows that any unorthodox approach will
> provoke kneejerk critique from representatives of 'traditional
> systems'.

Well, that is a shame.  It seems any theurgical system that yields
profound exegetical results should be profoundly respected.

ALWays

Thelema RIBK,

I don't exactly know how to post to this list, but here's another try...

RIBK wrote:

> What I meant to say, and was apparently not clear about, is that most of
> the earliest Tarot decks did not have numbered trumps. Rider-Waite is
> modern, of course.

Well, in any event, I've been curious why some Verses of Liber AL are strangely,
inappropriately paragraphed -  for instance I. 61 should start a new paragraph
at - "Ye shall gather", and II. 21 at - "Think not, o king" ...  These
paragraphs and a couple others are too long, cumbersome and bulky... very
intriguing to think it was intentional.

If there were more paragraphs in Liber AL, would your formula still apply?

> The main clue that began comparative research with English Gematria systems
and Roman Numerals was the fact that all of Crowley's 'holy writings' have
> Roman Numeral sub-headings (Liber CCXX for example). So too does the Thoth
Tarot contain Roman Numerals in the trump numbering.

This makes sense, but raises another question - the Thoth Tarot numbering.  Why
didn't Crowley or someone try to figure out what's meant by II. 16: "I am The
Empress & the Hierophant.  Thus eleven, as my bride is eleven".

Why didn't Crowley renumber his deck to fit the Verse?  Sounds to me like an
instruction, and obviously references the Tarot Numerals.

ALWays,

Sandi







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...> wrote:

"Well, in any event, I've been curious why some Verses of Liber AL are
strangely, inappropriately paragraphed -  for instance I. 61 should
start a new paragraph at - "Ye shall gather", and II. 21 at - "Think
not, o king" ...  These paragraphs and a couple others are too long,
cumbersome and bulky... very intriguing to think it was intentional."


++I disagree with "Ye shall gather" starting a new paragraph. The
verse begins  "But to love me is better than all things" and the
section that starts "Ye shall gather" continues the expression of
love. It is not at all "inappropriate."

++A paragraph can be as short as one word or run multiple pages. The
idea of a paragraph is not the length, but that it has a main thought
supported by accompanying details. Both your examples of "strangely,
inappropriate paragraphs" are in fact quite appropriate when one looks
at the details rather than the length. Mind you, if you're used to
reading Harper Collins romance novels, I'd imagine the ideas are
rather hard to decipher.

Will
  Love
    ALWays

Scarlet

Thelema,

There are a couple of editorial decisions that Crowley made that
certainly could be re-assessed. Though clearly one would never change
Liber CCXX. That book is what it is.

One is Chapter One Verse 22:

"Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a
secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me. Since I
am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also thus.
Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between any
one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."

The MS clearly reads
"Now, therefore, I am known to ye by my name Nuit, and to him by a
secret name which I will give him when at last he knoweth me."

"Since I am Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof, do ye also
thus. Bind nothing! Let there be no difference made among you between
any one thing & any other thing; for thereby there cometh hurt."

But, as the very next line is "But whoso availeth in this, let him be
the chief of all!" I see no reason what so ever to make the difference. :)

Will
  Love
   ALWays
Scarlet

--- On Tue, 6/17/08, Sandi Peterson <seagal@...> wrote:
From: Sandi Peterson <seagal@...>
Subject: Re: [t93] Re: Roman numerals & English Qaballa
To: thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 1:05 PM


             > I'm not sure if anyone else besides Crowley used them as Tarot
Trump numberings.

## I'm not sure, but I think all Tarot Trump are Roman Numerated, and the Bible.

> the use of this system in a theurgical context  has yielded profound
exegetical results, which have also been criticized as well.

>Would you please  describe the results, if I promise not to criticize?

Much of the data surrounding ALW and Liber AL is published and extant in various
sources, to go over it at large would exceed content limits I think.

To summarize, EQ seems to arrive at a decidedly Christian interpretation of
Thelema and Liber AL. It also outlines a astro-theurgical format of a specific
nature which seems to be codified into Liber AL via multiple cipher systems,
including Hebrew.

Critics of this package of exegesis have nutshelled it as A. A formal
interpretation of Liber AL, which is verboten; and B. Christian/Thelemic
exegesis of any type from any source is also equally verboten.

T.

tom chaudoin wrote:

> Critics of this package of exegesis have nutshelled it as A. A formal
> interpretation of Liber AL, which is verboten; and B. Christian/Thelemic
> exegesis of any type from any source is also equally verboten.

So?.. so what?  What'a they going to do... kill you?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

tom chaudoin wrote:



>> Critics of this package of exegesis have nutshelled it as A. A formal

>>interpretation of Liber AL, which is verboten; and B. Christian/Thelemic

>> exegesis of any type from any source is also equally verboten.



>So?.. so what?  What'a they going to do... kill you?

Lady, lemme tell you a couple of things:

In point of fact, I have been threatened both offline and online, and so have my
friends, by a certain type of fanatic who portends to protect the Aeon from
'crapulous creeds', no less.

I don't know why you jump on Lucy for being insulting, you're just as big a
smart-ass as anyone, and it seems its ok for you but not others?

Why even ask questions when your rhetoric demonstrates that you have pre-formed
an opinion about this topic already.

Genuine inquiry is welcome. Bull baiting will meet with appropriate sarcasm in
therapeutic measure.

T.

2008/6/24 tom chaudoin <taammuz@...>:
> tom chaudoin wrote:
>>> Critics of this package of exegesis have nutshelled it as A. A formal
>>>interpretation of Liber AL, which is verboten; and B. Christian/Thelemic
>>> exegesis of any type from any source is also equally verboten.

>>So?.. so what?  What'a they going to do... kill you?

> Lady, lemme tell you a couple of things:
>
> In point of fact, I have been threatened both offline and online, and so have
my friends, by a certain type of fanatic who portends to protect the Aeon from
'crapulous creeds', no less.
>
> I don't know why you jump on Lucy for being insulting, you're just as big a
smart-ass as anyone, and it seems its ok for you but not others?
>
> Why even ask questions when your rhetoric demonstrates that you have
pre-formed an opinion about this topic already.
>
> Genuine inquiry is welcome. Bull baiting will meet with appropriate sarcasm in
therapeutic measure.

Hi Tom,

Not to knock anything you're saying here, but just for the record
Sandi is pro-EQ, in her own particular idiom.

Also,  though I'm absolutely positive she can speak for herself ;-)
the chances are she just doesn't get the Roman numerals thing (which
comes from an EQ source unfamiliar to her). Matter of fact I don't
entirely get it myself, being mathematically challenged and all. ;-)

Talking for myself, I have trouble telling when Americans are being
geneuinely aggressive also; though have noticed a lot of the Brits who
make it on US TV lately tend to be more - er - assertive than those
who don't.

ALWays

Jake

>>Talking for myself, I have trouble telling when Americans are being

>>geneuinely aggressive also; though have noticed a lot of the Brits who

>>make it on US TV lately tend to be more - er - assertive than those

>>who don't.



Well arg, the meaning and intent is lost in this medium...it seems devoid of
humor. Feh, well apologies all around.

I'm mathematically challenged too, but let's see if I can illustrate J. Love's
process with ALW and Roman Numerals.

Take any number say, 107 for expedience.

107 in Roman Numerals is CVII.

CVII in ALW = 71.

71- LVI.

And so forth.

ANY number under 1000 that you start this recursion with, will collapse into
three sets of digits, or 'attractors'.

These three sets have eight digits in total.

69 = LXIX = 69. <(heh)
58 = LVIII = 81 = LXXXI = 91 = XCI = 58.
68 = LXVIII = 103 = CIII = 82 = LXXXII = 114 = CXIV = 68.

Of course when added together with Roman Numerals AND ALW correlatively
you get:

LXIX + LVIII + LXXXI + XCI + LXVIII + CIII + LXXXII + CXIV = 666

For a long time, we believed that this result was unique. However, later data
shows that other cipher systems will produce the same result. ( I would sure
love to see the software enginery that crunched that!) It stood reason in
afterthought, as RLG pointed out that the first 7 digits of Roman Numerals equal
666.

Still, certain numeric/symbolic symmetry within the RM/ALW schema vibes
synchronistically with elements of clasical Thelemic Crowleyana while unveiling
unexpected Christian symbolism embedded into the gematria. Some of this
counter-intuitive symbolism predates the use of the RM/ALW formula   , I think
Joel saw it as tangential initially.

One intuitive thing I've been looking at is the use of the first seven digits of
RM as sigils for the Seven Visibles.

Pax,

T.

tom chaudoin wrote:
#>#> Critics of this package of exegesis have nutshelled it
#>#> as A. A formal interpretation of Liber AL, which is verboten;

only to the actual Troglodyte progs who haven't any brains.
it's probably a good idea to forbid exegesis of a problem-
riddled scripture to its "willful" cultists so that they
don't tear it to bits under scrutiny or completely reveal
the shallow and deceptive fabric which is almost always
hiding within religion.

#>#> and B. Christian/Thelemic exegesis of any type
#>#> from any source is also equally verboten.

by whom?

Sandy:
#># So?.. so what?  What'a they going to do... kill you?

to some people socializing is life. cut off from the
purveyors of attention, finding oneself ostracized
from "the society" of one's addiction is death.

tom chaudoin <taammuz@...>:
#> ...I have been threatened both offline and online,
#> and so have my friends, by a certain type of fanatic
#> who portends to protect the Aeon from 'crapulous creeds',
#> no less.

shades of Scientology. perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

Jake:
# the chances are [Sandy] just doesn't get the Roman
# numerals thing ....

not sure i do either where it pertains to EQ, but it
is a convention of occult Tarot which began in gaming
Tarot decks after they were invented in the 1300s.
the order and manner of appearance of Trumps have
changed both in gaming and in occult decks.

many occultists have no clue that Tarot used to be
a game, and some in fact use gaming decks with
delusions that the frenchified sources they believe
uncritically (as with fantasies about the Tarot de
Marseilles) are occult decks. one might argue that
they are correct insofar as anything turned toward
an occult purpose becomes "occult", but the history
of occultism seems destined to be writ by non-
occultists with skills of skepticism and logic
(like Dummett).

333

tom chaudoin wrote:

> Why even ask questions when your rhetoric demonstrates that you
> have pre-formed an opinion about this topic already.

I only asked if Aiwass specifically told Crowley when to begin a new paragraph?
... and if there were more paragraphs, would RIBK's system still apply?

What's bad about that?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thelema Jake,

Not to knock anything you're saying here, but just for
the record Sandi is pro-EQ, in her own particular idiom.

Thanks Jake... my idiom is idiotic to all but me. - I know what hurt means.

the chances are she just doesn't get the Roman numerals
thing (which comes from an EQ source unfamiliar to her).

No I don't, but my original question was answered.  I don't have to know how to
do the math,
or the I-Ching-thing, but I'm glad you guys do.  Far as I'm concerned, whatever
"secrets" can be
found in Liber AL, I'd very much like to know what they are.

To summarize, EQ seems to arrive at a decidedly Christian
interpretation of Thelema and Liber AL.

How's that?

It also outlines a astro-theurgical format of a specific nature which seems to
be codified
into Liber AL via multiple cipher systems, including Hebrew.

I'd like to understand each of the multiple systems & the knowledge they yield.

ALWays,

Sandi



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thelema,

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...> wrote:
> Hey!  Lucy!  Why so insulting?

I found your critic of a Holy Book I adore as insulting. Try telling a
Muslim that there are passages in the Koran that are "too long,
cumbersome and bulky" or that the Koran is "strangely, inappropriately
paragraphed" and see what happens.

A little respect for Liber Al, please. Some of us do consider it a
Holy Book.

Will
  Love
   ALWays

Scarlet



[MODERATOR has restrained some recent posting because it began
  deteriorating into name-calling; there is no protection for
  Liber Al or any other 'Holy Book' in this list; should you
  find yourself offended, kindly respond in eloquent insult in
  return, explaining how and why it is Thelemic, if possible,
  and why Thelemites should not lower themselves to insult
  whatever holy of holies you deem appropriate; those whose
  posts turn into IRC-banter will be set moderated and their
  brief quips returned to them. thank you for your genius]

hi Sandy,

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>:
# I only asked if Aiwass specifically told Crowley
# when to begin a new paragraph?

it's a valuable question. the whole issue of what intrusions
Crowley brought to his Penmanship of his scripture should be
analyzed by more than the Beast and his acolytes. in fact
there are several areas of intrusion the Beast himself admits
to and, in my estimation, should be removed (thus my
suggestion that a 'Booklet of the Law' should result).

Crowley's commentaries on Liber Al (i've seen now 2 versions
of this, one edited by Regardie and one by Grant) seems to
be another very good source on what was intrusion to the
communication and what was pertinent information from the
source contacted. as i recall there are actually *2* go-
rounds by Crowley, where he provides an initial pass and
then a more in-depth analysis of both process and data.

# ... and if there were more paragraphs,
# would RIBK's system still apply?

excellent question. questioning authority is admirable.

# What's bad about that?

it offended someone. :(

well done. luckily, offense to "Thelemic" things
which are brought with artifice and eloquence,
or the challenge to sacred cows, are welcomed here.
where you can keep it above single query lines
it'll generally provide everyone with a good read.

333

"lucy_fyre" <lucyfyre@...>:
# I found your critic of a Holy Book I adore as insulting.

it didn't seem insulting to me. perhaps the writing of
Liber Al was a botched job. the Beast could hardly hold
up within the transmission, after all. he missed the
93rd day of the year by about a week. there are several
problems with it.

# Try telling a Muslim that there are passages in the
# Koran that are "too long, cumbersome and bulky"

surahs for sure. did you know that they arranged
them so that the longest ones appear at the end?

# or that the Koran is "strangely, inappropriately
# paragraphed" and see what happens.

and thus the recommendation for the "method of
science" rather than the "method of religion",
which tends to be to flame people who disagree.

# A little respect for Liber Al, please.

it gets too much respect already, given what it is.
and there are now Thelema-bombers ready to aim their
power-keyboards in my direction no doubt. there are
jots and tittles mussed with in that text! its 2nd
god isn't named right! the Scribe botched the job!!

we need *more* criticism, not less.

# Some of us do consider it a Holy Book.

have at it. just don't expect the rest of us to
follow suit or be faced with your imperial wrath.

333

>These three sets have eight digits in total.

>69 = LXIX = 69. <(heh)
>58 = LVIII = 81 = LXXXI = 91 = XCI = 58.
>68 = LXVIII = 103 = CIII = 82 = LXXXII = 114 = CXIV = 68.

>Of course when added together with Roman Numerals AND ALW correlatively
>you get:

>LXIX + LVIII + LXXXI + XCI + LXVIII + CIII + LXXXII + CXIV = 666

>For a long time, we believed that this result was unique. However, later
>data shows that other cipher systems will produce the same result. ( I
>would sure love to >see the software enginery that crunched that!) It stood
>reason in afterthought, as RLG pointed out that the first 7 digits of Roman
>Numerals equal 666.

>Still, certain numeric/symbolic symmetry within the RM/ALW schema vibes
>synchronistically with elements of clasical Thelemic Crowleyana while
>unveiling >unexpected Christian symbolism embedded into the gematria. Some
>of this counter-intuitive symbolism predates the use of the RM/ALW formula
>, I think Joel >saw it as tangential initially.


  This is very elaborate and all, but what is the use of it? What does it
"reveal" or what does it communicate, exactly? What's the point of such
exercises? This is something that I have never been able to really grasp as
pertains to all of the various English gematria stuff that I've seen posted
here and in other forums. I've never received a reply that I would repeat as
comprehensible to the average consumer. Apparently, the Law is NOT for all.
(There have always been "signing statements" to contend with.)

If it's purpose is to demonstrate that all symbols can be related in
'numerous' ways ....that everything in the 'universe' is connected as a
holistic coherent system, at every CONCEIVABLE level ...well, this would
seem to be self-evident in the word "uni-verse," itself.  Everything else is
but a dalliance or flourish upon that obvious acknowledgement.

If it is to demonstrate that there is within Liber Al, in particular, some
internal irrefutable evidence supporting the existence of an external
intelligent mechanism (either supernal or infernal or indifferent) being
uniquely revealed through the writings of one "true" "prophet," Aleister
Crowley, then I would say that this appears to be much ado about nothing and
a mediocre absurdity in the bargain ...but what twinkles! ...I guess.

If it is to create ciphers from an existent work to exercise the elastic
qualities of the mind, would not Joyce present a more formidable challenge
absolutely loaded with both etymologic and numerical potential? How about a
gematria derived from Urantia or Yeats' "A Vision"? Now, there's a pair of
odd fellows! In other words, how does an English Gematria become the unique
NECESSITY of a recapitulation of any wisdom Liber Al may represent? (Let me
foreclose on the temptation to come back with the whole "order and values
and new symbols" bit that one inevitably sees in the course of such
discussions. My position is that this in no way conveys the necessity for a
"gematria." {I acknowledge that Crowley and some of his "students": Mudd,
Achad etc did allude to this idea. However, Crowley's rests the veracity of
the book's claim in that he is that he is NOT the author. In fact, the
narrative of Liber Al sets itself in opposition to and even chides "the
prophet" in many places, particularly in saying that he is a fool with his
one, one, one.} In fact, "new symbols" refers to just that... new Symbols
...not numbers or number systems. The stronger appeal is to the creation of
new imagery and new metaphors, which have always been one of the cohesive
features of the Bohemian edge. Really, it would seem that the deeper purpose
was to graft more layers of meaning upon 'the words' and revive "the
mysteries" of "the word." The primary definition of symbol is: 'something
used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object
representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.'
I will accept that the reference could potentially call for the creation of
"new numbers;" much as the concept of zero as it was introduced into Europe,
even though my doubt outweighs my confidence that this is the case. That
said, ...fire away.)

As I've said before, the meaning to be found in any such systems would, in
any case, seem to be entirely subjective. What is the benefit of an
objective (consensus) English gematria in terms of application and/or
aesthetic value? What purpose would such a thing serve in preference to more
traditional (historical) systems? Thanks.

Bliss:
Alamantra