Hi, I'm new here =)


  What would you say the differences were between the various
O.T.O's? The O.T.O. ,  .O.T.O.F. etc ?

   If you're a member I'd love to hear about your experience .

  Thank you

There are several impressive correlations that occur when numbers
presented in the text of the Book of the Law are treated as base-11
numbers and converted into decimal numbers:

In base-11 math, 56 expresses the decimal number 61.

When the numbers mentioned in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
numbers and converted into their decimal equivalents, and then united
as instructed in verse I:47, the total is 666:

Base-11--Base-10

61     =   67
8      =   8
80     =   88
418    =   503

67 + 8 + 88 + 503 = 666

The Tarot riddle presented in verses II:15-16 can be shown to be a
truthful statement. The traditional gematria values assigned to the
Empress and the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively; when the numbers
are added, the number 10 is produced, which is 11 in base-11
mathematics, making the Empress and the Hierophant eleven when combined.

The combined numbers in the riddle of verse II:76 add to 143; as
a base-11 number, 143 converts to 168 in the decimal system, which is
56 x 3.

Tim

Thelema Heru-pa-kraath,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Tim wrote:

> When the numbers mentioned
> in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
> numbers and converted into their
> decimal equivalents, and then
> united as instructed in verse I:47,
> the total is 666:

And?... so what?  What is 666???
You trying to impress someone
with your 6 6 6?  What do you think
666 means... anyway?

What are you trying to say here?
No where is 666 part of Liber AL -
a stupid ugly hex, has no significance
in anyone's life unless they give it
power, no significance in intellect,
or in Liber AL or JOY or LIFE!

Far as I'm concerned you can drive
a wooden stake through it's sick
sick sixes and cram it back up the
black hole you pulled it out of,
or it crawled out of.

There is no part of me that thinks
that number does anything besides
stink up a place.

Tim wrote:

> The Tarot riddle presented in verses
> II:15-16 can be shown to be a truthful
> statement. The traditional gematria
> values assigned to the Empress and
> the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively;
> when the numbers are added, the
> number 10 is produced, which is
> 11 in base-11 mathematics, making
> the Empress and the Hierophant
> eleven when combined.

Truthful???... this is the biggest bunch
of flim-flam hooey I've ever seen - you
think this means something?  Show
me how the other 11's go together by
your truthful gematria.

Better yet - let's see you translate the
whole Book by base 11 mathematics,
see if you can even translate a single
paragraph by base 11 or Holokey
either one.

Your computer program aught to be
able to transcribe it in what???...
a few minutes?  hours??  I'll be
anxious to read your findings,
and proof or not of the validity
of your systems.

AL points out the Empress and
the Hierophant equal eleven
because EQ Numbering System
clearly shows that tricks were
done to the Numbers - Study
it, isn't difficult to understand,
but the significance is astounding
when these numbers are applied
to letters.

0 is the greatest Number, it
represents infinity.  Designated
0, the Fool Card becomes God,
as in the Holokey, Z=900+Infinity,
being not nothing.

Can't let this sort of gematria
have any power, it spells doom.

The True Number and Letter System
must be restored.  It is so important
now, because we are so connected
with computers and the internet.

EQ WORD NUMBER SYSTEM



ONE----(46)=(2)-TWO---(34)--(2)=(34)-(1=2)

TWO----(34)=(1)-ONE---(46)--(1)=(46)--(2=1)

SIX-----(50)=(3)-SIX-----(50)--(6)=(50)-(3=6)

FOUR--(54)=(4)-FOUR---(54)-(4)=(54)-(4=4)

F IVE----(76)=(5)-FIVE---(76)-(5)=(76)-(5=5)

NINE----(76)=(6)-NINE---(76)-(9)=(76)-(6=9)

SEVEN---(0)=(7)-SEVEN-(0)--(7)=-(0)--(7=0)

EIGHT--(87)=(8)-EIGHT-(87)-(8)=(87)-(8=8)

THREE-(90)=(9)-THREE-(90)-(3)=(90)-(9=3)


     THE VELUM BOOK
RIDER TAROT - EQ TAROT

(1)MAGICIAN(1)MAGICIAN

(2)PRIESTESS(2)PRIESTESS

(3)EMPRESS(3)EMPEROR

(4)EMPEROR(4)LOVERS

(5)HIEROPHANT(5)HIEROPHANT

(6)LOVERS(6)EMPRESS

(7)CHARIOT(7)STRENGTH

(8)STRENGTH(8)LUST

(9)THE HERMIT(9)ADJUSTMENT



EQ CIPHER 11 ALW



A=1, B=20, C=13, D=6,

E=25, F=18, G=11, H=4,

I=23, J=16, K=9, L=2,

M=21, N=14, O=7, P=26,

Q=19, R=12, S=5, T=24,

U=17, V=10, W=3, X=22,

Y=15, Z=8.



4638ABK24ALGMOR3YX24 89RPSTOVA=918



  4    6    3   8

54+50+90+87= (281)



A  B   K   2   4   A  L  G

1+20+9+34+54+1+2+11= (132)



M  O   R   3     Y   X      24        89

21+7+12+90+15+22+34+54+87+76= (418)



  R    P   S   T  O   V  A L

12+26+5+24+7+10+1+2= (87)

TOTAL = (918)



It's very important everyone tries

to understand this.



Tim wrote:



> The combined numbers in the riddle
> of verse II:76 add to 143; as a base-
> 11 number, 143 converts to 168 in
> the decimal system, which is 56 x 3.

You're missing the point entirely - Liber
AL formula II.76: was written for the
express purpose of showing clearly
that a different order and value number
and letter system was imposed on
God's Original Alphabet many aeons
ago, and establishes an Nu System
of Ritual Correspondences, of a True
Nature and Number & Letter &
Identification System.

This is why Liber AL was Written,
to obtain the Order and Value of
the English Alphabet, one we can
have faith in, and ascribe new
Numbers that we don't have to
fear.

Got to be an Alphabet you can use
for something--- what?  What??... duh
... to translate Liber AL, and some of
the other Holy Books, find out what's
written beneath the Text??  Seem
logickal to me.

This is why the whole Book was
Written, to help us, free us, empower
us.  A quick study of History according
to the Bible, the Talmud and Koran,
right on Wikipedia shows vividly the
point Aiwass is stressing - our tragic
history no one ever really understood
the teachings because they never
made any sense on purpose.

Please review the history I posted a
while back and try to realize this is a
very grave matter, and the Number
of Man, particularly grave, considering
the internet & Mozilla.

Please try to wake up and pay attention
here will you?... or show me something
significant about base 11 mathematics
I can use to save my Immortal Soul,
or maybe help save the world, and
maybe I'll pay attention to what-ever
obscure point you might be trying to
make.

Love is the Law, Love under Will,

The despised harlot


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

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:
>
> The Tarot riddle presented in verses II:15-16 can be shown to be a
> truthful statement. The traditional gematria values assigned to the
> Empress and the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively; when the numbers
> are added, the number 10 is produced, which is 11 in base-11
> mathematics, making the Empress and the Hierophant eleven when combined.

Mm-kay, this, at least, is bogus. When you're in base-10 or base-11,
four and six add up to the same number of fingers that the majority of
people have on both hands, not one more than that. While the base-11
number 10 is equal to the base-10 number 11, 4 and 6 don't add up to
either one of 'em.

In base-11 math (following the practice used in base-16, or
hexadecimal math), 4 + 6 = A, and you count to eleven like so: 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, 10.

> ...as a base-11 number, 143 converts to 168 in the decimal system,
> which is 56 x 3.

Except you just told us that 56 (base-11) is really 61 (base-10).

Gematria tends to easily wander into the realm of Wilson's "Law of
23s": "Any phenomenon can be related to the number 23, given
sufficient ingenuity on the part of the one attempting to do the
relating."

Thelema93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Wakanaba is a Cipher 11 language.  Jake
knows much more about Wakanaba, but
I'll try to explain to you what I know.

The EQ Cipher 11 Alphabet is:

A=1, L=2. W=3. H=4, S=5. D=6,
O=7, Z=8, K=9, V=10, G=11, R=12,
C=13, N=14, Y=15, P=16, U=17, F=18,
Q=19, B=20, M=21, X=22, I=23, T=24,
E=25, P=26.

Therefore... A=A, B=L, C=W.. etc...

A=A, B=L, C=W, D=H, E=S, F=D,
G=O, H=Z, I=K, J=V, K=G, L=R,
M=C, N=N, O=Y, P=J, Q=U, R=F,
S=Q, T=B, U=M, V=X, W=I, X=T,
Y=E, Z=P.

The Letters of the Wakanaba Alphabet
are formed by combining the Consonants
of the EQ Alphabet with the Vowels and
Symbols listed below.

A=Alpha/Spirit
O=Solar Disk/Fire
U=Cup/Water
I=Dagger/Air
E=Earth

Wakanaba Letters, Consonants with Vowels.

WA KA NA BA
HO VO YO MO
SU GU JU XU
DI  RI   FI  TI
ZE  CE QE  PE

Each Letter of the Wakanaban Alphabet
has Numerical Value of the Consonant
+ the Vowel.

AL=3, LA=3, WA=4, HO=11, SU=22, DI=29,
OL=9, ZE=33, KA=10, VO=17, GU=28, RI=35,
CE=38, NA=15, YO=22, JU=33, UL=19, FI=41,
QE=44, BA=21, MO=28, XU=39, IL=25, TI=47,
EL=27, PE=51.

Not only can Wakanaban be written and
spoken, but Liber AL can be Translated into
a Nu Language of Nuit, Revealing greater
Meanings & Teachings, and Rituals and
Calls AL-LA-ALLA Powerful.

Glory to Nuit Who Is Three Times the Word!

Olriyofiel!  Namokaba!

In any event, I keep a List of Favorite Hits,
Spiritual stuff, Higher Concepts that blast
my mind off into areas of Consciousness so
Sublimely Divine, seems such a shame to
spend precious energies discussing lesser
concepts.

A few years ago I did myself a huge favor
and Translated Liber AL by EQ & Wakanaba
Extrapolations.  Since then I've had a threefold
book of Law to assist my Understanding and
Creature Comforts.

Wakanaba, Liber ALLA Chapter I.13; AL,
or Aiwass calls "the whole body the wand",
& "the body", "a word of God", "the Whole
Body, the Ways of the Ka Flesh, a God
while in life".

What could be more exciting than Walking
the Earth as a God?  To feel your body, "a
Word of God", a Holy Word, a Word of Power,
not a cursed word, as we were told.  Isn't
this what we're all really looking for?...

I just love reading stuff like this.  No doubt
this is the Way We were meant to Live, as
AL clearly shows.

Of course what sane person wouldn't want
to be like a God while in life, rather than
a victim... follow the Love of Nu in the
star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men,
to tell them this glad word... wouldn't
anyone, everyone?

I'm so Grateful to have all this and a Book
to say how this didst come hither, and the
word secret & not only in the English but
also in the EQ and Wakanaba Translations.

How Wonderful to have a Truly Holy Text
Book, One completely Logickal & Empowering
rather than illogical, confusing, disempowering,
diminishing, threatening, stupid, dull, boring.

Liber AL Swells and Expands Knowing and
Knowledge, Verifiable so many different ways,
revealing My Presence, hidden and glorious,
a God force upon earth.  Everything about
that feels really Good.

  ALLA I.11: Holy chosen one, earth intellect
harm ye, abide of sense; know me man of
earth I who am all & o chosen one come I
adore thee.

ALLA I.12: To see before you, us kings
forever, all words and signs to be the
adorations, & exalt the adorant the
lover known to ye!
AL I.12: Come forth, o children, under
the stars, & take your fill of love!

AL I.13: I am above you and in you.
My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is
to see your joy.

Love is the Law, Love under Will,

the despised harlot

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

E6

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Love is the law, love under will.

> Tim wrote:
> > When the numbers mentioned
> > in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
> > numbers and converted into their
> > decimal equivalents, and then
> > united as instructed in verse I:47,
> > the total is 666:

valued in base-10 as something else?

> And?... so what?  What is 666???

well, it is a number important to a popular
author who purported and promoted Thelema.
it is the Number of the Sun after Agrippa
and his kamea. agreed that these are both
as useless as most other applications. the
Patmos gematria is dated and useless too,
i suppose. 1+2+3+...+36 *does* equate to it.

> You trying to impress someone with your
> 6 6 6?

I think the interest was in connecting it
up with something Thelemic, and this is
at times associated with 666, you know.

> What do you think 666 means... anyway?

detailed above somewhat.

> What are you trying to say here?
> No where is 666 part of Liber AL -

didn't he just come up with one?

> a stupid ugly hex, has no significance
> in anyone's life unless they give it
> power, no significance in intellect,
> or in Liber AL or JOY or LIFE!

well the Sun is joy and life, if you ask me.
but i would agree that the original dclxvi
bible patmos meaning is pretty dour.

> Far as I'm concerned you can drive
> a wooden stake through it's sick
> sick sixes and cram it back up the
> black hole you pulled it out of,
> or it crawled out of.

sounds kinky.

> There is no part of me that thinks
> that number does anything besides
> stink up a place.

then you aren't hip to kameas or to
roman numerals (one each of which will
produce that number). 'sokay.

> Tim wrote:
> > The Tarot riddle presented in verses
> > II:15-16 can be shown to be a truthful
> > statement. The traditional gematria
> > values assigned to the Empress and
> > the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively;
> > when the numbers are added, the
> > number 10 is produced, which is
> > 11 in base-11 mathematics, making
> > the Empress and the Hierophant
> > eleven when combined.
>
> Truthful???... this is the biggest bunch
> of flim-flam hooey I've ever seen - you
> think this means something?

it means as much as quite a bit that is
promoted in gematric and numberology circles.
I think if you can spout all your equations
and expect people to think it means something
of relevance then Tim's material is of
comparable quality. it seems, like in Grant,
relegatable to a footnote, in my book, and
i will rarely feel the need to refer to it.

> Show me how the other 11's go together by
> your truthful gematria.
>
> Better yet - let's see you translate the
> whole Book by base 11 mathematics,
> see if you can even translate a single
> paragraph by base 11 or Holokey
> either one.

that sounds like an awful lot of work, and
not a labour done out of love but obligation.
you ask for too much seagal.

> Your computer program aught to be
> able to transcribe it in what???...
> a few minutes?  hours??  I'll be
> anxious to read your findings,
> and proof or not of the validity
> of your systems.

I hope he sends it to you privately. ;)

> AL points out the Empress and
> the Hierophant equal eleven
> because EQ Numbering System
> clearly shows that tricks were
> done to the Numbers - Study
> it, isn't difficult to understand,

these sentences and frags sometimes are.

> but the significance is astounding
> when these numbers are applied
> to letters.

I don't find them astounding. I find a
lot of this confusing and contrived, tho.

> 0 is the greatest Number, it
> represents infinity.

this, for example. 0 is nothing. it is as
far from infinity as we will ever get.

> Designated
> 0, the Fool Card becomes God,
> as in the Holokey, Z=900+Infinity,
> being not nothing.

looks like a lot of hooey.
can you explain this logically?

> Can't let this sort of gematria
> have any power, it spells doom.

now i'm confused again. were you
setting out to prove that this kind
of hooey logic is convincing or not?

> The True Number and Letter System
> must be restored.

the premise, that there is a "True"
one, seems flawed to me. that there
are 'true' ones is obvious: people's
minds find all manner of expression
to their taste and compatible with
their experience (the meaning of
'true' that has any lasting power
in my lexicon).

> It is so important
> now, because we are so connected
> with computers and the internet.

now there i can see some logic. 8-bit?
qwerty? I've messed with talismans on
these lines. there's associations afoot.

your voluminous evaluations omitted.

> It's very important everyone tries
> to understand this.

I disagree. I think it is very important
to certain cultists to try to understand
this. it is a waste of my time to try to.

> Tim wrote:
> > The combined numbers in the riddle
> > of verse II:76 add to 143; as a base-
> > 11 number, 143 converts to 168 in
> > the decimal system, which is 56 x 3.
>
> You're missing the point entirely - Liber
> AL formula II.76: was written for the
> express purpose of showing clearly
> that a different order and value number
> and letter system was imposed on
> God's Original Alphabet

see this kind of expression is what gets me
thinking (not unexpectedly or illogically)
that Thelema and GD and whoever are all
post-Christian semitiphiles. convert to
Judaism if you like it so much. why try
to steal their thunder by calling what
you do "qabalah" and pretending that you
have "God's Original Alphabet"? *what* God?
whose? why aren't you dealing in Sanskrit?
at least some of my order kindred were
honest with me by telling me it is just
a cipher system without cosmic import
beyond what we give it, and that anything
else might have been substituted. why they
then want to treat it as sacred is somewhat
beyond me. it defies logic and reason.
at least my method is sensible in that i
am consistently *using* the letters that
i bounce around linked with numbers, and
in the sequence correlated to their value.

> many aeons ago, and establishes an Nu System
> of Ritual Correspondences, of a True
> Nature and Number & Letter &
> Identification System.

more hooey. now it's you bellowing about it
being "True". but you don't demonstrate its
profound qualities any more persuasively
than Tim or any other divinatory expositor
does (and i am including me here).

> This is why Liber AL was Written,
> to obtain the Order and Value of
> the English Alphabet, one we can
> have faith in, and ascribe new
> Numbers that we don't have to
> fear.

EQ-centered theology. is EQ the new God?

> Got to be an Alphabet you can use
> for something--- what?  What??... duh
> ... to translate Liber AL, and some of
> the other Holy Books, find out what's
> written beneath the Text??  Seem
> logickal to me.

sure, but what is "found beneath the text"
is always a matter of fantasy, opinion,
contrivance, and ridiculous unfounded hogwash.

> This is why the whole Book was
> Written, to help us, free us, empower
> us.

no, the book was written out of a brain fart
of Mr. Crowley. he didn't know why it was
written. neither do i know why my scripture
was written. it just was. that's the way of
things. people escalate the importance of
cultic brain farts and get all hot and
bothered about them. ok, but it isn't very
convincing, that hotness and botheredness.
in fact, i'd say that it usually goes to
show that what is being proclaimed is silly.

> A quick study of History according
> to the Bible, the Talmud and Koran,

now this is interesting to me because it
does display the tradition of bookmongering
propheticity in which the religion of
Thelema seeks to place itself. a more sound
point is that none of these books makes,
by itself, very good history. there are
numerous fabrications within them and some
are believed historical when in fact they
are plainly and demonstrably not so.

> right on Wikipedia shows vividly the
> point Aiwass is stressing - our tragic
> history no one ever really understood
> the teachings because they never
> made any sense on purpose.

contrived and ridiculous handwaving. they
never made any sense because they were
senseless babble whose significance were
lost because they were intended for some
small cult or never made any sense to
start with. there's a distinct fallacy
there. if you can't demonstrate the
sense of a thing, it is senseless, and
if it is senseless you should start to
explain why we don't just trash it.

> Please review the history I posted a
> while back and try to realize this is a
> very grave matter, and the Number
> of Man, particularly grave, considering
> the internet & Mozilla.

that sounds amusing but i don't really
recall reading anything from you that
displayed this significance to me. I'm
curious about it but don't want to wade
through mounds of numbers and letters
demonstrating little to my brain in an
attempt to ferret out your logic. if you
have a notion, kindly summarize and restate
this Number of Man>Internet>Mozilla
connection. isn't the NoM 666? lol or
is that "the Number of a Man"?

> Please try to wake up and pay attention
> here will you?... or show me something
> significant about base 11 mathematics
> I can use to save my Immortal Soul,

you have no immortal soul and therefore
there is nothing to save. these mathematics
will do you no more good than being awash
in EQ does me. death is death and no more.
demanding that people show you things is
not very nice. where are your manners?

> or maybe help save the world,

now there's an idea. is it drowning?
the Bible says it is awash in water.

> and maybe I'll pay attention to what-ever
> obscure point you might be trying to make.

don't strain yourself overly.

> Love is the Law, Love under Will,

where *does* this quote come from?
it is not Liber Al vel Legis, which has

Love is the law, love under will.

and might be derived from PBRandolph.

333

E6 Rebelle,

"Rebelle" <rebelljacobs@...>
>  Hi, I'm new here =)

it is evident by the question you are asking, and that's fine. :)

> What would you say the differences were between the
> various O.T.O's? The O.T.O. ,  .O.T.O.F. etc ?

each one of them represents the interest of a group at best,
or an individual at worst, of people attempting to identify
themselves in association with the organization founded by
Theodore Reuss. some also want to identify themselves with
an organization 'rectified' by Aleister Crowley, but not
all of them, apparently.

the best way to try to understand the differences between
them is to read analysis of the history of the OTO, and
that by a number of sources. there's dirt galore and more
and more at Brother Peter Koenig's site. I'd ask him to
introduce you to it, but he cannot post here any longer,
due to his indiscipline.

for a starter, i'll point you toward one of the Wikis that
i've been visiting lately, one set up by the Scarlet Woman
Lodge within the [Caliphate, or (c)] OTO. I'm only going to
repeat here its analysis of challengers to its lineage of
authority so that you can see what this OTO thinks of the
others. it's a kind of quasi-masonic authority-struggle,
you see, and there's no Final Resolution to it other than
to agree to disagree:

from the Thelemapedia page on "Ordo Templi Orientis"
(which see for quite a bit more information!):

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Oto
(accessed 8/25/08)

TP{ Challenges to Leadership & Legitimacy
TP{
TP{ One of the dramatic aspects of Ordo Templi Orientis
TP{ is the continuing issue of legitimacy. Over the
TP{ years, several individuals and groups have claimed
TP{ the title of OHO or to be the true O.T.O.
TP{
TP{     * Hermann Metzger, who had been a member
TP{  of the early Swiss O.T.O. under Reuss,
TP{     made the claim soon after Germers death
TP{     in 1962. Supposedly there had been an
TP{     election there which appointed him OHO.
TP{     However, it was later shown that Germer
TP{     had not considered Metzger a regularized
TP{     member of O.T.O. as it had developed under
TP{     Crowley. No one recognized his claim
TP{     outside of his own group. Metzger died in 1990.
TP{
TP{     * Kenneth Grant, who had been expelled from
TP{     O.T.O. in 1955, also made the claim to OHO
TP{     after Germers passing. Grant does not provide
TP{     any factual basis or evidence for his claim
TP{     except to say he had a correspondence with
TP{     Crowley, that Germer had never actually been
TP{     OHO, and that McMurtry was not the legitimate
TP{     OHO. He calls his [organization] Ordo Templi
TP{     Orientis; others call it the Typhonian O.T.O.
TP{
TP{     * Marcelo Ramos Motta tried to assume control
TP{     of the Order under the name "Society Ordo
TP{     Templi Orientis." His claim was based on his
TP{     story that Germers wife, Sasha, told him that
TP{     Karls last words stated that Motta was the
TP{     follower. Although Motta had been an A.'.A.'.
TP{     student under Germer, he had never actually
TP{     been initiated into O.T.O. He also sued for
TP{     ownership of Crowleys copyrights, which were
TP{     denied to him by the U.S. District Court in
TP{     Maine. Motta died in 1987, although various
TP{     small groups calling themselves S.O.T.O.
TP{     continue to exist.
TP{
TP{ Other groups that make use of the O.T.O. name are:
TP{
TP{     * Albion O.T.O., located in London, England,
TP{     which claims to unify all the different
TP{     branches of O.T.O. [2] (http://www.uk-oto.org/oto_main.htm)
TP{
TP{     * The Parzival XI O.T.O. Foundation, which
TP{     claims to support and legitimize Mottas
TP{     Society O.T.O. [3] (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~realoto/pf.html)
TP{
TP{     * Ur-O.T.O., whose main goals are to manifest
TP{     A.M.I.C.I.T.I.A. (Amity, Magia, Inspiration,
TP{     Companionship, Inclusion, Truth, Individuality,
TP{     Agape) and to make this a living power in the
TP{     Life of all Beings. [4] (http://members.aol.com/UROTO/index.html)

add more if you know about 'em. correct the accounts given
here if you were witness to them or knew those who were.

and i know that as a new reader you may have questions
about all the various terms and phrases found herein.
but that's the nature of your question. it is huge,
and there's a few orgs missing above, like the OTOA
(Antiqua) of Michael Bertiaux, for example. you're
not really ever going to get much more than taxonomized
details and the occasional reminiscence or reflection,
so be prepared for that type of response at best.

the really useless question (one which we started asking
people not to ask any more without a thorough report on
its detail for us) is which one is the *real* OTO. that's
a tedious debate seldom producing any light whatever.

>   If you're a member I'd love to hear about your experience .

I am a member in good standing of the (c)OTO and my
experience is moderate to minimal. by which i mean
that i have intersected its membership at points
in many dimensions and ways, found some of them
compelling, some intriguing, some offensive,
some ridiculous, some sad, some deceptive, and
some admirable. my aim has always been to engage
the order as a discipline, where so many use the
order to *initiate their discipline*. I already
had mine, and the social tensions against my person
were sufficient to challenge my skills in the
application of principles i learned to call Thelemic.
I can no longer assure any that this order is so,
but it serves my discipline to remain a member of it.

333

fay ce que vouldras.

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>:
> Thelema 93,

agape E6,

<snip>
> Compounded by the fact it's so difficult to
> find the "Real" God anywhere....

maybe you're not looking in the right way or
in the right places.

> Also, "There is none that shall be cast down
> or lifted up" and "the kings of the earth are going
> to be Kings forever", and "There is no death".
> "Death shall; be forbidden unto thee", gives me
> the impression I'm trapped here in hell forever
> with no God, searching for a god who doesn't
> exist, and following a Master says there is no god?

books can do that. they can contain all kinds of
false things. denial of death is a big part of
religion, and i gather that it provides solace
which i do not think Thelema need coddle.

> That's really spooky!

I think it is far spookier to the main to speak
of death in an organismic sense being a termination.
there is so much fantasizing about it not being
so that i think people just cannot deal with it
head-on, and have to fashion fantasy buffers.

> Messages like these don't answer important
> questions, like where are we? what are we?

books don't always do that very coherently.
the problem of 'where we are' typically requires
a far better understanding of where we are not
than we presently possess as a species. thus we
can expect that even our precious books will
shed little light on the matter. what we are is
far more interesting and revealing. here's where
we *really* get into the Law of Fives. ;)

> why are we here?

this is a fallacious question fostered by foolish
religions. it posits either a meaning as part of
expression or a cause as part of a series and asks
what came before or intended the result. there is
no reason life grew out of non-life, we just did.

> who is my Master who am I?

that's a social question often used by mystical
conundrum-spouters to trip up people that think
that the mystery of identity is more than mind
deep. abstractly asking after 'who?' effectively
gets you a one-hand-clapping stunned silence on
account of there being no solid connection by
which it may be coherently answered. therefore
it amounts to a stupid question without merit.

at least 'what am i?' has some staying power.

> Why does this have to be so complicated???

it doesn't. people make it so.

> Looking around earth, all the evil makes me
> want to run.  I was looking for a Christ and
> a Heaven Haven, unfortunately, they don't
> seem to be handing out many keys to those
> gates anymore, although I think you can
> buy a Pay-Pal key code.

those are just mental gates.

> The church of Satan sounds identical to those
> of Christ.  How can someone even know if
> Christ was/is Satan or Satan/Christ or not?

it makes no sense to ask whether legends and
figments differentiated in fantasies are one
and the same. these are characters separated
by their authors. it is not for us to try to
reconcile them unless we have an agenda.

> Problem with old gods, we don't actually know
> who they were or how corrupted they became
> and their powers to effect thinking, so it's
> difficult to know who's speaking, have I brot
> forth a god or a dog or an evil computer pixzel?

the identification of voices becoming apparent
in ritual or divinatory reverie/augury is often
said to be handled by the gematria and symbolism
of our choice. doesn't your EQ work for you this
way? or is there some reason that the entities
are able to confound it?

> Another significant consideration are those
> who actually know they empower evil and do
> willingly.  It's so difficult to tell the difference
> between intended and unintended robotic
> action.  One is pure evil.

the term 'evil' is over-rated and confusing.
prepending 'pure' to it doubly so.

> 333 wrote:
> > and it ambiguously identifies something
> > ("God") with "Man" (the species human,
> > presumably). we might expect that this
> > would be explained clearly by Thelemic
> > expositors, but inevitably it is not, and
> > we are left to some confusing explanation
> > about "sparks of divinity" inside human
> > animals, or the manifestation of the Logos
> > through humans.
>
> Well, here's another problem, this Logos
> sounds too much like a Sears & Roebuck sort
> of logo to me lately.  If there's no part of me
> that's not of the gods, I want to know which
> god I am.

nobody said that you were a god. 'of the gods'
might mean that you are merely an offspring.
if "Man" is God, even then you are not Man
and therefore not God. so relax. ;)

> No way can I believe that I am ALL THAT IS.
> I'm simply not up for it or others.

then don't. agreed that it isn't rational.
to believe in irrational things is the
doom of logic and the beginning of the End.


> > there are a myriad ways that some concept
> > of 'God' might be explained as some concept
> > of 'Man'. and comparably there are a similar
> > number of ways that 'There is no god but man.'
> > (or indeed 'There is no God but Man.', which
> > is a different kettle of fish) might be understood
> > and explained. some of these are rationally
> > compatible with performance of rituals and
> > prayers, especially when rites are seen as ritual
> > dramas and prayers are not intended to
> > communicate with something beyond oneself.
>
> Well, and this is really spooky, not knowing
> whose receiving the rites and what sort of powers
> they could be gaining, some evil power in me?

it doesn't sound spooky, but it does sound
exaggeratedly fearful. I would suggest refraining
from those activities if they scare you.

> I don't know many details of National powers, but
> looking back at the condition of the world, seems
> gods of evil are being given most powers-someone(s)
> or some-thing's fueling flames of ZTar's dark lust
> having seen this face, knowing who's benefiting,
> is most spooky, and also to know I've always
> attributed to it and always been part of it and
> always will be... is way more than I can stand
> thinking about, so far, seems most other's who've
> seen the messages aren't talking.

it may be that those who do the talking are saying
all that they can about what meaning lies therein,
no more beyond it than is described.

> Could you please tell me why you use small letters
> beginning sentences....?

abject laziness.

> Will you tell me the significance?

the wisdom of the laze. cf.

   http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/dozen/lazypath.tn.txt

the p'a is in the p'u

333

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, 333 <nagasiva@...> wrote:
> http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Oto
> (accessed 8/25/08)
> TP{ Challenges to Leadership & Legitimacy
> TP{ One of the dramatic aspects of Ordo Templi Orientis
> TP{ is the continuing issue of legitimacy. Over the
> TP{ years, several individuals and groups have claimed
> TP{ the title of OHO or to be the true O.T.O.
> TP{     * Hermann Metzger, who had been a member
> TP{ 	  of the early Swiss O.T.O. under Reuss,
> TP{     made the claim soon after Germers death
> TP{     in 1962. Supposedly there had been an
> TP{     election there which appointed him OHO.
> TP{     However, it was later shown that Germer
> TP{     had not considered Metzger a regularized
> TP{     member of O.T.O. as it had developed under
> TP{     Crowley. No one recognized his claim
> TP{     outside of his own group. Metzger died in 1990.
> TP{     * Kenneth Grant, who had been expelled from
> TP{     O.T.O. in 1955, also made the claim to OHO
> TP{     after Germers passing. Grant does not provide
> TP{     any factual basis or evidence for his claim
> TP{     except to say he had a correspondence with
> TP{     Crowley, that Germer had never actually been
> TP{     OHO, and that McMurtry was not the legitimate
> TP{     OHO. He calls his [organization] Ordo Templi
> TP{     Orientis; others call it the Typhonian O.T.O.
> TP{     * Marcelo Ramos Motta tried to assume control
> TP{     of the Order under the name "Society Ordo
> TP{     Templi Orientis." His claim was based on his
> TP{     story that Germers wife, Sasha, told him that
> TP{     Karls last words stated that Motta was the
> TP{     follower. Although Motta had been an A.'.A.'.
> TP{     student under Germer, he had never actually
> TP{     been initiated into O.T.O. He also sued for
> TP{     ownership of Crowleys copyrights, which were
> TP{     denied to him by the U.S. District Court in
> TP{     Maine. Motta died in 1987, although various
> TP{     small groups calling themselves S.O.T.O.
> TP{     continue to exist.
> TP{
> TP{ Other groups that make use of the O.T.O. name are:
> TP{     * Albion O.T.O., located in London, England,
> TP{     which claims to unify all the different
> TP{     branches of O.T.O. [2] (http://www.uk-oto.org/oto_main.htm)
> TP{     * The Parzival XI O.T.O. Foundation, which
> TP{     claims to support and legitimize Mottas
> TP{     Society O.T.O. [3]
(http://members.ozemail.com.au/~realoto/pf.html)
> TP{     * Ur-O.T.O., whose main goals are to manifest
> TP{     A.M.I.C.I.T.I.A. (Amity, Magia, Inspiration,
> TP{     Companionship, Inclusion, Truth, Individuality,
> TP{     Agape) and to make this a living power in the
> TP{     Life of all Beings. [4]
(http://members.aol.com/UROTO/index.html)
> <snip>
> and there's a few orgs missing above, like the OTOA
> (Antiqua) of Michael Bertiaux, for example....
<snip>

Thelema 333,

How does this naming convention work now after the court case in the
UK. Can OTOA still be OTOA, or does it need to find different set of
initials before the A. Is the Typhonion OTO just Typhonion? I guess
(c)OTO no longer stands for caliphate, but copyright?

Will
  Love
   ALWays

Scarlet




[MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted material. see our MMM!]

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

> Tim wrote:
>
> > When the numbers mentioned
> > in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
> > numbers and converted into their
> > decimal equivalents, and then
> > united as instructed in verse I:47,
> > the total is 666:
>
> And?... so what?  What is 666???
> You trying to impress someone
> with your 6 6 6?  What do you think
> 666 means... anyway?

   Within the context of Crowleyan Thelema, 666 was thought to be the
number of the Beast of Revelations, and the Beast *is* mentioned in
the Book of the Law. 666 was evidently the catalog number of the Stele
of Revealing in the Cairo Museum in 1904, which Crowley thought
relevant to his perceived office. Within the context of Qabala 666 is
6 x 111, a mystical number of the Sun, another one of Crowley's
favorite explanations for the number. Considering Crowley thought
Thelema was literally the Host of the Sun, the number 666 is easily
demonstrated as a focal point of Crowleyan Thelema.

>
> What are you trying to say here?
> No where is 666 part of Liber AL -
> a stupid ugly hex, has no significance
> in anyone's life unless they give it
> power, no significance in intellect,
> or in Liber AL or JOY or LIFE!

   You appear to have no conception of the significance of 666 as it
was recognized by Crowley, while exhibiting the typical abhorrence for
the number that most cookie-cutter Christians do. Am I wrong?

> Far as I'm concerned you can drive
> a wooden stake through it's sick
> sick sixes and cram it back up the
> black hole you pulled it out of,
> or it crawled out of.

> There is no part of me that thinks
> that number does anything besides
> stink up a place.

   So I take it you think the number 666 is evil, or bad--care to
elaborate?


> Tim wrote:
>
> > The Tarot riddle presented in verses
> > II:15-16 can be shown to be a truthful
> > statement. The traditional gematria
> > values assigned to the Empress and
> > the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively;
> > when the numbers are added, the
> > number 10 is produced, which is
> > 11 in base-11 mathematics, making
> > the Empress and the Hierophant
> > eleven when combined.
>
> Truthful???... this is the biggest bunch
> of flim-flam hooey I've ever seen - you
> think this means something?  Show
> me how the other 11's go together by
> your truthful gematria.

   There was no gematria involved in the presentation you are
criticizing. The simple fact remains, that adding 4 + 6 results in 10,
and 10 in Base-11 is eleven.

> Better yet - let's see you translate the
> whole Book by base 11 mathematics,
> see if you can even translate a single
> paragraph by base 11 or Holokey
> either one.

   You seem to be confusing Base-11 mathematics with Holokey
gematria--they are two different things entirely.

   Not only can I translate a paragraph into equivalent gematria
values, and/or words that share equivalent sums, I can analyze every
word, every sentence, and every page of the holograph of Liber Legis,
left, right, up, down, or reversed, with a few simple keystrokes.

> Your computer program aught to be
> able to transcribe it in what???...
> a few minutes?  hours??  I'll be
> anxious to read your findings,
> and proof or not of the validity
> of your systems.

   What shall I attempt to find?

> AL points out the Empress and
> the Hierophant equal eleven
> because EQ Numbering System
> clearly shows that tricks were
> done to the Numbers - Study
> it, isn't difficult to understand,
> but the significance is astounding
> when these numbers are applied
> to letters.

   Why not enlighten me with the details--how hard can it be to explain
the relationship between two Tarot cards and their gematria assignments?

> 0 is the greatest Number, it
> represents infinity.

   In the Book of the Law, every number is touted as infinite, with no
difference between them--from where is your conclusion derived?

> Designated
> 0, the Fool Card becomes God,
> as in the Holokey, Z=900+Infinity,
> being not nothing.

   That paragraph is nonsensical for any number of reasons.

> Can't let this sort of gematria
> have any power, it spells doom.

   Sounds serious. Who determines whether gematria has power or not? By
what processes are gematria systems empowered?

(nonsensical correspondences deleted)


> Tim wrote:
>
>
>
> > The combined numbers in the riddle
> > of verse II:76 add to 143; as a base-
> > 11 number, 143 converts to 168 in
> > the decimal system, which is 56 x 3.
>
> You're missing the point entirely - Liber
> AL formula II.76: was written for the
> express purpose of showing clearly
> that a different order and value number
> and letter system was imposed on
> God's Original Alphabet many aeons
> ago, and establishes an Nu System
> of Ritual Correspondences, of a True
> Nature and Number & Letter &
> Identification System.

   Lol, well I have to ask The Question: which alphabet is *God's
Original Alphabet*?

> This is why Liber AL was Written,
> to obtain the Order and Value of
> the English Alphabet, one we can
> have faith in, and ascribe new
> Numbers that we don't have to
> fear.

   Ah, so you do fear the number 666--I cannot help you in that
respect, except to tell you that the main goal of most religions is to
instill fear in its adherents, as fear is the great weapon of tyrants
and Baptist ministers. One of my favorites parts of the Book of the
Law is the advice given to fear nothing at all, and in your case that
should apply to numbers. As an exercise in religious deprogramming, I
choose the number 666 whenever possible.


> Got to be an Alphabet you can use
> for something--- what?  What??... duh
> ... to translate Liber AL, and some of
> the other Holy Books, find out what's
> written beneath the Text??  Seem
> logickal to me.

   Why must something be written beneath the text? It seems the search
for hidden meanings is a sure sign of being dissatisfied with the
overt meaning.

> This is why the whole Book was
> Written, to help us, free us, empower
> us.  A quick study of History according
> to the Bible, the Talmud and Koran,
> right on Wikipedia shows vividly the
> point Aiwass is stressing - our tragic
> history no one ever really understood
> the teachings because they never
> made any sense on purpose.

   There are no religious texts that qualify as historical
documents--the majority are collections of ancient folktales generated
by anonymous authors, whose tall tales cannot be verified
historically. It concerns me greatly that a substantial part of the
collective known as Thelema is mucking about in the same quagmire of
false religious conceptions that the faithful flounder in.

> Please review the history I posted a
> while back and try to realize this is a
> very grave matter, and the Number
> of Man, particularly grave, considering
> the internet & Mozilla.

   If you are referring to 666 being the number of a man, most sane
Biblical scholars recognize the number of the Beast in Revelations as
a gematria code for the name of one of the Roman Emperors, several of
whom oppressed the Jewish and Christian cultures. It is interesting
that no one knows with certainty which Roman Emperor is referred to,
since the actual date the Books of the New Testament were written is
unknown, with a window of several hundred years suggested, which says
much about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

>
> Please try to wake up and pay attention
> here will you?... or show me something
> significant about base 11 mathematics
> I can use to save my Immortal Soul,
> or maybe help save the world, and
> maybe I'll pay attention to what-ever
> obscure point you might be trying to
> make.

   Lol! If that ain't the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know
what is. By the way, *saving my Immortal Soul* is an oxymoron--if your
soul is Immortal it needs no saving.

Tim

Rebelle:
> >   If you're a member I'd love to hear about your experience .

333:
> I am a member in good standing of the (c)OTO and my
> experience is moderate to minimal. by which i mean
> that i have intersected its membership at points
> in many dimensions and ways, found some of them
> compelling, some intriguing, some offensive,
> some ridiculous, some sad, some deceptive, and
> some admirable. my aim has always been to engage
> the order as a discipline, where so many use the
> order to *initiate their discipline*. I already
> had mine, and the social tensions against my person
> were sufficient to challenge my skills in the
> application of principles i learned to call Thelemic.
> I can no longer assure any that this order is so,
> but it serves my discipline to remain a member of it.

Thanks for your response, especially the last part.

  I'm particularly curious if people are happy with the various orgs ,
if they feel they're getting something out of it etc..
  I've actually heard some very bad things about my Local ( Los Angeles
) OTO . I hope its simply certain members and not the org itself.

   I'm not new to magick  and I've been studying Thelema for a
couple of years now. I would like to meet and socialize with other
Thelemites  BUT I'm unsure about the Orgs , which Is why I asked .

   The OTOF sounds decent and I may be able to start a branch of the
OTOF  here if   I find people interested... still The LVX Lodge is
established   and  I don't know if I can gather proper resources .


  Anyway I appreciate your response , I'll give it  some thought.




[MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted material, cleared up some apparent typos
or grammar problems. please read our MMM document, which is posted monthly to
this forum, for tips on how to post such that you can become unmoderated. thank
you.]

Thelema93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

333 wrote:
> it means as much as quite a bit that is
> promoted in gematric and numberology
> circles. I think if you can spout all your
> equations and expect people to think it
> means something of relevance then Tim's
> material is of comparable quality. it seems,
> like in Grant, relegatable to a footnote, in
> my book, and i will rarely feel the need
> to refer to it.

Well, okay.

333 wrote:
> that sounds like an awful lot of work,
> and not a labour done out of love but
> obligation. you ask for too much seagal.

My years of Work with the EQ and Wakanaba
were done out of interest and Love for the
Book and in response to Nuit's plea for help
unveiling, and my own Spiritual Evolution -
it was Love at first Sight, and I only grow
more Passionate.  I Love having such a
Passion, but I'm very lonely because no
where have I ever found anyone else who
shares my Love and Passion for AL.

333  wrote:
> I hope he sends it to you privately. ;)

as I suspected...;)

333 wrote:
> I don't find them astounding. I find a
> lot of this confusing and contrived, tho.

Alright.  I won't mention EQ again.

Sandi wrote:
> 0 is the greatest Number, it
> represents infinity.

333 wrote:
>> this, for example. 0 is nothing. it is as
>> far from infinity as we will ever get.

You might change my thinking on
some things but you'll never convince
me that nothing is less than ALL THAT
IS & God, or at least part of God as I
understand HIR.

Sandi wrote:
> It is so important now, because we
> are so connected with computers
> and the internet.

333 wrote:
>> now there i can see some logic. 8-bit?
>> qwerty? I've messed with talismans on
>> these lines. there's associations afoot.

I assumed this about you.

333 wrote:
>> your voluminous evaluations omitted.

Well, hey, okay!  I get your drift!

Sandi wrote:
> It's very important everyone tries
> to understand this.

333 wrote:
>> I disagree. I think it is very important
>> to certain cultists to try to understand
>> this. it is a waste of my time to try to.

You say a waste of your time?... why mess
with talisman on those lines then?

333 wrote:
>> see this kind of expression is what
>> gets me thinking (not unexpectedly
>> or illogically) that Thelema and GD
>> and whoever are all post-Christian
>> semitiphiles. convert to Judaism if
>> you like it so much. why try to steal
>> their thunder by calling what you do
>> "qabalah" and pretending that you
>> have "God's Original Alphabet"? *what*
>> God? whose? why aren't you dealing
>> in Sanskrit? at least some of my order
>> kindred were honest with me by telling
>> me it is just a cipher system without
>> cosmic import beyond what we give it,
>> and that anything else might have been
>> substituted. why they then want to treat
>> it as sacred is somewhat beyond me. it
>> defies logic and reason.

This defies your logic and reason because
the cosmic import of Liber AL and Its Cipher
System has never been impressed upon you.
I don't understand why it hasn't, and you
don't understand why it impressed me,
but I do know for a fact, I'm very Grateful
to have been so Impressed, but overly
evangelickal, I guess.

333 wrote:
>> at least my method is sensible in that i
>> am consistently *using* the letters that
>> i bounce around linked with numbers,
>> and in the sequence correlated to their
>> value.

Interesting you'd write this, don't really
understand your meaning, and I've never
seen you present a method, other than
bouncing around letters with numbers.
Would you care to explain?

You are a very interesting person, dynamic,
prolific, I've looked around through your
web pages, massive amounts of writings.
Very impressive, looks like a lot of work,
done out of Love?... Obligation?... brings
a huge question to my mind... what are
your motives?  What fires your passion
for these matters?

333 wrote:
> EQ-centered theology. is EQ the new God?

EQ is not my discovery, or Liber AL either.
I only Study and Work to apply the Principles
and Laws as Presented to me, because I have
Verified them to be True and Highly Beneficial
in Pursuit of Happiness & EQulibrium.

In my experience, Liber AL & EQ centered
theology is a Clear Path to Understanding
and Intimate Knowledge of God and Creation,
made Clear in the Nu Light & Higher Sight
Teachings found in the Book.

By whatever device, makes no difference
to me, as long as the information is
relevant and gleaned in accordance with
methods designated by the Book, as
Cipher 11.

333 wrote:
>> sure, but what is "found beneath the
>> text" is always a matter of fantasy,
>> opinion, contrivance, and ridiculous
>> unfounded hogwash.

Sandi wrote:
> This is why the whole Book was
> Written, to help us, free us, empower
> us.

333 wrote:
>> no, the book was written out of a brain fart
>> of Mr. Crowley. he didn't know why it was
>> written. neither do i know why my scripture
>> was written. it just was. that's the way of
>> things. people escalate the importance of
>> cultic brain farts and get all hot and
>> bothered about them. ok, but it isn't very
>> convincing, that hotness and botheredness.
>> in fact, i'd say that it usually goes to
>> show that what is being proclaimed is
>> silly.

Now, see... here's where I owe everyone
an apology.  Somehow I assume that a
Thelemic minded group would Honor
Liber AL as their Holy Book.  It always
amazes me when I learn otherwise.
Makes me feel I should slip quietly out
the door.  Not the first time I wound up
at the wrong party.

> A quick study of History according
> to the Bible, the Talmud and Koran,

>> now this is interesting to me because
>> it does display the tradition of bookmon-
>> gering propheticity in which the religion
>> of Thelema seeks to place itself. a more
>> sound point is that none of these books
>> makes, by itself, very good history. there
>> are numerous fabrications within them
>> and some are believed historical when
>> in fact they are plainly and demonstrably
>> not so.

I think you might change your attitude
about this if you took time to read through
available information combining accounts
as recorded in many ancient texts.

333 wrote:
>> contrived and ridiculous handwaving.
>> they never made any sense because
>> they were senseless babble whose
>> significance were lost because they
>> were intended for some small cult or
>> never made any sense to start with.
>> there's a distinct fallacy there. if you
>> can't demonstrate the sense of a thing,
>> it is senseless, and if it is senseless
>> you should start to explain why we
>> don't just trash it.

If I thought you really had any interest
I think I could show you the significance.

333 wrote:
>> you have no immortal soul and therefore
>> there is nothing to save. these mathematics
>> will do you no more good than being awash
>> in EQ does me. death is death and no more.
>> demanding that people show you things is
>> not very nice. where are your manners?

I didn't mean to sound demanding.  I know
your answers are yours and mine, my own,
but I certainly know I have an Immortal Soul,
or at least I'm Working on Developing One.
I don't understand how you could make
such a statement, unless you don't believe
in life after this life.

Love is the law, love under will.

PBRandolph II.


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

Thelema Herupakraath,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Herupakraath wrote:
> You appear to have no conception of the
> significance of 666 as it was recognized by
> Crowley, while exhibiting the typical
> abhorrence for the number that most
> cookie-cutter Christians do. Am I wrong?

Well, I understand some of the concepts
and significances of 666 recognized by
Crowley, but I don't find significances
in all of Crowley's concepts.

I don't abhor the number the typical
cookie-cutter Christians do.  I simply
abhor all things christian.

Herupakraath wrote:
> So I take it you think the number 666
> is evil, or bad--care to elaborate?

I think evil lives and is worshiped in
many, maybe all religious symbols.
Once I was waiting my turn at the
DOL.  Number 666 was called.  A
woman behind me gasp; "O Dear!  I'm
glad that's not my number!"  Her
daughter ask, "Why mommy"?  Mommy
said, "Because that's the number of the
Devil"!!!  Daughter gasps... "Ohhh!"...

Guy gets up, walks to the counter,
daughter asks, "Mommy, is that man
the Devil"?  Mommy said, "No stupid"!
"Of course that man is not the Devil"!
"Now shut up"!

So do you think the number 666 is
evil?  I do.  Do I need to elaborate?

Herupakraath wrote:
> Not only can I translate a paragraph
> into equivalent gematria values, and/
> or words that share equivalent sums,
> I can analyze every word, every sentence,
> and every page of the holograph of Liber
> Legis, left, right, up, down, or reversed,
> with a few simple keystrokes

Can you translate every word, every
sentence and every page into alternate
Text?  If you could, and understanding
and knowledge increased through
your translations, I for one would be
amazed and thrilled.

Love is the Law, Love under Will,

ion5

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

Tim,

--- On Thu, 8/21/08, herupakraath <herupakraath@...> wrote:

>In base-11 math, 56 expresses the decimal number 61.

>When the numbers mentioned in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
>numbers and converted into their decimal equivalents, and then united
>as instructed in verse I:47, the total is 666:

>Base-11--Base- 10



>61     =   67

>8      =   8

>80     =   88

>418    =   503



>67 + 8 + 88 + 503 = 666



>The Tarot riddle presented in verses II:15-16 can be shown to be a
>truthful statement. The traditional gematria values assigned to the
>Empress and the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively; when the numbers
>are added, the number 10 is produced, which is 11 in base-11
>mathematics, making the Empress and the Hierophant eleven when combined.


This is an impressive result to be sure, So you're saying the Holokey is a
base-11 cipher? , which, if you pardon me, it seems a priori to be a retread of
Hebrew Gematria values upon the English Alphabet, however, the gematria of said
system is curious enough that I'd like to see more. Also, your math literacy
suggests that you have not just arbitrarily assigned these values, but have done
so via a series of well deduced cognitive leaps.

Also, in reference to an earlier post of yours. You listed a set of ten
criterion for a gematria system to explain key doctrines of AL:

Explain the Three Grades.
Explain the three ordeals in one.
Explain the four gates.
Explain what 'Nothing' means according to verse I: 46.
Explain the four ordeals described in the third chapter.
Explain the Tarot symbolism in verses II: 15-16.
Explain the riddle of verse II: 76.
Explain the enumeration 718 as it pertains to the Stele of Revealing.
Explain the three keys given in verse III: 47.
Explain the concept of WILL presented in Liber Legis.

I would still be interested in your solutions to these via your own system
("holokey") as a whole. ALW can answer some of these right off, however, since
you are setting some sort of quasi-empirical standard. I'd like to see the
solution as a whole. I'm attempting to correlate ALW and TEQ via some javascript
Joel wrote just for such a purpose.

Whereas it is unlikely that statistical correlation will result from 1-26 value
systems comparing with a 1-800 valued system, I think it is noteworthy that we
are still dealing with a 27 variable/valued systems using zero as their common
'pivot point'.

If indeed as I suggest, the Lethal Text of Al implants and compels readers into
the activity of extracting complex cipher solutions to the text, there would
probably be some inherent patterns which would be constant across the board
which would commonly relate any English cipher system. Also, since TEQ &
Cipher-X/ALW unveil a base three system embedded within the base two system of
the I-Ching, its pretty damned interesting that the base ten cipher system of
Hebrew might also conceal a base eleven application. It seems that the relation
of prime and close-ordered even numbers might be a useful tangent to examine in
that three is one digit up from two and thus eleven is one more than ten.

Its pretty damned compelling dude. Good work!

Pax,

T.

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
wrote:
>
> There are several impressive correlations that occur when numbers
> presented in the text of the Book of the Law are treated as base-11
> numbers and converted into decimal numbers:
>
> In base-11 math, 56 expresses the decimal number 61.

dwtw

True enough, except that if what you say below is important, then 56
in base-11 becomes 61 in decimal. But we're supposed to consider 61
as a base-11 number, so that 56 = 61 is not really significant,
because in fact 61 itself should be seen as 67 in decimal.

Now, IF you could show that 61 (what the Jews call nothing) is equal
to 56 (regarding what Nuit calls nothing), then you've got
something.  So the real challenge is to make 8, 80 and 418 equal to
56 somehow. then you could say that what Nuit calls nothing is a
version of what the Jews call it, thus showing that base-11 is
implied by the text.

the problem there, and with the rest of your conclusions, is that no
numerals are used in verse I:46.  it's neat that 56 (base-11) = 61
(base-10), but the verse specifically uses the number word 'sixty-
one', and sixty one is the 18th prime number, regardless of the
number-base you're counting in.

>
> When the numbers mentioned in verse I:46 are treated as base-11
> numbers and converted into their decimal equivalents, and then
united
> as instructed in verse I:47, the total is 666:
>
> Base-11--Base-10
>
> 61     =   67
> 8      =   8
> 80     =   88
> 418    =   503
>
> 67 + 8 + 88 + 503 = 666


and of course the answer is different if we add the numbers first.
61 + 8 + 80 + 418 = 567
567 as a base-11 number equals 678 in decimal.


>
> The Tarot riddle presented in verses II:15-16 can be shown to be a
> truthful statement. The traditional gematria values assigned to the
> Empress and the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively; when the
numbers
> are added, the number 10 is produced, which is 11 in base-11
> mathematics, making the Empress and the Hierophant eleven when
combined.

As stonemirror pointed out, 4 + 6 = 10, regardless of what number
base you use, (numerals being simply a convention unrelated to the
actual number of fingers on two hands). so adding the roman numerals
of those two cards will not make them equal 11. also, I think it's a
stretch to go from some interesting equivalences between base-11 and
decimal found in verse I:46, to concluding that the roman numerals of
the Tarot keys are actually base-11 numbers in disguise.

>
> The combined numbers in the riddle of verse II:76 add to 143; as
> a base-11 number, 143 converts to 168 in the decimal system, which
is
> 56 x 3.
>
> Tim
>


This may or may not be significant, depending on what else the cipher
would addto this, but 143 = 168 by itself doesn't tell us enough.

I think it's interesting to look into alternative number bases, but
without more significant results, this looks inconclusive. we still
need to know what the real point of using base-11 in Liber AL would
be.
does the sum of all the verse-numbers give us something worthwhile?
718 in base-11 equals 866 in decimal. is that significant? and if 418
in base-11 is 503 in decimal, then how is 503 related to Abrahadabra
or Makhashanah?

RLG

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Stone Mirror" <lefty@...> wrote:
> Gematria tends to easily wander into the realm of Wilson's "Law of
> 23s": "Any phenomenon can be related to the number 23, given
> sufficient ingenuity on the part of the one attempting to do the
> relating."
>


Dwtw

Hey Lefty :-)

I read this and thought, hmm.. the TEQ doesn't make too much of the
number 23, but I like a challenge, so...

The grand total of the Book of the Law via TQ gematria is 267,696

The sum of the first four non-zero trigrams in Liber XXVII is
1 + 2 + 3 + 6 = 12

The sum of the next twelve trigrams is
4 + 5 + 7 + 8 + 10 + 11 + 19 + 20 + 12 + 15 + 21 + 24 = 156

The sum of the final 7 trigrams is
14 + 16 + 22 + 17 + 23 + 25 + 26 = 143

Now we multiply the three sums: 12 x 156 x 143 = 267,696

So the sums of those trigram-groups, when multiplied, equals Liber
CCXX.

The point is, there are 23 trigrams used to arrive at the result ;-)

R. Leo Gillis

hi Sandi,

seagal/Sandi Peterson:
> Thelema93,
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The word of Sin is Restriction.

333 wrote:
> > I don't find them astounding. I find a
> > lot of this confusing and contrived, tho.
>
> Alright.  I won't mention EQ again.

that would be an over-reaction on your part, i think.
my complaint wasn't about *mentioning EQ*, about which
i have tried to understand and for which i think this
and other forums of Thelemic relevance have provided a
venue for its discussion, but about using it to try to
convince those who don't believe in its relevance via
its extended sums and equations of what you take it to
mean or imply. this is comparable to scripture proof-
texting by fundies and it becomes tedious quickly. talk
*about* EQ all you like. hell, post all your equations
as you like them, but please don't expect me to follow
the latter very far or read them for very long. thanks.

Sandi wrote:
> > 0 is the greatest Number, it
> > represents infinity.
>
> 333 wrote:
> >> this, for example. 0 is nothing. it is as
> >> far from infinity as we will ever get.
>
> You might change my thinking on
> some things but you'll never convince
> me that nothing is less than ALL THAT
> IS & God, or at least part of God as I
> understand HIR.

please elaborate on this. it sounds confusing,
and it may be the case that i have missed
something. apparently you take the term 'nothing'
to incorporate a significance beyond what is to
be found in the conventional dictionary. this may
be because you enjoy Crowley's 0=2 philosophy or
something, and if so, it would helpful to know
that you were referring to this, and what you
thought it meant, why it inspires you, etc.
please remember that everyone who posts and reads
here is not as familiar with you with the cultic
key terms or their meaning, and some of us who are
do not generally use it in our expression. no
offense intended, honest.

333:
>> now there i can see some logic. 8-bit?
>> qwerty? I've messed with talismans on
>> these lines. there's associations afoot.
>
> I assumed this about you.

but you didn't elaborate on the Mozilla thing.

Sandi wrote:
> > It's very important everyone tries
> > to understand this ['this' apparently
> > being a batch of numberology of EQ value].

333 wrote:
> >> I disagree. I think it is very important
> >> to certain cultists to try to understand
> >> this. it is a waste of my time to try to.
>
> You say a waste of your time?... why mess
> with talisman on those lines then?

their conventional association. that is, i don't
have faith in specialty codes, but i do find it
interesting to mess with even stupidly maintained
conventions (such as QWERTY) if they become
sufficiently adopted by English speakers/typers.

333 wrote:
> >> see this kind of expression is what
> >> gets me thinking (not unexpectedly
> >> or illogically) that Thelema and GD
> >> and whoever are all post-Christian
> >> semitiphiles. convert to Judaism if
> >> you like it so much. why try to steal
> >> their thunder by calling what you do
> >> "qabalah" and pretending that you
> >> have "God's Original Alphabet"? *what*
> >> God? whose? why aren't you dealing
> >> in Sanskrit? at least some of my order
> >> kindred were honest with me by telling
> >> me it is just a cipher system without
> >> cosmic import beyond what we give it,
> >> and that anything else might have been
> >> substituted. why they then want to treat
> >> it as sacred is somewhat beyond me. it
> >> defies logic and reason.
>
> This defies your logic and reason because
> the cosmic import of Liber AL and Its Cipher
> System has never been impressed upon you.

on the contrary, the cosmic import of Liber Al
and Its Cypher has been repeatedly impressed
upon me, and that is approximately 0. its CULTIC
import has been more often impressed upon me by
the converted and i use the following equation in
an evaluation of the significance where *i* am
concerned (i am making this up as i go along,
so please forgive any unclarity here) of any
'unknown quantity or object' to which i am
asked to provide my attention:

   {(# of times impressed, T)

multiplied by

   [(the authority and power of those doing the impressing, P)

plus

   (the evident practical demonstrations of the truth of
    what is being impressed, E)]}

DIVIDED by

   [(the level of idiocy exhibited impressor, I)

multiplied by

   (my own predisposition to distrust the impressor, D)

= A (the level of attention i find it is worth to me)

or

    (T * (P + E)) / (I * D) = A

so where the import of Liber Al is concerned, this
maps to about these values:

        (100 * (~0 + ~0) / (3 * X) = A

where 'X' varies with the person doing the expression.
as you may see this amounts to approximately 0/3X, and
your 'enthusiasm' here is not helping to improve this rating.
evangelising is all very well and good, but it will not
help impress me that 1) you are authoritative where either
conventional knowledge or volitional philosophy, which i
associate with 'thelema', are concerned, or that 2) Liber Al
vel Legis has some pragmatic value of some very evident sense.
that said, i don't expect you to impress it upon me, either.

now i admit to having a base-level variable for "D", the
distrust of impressors, which is fairly high where it does
not conform with my own knowledge base, particularly when
the impressor is wearing funny clothing, speaking a funny
language, spouting arcane formulae, or otherwise behaving
in other than an ordinary rationally-explainable way.

also, i do tend to postpone evaluating this equation
(and thus establish evidential data, "E") where the value
for P (authority/power) is fairly high and the value of
I (level of idiocy) is fairly low and i have little to no
knowledge of the object of attention in question. this even
allows for 'authority' in a sense of 'being of apparent
authorship, the source for coherent information, etc.' and
need not necessarily intersect social responsibilities.


moving back to *your* assertions, what i said defied my
logic and reason was that my order (in this case the OSOGD,
which is Thelemic in several dimensions by my estimation,
including some of the more important ones) mates informed
me that Hebrew was just a cypher, and yet then sought to
regard this as sacred or holy. were i given a *pragmatic*
explanation (which i can imagine but have not been given)
about regarding things things as sacred or holy, then i
might at least understand them, even while questioning the
virtue or wisdom of supposing this about Hebrew or any
other religious language. that may well be their reasoning.

your interest in presuming that it has to do with Liber Al
is probably because i was unclear in my reference to 'my
order' and you may well have known me to be part of the OTO.
in fact, members of the OTO have *never*, particularly those
who were presuming to instruct me and in the context of some
OTO function, informed me that Hebrew was 'just a cypher'.
more often i have been, by the dubiously but dogmatically
educated, told of the glories of Liber Al and the Prophet, and
of the 'sacred value of Hebrew' in pursuit of 'real magick'.

I'm extremely patient and tolerant of fundamentalism. that's
no good reason for me to subsume my mind to it, thank you.


that said, let me apply this SAME equation to 'thelema'.

where

	 T = 500-1000

T is far higher because the number of those whom i have taken
seriously and talked over this material about thelema may or
may not have valued Liber Al vel Legis, and some decidedly did not.

	 P = ~5

this varies in part based on the fact that the authority in
question was expressive and personal, rather than social. I
allow it a fairly high rating on account of the use that it
has been to these people in pursuit of their goals/aims.

	 E = 25

this number is so high because i have a specific value for
doing as i please, and i notice that those who 'use thelema'
to apparently do as they please is fairly high. even if the
whole of it is a placebo (for which i allow), the point is
that the principle of will as a basis for their philosophy
of life leads them to have a pragmatic advantage over those
who put their fate in the hands of prophets and gods or who
are somehow dissolved in the matter of random materiality
and subjected to the winds of mechanistic chance.

giving me at worst 500 * (5+25) = 15000 as an upper divisor.
if the level of idiocy ranges even very *high*, say 100, and
my level of distrust of the expressor is *also* very high,
say even 100, then it seems rational to me to continue to
pay attention to what someone says about 'thelema':

	 500 * (5+25)/100 * 100 = 15000/10000 = 1.5 = A

so i am quite willing to entertain Brother Zero and his
alien races or Aleisterion and his reincarnation of the
Beast, or Kenneth Grant and his Lovecraftian vulva sippers.
there's often something of value for me in the engagement.
now some of those, like you, *also* value Liber Al vel Legis,
and i take that into consideration when speaking with you on
this topic. I figure you should be able to handle me telling
you that i call it the Evul Book, that i often burn it in my
yearly celebrations on April 8-10, sometimes reading it, that
i have edited a 'Booklet of the Law' which is a start on
removing the interference of the faulty medium, and that i
consider it a metaphor for the extant universe, and if you
can't, then your thelema might not be worth my attention.

> I don't understand why it hasn't, and you
> don't understand why it impressed me,

but i figure you'll get around to telling me as part
of our convivial comparison of notes. ;)

> but I do know for a fact, I'm very Grateful
> to have been so Impressed, but overly
> evangelickal, I guess.

you seem to be looking only at what you are taking as some
apprisement of an holy truth (tm). I am not doing so. I'm
examining this in the light of day in the context of more
rational analysis which allows for "Impressions" such as
yours but doesn't necessarily capitulate to them. your
evangelism may be unsuited to the task of persuading the
cool-headed and willful posters that you may meet here.
that doesn't mean that these same people may not be just
as evangelical about something about which they are convinced,
and the rest of us not; at times by the same documents! ;)


333 wrote:
>> at least my method is sensible in that i
>> am consistently *using* the letters that
>> i bounce around linked with numbers,
>> and in the sequence correlated to their
>> value.
>
> Interesting you'd write this, don't really
> understand your meaning, and I've never
> seen you present a method, other than
> bouncing around letters with numbers.

I've explained my numberology many times and it is a
convention of my culture which i need not belabour.
we have all been subjected to the "ABC's" in song and
educatory moulding, i presume, if we are at all able
to read this far in the thread. they have a sequence,
and that sequence is numberable.

> Would you care to explain?

I am a monolinguist, English. I ennumerate the English
letters by their conventional sequence, a=1....z=26.

> You are a very interesting person, dynamic,
> prolific, I've looked around through your
> web pages, massive amounts of writings.
> Very impressive, looks like a lot of work,

thank you kindly. persistent dedication helps.
that said, i find attention to my person somewhat
of a distraction from the matters at hand. they
become relevant when we discuss the impressors
or expressors of any particular thelemic ideology.

> done out of Love?... Obligation?...

fun, love, excitement, enthusiasm, and in other
valence hatred, loathing, disgust, despair, and
even enticement. I like to write, it is true.

> brings a huge question to my mind... what are
> your motives?  What fires your passion
> for these matters?

it could be that some of it derives from an early
admiration for those called 'willful'. I know that
i have an appreciation for transgressive or
subversive art, particularly where it satirizes
(especially moralistic) convention. all of this has
given me an incentive to approach the subculture
'thelema', and my fascination with philosophy and
especially philosophIES of will and magic compel
me to consider it very seriously in this light.

333 wrote:
> > EQ-centered theology. is EQ the new God?
>
> EQ is not my discovery, or Liber AL either.
> I only Study and Work to apply the Principles
> and Laws as Presented to me, because I have
> Verified them to be True and Highly Beneficial
> in Pursuit of Happiness & EQulibrium.

more power to ya. ;) many people don't invent
their gods or their scripture. I've a medium
posture in that zone, having discovered my God
as a reflection of a distant land to which i have
no incentive or interest in travelling, and
having written my scripture myself which does
not, in fact, feature the God to whom i am
dedicated. go figure. I barely understand it.

> In my experience, Liber AL & EQ centered
> theology is a Clear Path to Understanding
> and Intimate Knowledge of God and Creation,
> made Clear in the Nu Light & Higher Sight
> Teachings found in the Book.

it does look Emphasized in your experience. :)

> By whatever device, makes no difference
> to me, as long as the information is
> relevant and gleaned in accordance with
> methods designated by the Book, as
> Cipher 11.

I've met a number of those who were Book-thumpers,
as we used to call them in grade school (usually
'Bible thumpers' on account of that they kept on
tapping and pointing to their scripture books as
they informed us what was Right and True and Holy).
I have come to know several during my adult years
in moderate depth, but typically the interests we
shared were theirs, not mine. I usually drew the
boundaries between us as my interest in hearing
about their Truths waned or i began expressing
what i thought and they turned away from me.

333 wrote:
>> sure, but what is "found beneath the
>> text" is always a matter of fantasy,
>> opinion, contrivance, and ridiculous
>> unfounded hogwash.

Sandi wrote:
> This is why the whole Book was Written,
> to help us, free us, empower us.

so you say. if a book is written which is a brain
fart and it is supposed to help us free ourselves,
empower us, then i would hope that the veritable
liberating device would not then enslave our minds.

333 wrote:
> >> no, the book was written out of a brain fart
> >> of Mr. Crowley. he didn't know why it was
> >> written. neither do i know why my scripture
> >> was written. it just was. that's the way of
> >> things. people escalate the importance of
> >> cultic brain farts and get all hot and
> >> bothered about them. ok, but it isn't very
> >> convincing, that hotness and botheredness.
> >> in fact, i'd say that it usually goes to
> >> show that what is being proclaimed is
> >> silly.
>
> Now, see... here's where I owe everyone an
> apology. Somehow I assume that a Thelemic
> minded group would Honor Liber AL as their
> Holy Book.

you're not the first to assume this. and your
apology is certainly accepted. this group is
gathered to *discuss* Thelema, and is not
necessarily, by any single person's evaluation,
'Thelemically-minded'. I would ask what is the
meaning of this phrase and offer up my own idea
as to its significance:

	 something that is thelemically-minded would
	 pursue a non-invasive and respectable
	 tolerance of all manner of perspective
	 on the subject for which it is gathered.

there are those who believe that it *should* mean
something else, or that what ought to happen is
that all those who are part of it should be litmus-
tested for theoretical character so as to

	 * regard Crowley as their Prophet
	 * regard Liber Al vel Legis as their
		 One True Religion
and  * regard the Gnostic Mass as the
		 Singular Rite of Group Adherence

surely there *are* such groups gathered to do that.

> It always amazes me when I learn otherwise.
> Makes me feel I should slip quietly out
> the door.  Not the first time I wound up
> at the wrong party.

awww, sorry to hear that, Sandi, honest. feel free
to stick around and launch into Liber Al-athons in
which you convince the rest of us of the importance
of Liber Al and Crowley to your heart's content. we
reserve the right to place you into our mail-filter
or play along and talk with you comparing our views.

>> > A quick study of History according
>> > to the Bible, the Talmud and Koran,
>
>> now this is interesting to me because
>> it does display the tradition of bookmon-
>> gering propheticity in which the religion
>> of Thelema seeks to place itself. a more
>> sound point is that none of these books
>> makes, by itself, very good history. there
>> are numerous fabrications within them
>> and some are believed historical when
>> in fact they are plainly and demonstrably
>> not so.
>
> I think you might change your attitude
> about this if you took time to read through
> available information combining accounts
> as recorded in many ancient texts.

this implies that i have not done so. I don't
agree with you, but that is fairly unimportant.


333 wrote:
>> if you can't demonstrate the sense of a thing,
>> it is senseless, and if it is senseless
>> you should start to explain why we
>> don't just trash it.
>
> If I thought you really had any interest
> I think I could show you the significance.

where it pertains to things that appear to be
called 'Thelemic', i'm all ears. if it starts
to be about summations of letters then i have
a limited attention span for it.

333 wrote:
>> you have no immortal soul and therefore
>> there is nothing to save. these mathematics
>> will do you no more good than being awash
>> in EQ does me. death is death and no more.
>> demanding that people show you things is
>> not very nice. where are your manners?
>
> I didn't mean to sound demanding.  I know
> your answers are yours and mine, my own,
> but I certainly know I have an Immortal Soul,
> or at least I'm Working on Developing One.

very well then. we can agree to disagree. :)

> I don't understand how you could make
> such a statement, unless you don't believe
> in life after this life.

bingo! this life terminates at death. my single,
finite, organismic animal being will collapse
into a puddle of bone, sinew, and protoplasm,
then dissolve back into the rudimentary elements
of which i have become composed through time in
amazing and inspired biological process. wow!

I have no need of fantasy ghosts or souls to
explain my arising or my experience. I find no
truth in the attestation of the religious or
the spiritually speculative who posit the
supernatural aspect to the natural world. it
is simply unconvincing to me and of no great
importance, though a good deal of what DOES
constitute spirituality and occultism is of
value to me experientially and motivationally.

I like comparing and contrasting perspectives.
I find it interesting and sometimes engage it
in-depth with those whom i trust and admire,
and with those whom i barely know and who seem
full of zealous excitement. well met, kin!

Invoke me under my stars.

> Love is the law, love under will.
> PBRandolph II.

a reincarnation?! ;)

333

Thelema93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

333 wrote:
> I don't find them astounding. I find a
> lot of this confusing and contrived, tho.
>
Sandi wrote:
>> Alright. I won't mention EQ again.
>
333 wrote:
> that would be an over-reaction on your
> part, i think. my complaint wasn't about
> *mentioning EQ*, about which i have tried
> to understand and for which i think this
> and other forums of Thelemic relevance
> have provided a venue for its discussion,
> but about using it to try to convince those
> who don't believe in its relevance via its
> extended sums and equations of what you
> take it to mean or imply. this is comparable
> to scripture proof-texting by fundies and it
> becomes tedious quickly. talk *about* EQ
> all you like. hell, post all your equations
> as you like them, but please don't expect
> me to follow the latter very far or read them
> for very long. thanks.
>
Well, that's okay.  I don't need equations
or Numerical Translations to find extended
Relevance in Liber AL.
>
Sandi wrote:
>> 0 is the greatest Number, it
>> represents infinity.
>
333 wrote:
> this, for example. 0 is nothing. it is as
> far from infinity as we will ever get.
>
> please elaborate on this. it sounds
> confusing, and it may be the case that
> i have missed something. apparently
> you take the term 'nothing' to incorporate
> a significance beyond what is to be found
> in the conventional dictionary. this may be
> because you enjoy Crowley's 0=2 philosophy
> or something, and if so, it would helpful to
> know that you were referring to this, and
> what you thought it meant, why it inspires
> you, etc. please remember that everyone
> who posts and reads here is not as familiar
> with you with the cultic key terms or their
> meaning, and some of us who are do not
> generally use it in our expression. no
> offense intended, honest.
>
This is very simple, the Theory is based
on the Premise that before the Beginning,
there was Nothing - therefore Nothing was
ALL THAT WAS, and ALL THAT WAS Burst
Into ALL THAT IS & EVER WILL BE Into ALL
& EVERYTHING & INFINITY.

0 not only represents nothing, not a thing,
but also, 0 represents Everything and Infinity,
proven by quantum physics theories.
>
333 wrote:
>> now there i can see some logic. 8-bit?
>> qwerty? I've messed with talismans on
>> these lines. there's associations afoot.
>
> I assumed this about you.
>
>> but you didn't elaborate on the Mozilla
>> thing.
>
Well, and this is the key issue I've been trying
to bring to light - QWERTY.
>
>
Sandi wrote:
>> It's very important everyone tries to
>> understand this.
>
333 wrote:
>> ['this' apparently being a batch of
>> numberology of EQ value].
>
No! [*this* being the fact that Numbers
and Letters have Powers that can be
used against non-suspecting others
for the purpose of usurping the powers
of others]... for instance, the number
666, or the number of a pixel, just to
keep it simple.
>
333 wrote:
>> I disagree. I think it is very important
>> to certain cultists to try to understand
>> this. it is a waste of my time to try to.
>
Sandi wrote:
> You say a waste of your time?... why mess
> with talisman on those lines then?
>
333 wrote:
>> their conventional association. that is, i
>> don't have faith in specialty codes, but i do
>> find it interesting to mess with even stupidly
>> maintained conventions (such as QWERTY)
>> if they become sufficiently adopted by
>> English speakers/typers.
>
Well, and see, here's the [rub], or the rub-E:
while searching the web a few weeks ago,
something, or someone got control of my
computer.  It rearranged some of my files
and installed Mozilla.

I don't know if I purchased something on
line, or exactly what happened, or why,
but I can't uninstall Mozilla and my
credit card was hacked.

A friend told me the same thing happened
to him, he had to have his hard-drive
replaced.
>
333 wrote:
>> so i am quite willing to entertain Brother
>> Zero and his alien races
>
Well, okay, call me paranoid, but brother
zero could ride a camel named Mozilla;
high-tech ChineZe computer company.

These people know everything said by
the English speakers/typers, but how
many English speakers/typers know one
word or a few words they say? ... or ever
will?... or know anything about their
'sacred' number-letter systems?

Can you imagine they don't design
systems to take advantage of internet
opportunities?  What do we know about
the 2nd internet?  We live in a world
of countries and dogmas at war in
a struggle to achieve ultimate power
along financial and technickal lines
far more advanced than most pc
users.

I try to imagine what the Ruler of the
internet would achieve?  As in Neal
Stephenson's novel, "Snow Crash",
I wonder if a computer virus could
invade the human brain and control
the operator... something along the
same lines of digital tv alien-type
device signal-control system,
mentioned in an earlier message.
>
333 wrote:
>> thank you kindly. persistent dedication
>> helps. that said, i find attention to my
>> person somewhat of a distraction from
>> the matters at hand. they become relevant
>> when we discuss the impressors or
>> expressors of any particular thelemic
>> ideology.
>
I'd like to discuss your particular thelemic
ideology.
>
333 wrote:
>> it could be that some of it derives from
>> an early admiration for those called 'willful'.
>> I know that i have an appreciation for
>> transgressive or subversive art, particularly
>> where it satirizes (especially moralistic)
>> convention. all of this has given me an
>> incentive to approach the subculture
>> 'thelema', and my fascination with philosophy
>> and especially philosophIES of will and magic
>> compel me to consider it very seriously in
>> this light.
>
>> many people don't invent their gods or their
>> scripture. I've a medium posture in that zone,
>> having discovered my God as a reflection of
>> a distant land to which i have no incentive
>> or interest in travelling, and having written
>> my scripture myself which does not, in fact,
>> feature the God to whom i am dedicated.
>> go figure. I barely understand it.
>
>
It's difficult to understand your God as a
reflection of a distant land to which you have
no incentive or interest in travelling.

The god you're featuring is satan.

You write:

[MODERATOR: Sandi next quotes a Reverend Pink from
the Appendix to the Gospel of Satan at gospel-of-satan.com
in his essay "The Gospel of Satan" (actually an excerpt
from a longer document) but seems to misunderstand it as
an expression of 333 here.

Pink:]
>The apostles of Satan ... minimize [sin]

> by declaring that sin is merely ignorance
> or the absence of good.... ...they make
> God a liar by declaring that He is too
> loving and merciful to send any of His
> own creatures to eternal torment.

>

God didn't say He'd send His own

creatures to eternal torment... Whoever

wrote the Talmud, or Genesis wrote

that - it was he who lied, not God.

>

> ... they ... hold up Christ as the great
> Examplar and exhort their followers to
> "follow in His step". ... Their message
> may sound very plausible and their
> actions appear very praiseworthy ....
> Satan himself is transformed into
> an angel of light. Therefore it is no
> great thing (not to be wondered at)
> if his ministers also be transformed
> as the ministers of righteousness,
> whose end shall be according to
> their works"....

>

Certainly no disagreement about this.

> The gospel of Satan is not a system
> of revolutionary principles, nor yet
> a program of anarchy. It does not
> promote strife and war, but aims
> at peace and unity. It seeks not
> to set the mother against her
> daughter nor the father against
> his son, but fosters the fraternal
> spirit whereby the human race
> is regarded as one great "brotherhood".
> It does not seek to drag down the
> natural man, but to improve and
> uplift him. It advocates education
> and cultivation and appeals to "the
> best that is within us".

Well, that sounds just wonderful,
but isn't this the same ol' Peace
and Unity scenario the Christians
failed so miserably at?  Who's to
say Satan's way's more successful?

Simply because "it aims" to make this
world such a congenial and comfortable
place", doesn't mean that will happen.

Isn't Satan the old evil deceiver?

>> It aims to make this world such a

>> congenial and comfortable habitat that
>> Christos absence from it will not be felt
>> and God will not be needed.

I do like to keep my Christos with me.

>> It endeavors to occupy man so much
>> with this world that he has no time or
>> inclination to think of the world to come.

People don't do much of that now.

>> It propagates the principles
>> of self-sacrifice, charity and
>> benevolence, and teaches us
>> to live for the good of others,
>> and to be kind to all. It appeals
>> strongly to the carnal mind
>> and is popular with the masses

[quote from Reverend Pink ends here. -- MODERATOR]


333 wrote:

>> so you say. if a book is written which is
>> a brain fart and it is supposed to help
>> us free ourselves, empower us, then i
>> would hope that the veritable liberating
>> device would not then enslave our minds.
>
>
Well, I don't think the Book is a brain fart
and I'd far rather have Liber AL enslave my
mind than any other Spiritual Practice
I've encountered, although, Its Teachings
complement other Valuable Works I've
studied through the years - that helps.
>
>
333 wrote:
>> this group is gathered to *discuss*
>> Thelema, and is not necessarily, by
>> any single person's evaluation,
>> 'Thelemically-minded'. I would
>> ask what is the meaning of this
>> phrase and offer up my own idea
>> as to its significance:
>
>> something that is thelemically-minded
>> would pursue a non-invasive and
>> respectable tolerance of all manner
>> of perspective on the subject for
>> which it is gathered.
>
>> there are those who believe that it
>> *should* mean something else, or
>> that what ought to happen is that
>> all those who are part of it should
>> be litmus-tested for theoretical
>> character so as to
>
>>* regard Crowley as their Prophet
>>* regard Liber Al vel Legis as their
>>* One True Religion and
>>* regard the Gnostic Mass as the
>>* Singular Rite of Group Adherence
>
Hmmm!  Well, I should have realized
sooner what the deal was.  Thank you
for clearing this up for me.



[MODERATOR removed unnecessary quoted data at the end of this
  post and left the quotation method relatively untouched, though
  it is confusing and unclear in spots; added note about Reverend
  Pink because it otherwise gave the impression that 333 wrote
  these words, which he did not.]

--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "djahuti" <djahuti@...> wrote:
>
> --- In thelema93-l threefold31 wrote:
>
> "There is a section of the text where Aiwass shows knowledge beyond
> that which was common at the time; when Nuit says she is 'infinite
> space, and the infinite stars thereof', this might be construed as new
> knowledge, since as of 1904, the Milky Way was the only known galaxy,
> and was considered the extent of the 'known' universe. On that view,
> the universe of outer space was hardly considered infinite, and the
> stars, though vast in number, were also not considered infinite in
> number."
>
> In the last 2500 years in the West thinkers have generally either
> thought the universe is infinite or finite in extent, and if infinite
> either populated with infinite stars, or a finite number of stars in
> an infinite space.  Those who conceived infinite space infinitely
> populated thought it either to be populated with infinite stars -
> these not generally known in history until the last couple of cen-
> turies to be suns - or infinite worlds revolved by suns.
>
>
> Djahuti
>


Dwtw

Thanks for the excellent references. Obviously I agree that the idea
of the universe being infinite was bandied about quite a bit before
1904. I guess my point was that at the time, the Milky Way was the
only known galaxy, and appeared to be the extent of the 'visible'
universe, regardless of how far the universe might extend
theoretically, (to infinity and beyond! as Buzz Lightyear would say ;-)

I appreciate the correction, and highly recommend anyone interested to
look into the essay by Poe, which seems to be uncannily prescient with
regard to Einstein and his later discoveries.

Considered from the multiple points of view you mention, one could
argue strongly that the idea of 'infinite space and infinite stars'
was not new. But one could also argue that this was not actually known
or proven at the time either. Post-Einstein, we know, (so to speak)
that light has a velocity limit, so that any light source far enough
away would never even be visible to us, and thus an infinite universe
full of an infinitude of stars is a theoretical possibility not
contradicted by the fact that we can't see all of them.

Of course, since we can't have direct physical evidence for stars too
far away to see, I suppose the idea of the universe being infinite,
and full of an infinite number of stars is not really provable, and
therefore metaphysical speculation at best. In which case, I will
retract my previous statement, since we could not really consider this
idea of infinity to be a statement of fact that can ever really be
proven. it then falls into the same category of Hadit saying he is
'life and the giver of life'. it helps identify the concept of hadit,
but is not 'provable' in a scientific sense, and therefore is not an
example of 'praeter-human intelligence'.

Now as for that ternary calculating machine, I've seen it before, but
don't know if A.C. had any knowledge of those speculations. It seems a
but unlikely, given that Fowler passed into obscurity, but you never know.

Litl
RLG

Fay ce que vouldras.
Hi Sandi and all.

Sandi Peterson  wrote:
>This is very simple, the Theory is based
>on the Premise that before the Beginning,

Really cool answer, I would just add that there was no "beginning" except in a
relative sense.

>0 not only represents nothing, not a thing,
>but also, 0 represents Everything and Infinity,
>proven by quantum physics theories.

This brings up considerations of how "infinity" has been treated in the past.
The Greeks distinguished between potential infinity and actual infinity, for
instance. And the first concepts of "infinity" were treated in the Vedas. From
wiki:
The Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if
you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is
infinity".

   Pur?am ada? pur?am idam
   Pur?at pur?am udacyate
   Pur?asya pur?am adaya
   Pur?am evavasi?yate.
   That is full, this is full
   From the full, the full is subtracted
   When the full is taken from the full
   The full still will remain - Isha Upanishad.
  This seems to be in accord with more modern notions that energy or potential
cannot be increased or diminished, it may only change states. ...The only
constant is change. All of this seems to fit into the 0=2 equation without any
friction.

Bliss:
Alamantra



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

E6

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

> This is very simple, the Theory is based
> on the Premise that before the Beginning,
> there was Nothing - therefore Nothing was
> ALL THAT WAS, and ALL THAT WAS Burst
> Into ALL THAT IS & EVER WILL BE Into ALL
> & EVERYTHING & INFINITY.

thanks for explaining the premises of this notion.
in contrast, i have no faith and see no evidence
that any "Beginning" ever was, that any "Creation"
ever took place, or that "Nothing" is anything
more than a fiction (like from 'The Never-Ending
Story's 'The Nothing').


333:
>> ...i find attention to my
>> person somewhat of a distraction from
>> the matters at hand. they become relevant
>> when we discuss the impressors or
>> expressors of any particular thelemic
>> ideology.
>
> I'd like to discuss your particular
> thelemic ideology.

ok. it would be helpful to identify this accurately.
I'm going to try to repair that in the text below.
some portion of what you are selecting out here to
discuss as "my particular thelemic ideology" has
little to nothing to do with thelema by my
understanding. I'll try to address that too.

333:
>> it could be that some of it derives from
>> an early admiration for those called 'willful'.
>> I know that i have an appreciation for
>> transgressive or subversive art, particularly
>> where it satirizes (especially moralistic)
>> convention. all of this has given me an
>> incentive to approach the subculture
>> 'thelema', and my fascination with philosophy
>> and especially philosophIES of will and magic
>> compel me to consider it very seriously in
>> this light.
>>
>> many people don't invent their gods or their
>> scripture. I've a medium posture in that zone,
>> having discovered my God as a reflection of
>> a distant land to which i have no incentive
>> or interest in travelling,

this being Kali, the land being India.

>> and having written
>> my scripture myself which does not, in fact,
>> feature the God to whom i am dedicated.

that is, Kali makes no appearance in this scripture.

>> go figure. I barely understand it.

I am trying, it isn't that it is impossible to do,
only that it is complex to winnow the details and
Kali's guidance isn't always transparent to me.

> It's difficult to understand your God as a
> reflection of a distant land to which you have
> no incentive or interest in travelling.

well the first thing you have to understand is that
i am dedicated to Kali Ma, Queen of Demons. that is
generally a name of a Hindu, but specifically Indian,
deity, and i have never been to India and have no
interest or intention of ever going to India (or
indeed of setting foot off of my continent, ever).

> The god you're featuring is satan.

you must be looking at my scripture, and my God does
not have a role in my scripture. as i said, i don't
claim to understand it myself, but it does seem to
bear on my *magic*, which i am quickly beginning to
learn will utilize my scripture for my aims and
purposes, and incorporate my scripture to it.

this is where you departed from my thelemic ideology
in part, seemingly by mixing up my God (Kali) and my
ally (Satan, who is described as 'The God of This
World' within my scripture, an admitted fiction).


from Reverend Pink's essay "The Gospel of Satan"
which is appended to my scripture on account of
some portion of its content being applicable as
a description of The Gospel of Satan (the latter
of which i did actually write) and some Satanists
(who are few alike to his description!) you quoted:

> AP{ The apostles of Satan ... minimize [sin]
> AP{ by declaring that sin is merely ignorance
> AP{ or the absence of good.... ...they make
> AP{ God a liar by declaring that He is too
> AP{ loving and merciful to send any of His
> AP{ own creatures to eternal torment.

so let's get a few things straight here, since you
appear to be confused about me, my religion, my
spirituality, my scripture, my God, and a few
other things about which i cannot expect
anyone (even myself) to keep straight for long:

	 * God/spirituality:
	 I am dedicated to the God known as
	 Kali Ma. my spirituality is as a
	 neo-tantric devotee or tyagi as
	 i have established this with Kali
	 and with my guru. I have self-
	 evaluated my spirituality as
	 neo-tantric/neo-pagan in as
	 blatantly humble and clear a
	 manner as i think i am able.

	 * Ally/religion/scripture :
	 I am allied in a blood pact of
	 mutual support with Satan, whom
	 i have identified as wild nature.
	 I have written my scripture as
	 a part of this alliance and pact.
	 I have also written a Manifesto
	 which accompanies this, and am
	 now in the process of writing a
	 Commentary on at least the scripture.
	 I have self-evaluated my religion
	 as Satanist (based primarily upon
	 my role and values with respect
	 to the culture of my residence and
	 with respect to Satan, as my ally).

with that in mind, and given that this text
was written by a *Christian minister*,
i'll try to address how this relates
to my "thelemic ideology". remember that
The Gospel of Satan is a *Satanist* scripture.
it doesn't try to be anything else.

> God didn't say He'd send His own
> creatures to eternal torment... Whoever
> wrote the Talmud, or Genesis wrote
> that - it was he who lied, not God.

generally i don't project upon others the
cosmic deity, and i don't regard, as should
be patently obvious by the treatment of the
god Yahweh and the godson Yeheshua within
The Gospel of Satan, the being that you are
referring to as "God" in a personal sense
as my God, nor as informative to any but
the spirituality of Reverend Pink (and
possibly a number of Thelemites, Christians
and other 'Religious of the Book').

thus, i dispute that this Yahweh is the
Creator or owner of any "creatures" which
his cultists may seek to acquire or to
despotically seize and make their own in
the past or the present or the future.
whether the (your?) deity caused the
authors of these texts to write them i
shall leave to others to assess. suffice
it to say that it does appear that the
greater preponderance of those who are
recorded within these scriptures do seek
to be known as the voice of this deity
and great number of those who sport this
scripture seek to promote this notion also.

> AP{ ... they ... hold up Christ as the great
> AP{ Examplar and exhort their followers to
> AP{ "follow in His step". ... Their message
> AP{ may sound very plausible and their
> AP{ actions appear very praiseworthy ....
> AP{ Satan himself is transformed into
> AP{ an angel of light. Therefore it is no
> AP{ great thing (not to be wondered at)
> AP{ if his ministers also be transformed
> AP{ as the ministers of righteousness,
> AP{ whose end shall be according to
> AP{ their works"....
>
> Certainly no disagreement about this.

well you have no disagreement with it as a
stipulated ideology perhaps, but there are
many problems with what Reverend Pink is
saying here. he is talking about two main
things and you aren't obviously responding
to both of them in your analysis:

	 -- "the apostles of Satan"
	 -- Christian competitors

within this document entitled "The Gospel
of Satan" which was written by Reverend
Pink, he is addressing *Christians with whom
he is engaging in contention*. that is, he
is using a metaphor of "The Gospel of Satan"
to *slander* his fellow Christians and more-
over identifying them as "apostles of Satan".

this phrase and key term set, "the Gospel of
Satan" is one that i identified as pervasive
in Christian culture, and so i embellished my
scripture accordingly (being accurately and
honestly qualified for this adornment, in
that it was written by a Satanist and that
it is a Jesus story and therefore a proper
'gospel story') with this intensely common
name (formerly a metaphor and the title of
Reverend Pink's essay *only*).

therefore, Reverend Pink is NOT talking about
Satanists here, despite his slanderous terms,
and the compliments (however backhanded) which
he provides make an amusing appendix to the
scripture by the name, but do not in any way
accurately explain anything about Satanism or
its relation to Yahweh, let alone to Satan.

so while *you* have no disagreement with this,
*i* don't find it to be true of Satanists, only
of the Christians about whom Reverend Pink is
writing *and* of my own expression (given that
i am a strong advocate of the value of the
numerous gospels depicting a variety of Jesus
characters all of which i regard as fictions).

> AP{ The gospel of Satan is not a system
> AP{ of revolutionary principles, nor yet
> AP{ a program of anarchy. It does not
> AP{ promote strife and war, but aims
> AP{ [for] peace and unity. It seeks not
> AP{ to set the mother against her
> AP{ daughter nor the father against
> AP{ his son, but fosters the fraternal
> AP{ spirit whereby the human race
> AP{ is regarded as one great "brotherhood".
> AP{ It does not seek to drag down the
> AP{ natural man, but to improve and
> AP{ uplift him. It advocates education
> AP{ and cultivation and appeals to "the
> AP{ best that is within us".
>
> Well, that sounds just wonderful,

doesn't it? the only difference i have with
Reverend Pink here is that i do think that
MY Gospel of Satan does imply an ideology
of revolutionary principles. it advocates
trial and testing of authority, and this
is at odds with conventional ideas of
inheritance and lineages, particularly in
religious communities. again, Reverend Pink
is talking about "The gospel of Satan" here,
not that for which i am usurping its attention
as part of my own scriptural promotion.

> but isn't this the same ol' Peace
> and Unity scenario the Christians
> failed so miserably at?  Who's to
> say Satan's way's more successful?

that is in part Reverend Pink's point. he is
trying to say that Christianity *should* be
revolutionary, *should* set mother against
daughter and son against father, that it
*should* lead to social turmoil as it upsets
the conventional cultural standards extant
prior to Christian orthodoxy. it is only
"Satan's way" insofar as the Christians that
Reverend Pink is describing are deceived.

> Simply because "it aims" to make this
> world such a congenial and comfortable
> place", doesn't mean that will happen.

quite so, but the aims that he describes are
*very interestingly similar to Satanist aims*.
it is in part my goal to be ironic here and in
part to siphon popular attention using the
essay by Reverend Pink as part of The Gospel
of Satan. he doesn't think that the aims and
ideals he is ascribing (and somewhat
accurately i might add, as the teeth of the
Christian religious tradition are removed one
by one) will come about. if you read the
entirety of his essay (google it) you can
see what he *really* thinks about his
fellow Christians (i left only pleasant parts).

> Isn't Satan the old evil deceiver?

as conceived by Christians and Muslims, yes.
I have no reason to trust their account. do you?


> AP{ It aims to make this world such a
> AP{ congenial and comfortable habitat that
> AP{ Christos absence from it will not be felt
> AP{ and God will not be needed.
>
> I do like to keep my Christos with me.

Reverend Pink is here referring to the person
of Jesus Christ. this is applicable to The
Gospel of Satan insofar as Yeheshua in this
story at the last descends into the Underworld.
there is no testimony as to his influences
on This World of Which Satan is God. Satanist
aims fall into line with this also. Any
religious superheros are denied influence in
any overt and future-oriented scenarios. You
may have some kind of internal "Christos" that
you tend and keep with you, but that is in no
way the same as a bodily Jesus coming out of
some fictional history to resurrect the dead
and issue Salvation to the faithful and their
allies. Yahweh having departed for other worlds,
of course he will not be needed either.

> AP{ It endeavors to occupy man so much
> AP{ with this world that he has no time or
> AP{ inclination to think of the world to come.
>
> People don't do much of that now.

this is, according to Reverend Pink, the goal or
aim of the gospel of Satan, and the focus of
the apostles of Satan (Christians) whom he is
chastizing/slandering. additionally, i would
say that Reverend Pink has mistaken a coping
mechanism *of* human beings in the face of our
current situation and circumstance with the
result of a 'master plan' that the wild nature
which is accurately described as Satan does not
have. we're animals that distract ourselves when
the situation gets a bit too difficult to pay
much attention (by complexity or challenge).

> AP{ It propagates the principles
> AP{ of self-sacrifice, charity and
> AP{ benevolence, and teaches us
> AP{ to live for the good of others,
> AP{ and to be kind to all. It appeals
> AP{ strongly to the carnal mind
> AP{ and is popular with the masses

this is truly a mix that exhibits some of the
best and worst aspects of Christian diatribes.
Satanists generally don't advocate self-
sacrifice, and anybody who knows Satanists
will attest to this. *I* do, but i'm very
unusual in the 'Satanic landscape' as it were,
in that i *like* the Jesus character, and see
what Witches and Satanists are doing *as* a
type of martyrdom in struggle within their own
culture (a revolutionary imperative that seeks,
even if unconsciously, to right wrongs).


333:
>> ...if a book is written which is
>> a brain fart and it is supposed to help
>> us free ourselves, empower us, then i
>> would hope that the veritable liberating
>> device would not then enslave our minds.
>
> Well, I don't think the Book is a brain fart
> and I'd far rather have Liber AL enslave my
> mind than any other Spiritual Practice
> I've encountered, although, Its Teachings
> complement other Valuable Works I've
> studied through the years - that helps.

that's where you and i are indeed very
different. I don't want my mind enslaved
by *anything*, and i take precautions so
as to keep this from happening. I cannot
really understanding wanting differently,
except perhaps as a devotional surrender.

333:
>> this group is gathered to *discuss*
>> Thelema, and is not necessarily, by
>> any single person's evaluation,
>> 'Thelemically-minded'. I would
>> ask what is the meaning of this
>> phrase and offer up my own idea
>> as to its significance:
>>
>> something that is thelemically-minded
>> would pursue a non-invasive and
>> respectable tolerance of all manner
>> of perspective on the subject for
>> which it is gathered.
>
>> there are those who believe that it
>> *should* mean something else, or
>> that what ought to happen is that
>> all those who are part of it should
>> be litmus-tested for theoretical
>> character so as to
>>
>>* regard Crowley as their Prophet
>>* regard Liber Al vel Legis as their
>>* One True [Scripture] and
>>* regard the Gnostic Mass as the
>>* Singular Rite of Group Adherence
>
> Hmmm!  Well, I should have realized
> sooner what the deal was.

I don't know why. I don't think that anyone
has gone out of their way to state this in
any clarity in this plain a language.

> Thank you for clearing this up for me.

it is my sincere pleasure. you are helping me
to write commentary on the Appendix for my
scripture in part and to make an entry into a
discussion on thelemic ideology, which i don't
think we've really begun to touch on here in
any depth.

333

The aim of Gematria is not the improvement of mathematical skills or
the discovery of cosmic or sacred truths; if it were, mechanical
gematria engines would be sufficient for all the discoveries that it
allows.

The aim of gematria, then, is no kind of scientific discovery; rather,
it is to move the mind faster and faster and faster and faster, around
and around and around, until it -- breaks.

This can be done in any gematria system -- but it cannot be done by
machine, since it's a mystical result; and machines can't do that.

Thelema93 & Alamatra,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Sandi Peterson wrote:

> This is very simple, the Theory is based
> on the Premise that before the Beginning,
>
Alamatra wrote:
>
>> Really cool answer, I would just add
>> that there was no "beginning" except
>> in a relative sense.
>
There must have been a beginning to our
World, at least.  It's estimated the Earth
is about 4.5 billion years old and the
Universe 13.5 billion.  A few billion years
is a drop in the bucket in relation to
Infinity... ;)

Really cool, you thought my answer was
really cool.  This was the subject of my
high school English term paper - "The
Meeting of Science & Religion", 50 years
ago.

The reference books I used were at least
40 to 50 years old at the time, both put
forth the same Theory of the Omnipotent
Nothingness, and in addition, the
formation of "Island Universes", just
recently I saw this re-presented into
Creation-Theory.

Anyway, whoever wrote those books
were at least 100 years ahead of their
time.  The teacher gave me an "F" on the
paper, said it was a subject that shouldn't
be discussed, so please understand, your
response was really cool, for me, all these
years later.  Times like this, I feel there is
no time.

Never ceases to excite me, the question...
Why?  What is this all about?  Thinking
that God might have had a beginning, an
origin, parents?... isn't completely incon-
ceivable to me, but whether or not Infinity
had a beginning, or it might suddenly end...
who can know?  We don't even know where
we are, really, or how big we are.  All we can
do is experience the Ever-Present Moment,
and Trust the Lamp stays Lit...

"the consciousness of the continuity of
existence, [the un(f)ragmentary/the non-
atomic fact of my universality/unmole-
stability] the omnipresence of my body."

Same question excites me, motivates me
to Know more and more about Liber AL...
and why?... Why the Book?  It's Words
alone have so much meaning, I really don't
see the need to verify the deity of AL, or
Aiwass, or Nuit or Whomever perceived
to be the Author.  So many passages
speak, Teach, give valuable insight,
perceptions and information.

"they shall rule, the many & the known.
These are fools that men adore; both
their Gods & their men are fools".

I remember when these Words suddenly
Lit up my Understanding and I realized
that Gods of men are fools, and poor
Jesus especial; a great victory for the
devil and most unholy roman papas.

I've never found another Teaching that
expressed so much contempt towards
all religions, or any other religion, actually,
but now, having stepped back, because
of AL's emotionalisms; taking a long deep
look at the over-all picture, I can see
that no religion has ever benefited the
people...so who has religion benefited?
... the papas of course.

This is why AL says we "hast ill" - we're
sick in the head.  Gods of men & their
men are fools, and mankind has been
living under control of these melec beasts
since before the beginning of recorded
time... we the blinded masses.

So I'm guessing some here suffer
trepidation or seek verification of a
"Praeter-human Intelligence" in AL
because they might other-wise feel
foolish, or fear to be judge "not right-
minded"?  It's not exactly a bible or
talmud, so they try to link AL with a
practice more acceptable, or scientific?

Would you mind explaining the 0=2
equation?

Love is the law, love under will.

Sandi

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

Thelema 333,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

333 wrote:
> you must be looking at my scripture,
> and my God does not have a role in
> my scripture. as i said, i don't claim
> to understand it myself, but it does
> seem to bear on my *magic*, which
> i am quickly beginning to learn will
> utilize my scripture for my aims and
> purposes, and incorporate my
> scripture to it.
>
Would you care to elaborate?.. aims
and purposes?... are you going to
preach?... lecture?
>
>
333 wrote:
> this is where you departed from my
> thelemic ideology in part, seemingly
> by mixing up my God (Kali) and my
> ally (Satan, who is described as 'The
> God of This World' within my scripture,
> an admitted fiction).
>
Well I didn't know about Kali, but isn't
here where we agreed?

Who is Reverend Pink?... a personality
of yours?  A character in your story?
>
>
333 Wrote:
> as conceived by Christians and
> Muslims, yes. I have no reason to
> trust their account. do you?
>
>
grin...;)... they're all works of the Devil,
Who probably is an Angel of God, at least
we tell ourselves that, to sugar-coat the
story, but there is real evil in the world,
and people who do really evil awful things.
I have a hard time understanding why
you work amongst the dark.
>
>
333 wrote:
> that's where you and i are indeed
> very different. I don't want my mind
> enslaved by *anything*, and i take
> precautions so as to keep this from
> happening. I cannot really under
> standing wanting differently, except
> perhaps as a devotional surrender.
>
>
Well, a long time ago, when I was very
young, a carnal mind enslaved my mind,
and I've been waging a bloody battle
with it ever since.  Preoccupations with
Liber AL are Joyful Surrender.
>
>
333 wrote:
> you are helping me to write commentary
> on the Appendix for my scripture in part
> and to make an entry into a discussion
> on thelemic ideology, which i don't think
> we've really begun to touch on here in
> any depth
>
>
I'd be very interested if you would tell me
how you relate thelemic ideology with the
Worship of Kali, if you do, or why you
find interest in both?... they seem so
different, one from the other, but I don't
know much about Kali.

Thelemic ideology?  I don't know what to
say, so many conflicting ideal-ologies.
Seems to me, if someone tried to make
Thelema a formal religion, it might be the
worst ever, real bad satanic, maybe stir
OTO's into the works.  Please tell me if I'm
out of line with this thinking.

Love is the law, love under will,

paschal



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

Thelema 93,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Tim wrote:
> There was no gematria involved in the
> presentation you are criticizing. The simple
> fact remains, that adding 4 + 6 results in
> 0, and 10 in Base-11 is eleven.

Well, I don't know anything about Base
11, but 3 + 5 = 8.

herupakraath wrote:
> The Tarot riddle presented in verses
> II:15-16 can be shown to be a truthful
> statement. The traditional gematria
> values assigned to the Empress and
> the Hierophant are 4 and 6 respectively;
> when the numbers are added, the number
> 10 is produced, which is 11 in base-11
> mathematics, making the Empress and
> the Hierophant eleven when combined.

Traditional values assigned to the Empress
and the Hierophant Cards are 3 and 5
respectively, not 4 and 6.

Liber AL's Cipher 11's Number System,
sequences Numbers according to their Value:

One=46, Two=34, Six=50, Four=54,
Five=76, Nine=76, Seven=0=7, Eight=87,
Three=90=9.

1=46=2, 2=34=1, 6=3=50, 4=4=54,
5=5=76, 6=9=76, 7=0=7, 8=8=87,
3=9=90.

The High Priestess is therefore the #1 Trump
Card in Liber AL's Tarot Deck, the Magician is
#2, the Lovers #3, the Emperor #4, the
Empress #5, the Hierophant #6, thus 11...

Love is the law, love under will,

Sandi

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

Correction -

One=2=46, Two=1=34, Six=3=50,
Four=4=54, Five=5=76, Nine=6=76,
Seven=0=7, Eight=8=87, Three=9=90.

1=2=46, 2=1=34, 6=3=50, 4=54,
5=5=76, 9=6=76, 7=0=7, 8=8=87,
3=9=90.

ONE=(2)=46=The Magician

TWO=(1)=34=High Priestess

SIX=(3)=50=The Lover

FOUR=(4)=54=The Emperor

F IVE=(5)=76=The Hierophant

NINE=(6)=76=The Empress

SEVEN=(0)=7=The Universe

EIGHT=(8)=87=Strength

THREE=(9)=90=Hermits




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

E6

"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

The Word of Sin is restriction.

333:
>> ...my God does not have a role in
>> my scripture. as i said, i don't claim
>> to understand it myself, but it does
>> seem to bear on my *magic*, which
>> i am quickly beginning to learn will
>> utilize my scripture for my aims and
>> purposes, and incorporate my
>> scripture to it.
>
> Would you care to elaborate?..
> aims and purposes?....

aims and purposes for any magic/spells
that i engage. this could be for the
movement and completion of our current
projects (which was the last three
candles and has been doing well), or
this could be to improve health in
either my or catherine's case (we're
fine right now but occasionally need
a boost in that zone), or it could be
for any number of earthly-based aims.

therefore i will probably find some paper
thtat this scripture once had been,
or initiate that gospel into form for
the placement of it on candles, then
fashion some portion as spellcrafted verbal
components as a replacement for Psalms,
and possibly apply otherwise in like manner.



333:
>> this is where you departed from my
>> thelemic ideology in part, seemingly
>> by mixing up my God (Kali) and my
>> ally (Satan, who is described as 'The
>> God of This World' within my scripture,
>> an admitted fiction).
>
> Well I didn't know about Kali, but isn't
> here where we agreed?

no, here is where you agreed with Reverend
Pink about the gospel of Satan (his construct
metaphor slamming his fellow Christians).
in general i don't share Reverend Pink's views
on the universe, but i found his expression on
'the gospel of Satan' to be very interesting.

> Who is Reverend Pink?... a personality
> of yours?  A character in your story?

I suggested that you google him and his text.
a search on "arthur w. pink" produced fully
37,900 hits.  I'll help you out here:

	 Biography
	 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Pink

	 His "The Gospel of Satan" Essay
	 http://tinyurl.com/57xcou

	 2 Critiques of Rev. Pink's Expressions
	 http://www.outsidethecamp.org/nopink.htm
	 http://www.brethrenonline.org/books/PINK.HTM

now the ONLY reason that i mentioned or incorporated
Reverend Pink into my activities or writings was on
account of his usage of the phrase "gospel of Satan"
as a *title* of one of his essays/sermons. he was
apparently responding, like i did, to the usage of
the phrase 'gospel of Satan' in Christian diatribes,
primarily as slams against other Christians and their
supposed perturbation of the "message" of the various
Christian gospel scriptures.

I had never once looked at any of the pages i am
recommending to you above except "The Gospel of Satan"
and didn't much care to. having done so, i find it
interesting upon what points of doctrine and morality
Christians differ with him. I gather from looking
further that my characterization of him as a
'minister' is incorrect (and it s/b 'pastor').


333 Wrote:
>> as conceived by Christians and
>> Muslims, yes. I have no reason to
>> trust their account. do you?

> grin...;)... they're all works of the Devil,
> Who probably is an Angel of God, at least we
> tell ourselves that, to sugar-coat the story,

by your grin i understand you are being arch and
comedic here, and yet i would like to respond
plainly and at the risk of seeming to lack a
sense of humour, explain that "the Devil" is
an appellation of Germanic peoples for a woods
deity, and was tacked on to the Christian anti-
deity. the Satan anti-God is decidedly NOT
the Angel of God, the 'Satan', spoken of in
the fictional story of Job. that is a 'malak'
or wandering angel, that took the office of
'Satan' for a while to test out needful Jews,
being the veritable 'district attorney' for
Jehovah on a temporary basis before being
replaced by another wandering angel.

> but there is real evil in the world,
> and people who do really evil awful things.

with this i am inclined to agree. I associate
evil with particular actions such as the
torture of innocents -- that to which i am
opposed. there are very few things that i
can say i oppose absolutely, though torture
is one of these things (and upset me greatly
to hear about the US torture of prisoners in
Guantanamo prison, as i feel responsible).

> I have a hard time understanding why
> you work amongst the dark.

primarily because i have seen what is called
'the dark' slandered and foolishly slammed by
"white light" Christians and New Agers. I'm
the one who usually rooted for the losing team
in spectator sports contests. I abandoned tribe
allegiance for egalitarianism long ago.


333:
>> that's where you and i are indeed
>> very different. I don't want my mind
>> enslaved by *anything*, and i take
>> precautions so as to keep this from
>> happening. I cannot really under-
>> [stand] wanting differently, except
>> perhaps as a devotional surrender.
>
> Well, a long time ago, when I was very
> young, a carnal mind enslaved my mind,
> and I've been waging a bloody battle
> with it ever since.  Preoccupations with
> Liber AL are Joyful Surrender.

thanks for the helpful reflections.
may your preoccupations serve you well.


333:
>> you are helping me to write commentary
>> on the Appendix for my scripture in part
>> and to make an entry into a discussion
>> on thelemic ideology, which i don't think
>> we've really begun to touch on here in
>> any depth
>
> I'd be very interested if you would tell me
> how you relate thelemic ideology with the
> Worship of Kali, if you do,

thanks for asking. I don't. I find them to
be complementary poles. I associate worship
of Kali with a current of devotional *love*
in dedication to my God. the volitional
aspect of this (which i associate with
'thelemic ideology') would be application
of will to effect change, and that, right now,
is subject to the axis of CHRISTOS/SATAN in
my ritual universe. I'm learning about hoodoo
and adhering to an ethical and symbolic
focus on Jesus as my 'hoodoo Root Man'.

> or why you find interest in both?...
> they seem so different, one from the other,
> but I don't know much about Kali.

why i find interest in them both: Kali i fell
in love with ever since She came to me 17
years ago or more in a grove of trees as my
spirit guide, and with whose companionship,
reflective, helpful friendship, and love,
i have been blessed to call my God, and
worship and marry Her as part of my dedication
on 1991/9/19. that is a permanent relationship
as i understand it, in the sense that i am
committed to Her and named by Her, Hers
forever, Om. She will eat me when i die,
and that will be my end.

Satan i met on a Crossroads in a forest by a
forked road near a stream at midnight Lunatix
(Full Moon). what drew me to make the pact was
simultaneously compassion for Satan and a
selfish desire to satiate my every desire.
I have been interested in demonology for years
and during the course of months and years
prior to and leading up to my pact (1996/6/6)
studied the history of Satan and beings of
similar quality, pacts made with such beings,
as well as ceremonial magic and witchcraft,
sorcery, etc., etc.

> Thelemic ideology?  I don't know what to
> say, so many conflicting ideal-ologies.

different people construct different ideas
surrounding strange key words. the term
'thelema' has several trajectories and not
all of these are compatible. the fact that
they may be conflicting isn't any testimony
that one or more of them have no value,
even when taken together or combined.

where thelema fits into my life as any sort
ideology is as a means or mechanism for the
pursuit of my desires. this factors into a
study and practice of magic and using this,
deriving or drawing from my personal will
to effect changes both in my mundane and
conventional surrounds as well as within
the symbols that inform my life and make
it up in a way that drives it toward
those intended and pursued ends.

these ends and my career as a magician and
occultist that i have enjoyed have included
such things as: notions about my destiny (what
some might call 'true will'; particularly my
acceptance of my role as the Sorcerer Supreme
of our shared dimension), as well as other
imaginative constructions such as magical
offices and their place in my life, my Logos
as a Magus, evoked or manifested as part of the
initiation of the new AEon of the Adversary,
my engagement of the Oath of the Abyss, my
identity as a Black Brother (333) and study
of the qliphot of the Tree of Life, my
(ongoing) construction of The Book of Thoth
and the AEonic Amulet (which has within it
a shard of my blood pact and uses as part
of its construction the One Ring and the
Eye of Agamotto), and many other magical
tools/objects that i have constructed which
reflect my station and position as i have
invested and conceived it during my lifetime.

as such, these were the *results* of the
application of thelemic philosophy: not very
conceptual so much as actual, and at least
quite motivational and inspiring to me. the
ideology which ties it together revolves
around and through the various conceptual
referents that are mentioned above (such
as what a 'Logos' *is*, what a 'Book of
Thoth' *is*, what the 'One Ring' *is*, etc.),
and this would also incorporate some
extensive conceptual contributions both from
conventional Thelemic ceremonialism and some
innovations and corruptions which are of my
own devise. that i consider my God to be my
Holy Guardian Angel overlaps however oddly
with what i understand of thelemic ideology,
and one or more of my order kindred (this
time in the OTO) matched or parallelled my
trajectory or career here, so i found it
consonant with someone party to the Current.

and if pressed, since i really don't believe
very much (honest!), i can stipulate to you
that the bulk of what i have done and how i
conceive these things are as at least a class
of cognitive tools, disbelief suspended and
egotism expanding to fill a glorified vision
of cosmic import and grandeur, and giving me
incentive to construct and do a number of
things which others of my ilk i have not
heretofore known, seeming simultaneously to
be easy and yet through genius and luck
awesome and incredible.

through time my pact has stood me in good
stead, my vows have fortified my dedication,
the 8-fold Path and Wiccan Rede have served
as helpful guides toward wholesomeness, in
combination with those othes that i have
sought out and found in ordinary and non-
ordinary manners. I would like to mention my
consultation and comparison of notes with
two elder brothers within the OTO, both of
whom died young and unexpectedly, and how
this was of great value to me (the first
being Ebony Anpu/Charles Reese, and the
second being Tim Maroney: the 1st because
of his relation to Kali whom as i understand
it he also regarded as his HGA, and the 2nd
because of his Satanism and skeptical
inquiring mind and engagement of the OTO
as a social discipline and ordeal).

my ideology is karmic, active. it takes
volition and turns it into drama, success.
it is motivated out of love and driven to
its heights out of willful abandon. within
this ideology there are many potentially
delusional things left intentionally
undecided as to the nature of their
efficacious qualities, while simultaneously
and critically scrutinizing a very select
set of personal and social delusions that
i proclaim to be falsities (such as the
soul, and life beyond death).

this ideology is individualistic and unique
in its facets yet consonant with the style
and character of comparable figures in
what can be called 'thelemic history'. its
primary and essential Law is a principle
of the appearance and harnessing of will to
personal, spiritual, and social advantage,
and the value of yoking it to intuition as
part of an unusual yet effective monasticism.

probably the most important and unknown
aspect of this personal drama and thelemic
character is its knightly quality, and the
diverse raiment of my self-concept therein
(my Steed Rocinante, my Foe Freston, and
my challenge the fact that society will of
necessity see me as delusional whilst i
am engaging in astounding feats in other
dimensions and securing the most valuable
rewards obtainable). this symbolic matrix
was set long ago in relation to my life in
theme with a song by Rush, as an initiation
conducted in a car named after the horse,
and as a nonviolent struggle with a
sorcerous Hard Drive named after the
Master of Windmills).

> Seems to me, if someone tried to make
> Thelema a formal religion, it might be the
> worst ever, real bad satanic, maybe stir
> OTO's into the works. ....

only if human nature is in essence bad.
an actual Thelema religion devoid of stark
cultism would worship the Candidate as the
Child of the AEon, affirm each personal
drama as imperative to hir individuation,
enshrine hir writing at the Equinox of the
Gods as the Book of the Law, and set hir
God upon the Altar nude and adored.

blessed beast,

333

Care Frater Nagasiva,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

  > my aim has always been to engage the order as a discipline,
  > where so many use the order to *initiate their discipline*.

An interesting distinction.  I definitely fall into the latter category...or, at
least, have done so thus far.

Goals going forward are still works in progress, and future results are
certainly not yet known to me.  Nor do I particularly wish to endeavor to
predict them anymore.

Heh.  One of many disciplines whose initiation in myself I attribute to the path
undertaken by me with O.T.O.

On a more personal note, Brother, it brings me joy to see you continuing to sow
your particular brand of logic in fora such as this.

Almost makes me want to resume active participation in newsgroups again; but
alas, my chosen schedule of tasks does not yet permit me that indulgence but
briefly and intermittantly.

My best to you, Brother, as always.

Love is the law, love under Will.

Yours Fraternally,
CXXXXVII

Thelema 333,

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

It's difficult for me to follow your meanings
but, probably makes what you say more
intriguing.
>
>
333 wrote:
> therefore i will probably find some
> paper thtat this scripture once had
> been, or initiate that gospel into form
> for the placement of it on candles, then
> fashion some portion as spellcrafted
> verbal components as a replacement
> for Psalms, and possibly apply other-
> wise in like manner.
>
I don't have a clue what you saying here.
>
>
333 wrote:
> "the Devil" is an appellation of Germanic
> peoples for a woods deity, and was tacked
> on to the Christian anti-deity. the Satan
> anti-God is decidedly NOT the Angel of God,
> the 'Satan', spoken of in the fictional story
> of Job. that is a 'malak' or wandering angel,
> that took the office of 'Satan' for a while to
> test out needful Jews, being the veritable
> 'district attorney' for Jehovah on a temporary
> basis before being replaced by another
> wandering angel.
>
>
From what I read in the old testament,
the malak, melec, are the evil demons
and lords of the earth; the Jahwist, the
Elohist, the empowered priests, their
dread curse of apostasy and holy wars.
>
>
333 wrote:
> primarily because i have seen what is
> called 'the dark' slandered and foolishly
> slammed by "white light" Christians and
> New Agers. I'm the one who usually rooted
> for the losing team in spectator sports
> contests. I abandoned tribe allegiance
> for egalitarianism long ago.
>
>
I understand what your saying, I'm really
angry too, but mostly amazed that people
have been able to hold on to any belief,
except that they "take it on faith" what
some preacher tells them and don't
examine the evidence.
>
>
333 wrote:
> why i find interest in them both: Kali
> i fell in love with ever since She came
> to me 17 years ago or more in a grove
> of trees as my spirit guide, and with
> whose companionship, reflective,
> helpful friendship, and love, i have
> been blessed to call my God, and
> worship and marry Her as part of my
> dedication on 1991/9/19. that is a
> permanent relationship as i understand
> it, in the sense that i am committed to
> Her and named by Her, Hers forever,
> Om. She will eat me when i die, and
> that will be my end.
>
> Satan i met on a Crossroads in a forest
> by a forked road near a stream at midnight
> Lunatix (Full Moon). what drew me to make
> the pact was simultaneously compassion
> for Satan and a selfish desire to satiate my
> every desire. I have been interested in
> demonology for years and during the course
> of months and years prior to and leading
> up to my pact (1996/6/6) studied the history
> of Satan and beings of similar quality, pacts
> made with such beings, as well as ceremonial
> magic and witchcraft, sorcery, etc., etc.
>
>
Well, that's about as interesting as it gets,
resembles the story of Abram & the Jahwist.
Abram made a covenant with the Yahwist,
"J", who said he was the Lord and gave the
land of the Canaanites to Abram and his
descendants, and Isaac, the father of 12
princes, and Ishmael, "the wild ass of a
man, his hand against every man, and he
shall dwell over against all his kinsmen".
>
>
333 wrote:
> different people construct different ideas
> surrounding strange key words. the term
> 'thelema' has several trajectories and not
> all of these are compatible. the fact that
> they may be conflicting isn't any testimony
> that one or more of them have no value,
> even when taken together or combined.
>
>
I know thelemic trajectories have value,
but like most other religious dogma, many
just don't make good sense, not to me, looks
like a bad marriage, so much irrational
conflict, too christian-sect-like, non-loving.
>
>
> where thelema fits into my life as any
> sort ideology is as a means or mechanism
> for the pursuit of my desires. this factors
> into a study and practice of magic and
> using this, deriving or drawing from my
> personal will to effect changes both in my
> mundane and conventional surrounds as
> well as within the symbols that inform my
> life and make it up in a way that drives it
> toward those intended and pursued ends.
>
> these ends and my career as a magician
> and occultist that i have enjoyed have
> included such things as: notions about
> my destiny (what some might call 'true will';
> particularly my acceptance of my role as the
> Sorcerer Supreme of our shared dimension),
> as well as other imaginative constructions
> such as magical offices and their place in
> my life, my Logos as a Magus, evoked or
> manifested as part of the initiation of the
> new AEon of the Adversary, my engagement
> of the Oath of the Abyss, my identity as a
> Black Brother (333) and study of the qliphot
> of the Tree of Life, my (ongoing) construction
> of The Book of Thoth and the AEonic Amulet
> (which has within it a shard of my blood pact
> and uses as part of its construction the One
> Ring and the Eye of Agamotto), and many
> other magical tools/objects that i have
> constructed which reflect my station and
> position as i have invested and conceived
> it during my lifetime.
>
>
Wow!... "Sorcerer Supreme of our shared
dimension".  That's very impressive!  The
"New AEon of the Adversary", makes me
feel nervous.  What is the One Ring and
the Eye of Agamotto?
>
333 wrote:
> and if pressed, since i really don't believe
> very much (honest!), i can stipulate to you
> that the bulk of what i have done and how i
> conceive these things are as at least a class
> of cognitive tools, disbelief suspended and
> egotism expanding to fill a glorified vision
> of cosmic import and grandeur, and giving
> me incentive to construct and do a number
> of things which others of my ilk i have not
> heretofore known, seeming simultaneously
> to be easy and yet through genius and luck
> awesome and incredible.
>
> through time my pact has stood me in good
> stead, my vows have fortified my dedication,
> the 8-fold Path and Wiccan Rede have served
> as helpful guides toward wholesomeness, in
> combination with those othes that i have
> sought out and found in ordinary and non-
> ordinary manners. I would like to mention my
> consultation and comparison of notes with
> two elder brothers within the OTO, both of
> whom died young and unexpectedly, and how
> this was of great value to me (the first
> being Ebony Anpu/Charles Reese, and the
> second being Tim Maroney: the 1st because
> of his relation to Kali whom as i understand
> it he also regarded as his HGA, and the 2nd
> because of his Satanism and skeptical
> inquiring mind and engagement of the OTO
> as a social discipline and ordeal).
>
> my ideology is karmic, active. it takes
> volition and turns it into drama, success.
> it is motivated out of love and driven to
> its heights out of willful abandon. within
> this ideology there are many potentially
> delusional things left intentionally
> undecided as to the nature of their
> efficacious qualities, while simultaneously
> and critically scrutinizing a very select
> set of personal and social delusions that
> i proclaim to be falsities (such as the
> soul, and life beyond death).
>
>
Why limit life to this single illusion?  Why
deny the soul?  Why not let your vision be
limitless, or is this aught in return?
>
>
>333 wrote:
> this ideology is individualistic and unique
> in its facets yet consonant with the style
> and character of comparable figures in
> what can be called 'thelemic history'. its
> primary and essential Law is a principle
> of the appearance and harnessing of will to
> personal, spiritual, and social advantage,
> and the value of yoking it to intuition as
> part of an unusual yet effective monasticism.
>
> probably the most important and unknown
> aspect of this personal drama and thelemic
> character is its knightly quality, and the
> diverse raiment of my self-concept therein
> (my Steed Rocinante, my Foe Freston, and
> my challenge the fact that society will of
> necessity see me as delusional whilst i
> am engaging in astounding feats in other
> dimensions and securing the most valuable
> rewards obtainable). this symbolic matrix
> was set long ago in relation to my life in
> theme with a song by Rush, as an initiation
> conducted in a car named after the horse,
> and as a nonviolent struggle with a
> sorcerous Hard Drive named after the
> Master of Windmills).
>
>
Sandi wrote:
>> Seems to me, if someone tried to make
>> Thelema a formal religion, it might be the
>> worst ever, real bad satanic, maybe stir
>> OTO's into the works. ....
>
333 wrote:
> only if human nature is in essence bad.
> an actual Thelema religion devoid of stark
> cultism would worship the Candidate as the
> Child of the AEon, affirm each personal
> drama as imperative to hir individuation,
> enshrine hir writing at the Equinox of the
> Gods as the Book of the Law, and set hir
> God upon the Altar nude and adored.
>
Isn't that a wonderful Vision.

Love is the law, love under will,

Ion5



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

Hi.  My name is Charity.  I am a 22 year old neo-pagan.  I am
interested in learning more about thelema.  I am in contact with the
local Oasis and am going to be working with them for a while.  I was
hoping that I could come here and ask questions as well.



[MODERATOR: you can. Thank you for introducing yourself.
  Feel free to ask any questions pertaining to Thelema that
  you like and be as thorough and clear as you are able, preferably
  telling us something about your background with respect to the
  question, what you may or may not know with respect to the
  topic, etc.; you may also wish to read our Monthly 'Minder
  Mail that details the required formatting here.]