Skip to search.

### Breaking NewsVisit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

thelema93-l · "T93!"

#### Group Information

• Members: 1100
• Category: Magick
• Founded: Jun 7, 2000
• Language: English
Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

#### Yahoo! Groups Tips

##### Did you know...
Message search is now enhanced, find messages faster. Take it for a spin.

### Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
 Messages 19070 - 19101 of 19924   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date
#19070 From: "Rebelle" <rebelljacobs@...>
Date: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:29 am
Subject: Question from a new member ...

Send Email

 ```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```

#19071 From: "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
Date: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Subject: Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```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```

#19072 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:56 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19073 From: "Stone Mirror" <lefty@...>
Date: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "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."```

#19074 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:15 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Re: Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19075 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:15 am
Subject: Numberology and Thelemic Hebrewphilia

Send Email

 ```E6 "Sandi Peterson" : > 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```

#19076 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:46 am
Subject: The Span and Taste of OTO

Send Email

 ```E6 Rebelle, "Rebelle" > 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```

#19077 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:28 am
Subject: Thelema, Book Limitations, and Uncarvedness

Send Email

 ```fay ce que vouldras. "Sandi Peterson" : > Thelema 93, agape E6, > 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```

#19078 From: "lucy_fyre" <lucyfyre@...>
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: The Span and Taste of OTO

Send Email

 ```--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, 333 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) > > and there's a few orgs missing above, like the OTOA > (Antiqua) of Michael Bertiaux, for example.... 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!]```

#19079 From: "herupakraath" <herupakraath@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:59 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```"Sandi Peterson" 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```

#19080 From: "Rebelle" <rebelljacobs@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:31 am
Subject: Re: The Span and Taste of OTO

Send Email

 ```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.]```

#19081 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:17 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Numberology and Thelemic Hebrewphilia

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19082 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:09 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19083 From: tom chaudoin <taammuz@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:15 pm
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```Tim, --- On Thu, 8/21/08, 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.```

#19084 From: "threefold31" <threefold31@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "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```

#19085 From: "threefold31" <threefold31@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Stone Mirror" 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```

#19086 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:19 pm
Subject: Knowledge Systems, Thelema, and Evaluation

Send Email

 ```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```

#19089 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:03 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Knowledge Systems, Thelema, and Evaluation

Send Email

 ```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.]```

#19090 From: "threefold31" <threefold31@...>
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: Infinite Space & Infinite Stars

Send Email

 ```--- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "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```

#19091 From: "Alamantra" <alamantra@...>
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [t93] Knowledge Systems, Thelema, and Evaluation

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19092 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:24 pm
Subject: Spirituality and Thelemic Ideologies

Send Email

 ```E6 "Sandi Peterson" : > 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```

#19093 From: "conanden" <cassius.z@...>
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:18 am
Subject: Re: Gematria and its theoretical objectives/ limitations

Send Email

 ```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.```

#19094 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:07 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Knowledge Systems, Thelema, and Evaluation

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19095 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:41 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Spirituality and Thelemic Ideologies

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19096 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:07 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19097 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:37 am
Subject: Re: [t93] Base-11 and the Book of the Law -correction

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19098 From: 333 <nagasiva@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:37 am
Subject: Child of the AEon Thelemic Ideology

Send Email

 ```E6 "Sandi Peterson" : > 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```

#19099 From: "Solemnus" <solyg@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:37 pm
Subject: Re: The Span and Taste of OTO

Send Email

 ```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```

#19100 From: "Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:23 pm
Subject: Re: [t93] Child of the AEon Thelemic Ideology

Send Email

 ```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]```

#19101 From: "charity.solei" <charity.solei@...>
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:34 pm
Subject: Greetings

Send Email

 ```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.]```

 Messages 19070 - 19101 of 19924   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help