Geoff Franks wrote:
>
> 93,
>
> Does anyone have any info on the origin of Ritual B (BITh) 2 - To Have Any
> Knowledge?  I've never seen reference to it before Liber ABA (aka Magick:
> 1994 Weiser) was published.  It can be found in that book in the
> Supplemental Papers section.  There are no notes associated with the item
> in the copy I have.
>
IIRC, the ritual is based upon the GD Z documents (the The Golden Dawn,
or The Complete Golden Dawn, both by I. Regardie).

93,

I'm looking for some decent links, essays and info on the net regarding the
Goetia. Also interested if anyone has any recommendations of texts outside
Steve Savedow, Lon Milo DuQuette and AC.
Anyone found anything worthwhile?
Thanks in advance.

93 93 93

Peter Grey

You could try Poke Runyon's stuff at
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html

Shetakaey

> I'm looking for some decent links, essays and info on the net
regarding the
> Goetia. Also interested if anyone has any recommendations of texts
outside
> Steve Savedow, Lon Milo DuQuette and AC.
> Anyone found anything worthwhile?
> Thanks in advance.

Here's a complete Lesser Key:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/lemegeton.htm
Here's the compendius links page where I got it from:
http://www.esotericarchives.com/esoteric.htm
This one will put you in contact with someone you may request
materials from:
http://www.demonolatry.org/

BTW I and anotehr are systematically going through the Goetia, two
sittings per quinance. We started at 0 degrees of Leo, and we are
usuing the Ordo Aurum Solis attributions (Which differ from
Mathers/Crowley). I am certainbly interested to comapre notes
w/anyone.

93,

On Sun, 9 Sep 2001, Peter Grey wrote:

> Also interested if anyone has any recommendations of texts
> outside Steve Savedow, Lon Milo DuQuette and AC.

Nelson White sells an edition which is difficult to read in
spots - xeroxes from the manuscripts on 8-1/2 by 14.
http://www.techgroupbooks.com/

Wade Long also did an edition of the Lemegeton.  I purchased
mine direct from Wade when he worked at Ancient Ways in the
San Francisco area.  I'm pretty sure he self published.  If
unable to find, Edge of the Circle Books in Seattle carries it.

I like Mitch Henson's edition and it's very reasonably
priced:  http://www.jacksonville.net/~mhenson/

Heptangle did an edition now OP titled "Book of Spirits."

It looks like Robert Blanchard did a translation of both the
Greater and Lesser Keys for IGOS but I don't have those editions.
I do have his editions of Honorius and Red Dragon and I can't
complain about either of those.

93 93/93
Fir

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


Al Billing's Hermetic Site
http://www.hermetic.com/


The Invisible College
http://www.budget.net/~jdnolan/invis/Invis.html


The City of the Pyramids
http://www.budget.net/~jdnolan/City.html


Love is the Law, Love Under Will


David


=====

Be good to each other - *WE* are the ones we've been waiting for!

www.geocities.com/sabazius999ca

http://www.witchvox.com/trads/trad_minoan.html








_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

This comes with the usual disclaimer that everything I say may be incorrect,
depending on further experience.

This is what I understand so far of the phenomena of consciousness
(individual perception) in relation to environment (the spectrum of All
Consciousness as manifested through and in all of the things normally called
'objective reality' ).  From here on out, Consciousness (large C) will
designate that spectrum of All Consciousness, which includes manifested
‘reality’, and consciousness (small c) will designate the individual
perception within that spectrum.      * Yes, yes, I know its all been said
before, but hell!- its new to me!

It should be understood that I am dividing the functions here as a means to
enable explanation, since ultimately there is no division…in a sense.  Please
also note that in honesty, while the first three descriptions are based on
synthesis of my own experience, the last three descriptions are still as of
yet only extrapolations from experiences to date, and as such have more
possibility of being off by some measure unknown to me at this time.

The interrelation of consciousness and Consciousness have the following
breakdowns-

1. Viewed from the inside- 'normal' functioning
2. Viewed from the inside - optimal functioning
3. Viewed from the inside- skewed functioning
4. Viewed from the outside- 'normal' functioning
5. Viewed from the outside- optimal functioning
6. Viewed from the outside- skewed functioning
7. Synthesis of outside and inside

Viewed from the inside –‘normal’

In ‘normal’ functioning, ie that of most people, the perception of the
center is static.  The center itself is not really static, but the lack of
awareness involved prevents an *acknowledged, willed, participatory*
communication between consciousness and Consciousness.

Viewed from the inside- optimal

The center in optimum functioning has become fluid and responds as one with
its environment in a synthesis of motion resulting in no time division
between the perception of a phenomenon and the response to it.  The "seeing"
of the phenomena has taken place on an inner connected level, thus making
actions appear out "time sequence", ie you reach for an object at the same
time or even slightly before the instant someone reaches out to give it to
you.  The observer and the observed have united.

Astoundingly, the precedent (small though it is) for non-linear time has been
established through this, inferring that cause and effect are not necessarily
related in the traditional way they are viewed.  One could extrapolate to
larger scenarios,but I won’t.  Suffice to say it raises the question of
whether we, in ‘normal’ perception, are viewing our world in fragments,
without benefit of the whole picture.  In which case it would seem like the *
entirely* random, or fate controlled, or in any case “victim” making world
that many seem to view it as. (One way for the rational mind to comprehend
this is to look at the relation of three dimensional geometry to two
dimensional geometry (ala “Flatland”), or studying the more Eastern view of
events as groupings of similar phenomena, rather than straight cause/effect
results.)

  Viewed from the inside- skewed

The center in skewed functioning is also fluid and responsive in synthesis
with its environment, however in this instance the environment is not the
large spectrum All Consciousness.  Instead, the individual perceptive
consciousness has been mistaken for the All Consciousness.  Thus, the
synthesis created is one of center with self, to the (mostly) exclusion of
the Consciousness at large.  The phenomena that appear in this case are equal
to the effect of someone talking to themselves  (or only a small portion of
themselves, if one adheres to the notion that all is ultimately a part of
Self.. but in this case Self (as opposed to self) is equivalent to All
Consciousness) rather than having a conversation with someone else, which
could be considered an *exchange.*

This would seem to be just the first part of the process however, as in this
state, the person has only an one to one relationship with the environment ,
as opposed to a perspective which exists *outside* of  that individual
perceptive consciousness as well.


Viewed from the outside- ‘normal’

In  ‘normal’ ie non-aware functioning, this does not occur at all.

Viewed from the outside- ‘optimal’

The identification is of that with the All Consciousness.  Rather than a
synchronistic synthesis of communication between the individual perceptive
consciousness and the All Consciousness, identification is moved to All
Consciousness itself.  The awareness changes from that of an individual point
to that of a Body.  The perception from this point of view is no longer a *
point* but a wave- the All Consciousness consisting of multitudes of
individual points, yet unified as a Body.   At this wave of perception then, 
the experience is that of a unified whole, and as such, sensitive to the
movements of the whole body/All Consciousness without division.  The
self/consciousness is eclipsed at this moment, usurped by the All
Consciousness.  The individual perceptive consciousness returns, as it is
perspective which has actually made the journey.  However, what one actually
is now, has changed.

This outside view is important.  It is the difference between awareness of
your body as you walk somewhere and awareness from the loci of a finger,
whose view may be left, right, or behind, depending on which way the hand is
swinging during the walk. 

Viewed from the Outside- skewed

Ok, I have no idea what this would be, but assume one could make a case that
skewed might be attempting to turn the body as a whole, away from its natural
course.  If such a thing is actually possible (in the Taoist sense).

Synthesis of Outside and Inside

(Outside and inside being arbitrary terms of division that denote no actual
place or state.)

While the Outside view provides an awareness of the whole, it must be
remembered that there is a Dynamic process going on (I think perhaps that
insures optimal functioning of the synthesis, and prevents *pure order* in
all, which would eventually become stagnant and succumb to entropy).

The dynamic process is the conjunction of the individual consciousness, the
All Consciousness, and that which is created in the meeting of the motion of
the two. It is a third thing all together, and might be called chance.  I
think its important to note that it is the *motion* of the two that create
the conjunction(s) providing for chance, because *inherently*, the *state*of
the two (consciousness and All Consciousness) are undivided. 

Therefore each movement of the individual consciousness reverberates on the
All Consciousness (and visa versa) creating an intersection, from which
arises possibilities. This is the “random” factor that assures that entropy
will not occur since what occurs depends on the choices made at the
intersection and the next set of choices depend on what arose at the previous
point. Note that I did not say “depend on what *occurred* at the previous
point” as in a static“result”, but rather what *arose* at that point-
meaning the new set of motion possibilities that were created from the
choice,  *not* the “seeming” results of the choice itself.  As stated at
the
beginning of this piece somewhat, cause and effect as a linear sequence is a
concept that these experiences suggest is incorrect (and regardless, I
personally propose that linear cause and effect is not true…or perhaps that
it is not “bound” to be anyway).

The synthesis then of the two, is a coordination- the skill and effects of
which are perhaps determined by the individual, at least in terms of the
effects the individual perceives in regards to his or her individual
perceptive consciousness.

Overall, the best that can be said (imo)  is that one day, with evolution,
the functioning that is now considered ‘normal’ will have become nearly
obsolete,and what at this time still remains a rarity, will be our natural
abode.   (*This leads to other considerations, but they are for the future).




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

Date: 9/11/01

The last time the WTC was bombed was in 1993

Flight numbers we know of 93, 11, 77

Crew count on flights =11
passenger count on flight 93 = 36 (was reported, i am uncertain)

Oh and theres so much more
Aye! Listen!

93/93
~m~





=====
"Mirrors would do well if they reflected a little more before they sent forth
their images" --John Cocteau
http://www.sardonic.da.ru
http://www.geocities.com/zazas23

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

The 4th flight # is 175 which is the most perplexing

-----Original Message-----
From: sardonic [mailto:sardonic74@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 11:59 AM
To: Thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com; 667forum@yahoogroups.com;
forum@...; sardonic_radio@yahoogroups.com;
project2012@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [t93] Coin-see-denses


Date: 9/11/01

The last time the WTC was bombed was in 1993

Flight numbers we know of 93, 11, 77

Crew count on flights =11
passenger count on flight 93 = 36 (was reported, i am uncertain)

Oh and theres so much more
Aye! Listen!

93/93
~m~





=====
"Mirrors would do well if they reflected a little more before they sent
forth their images" --John Cocteau
http://www.sardonic.da.ru
http://www.geocities.com/zazas23

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
thelema93-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

93,

Many thanks for those who contributed links. Some very useful directions.

As the speculation on the symbolic import of the terrorist attack  has
begun, list members may care to look at the BotL III:72:

Hail!Ye twin warriors about the pillars of the world!For you time is now at
hand


93 93 93

Peter Grey

Here are some excerpted chapters from a project I�m working on, along
similar lines you may find something useful in them krisha. Many months
(years, to be honest), remain of editing and working on this, so pardon the
typographical, content and flow issues that may exist in the excerpts.
Footnotes and diagrams have unfortunately been excerpted.

Btw how are you distinguishing between �normal�, optimal, & �scewed�?

---
Philosophy I. So Much For Truth.

In the introductory section, Mythology in the 21st Century, I mentioned that
it was important that we come to understand the history of our axioms. By
this, I mean that to understand any philosophical or religions train of
thought, the preconceptions, what you might call the ground of the system,
is in many ways more important than its final conclusions. If you don�t want
to merely mesmerize or hoodwink your audience as a writer of theory, you
need to be up-front with your intention and corresponding methods that make
up your philosophic process. The philosophy and the philosopher cannot be
entirely separated if we want to understand the birth and formation of a
system of thought. No one can give birth to a vital system that is fed on
anything but their own lifeblood and experience.

What we�re talking about here is the metaphysical method, how
representational systems  plumb truths from the world, and how we codifies
these truths as an existent thing. This is not merely the method of
philosophy, but as philosophy is the father of science, it also bears a
great deal of import both to the lens science applies to phenomena, and to
the world we see as a result of this view.

Although there are countless logical processes in philosophy, so many that
it would be counter-productive to list them all here, we may say, in general
terms, that what I mean by �method� is the specific process one uses to
posit a conclusion from a proposition. Quite obviously, this method must
remain cogent throughout the work. It is also self-evident that since the
method is the specific device used to investigate as well as �prove� the
proposed system of thought, (whatever it may be), it is really the method
that is brought to question when we investigate the validity of an argument,
rather than the philosophy itself. Or perhaps, more succinctly said,
philosophy, insofar as philosophy is not art, is method.

Every result is predicated on a specific method. The method is the device
through which the philosopher �looks around corners� and makes theories
about the nature of the universe separate from his experience. Unless the
specific method can somehow be �true� and �objective,� the results cannot be
true or objective. Empirical philosophy, with its deification of the senses,
has every bit as much faith in its method as the religious man has in his
God. We needn�t dismiss philosophical enquiry altogether, but we must give
up our simple notions of truth. The emphasis falls on the questions rather
than the answers. Furthermore, regarding metaphysical models, we mustn�t
forget that though gravity does not in fact work because it obeys Newton�s
laws, we did use Newton to get a man to the moon and back�

Philosophy  has hitherto had method as its primary presupposition, and yet
it takes a leap outside of that method in regard to man, and in particular,
in regard to ethics. In other words the self-interest of the Philosopher and
the philosophy itself naturally impedes the �objectivity� of the
investigation. The social necessities of the day have always infringed upon
the ends drawn from the means, (one may see unusually clear instances of
this in the philosophy of the middle ages), and although we may explain some
of this away as people themselves being sculpted by the acculturative
process of the time and place they live in, we cannot deny that certain
thoughts outside the method have impacted the conclusions drawn therein.
We may take a step even further: the method itself is a product of a time,
an age, a particular nervous system and physiological disposition. All
philosophy has been a product of this disposition. We can learn a great deal
of history, of philology, of psychology, from philosophy, (from this one
may, possibly, exclude phenomenology), and yet we may find nothing truly
philosophical in it, for we have set ourselves about the task of studying
the �outside world,� created systems of likeness  for studying those
perceptions, and inevitably wound up studying those representational systems
we have created rather than the world itself. In this manner, Ludwig
Feuerbach�s assertion that God is the objectified essence of humanity is
correct, although I would add in parenthesis that God is not so much the
strictly human, rather, he is the objectified human representational system.
As understood non-mystically, God �himself� is limited by the
phenomenological categories of humanity; in a sense he is nothing more than
the objectification of the human modes of apprehension. In proving God
through logic, one is merely deifying logic.

There is no means of determining the nature of an object outside of our
perceptions, God or otherwise, however, we may have some form of contact
through a representational system. Language is just such a system. The
implications of this, regarding religion, is stated best by Carl Jung,
�religion is man�s way of escaping (or dealing with) a religious
experience.� This is a point worth noting.

Being in itself is the existence of an object separate from sense data and
perception, or in other words, it is the essence of the object. It is the
�territory� of the object, while being for consciousness is the �map� of the
object. Being in itself may be known as an abstraction as being for
consciousness. Existence as essence is unknowable. It is the premise of
rational philosophers that logic may be used to get out of the closed system
of personal perception, to look �around corners� and in some way come to
understand the absolute existence, the essence, of an object. However, logic
too is based upon the methods and modes of perception we use; that is, how
the sensory apparatus that we have, the beliefs we hold, the world that the
apparatus, beliefs, and behaviors come from, and the behaviors that result
from those beliefs in the world all interact.

Let us simplify and say that perception is �a specific subject linked to an
object consisting in such-and-such qualities through its modes of sense.�
This implies a perceiver, a perceived, and the actual perception within the
manifold of space and time that yokes them together. The question �what is
being in itself,� or even �does being in itself exist,� is beside the point
because anything we use to look at an object or an idea is human, all too
human.

So long as we consider the question of the �reality� of being in itself a
hollow one, we must conclude that being for consciousness is �reality.� If
this is the case, and our intent is to understand the nature of reality, as
philosophy does, we come to realize that the object of scrutiny is not what
the thing itself is, but how it is experienced as it is to consciousness,
and why. This is the revolution in philosophy that followed from Kant�s
work.

This has implications within the corpus of philosophy that Kant was
unwilling to consider, that all philosophy, so long as it is considered
Platonically as a search for objective truth, is a tautological endeavor. A
philosophical �truth,� when exposed as it is, is a personal truth. Because
we all have similar sense equipment, and, when speaking on the grand scale,
our perception of reality is generally similar and consistent,  we will
naturally find certain �truths� or tribal truth pacts useful or even
necessary for the progression of knowledge and the evolution of our species.
This follows from William James� formulation of truth, as it is created
through application and may always be demonstrated untrue in the future.
Philosophy is essentially psychological, expressed in a literary fashion.
One need only read Zarathustra to see oftentimes blinding work of one who
knew this all too well. Philosophical questions are to be understood in a
psychological manner. Although the questions themselves may be
�philosophical,� the method of interpreting and explaining those
investigations is strictly psychological. One may say that the whole of
perception, to a subject, is all of the world to that subject. But can we,
as Feuerbach suggests, simply remove �to that subject� and thereby consider
the world to truly be the sum (or potentiality), of those perceptions?

  �Truth� is not singular because it cannot be � insofar as it stands in
relation to the consciousness of an observer that necessarily says �my
reality� merely through the process of perceiving, asserting subjective
reality over the idea of an objective absolute. One may, by means of
metaphysics or idealism, assert the absolute that we stand contrasted
against as particulars; however, this Being is nothing other than being for
consciousness, it is, in essence, no more or less real than any other
thought. We stand in contrast to our idea of God and the world. I do not
mean to imply that an idea is without existence. Rather, it implies that all
ideas have equal existence, (as idea), which necessarily precludes an
absolute idea as above other ideas. This hierarchy of �higher� and �lower,�
�more real� and �less real,� can only be a result of the experience and
subsequent predisposition of the author. We later establish a hierarchy of
order, a �tablet of values,� as Nietzsche calls it, to this experience. I do
not wish to push this to the extreme of moral relativism: our ethics have
values within the ethical world, within a world founded upon the laws that
we have created to be the ethical world. This does not mean that ethics are
without value, it means that they are without absolute value. A tree, a
lion, or a stone is in no way good or evil in itself. To think such a thing
is sheer lunacy.

This certainly puts a serious restriction on the value of assessing the
actual nature of reality or more importantly human relations through
philosophy or other indirect methods.

Philosophy IV. A Phenomenological View of the Mystical.


Now let us return to a model that we began in the last chapter. We created a
rather intellectual or abstracted model of the world, saying that A and B,
the subject and the object, are One. Though this led to a conclusion about
mystical practice, that there must be a yoga or union of the subject and
object for things to return to their so-called natural state, nothing was
said of how this model impacts our daily perceptions. As we�re stuck in the
role of being just one perceptive variable, and distance and location, cast
by our perception of the field of time, make this a world of apparent
multiplicity, most people cannot abstract themselves enough to conceive of
the macrocosm as well. The world of sense is a world of necessary
differentiation. Now we will consider the A & B model from a
phenomenological rather than mystical perspective, though we will take up
here where we left off there. Our presuppositions remain unchanged.

First, let�s consider briefly what I mean by the existence conveyed by a
perception. What do we mean when we say "this ___ exists?" We presuppose
that we need one perceiver of that thing-- it takes at least one perceiver
to notice that ___ and express that it exists. I know that in the next room,
there is something that, when my senses come into contact with it, will be a
large, brown table. But it doesn't exist as such until I verify it through
perception.

From this and our exploration of phenomenology through mysticism we can
create a cursory definition of existence to work with. Using the philosophic
terms already explored, we can say that the dialectic or tension of being
for consciousness and being in itself is existence. Existence lies not with
the subject or the object, but in the relation between them. It is the
simultaneous correspondence of two things � the seen and the seer � which
neither proves nor disproves their �absolute existence� separate from each
other. When I experience X, X is as fundamentally necessary to the process
as I am. Neither I nor my experience exists in a vacuum, as there is no
discontinuity between myself and the object, and my existence in that moment
is a synthesis of these relationships. In fact, the Cartesian model wherein
there is a separate �I� which experiences objects separate from itself does
not follow from the premises we developed in the section on mysticism.

Our cognition of an event must take into account �reality� as well as
�existence.� When we talk not of existence but of reality, we�re talking
about a consensus. Although I may have an experience alone, something is not
made �real� until it is verified by more than one person.

Let us suppose that person A and B perceive each other. Because of the
nature of projection, that we are limited in perceiving things relative to
our own makeup, we may also say that A�s perception of B is necessarily
based and limited by A, and B�s perception of A is necessarily based and
limited by B.  We can only experience what we can relate to. Thus, A�s
perception of B creates B�s existence insofar as A is concerned, and vice
versa. Therefore, from the objective or �outside of A and B� perspective,
what is �real� for A and B is what both have in common. In terms of this
particular interaction. the reality of A is predicated on B and vice versa.
This predication means that both must exist, or neither. Although it is
certain that Descartes never intended this interpretation, it is still safe
for us to say that �I think therefore I am� must imply �you think therefore
I am� as well as �I think therefore you are,� as it is created through the
unification of these two thoughts. Individual reality, excluding external
existence, is an impossibility.  The non-existence of B, (for example),
requires the subsequent non-existence of A. This is true not only with
individuals, but also holds true with the world model in the essay on
Mysticism. (Diagram 1.1.) We can uphold any reality paradigm so long as we
both have experience to uphold the belief and choose to agree in that
paradigm.

One may say that if A's perception is limited by A and B's by B, then you
are already giving A and B a "perception" based on something other than each
other. This is a mistaken reading. Each "letter" can only perceive a quality
which it already has, in some way, in itself. There's no way a modern
American can understand, really understand, the mindset of a 2nd century BC
Tibetan monk. What we consider �real� is what we can both relate to through
our experience, either directly or through the suspension of belief we use
when we read Science Fiction.

It is unknowable if A and B are One in existence, even if their essence is
the same. In the world of existence, the �everyday world,� all we can know
with certainty are those things that are agreed upon in both A & B.
Everything else is, although a phenomenon, not a reality.

Now the issue is epistemological, one of knowledge. A and B may be distinct.
However, when it comes to determining any sort of definite information from
this interaction, we must see how A & B both interact. I call this
subtractive verification. A must be subtracted from B. Whatever remains is
subject to uncertainty. For instance, A claims to have seen a red spotted
ball. B claims it was a blue spotted ball. We cannot, per se, subtract blue
from red, and so the discrepancy red-blue remains. That there was indeed a
ball completely falls out of the equation, however, because ball-ball
removes it. Insofar as this specific interaction is concerned, there was a
ball. Of everything else, we're unsure. The consensual reality is always
bland, as everything we don�t agree on, epistemologically speaking, falls
through the cracks. Media that is broadcast to be perceived and taken in as
part of this group reality is equally bland and frighteningly calculated.

Even the certainty of there being a ball is in a sense unsure, but it is
only unsure if we question the existence of A and/or B. So long as we can
agree that existence is the simultaneous correspondence of two things in a
specific perceptual situation that validates each other as "existent," (A &
B), we can safely assume that both A & B exists. We can assume that whatever
they agree upon is epistemologically valid for the sake of that interaction.
Although the value of that agreement is uncertain in terms of other
interactions, it is at least probable. From this we can see that existence
may be considered both singular and plural, one and many. The world may be
conceived of as both, and in fact may adhere to other lenses applied as
well.

This sort of phenomenological/epistemological �detective work� may seem a
little absurd to you, spelled out in this manner, but it is something we
must do all the time if we aren�t going to just �take people�s words for
it.� Much of Robert Anton Wilson�s writing, which has been categorized as
anything from Science Fiction to Occult, serves to alert people about how
easy it is to pull the wool over their eyes, if they don�t know how to
navigate in the world of fuzzy logic. There is a great deal of information
that cannot be subtractively verified in this manner, and all of this exists
in a �maybe� state, with a percentage of veridity which we must determine in
our investigation of the event. If you plan on becoming a magickian you must
master this process, because the ground we stand on is not solid.


Philosophy V. So Much For Truth (Part II.)

How can we determine the truth of a matter? In light of all we have
explored, is there sense in talking of �truth� at all?
There is a different between �truth� and �true.� �The truth� is singular,
and I would propose, relates to our belief of what the nature of reality
actually is. It is a noun, and metaphysically speaking, a substance. A
�true� statement, on the other hand, such as �my hair is brown,� is an
adjective, a quality that effects a substance. The ontology of mysticism
deals not with �true� statements but rather with �truth� statements�a
mystical experience by the virtue of its own nature is an experience that
allows us some sort of insight into the ontological foundation of the world
not allowed by �normal� modes of perception and cognition.



diagram 1.2 excerpted

Up to this point, most of my premises follow pretty clearly from Kant�s
Correspondence Theory. (See diagram 1.2) According to this theory, our
belief is true insofar as it corresponds to the phenomenal existence of a
thing without a concept. A 1:1 correspondence between the perceiver and the
perceived would bring about a true belief; this actually corresponds to what
I called the �Eastern� idea about clear perception �...as if through a clear
pane of glass.� �It is our lenses or beliefs which interfere with our
ability to perceive the reality of the matter, but it is out there.�
However, there are a number of problems with this theory that have been
implicitly introduced throughout previous chapters. Now I will introduce
them explicitly. Our beliefs about the world, about truth, are formed as
much by our interactions with other people as with the phenomenon itself.



  diagram 1.3 excerpted

Synthesizing the correspondence theory of truth and our means of verifying
the true with how our beliefs are effected by other people requires some
serious thought. I will continue with the A and B example we worked with
above. Referring to diagram 1.3, we can see that person A believes
something. That belief may be the result of a phenomenal experience, the
statements and propositions of person B, or the verification and comparison
I/O  we do every day by looking at what other people believe.  It could be a
mixture of all three of these things. As we form a belief, we propose these
beliefs to others through our behavior and through our statements and
propositions about what �the truth� is. Generally, part of the process of
forming a belief is our constant feedback with our environment both
phenomenally and with the belief statements that make up that environment.

It is very rare that our beliefs are truly fixed. Although we would often
like to believe that we hold a sound epistemological view of the world, the
maps that we create out of the territory are constantly shifting and
changing to deal with the new experiences that we have. I do not mean to
imply that this variability is a negative thing, since only the most rigid
(and boring), individuals would hold forever unchanging beliefs. Given a
short period of time, these individuals would also be the most archaic,
reptilian creatures imaginable. This variability does say something about
our knowledge of the �truth�: we relate not to the world as it is but to the
world as we think of it as being. We cannot know the world as it is, only as
it is represented to us phenomenologically.  Every day of our lives we fight
a �reality war� with those around us, the results of which determine the
very maps we live in.

From this I would conclude that our virtue as a self-aware species lies not
in our ever being able to come to a singular truth, but rather in our
ability to rapidly adapt and re-represent our environment to ourselves in
such a way that we can change the entire substance of reality (to
ourselves), in a matter of hours or even minutes. This adaptability requires
little more than child-like wonder for the world. I�m quite sure you have
had an experience that almost instantly forever changed the nature of
reality. Surprisingly quickly you adapted and that suddenly alien world
became the �normal everyday world.� There are as many realities as there are
divergent lenses (perceivers) brought to it; nevertheless, the world itself
is singular and undivided.




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

Greetings List Members,

In light of recent disturbing events, many people will be engaging in
prayer and meditation tonight at 11 pm (local time). I invite all who
receive this message to join us in this work tonight and as often as
you feel necessary and/or appropriate in the days and weeks which
follow. The following meditation has been offered as one of many
possible activities, though one which seems particularly appropriate
at this time.

Desmontes

***********

Dear Friend:

I am sending this meditation along to you, it may resonate with your
feelings, as it does with mine.  If it does seem aligned with your
inner self, please distribute it among your own friends.

I would encourage you to just send it embedded in the text of your
email, attachments are going to be pretty sketchy on the net for
awhile, probably.

With love and blessings to all of you, my friends, in this difficult
time.

***********

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

As an act of meditation and prayer, all of us can perform this act of
conscious love and intention on a regular basis throughout this
crisis.  It is a variation of an esoteric exercise called "The Cube
of Space".  It sends love and harmony to all directions.

If you are not aware of how to perform this exercise, take note:

Facing East, imagine that from every direction - up, down, in front
of you, behind you, to your right and your left, all the love of the
Universe is streaming into your self.

In the same fashion, starting with above, below, east, west, south
north, send intentional love and blessings to ALL LIFE, as far as the
infinite goes.

If anyone would like to give a better description of this practice,
feel free.  However, this will do off the cuff.

If you wish to have a meditational "mantra" to enforce this, a
helpful one given to me by some very powerful souls long ago was the
following:

"I AM THE LOVE OF GOD FLOWING THROUGH ME"

This phrase contains a paradoxical "koan"-like formula and is
extremely potent and is the healing mantra of a very ancient society
of adepts.

I am sharing these ideas with you because we are each of us centers
of the One Life, and as centers, we can remain awake and conscious of
the Truth behind the events we are seeing.  As awake individuals we
are able to ACT, and to use INTENTION, to focus our will, in concert
with our brethren of adepti who are right now aligned in
transmutation of this event.

Remember that you are connected to the astral waves of fear, despair,
anger, hatred, rippling out from this event, as you are part of the
Body of All Life which exists in this realm, the earth. Allow
yourself to remember that these feelings which course through you are
the fears of hundreds, or perhaps millions of other people, and don't
belong specifically to yourself. IF YOU ARE CONSCIOUS OF THEM, YOU
CAN TRANSMUTE THEM.

Transmutation is the balancing of opposites.  If you do not
feel "capable" personally of finding the balance point inside
yourself, I recommend you go back to the "mantra" that I have sent
you.

There are individuals who have moved oceans with it.

The waters are very turbulent, but your thoughts will help calm the
waters. What you can perceive, you can transmute.

In Service to the One.
Anonymous

***********

--- "Jones, David R." <djones@...> wrote:
> The 4th flight # is 175 which is the most perplexing

Care:
What is the meaning of 175?  I admit ignorance here
the date of 9/11 i just thought has not only significance in the numbers,
but also..... 911.

There are alot of masonic references, or rather, seemingly deliberate
calculations so far with this horrific event- Im not being "paranoid" but
I cant "help" but notice them - whether they have meaning i dont know...

93/93
~m~

=====
"Mirrors would do well if they reflected a little more before they sent forth
their images" --John Cocteau
http://www.sardonic.da.ru
http://www.geocities.com/zazas23

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

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

The 4th flight is not perplexing at all.

175:
the spirit of venus QDMAL
a slipping, falling KPYLH
(1-(7x7)}divided by 7 (divided, added, mulitiplied)

434:
The Lord of War AISh MLChMH
a Door DLTh

It is in keeping with the theme of the day, imo.

Love is the law, love under will.

Athena





At 12:15 PM 9/11/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>The 4th flight # is 175 which is the most perplexing
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sardonic [mailto:sardonic74@...]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 11:59 AM
>To: Thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com; 667forum@yahoogroups.com;
>forum@...; sardonic_radio@yahoogroups.com;
>project2012@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [t93] Coin-see-denses
>
>
>Date: 9/11/01
>
>The last time the WTC was bombed was in 1993
>
>Flight numbers we know of 93, 11, 77
>
>Crew count on flights =11
>passenger count on flight 93 = 36 (was reported, i am uncertain)
>
>Oh and theres so much more
>Aye! Listen!
>
>93/93
>~m~
>
>
>
>
>
>=====
>"Mirrors would do well if they reflected a little more before they sent
>forth their images" --John Cocteau
>http://www.sardonic.da.ru
>http://www.geocities.com/zazas23
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://im.yahoo.com
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>thelema93-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>thelema93-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

yeah.. and 156.. was afraid this intense load of synchronicities would be
improper to note.. what would that signify in this context?

93s,

jeroen
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: sardonic
   To: Thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com ; 667forum@yahoogroups.com ; forum@... ;
sardonic_radio@yahoogroups.com ; project2012@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:59 PM
   Subject: [t93] Coin-see-denses


   Date: 9/11/01

   The last time the WTC was bombed was in 1993

   Flight numbers we know of 93, 11, 77

   Crew count on flights =11
   passenger count on flight 93 = 36 (was reported, i am uncertain)

   Oh and theres so much more
   Aye! Listen!

   93/93
   ~m~





   =====
   "Mirrors would do well if they reflected a little more before they sent forth
their images" --John Cocteau
   http://www.sardonic.da.ru
   http://www.geocities.com/zazas23

   __________________________________________________
   Do You Yahoo!?
   Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
   http://im.yahoo.com

         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   thelema93-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

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

I do agree with you guys on the numerical significance of this disaster, but
what does it mean.

If it truly is a New Aeonic event, will does it tell us? The beginning of
the reign of the Law of Liberty?

Love is the law, love under will.

Loek.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Key XVI - The Blasted Towers - symbols of war.


  Prophet 718

--- In thelema93-l@y..., "Jeroen Hoogeweij" <vajra@w...> wrote:
> yeah.. and 156.. was afraid this intense load of synchronicities
would be improper to note.. what would that signify in this context?

Excellent question Brother Vajra. I see the changing of the guard in
the offing. Mayhaps the time spoken of by Brother Nostradamus and the
leader who will rise and help us overcome it.

Uranus

>
> --- "Jones, David R." <djones@...> wrote:
> > The 4th flight # is 175 which is the most perplexing
>
> Care:
> What is the meaning of 175?  I admit ignorance here
> the date of 9/11 i just thought has not only significance in the numbers,
> but also..... 911.
>
> There are alot of masonic references, or rather, seemingly deliberate
> calculations so far with this horrific event- Im not being "paranoid" but
> I cant "help" but notice them - whether they have meaning i dont know...
>


I've also noticed two coincidences in my life: I had my birthday yesterday
and my computer had a little disaster since many many times. As for more
general questions, my friend astrologist wrote an article in Polish which
compares horoscope of the very moment, when USA were attacked with natal
horoscope of USA. Very interesting coincidences.

Thelema et Agape

Frater Carezza

At 03:09 PM 9/12/01 -0000, Jason Carpenter wrote:
>I see the changing of the guard in
>the offing. Mayhaps the time spoken of by Brother Nostradamus and the
>leader who will rise and help us overcome it.

Leaving accuracy of interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains aside for the
moment (I've worked enough with his writing in the original French to have
my own ideas about what he was writing and I don't believe it was
prophecies)...

Just thought I'd mention this. I don't know if anyone here has been taken
in by the false Nostradamus quatrain that has been circulating lately. I'm
talking about this one:

"In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great
leader will succumb,
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

- Nostradamus 1654

Anyway, Nostradamus did not write that. For one thing, Nostradamus died in
1566. For another, that quatrain was made up by a cynic to show how easy it
is to make up quatrains, Nostradamus-style, that could mean almost
anything. This is the guy's anti-Nostradamus page:
http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~nmarshal/nostradamus.htm

I'm not saying that you are basing your Nostradamus theories on this false
quatrain, but I thought I'd point htis out since I've now seen the hoax
quatrain several times and I'm guessing that many other folks on this list
have as well, considering the circles within which we travel.

Agape,
Sparrow

93,

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Dariusz Misiuna wrote:

> my friend astrologist wrote an article in Polish which compares
> horoscope of the very moment, when USA were attacked with natal
> horoscope of USA. Very interesting coincidences.

Can you translate any of that into English for us?  I'm
wondering if there's any correlation to the Saturn/Pluto
opposition cycle we're in.  Robert Hand wrote an article about
this cycle in the Aug/Sept 2001 issue of "The Mountain Astrologer"
which I thought was a bit overly doom and gloom.

93 93/93
Fir

The flight numbers of the plans..
Flight 11 - The date is the 11th
Flight 93 - 9+3 = 12 - Today is the 12th
Flight 157 - 1+5+7 = 13 - Thrusday is the 13th
Flight 77 - 7+7 = 14 - Friday is the 14th

Just another set of number games ...


93, 93/93
posterchilde

93!

      Actually, wouldn't Atu XXVIV be more appropriate? I mean, yeah, Blasted
Towers is a pretty apt symbol, but there are two in the Moon card. "Upon the
hills are the black towers of nameless mystery, of horror and of fear. All
prejudice, all superstition, dead tradition and ancestral loathing, all
combine to darken her face before the eyes of men."

93 93/93
RIKB

>  Key XVI - The Blasted Towers - symbols of war.
>
>
>  Prophet 718

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

> I do agree with you guys on the numerical significance of this disaster,
but
> what does it mean.

I thought it was great that flight 93 was the one that someone (evidently)
crashed intentionally in the middle of nowhere, presumably to prevent it
from hitting it's target.  Of course, no one is sure of what actually
happened on any of the flights yet, but it's nice to think that at least one
passenger on one of those planes was man (or woman) enough to risk a knife
wound to help prevent tens of thousands of deaths, and the almost complete
disruption of the largest free economy on earth.  BTW, according NPR
coverage, a caller on that flight stated that they knew they were going to
die, and 3 of them were going to do something about it. (Another number for
qabalistic conspiracy theorists!)

> If it truly is a New Aeonic event, will does it tell us? The beginning of
> the reign of the Law of Liberty?

Since when is private property and human life being destroyed in the name of
Allah a harbinger of freedom?  If you're looking to a crazed Muslim
terrorist as some sort of prophet of the New Aeon, you are my natural enemy.
That being said, perhaps these events will help people realise what
believing in any ONE TRUE GOD(TM) leads to, and mostly decent people may
finally put their god back where it belongs, at least for a while.  Until
then, I suspect the world is going to suck for everyone for a while.  I just
hope we can avoid Martial law in the US during this shit.

Jesse Krenzelok

Love is the law, love under will.

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

I'm not sure I can seriously follow a thread about the gematria of
hijacked airlines, but I just found the following in a story about the
Pennsylvania crash:

"Investigators searching the wreckage of United Airlines Flight 93 in
western Pennsylvania said Thursday they had not found the plane's flight
data and cockpit voice recorders. FBI agent Bill Crowley said the
grid-by-grid search of the crash site would continue and that he was
confident the recorders would be located."

Okay, so having Agent Crowley working through the debris of Flight 93
using a grid is a bit spooky, I confess.

Love is the law, love under will.

Regards,
-e.

This is one of many suggestions circulating the Web.  This
is the one I seem most drawn to right now amidst the Reiki
work and Magick I am doing with my clan.  Please consider
sharing this as appropriate with others.  I do not know its
source, but it is a blessed idea.  I would like to think
they chose Friday because it belongs to the Planet Venus
and the Goddess of Love and Healing, but that's my wishful
thinking. ;)

Bringing the Ocean of BlueFire to the Earth,

Love and Blessings,

David


CANDLE LIGHTING
Friday Night at 7:00 p.m. step out your door, stop your
car, or step  out of  your establishment and light a
candle. We will show the world that Americans are strong
and united together against terrorism. Please pass this to
everyone on your e-mail list. We need to reach everyone
across the United  States quickly.

The message: WE STAND UNITED - WE WILL NOT TOLERATE
TERRORISM.


=====
***********************************************************
For Love Alone I have endured,
By Naught but Love may I be known,
When all else fades and turns to dust,
I shall remain my Mother's own."

www.keen.com/MichealSabazius

_______________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Avaryce wrote:

> > I do agree with you guys on the numerical significance of this disaster,
> but
> > what does it mean.
>
> I thought it was great that flight 93 was the one that someone (evidently)
> crashed intentionally in the middle of nowhere, presumably to prevent it
> from hitting it's target.  Of course, no one is sure of what actually
> happened on any of the flights yet, but it's nice to think that at least one
> passenger on one of those planes was man (or woman) enough to risk a knife
> wound to help prevent tens of thousands of deaths, and the almost complete
> disruption of the largest free economy on earth.  BTW, according NPR
> coverage, a caller on that flight stated that they knew they were going to
> die, and 3 of them were going to do something about it. (Another number for
> qabalistic conspiracy theorists!)

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

Largest free economy on earth? Only defined in terms of its own
propaganda. The conflation of Thelema with capitalism or, for that matter,
any old aeonic economic system is a constant mystery to me.

> > If it truly is a New Aeonic event, will does it tell us? The beginning of
> > the reign of the Law of Liberty?
>
> Since when is private property and human life being destroyed in the name of
> Allah a harbinger of freedom?  If you're looking to a crazed Muslim
> terrorist as some sort of prophet of the New Aeon, you are my natural enemy.

I took the original post as meaning that this might be an omen, not as an
approval of the action.

> That being said, perhaps these events will help people realise what
> believing in any ONE TRUE GOD(TM) leads to, and mostly decent people may
> finally put their god back where it belongs, at least for a while.

Doubtful. Christians have seldom responded to external attack by
questioning their own religious views, and the reaction of the general
Moslem populace borders on indifference at best. Both religions are
strengthened by this sort of thing.

Love is the law, love under will.

Regards,
Eric

"and the survivors will pray in a new way, and the force of their prayer will
kill the evil leader..."
unsure of which prophecy I am getting this from, any help in locating it would
be awesome, some other things from it, in a hopes to ring a bell.

"there will be a line, and those inside this lines the bodies will be black, and
the trees will be blackened, and the grass will be dead" (may be a misquote, I
was in a state of shock when I heard all of this)

"the big war will begin when the golden city is burning"

Elf

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

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, M. David wrote:

> This is one of many suggestions circulating the Web.  This
> is the one I seem most drawn to right now amidst the Reiki
> work and Magick I am doing with my clan.  Please consider
> sharing this as appropriate with others.  I do not know its
> source, but it is a blessed idea.  I would like to think

Please keep forwarded petitions etc off of T93; surely there are ways to
at least bring a token mention of Thelema as it applies to this situation
into the discussion.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.
==
http://www.realm-of-shade.com .`. .`. .`. .`. http://www.reverendrob.com
==
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean
of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is
unclean." - Romans 14:14