tom chaudoin <taammuz@...
> I find it distasteful when thelemites mock the efforts of their
> brothers and sisters, regardless of how radical they may seem to them.
agreed completely. that's precisely what it is: distasteful.
> Even when that ridicule is couched in valuable critique. This tactic
> continues to give the OTO black eyes and doesn't seem to serve the
> endgoal of creating a larger 'thelemic community' in general.
within certain wrestling-ring forums (such as this) it can seem
quite tedious, and yet i think it is important that it take place.
within designated forums pertaining to specific business wherein
axioms of value are presumed agreed, it is valuably excluded.
> part of thelemic social theory that I understand is an atmosphere of
> tolerance and objectivity when it comes to this kind of work. It seems
> that what we're left with a lot of the time is folks leaning on their
> historical education as a kind of orthodoxy in itself and a pet ax to
yes, it can easily become this.
> Even worse, you have others who lean on their solipsistic
> impressions of AL, based on gematria or whatever,(...or maybe Ra Hoor
> smokes bong-hits with 'em), who fanatically use them as devices to bash anything
> which seems personally incongruous to those impressions, all the time
> crying "Why would "anyone" believe what you *believe*?
> The former can
> come across as disingenuine, whereas the latter just comes across as
> silly, or worse, fanatical.
yes, at some point it breaks down into mad barking.
> Its obvious that we all arrived
> at out present conclusions about these topics because we found a
> functionality in them, an efficaciousness which was either
> painstakingly arrived at via disciplined practice, or came in a
> theophanic flash of epiphany, or heavens forbid, an ordered examination
> of the facts at hand. Hopefully, each of our paths have contained a
> little of all of these things.
that's broad-sighted of you and i am inclined to agree with it
in principle and treat others accordingly. that seems the gist
of 'treating others as Kings'.
> It seems that most of our mutual
> critique of each other is fairly knee-jerk based upon the impression
> that "Hey, that doesn't jibe with how I understand it..." or worse
> "That's heresy.... or apostasy, at least."
acknowledging these, even without acceding to them as
authoritative, seems to be important. some things *do*
seem heretical to people, and some mismatches of jibe
*do* occur within discussions. so be it.
> This seems to nullify the opposite impression "Hey,
> this dude has been doing it this way for a bit to great
> effect, lets go see why."
it might. I'd say it may be comparable to "Hey that
is just like I think of it" and "That is precisely what
my guru tells me is accurate." it's all a matter of
vetting and social decorum.
> What would it take for us banish our knee-jerk rhetoric
> and examine each other in a more friendly objective manner?
that seems to have been occurring a bit of late. perhaps
all it takes is a place to do it, some time to do it in,
and an interest in attending to more than our knees? :)
> I think Lucy hit the nail when she said I was creating an
> argument where none existed. Re-examining the thread, I
> conclude she was correct. ...
some arguments are better grappled with by those who are
interested in them, while best left alone by those without
interest. it serves the diversity of the whole to encompass
all the sneers (when respectable and substance-ridden from
some perspective of coherency) and the cheers, whatever
their overall resolution (or lack thereof). creating
arguments where none exist can be important, constitutes
philosophy of a particular type, and if pursued with
diligence, may bring matters to light unseen prior.
> ...At the end of the day, this process is
> entirely my right to execute, it is also my right to share this data as
> I see fit, and draw conclusions about it. It is NOT my right to share
> my conclusions about gematria and then chirp "Now why wouldn't anyone
> believe that?" in an ill-motivated attempt to form pre-conceived
all the same, it may occur, and we may shake our heads and laugh.
> I have to regard any attempt to promulgate a
> single cipher solution to AL as fanatical thinking at this point.
it is interesting what qualifies as such fanatical thinking. I'm
certainly able to regard all the gematrics and anything to do
with Liber Al as fanaticism of a type, but my scope is somewhat
askew the dedicated religious and mystics strapped to the base
of the Crowley canon, as it were.
> Or, a
> single subset of gematria hits as the 'only means' to interpret AL.
that's again liable to be the methodology of *some* fanatic,
if they can do so without slander and without pelting us with
20,000 lines of text and massive graphic files in an attempt to
offer us "convincing proof". links to those files are enough.
> I think it is demonstrable from the amount of argumentation
> these systems provoke that the purpose of gematria is NOT
> to form dogmatic consensus.
this seems a MOST sustainable axiom of purpose, in that we
can observe them not working to form it at least. ;)
> What's important about these systems is their functionality to the
> individuals who practice them, and, to what degree they can demonstrate
> their effectiveness to others. But, the repeatability factor of lab
> process which one might apply after the fact collapses when it comes to
> theurgic systems....
yes, to me they function as information or data generators,
but are DIVINATORY, and so while scientific in a sense are
not clinical and their reproduceability is neither apparent
nor required outside the clutches gathered to engage in that.
> People like Castaneda and
> books like the Necronomicon are examples of people creating functional
> theurgic systems practically out of nothing at all, or highly disparate
> literary sources.
Castaneda offered a fraud to the academic world. Simon, aka
Peter Lavenda, offered a type of fraud to the occult world.
that fraudulence may be utilized by the faithful to operate
methodologies of magic or religion has been demonstrated
long prior to them in conventional religions. that they
may do so in today's world is amusing if little else.
I know of no coherent defense of Castaneda's fraud, but i
have myself, in 'Liber Grimoiris -- The Parallels of East
and West: Termas, Grimoires and "The Necronomicon"' at
argued that many possibilities exist where this post-Lovecraftian
and post-Sumerian bauble might be considered. I've also posited
in reflection of Daniel Harms and others what might be required
to establish an actual Necronomicon, and i'm not sure that that
kind of text would be so useful to ceremonialists as i have
understood Simon's text can become. see:
> Liber AL and Thelema, at least, has some historical,
> traditional basis to draw from, which does seem to
> grant it legitimacy as a 'religion'.
it's basis seems to be human, and British egyptomaniac.
> It will never be an 'orthodox religion' as we understand
> it though, if it ever becomes one, I will renounce it,
in each conclave a little orthodoxy seems to develop.
> "Thou hast become an IN-initiate, get OUT!"
that sounds somewhat at odds with any cult whatever,
which i can appreciate. ;)