"Sandi Peterson" <seagal@...
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
do what thou wilt and no other shall say nay.
> > Can someone please explain to me the practical
> > and/or psycho-spiritual difference in the Thelemic
> > approach to the mysteries, as opposed to a more
> > classical approach? What are the 'mechanical'
> > differences?
> 333, it amazes me we perceive things so differently,
> but not really. I think we're talking about the same
> box, but you look at the outside, I crawl around inside.
> From the inside it all looks the same. To me, this is only
> a question about "Prayer". Mechanics and techniques
> don't matter.
interesting. it was to a question about those
that i was responding. I hope that someone with
a greater familiarity to them than i follows up
on that discussion. it is a very important one.
> Whether it's Reciting Liber Resh or the 23 Psalm,
> or Singing to Shiva, Invoking HGA is Invoking HGA.
that sounds a jumble of purposes and methods to me.
obviously we use words in different ways. I have no
problem with that and love people's lexiconic art.
> Far as "The Orders" are concerned, it's difficult
> for me to think of them as Thelemic, in the
> Practical sense of the Word. At least I've never
> heard of any OTO do-gooders - Could be wrong,
> maybe I just haven't heard, all I have heard is
> bickering and law suits over who's the "real" heir
> to the throne.
personal relationships may help to display those if
one happens to know the right people. all of it at
a distance will result in just hearing the dirt,
as it were, like from Brother Koenig's website,
which has some very important information.
> Charging for Grade Initiations, especially on an
> escalating scale, to me is no different than any
> other form of "drug dealing" or pandering.
one sets one's boundaries and draws one's conclusions.
I've never seen anyone turned away from an initial
engagement for lack of funds, but i suppose one might
argue that these are prospective funders to the order.
I would wager that if one was sufficiently integral to
the social network of the order then there would be a
number who would be willing to assist one to at least
come to the status of First Degree. beyond this it
would depend upon a person's individual interests.
it doesn't seem prohibitively expensive to me, but
i am a privileged mongrel male living in one of the
largest consumer nations on the planet (thus biased).
> >> there is an entire metaphysic supposed beyond
> >> the imagination where it may be ascertained that
> >> these activities are taking place ("on the astral
> >> plane", "in the spiritual realm", "on the plane
> >> of the gods", etc.)
> > But why do you say "supposed"?
> > because i am not in the least convinced of its
> > reality as stated. I tentatively suppose that it is
> > wholly imaginary and is thus mediated, through
> > imagination, to consciousness. these other separable
> > (and distinguishable somehow from the ordinary,
> > mundane, material, physical) dimensions or planes
> > are stipulated by occultists as operating by different
> > laws or principles, having different effects in their
> > engagement, and generally as being different than
> > facets of mind and subjectivity.
> We've had this conversation before. Only thing I can say
> is; convinced is convinced, not convinced is not convinced,
> but have you never experienced a personal response from
> the "spiritual realm"?
I think i've been fairly plain in my descriptions of
my relationships with a variety of apparent beings or
intelligences beyond my own mind. these have included
what i perceived were dragons, elementals, demons,
and gods. I have not determined that they were 'from
a realm' other than through the mechanism of my own
consciousness that i was so contacted. I have not
determined that any 'dimension' or 'realm' exists in
association to what i can confirm of 'the spiritual',
which seems to me, strictly speaking, subjective
experience of life as a human being.
people take this kind of experience and conclude from
it that 'there is spirit', 'there is a soul', and that
'there is a spiritual realm', but from where i sit
there is no such thing. there is the body, there is a
consciousness which being born as this body makes
possible, and there is the experience of being this
body and consciousness as an animal that is
misunderstood for something disassociated. I see no
reason to move on to these other suppositions or
conclusions, even if i am contacted or make contact
with unusual intelligences beyond this.
if you do and would like to explain why, i am open to
hearing from you your thoughts. I have asked numerous
people to reflect on it and over time come to the
conclusion that i reason better than most who perceive
similar things, and am now therefore comfortable
concluding differently (and by my estimation, more
skillfully) where it is concerned. for many years i
sat on the fence evaluating so as to be fair to those
who had years ahead of me and seemed to represent a
better logic or insight, but after discovery that
careful patient challenge to these people produced no
better evidence, and slow, calm observation of the
finite, animal organism that i am did likewise, i
have come to some pragmatic tentative conclusions
and am now operating from them and contending
> >>> "(no other dimensions can i confirm as real)".
> >> First of all, who can confirm this dimension is real? ...
> > I can, after Descartes, Chuang Tzu, and any number of
> > others. substitute 'operating', 'functionally well-described',
> > or even 'has separable integrity' if you like. I use Occam's
> > Razor. ;)
> Well, the deeper science looks into the atomic structure
> of the Universe, the more Nothing they find. There's no
> physical "proof" we're here. We're only here because we
> believe we're here. If we didn't believe we're here, we
> wouldn't be here.
nonsense. belief isn't the fulcrum of existence, and this is
not supported by subatomic examinations displaying a wealth
of space between particles or their components structured by
forces or energetic form. that's a faulty conclusion about
the way the cosmos exists and what we are finding about it.
it proceeds from a similar position as those who conclude,
again faultily as i evaluate it, that bodies are a result
of consciousness rather than that nervous systems that are
part of bodies facilitate or make possible consciousness.
it seems to me backwards and completely unfounded.
> I am because I think I am.
that's a twisted variation on Descartes, who concluded that
he could be sure that something existed, once having doubted
and suspended all his knowledge about the cosmos, because of
the doubt that remained. *something* doubts, and that
something he was comfortable aligning with, however vaguely.
mystics beyond him (and of course before him) went further
and examined more concisely what that something was and is.
modern science has examined quite helpfully what the animal
that we are is. Occam's Razor has us as thinking meat,
and that's quite a miracle all on its own!
> >> As a personal phenomenon, Liber AL is my Religion.
> >> I'm not a member of any cult or gathering besides
> >> 93Thelema.
to be clear, i meant by 'cult' a 'religious group' with no
slur intended, despite the accusatory meaning that this term
has acquired during the latter part of the 20th century with
its 'anti-cultism' and 'anti-satanism' witch hunts promoted
largely by Christians.
> > by my estimate, then, and given that this constitutes the
> > entirety of your religious activities, you are not a member
> > of any religion. you may be having your own spirituality,
> > but religion as i understand it is a social phenomenon
> > with coordinated actions and, at times, ideations/doctrines.
> Religion: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and
> purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation
> of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional
> and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
> governing the conduct of human affairs.
lovely lexicon. I now understand why you claim what you do.
my understanding of 'morality' is that it is a social imposition
and this differs from 'ethics' which are personal and may or may
not form into some kind of 'code'.
people's suppositions about purposes for the cosmos, creationism,
and what governs the conduct of human affairs beyond strict
sociopolitical structures are what i mean by 'their spirituality'
(and beliefs inherent to these). they're inconsequential as any
kind of religion to my way of thinking, but i don't oppose them.
> Seems to me I can be a member of my Religion if I want to be
> and believe I am, and say I am - who's to argue with that?
twisting and shaping the words to our own ends, you can surely
do whatever you want to. by considering magic to be something
as small as exercising the will, we can consider yourself to
be a magician (inferring power and skill) when brushng your
teeth or walking through the woods. it is fun, and may be
subjectively helpful. it is in no way necessarily convincing
to others using terminology conventionally who examine
the world and communicate in orthodox language, however.
> In any event, I enjoy your conversation very much.
so do i, thank you for engaging it. :)
> Love is the Law, Love under Will.
Invoke me under my stars.