tom chaudoin <taammuz@yahoo. com>
>>I can do this based on available
>>hypothesis both from primitive mythologies to the
>>more cogent of varieties of New Thought/4th Way systems.
>I don't think Aiwass per se appears in any mythologies.
No he doesn't nor did I suggest such. He can be described as a 'demi-god' or 'hierarchical being' of some sort. Everything from the Goetia to the Mahabarata gives us ideas as to the nature of such beings.
>that would be neat. in some cases i have seen such
>revealed information apply pragmatically only to the
>hearer of the new data, also.
Of course. However, the pragmatic value I refer to here is the fact that an English Qaballah can more rapidly lead an English speaking person to understanding Qaballistic work and data in general.
Beyond that, I feel it is largely subjective, as you assert.
>>The data imparted (EQ/s) does exceed the apparent
>>knowledge and scope of the 'author' (AC).
>i have a friend who is intending to construct
>(or, if you like, 'discover' or 'concoct') one for the
>LaVeyan Satanic Bible.
It better be complex, or Leo and Tim will dismember it forcefully, lol.
>i do think that
>scrutiny into such codes and contentions through
>time will reveal to us that these are fallacious in
>their 'signification' as to authority and import.
Some data in this regard is already apparent. Many of the '666' tangents and variations of 6 in Hebrew QBLH, seem to be the result of a Base 60 (Sumerian) to Base 10 (Hebrew) translation of alphanumerics, nothing more.
What seems to be important about gematria and QBLH is that it 'supports' the idea of higher intelligence. Perhaps it is of human origin, albeit extremely gifted human origin. And, there are examples which you already cite. Another cogent specimen may be The Voynich Manuscript.
These things being said, there still seems to be a codification process in Liber AL which Crowley knew not of, if he did, he surely would have mentioned it. Also, it is extant that he too dismissed any referents both to his own solution for Liber 27, and ALW. However, it has fallen to others to reveal what may be of value in these cipher systems. Thus, it can be reasonably claimed that Crowley had no knowledge of these items, and further, he spurned them.
>>This is important to the 'Crowleyan Thelemite'
>a matter of opinion, as above. in fact, the argument
>may be made that there is no such thing as what might
>be called 'a Crowleyan Thelemite' insofar as cultists
>after Crowley are disoriented from their true will,
These things are matters of your opinion. Furthermore, it implies that you are an authority upon who or who is not 'disoriented'.
This 'disorientation' as you call it, could merely be your description, employing the same type of subjective reckoning which you criticize here.
Said 'disorientation' could merely be another workable point of view, which provokes a reaction from those operating a differing method.
>and those who read of the Master closely and his
>Book will see that self-proclamation as 'Thelemite'
>is not a Crowleyan recommendation (it is possible
>that Aiwass or some other august authority from
>within Liber Al forbids it).
Well I would argue that AC is of more than one mind on the matter, having both warned against Thelemic proselytization for one and heartily endorsing it for another in writing. However, this use of paradox should be regarded as redundant by all of us by now in this type of literature and writer.
>all that said, it is entirely disputable that what
>constitutes these 'evidences' are strong in any
>reliable sense, and the legitimacy which they
>ostensibly posit is, therefore, strictly contested.
This is why I use 'best evidence' in place of 'conclusive evidence'.
Absolute unarguable evidence, the 'smoking gun'; may be impossible to obtain, but the search for it may remain a workable tangent of exploration for many or just a few.
>there's always problems with such extravagant
>claims as to "what could not have been done
>through ordinary means". it is precisely this
>kind of logical fallacy.....
>... however often
>a fancy code or Supreme Secret may be
>serendipitously or intentionally
>discovered within its character set.
And, such a code doesn't mean you have accept the Jehovah Witnesses into your home. It does mean that others may find it of value in their own practice and report on it as much.
Also, it is apparent that Crowley neglected and rejected, respectively, the two cipher solutions to AL that were available to him, which have arguably revealed the most cogent data about the Book in general. This is enough for it at least to be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Leo seems to be fairly self-contained in his assertion that TEQ has a workable theurgical system within it. We in the ALW camp know, beyond all doubt, that the ALW cipher has such a astrotheological system attached to it which has borne fruit for decades for those willing to explore it. This doesn't mean that 'all must convert', nor does it even mean we advocate you 'pay 9.95 a month to join'. Simply recognize that your critical inquiry of those that work with these items applies to your own subjective explorations as well.
Thusly, our 'notions of soul' can be supported by our experiential reports and collective analysis, which may contain methods, facts, and experiences which others may find useful.
>it's fun at points and has things to tell
>its fans. more than this requires faith
>that i do not have to lend it.
Well, that makes me wonder if you have experienced any paranormal phenomena in your occult work at all, or, if you have, how you evaluate such phenom.
>having no reason to think any of them sound, i don't
>consider L. Ron Hubbard's fiction any more or less
>valuable than much of the rest of religious hogwash
>as to the "essentiality" we supposedly house/are.
I find it personally valuable, and cogent to my own experience. I also have found the time I have spent with an e-meter to be highly valuable,
which has led me to serious entertainment of LRH's theoretical approach, which is non-fiction, in that context.
>>However, some electrons burn in the core of
>>stars I suppose.
>this much at least has some basis in fact.
>electrons are real....
Well, in point of fact, they are not, if you can prove they are, please show me a picture of an electron, or of any other elementary atomic particle for that matter. Particle physics, even though masquerading as a hard science, deals in a great deal of tautological math and theoretical constructs which to this day, have never been fully proven.
Theoretical Physics is also rife with such tautological math, and with contradictory, paradoxically inconsistent use of terms which they conveniently refer to as 'primitives'. This is religious thinking in of itself. This thinking is also piggybacked on the celebrity status of celebrity physicists, who are a priesthood unto themselves. Nowhere is lab process and observational process violated across the board like it is in theoretical physics. In 500 years, such mythologizing could be very rightly categorized into further 'flat-earth thinking', about the nature of our reality.
It seems inconsistent to uphold the tautological assertions of Theoretical Physics while cynically denigrating the more esoteric models of cosmology preached on this list. There is no qualitative difference between the two. In fact, the Qaballists have better numbers than the Physicists as far as self-consistency is concerned.
Chronic skeptics seem to have neither.