--- In email@example.com
, "Rikb" <rikb@h...> wrote:
> > Rikb wrote:
> > > The raison d'etre of your entire corpus of work just snapped
> > > into stunning clarity when I read the above. Mustn't make too >
> > much sense! LOL
> > Prophet 718:
> > The purpose in providing essays that show the current state of
> > my work is to leave a record behind to show how I did it, in the
> > event I discover something significant. The essays are honest and
> > original. Why you find my efforts humorous is a bit puzzling.
> Because you take yourself so seriously.
Having wasted decades frittering my time away, any effort to do
something that exceeds the superficial aims of society must be seen
as not only positive, but essential.
> > Since the day I
> > posted to T93-l the first time, you have directed quite a bit of
> > sarcasm at my work, despite the fact that I keep producing
> > significant findings using my English system.
> What you see as "significant findings" and what I see as
> "significant findings" are likely to be quite different. In the
> same email where I made the above crack, I asked you to define what
> you meant by "significant," which I am still interested in hearing.
By what achievements shall my efforts be measured against? In the
ears of what authority do I place the whisperings of the intuitive
voice that guides me? There are few such achievements, and no known
authority. I have no choice but to weigh the factors and be ever
vigilant against self-deception, while insisting that my most inner
stirrings be respected and given the benefit of the doubt.
Significance is seldom ever determined by evidence or proof, with
those two formidable yet burdensome aspects usually giving way to the
true measure of events, circumstance. Statistics can be used to weigh
the chances of an event occurring at random, but it is circumstance
that sways most opinions. I will not bother getting into specifics of
my past work, being the tireless worker I am, I have progressed to
the point that a discussion based on the significance of my past
conclusions is pointless, and better if saved for the future.
> Personally, I haven't found anything in your work that has
> particularly appealed to my imagination, my intellect, or my
> aesthetic sense. I would say that "significance" has to be
> judged against those standards.
Imagination, intellect, and aesthetic sense are faculties
stimulated by watching a movie, or reading, or other such diversions.
Attempting to judge mystical or magical conceptions in the same way
one chooses a rug will probably accomplish little towards gaining
insight into the work being evaluated. I consider myself an explorer
of the unknown, someone attempting to push the envelope by
experiencing new possibilities and who is willing to demonstrate them
to the world if possible.
> If your work does that for you, then it's great -- for you. It
> could even take on significance of a broader sort, depending on how
> it's received by others.
Our conceptions of significance certainly differ if mass approval
is a measure of significance on your part.
> To me, it seems that your work is so idiosyncratic, it's
> unlikely that it will kindle much in anyone apart from you.
It's hard to do original work without it being peculiar to one's
> Part of why I find your work occasionally ridiculous is your
> conviction that it's more than that, for example, implying that
> there's some "objective" standard by which your work is superior to
> that of others.
An impartial analysis of my work or that of others requires the
work be analyzed and not the idiosyncracies of its creator. Your
attitude is somewhat typical of practitioners of magick, where the
work is not evaluated based on meritous features, but criticized in a
narrow, competitive environment, often with ad hominem attacks thrown
in out of sheer
> My initial criticism of your work was made on the basis that your
> use of statistical methods was completely inappropriate and
> misguided. Anyone using the same methods in the same way could
> calculate similar statistical "improbabilities" using his own
> pet system.
Statisticians are in total disagreement with the position taken by
skeptics on the use of statistics as a valid means of measuring
events and circumstances. Admittedly, my use of statistics has in the
past been incorrect as far as the numbers go, but the intended
application is valid. Due to the lack of a complete body of evidence
for analysis, any statistical calculations made by myself in the past
would be hitherto nullified anyhow. Progress and accomplishment have
inherently redeeming qualities.
< It's been done, for example, by any number of people working with
< Hebrew, Greek, and English "Bible Codes" to prop up a
< Judeo-Christian apocalyptic worldview. It's even been done with
< Moby Dick! So yes, I find that aspect of your work somewhat silly.
Your habit of directing blanket skepticism at my work and not that
of others, including your practice as an astrologer, belies your use
of double-standards. The comparison of my work to that of the
exponents of the 'Bible Codes' is a prime example of *your*
misunderstanding of statistics. There are two reasons the Bible Codes
are statistically invalid. In order for a valid statistical
calculation to be performed, two events or occurrences must be shown
to be linked in some way. There is no evidence indicating the
books of the Bible are linked other than originating from the same
cultural background. There is no evidence that more than one book was
authored by the same person, or written in the same time period,
evidence does exist showing no original copies of the Biblical
The second problem is the subject matter sought after in the codes.
If the champions of the Bible Codes had been looking exclusively for
elements contained within the Biblical texts, that aspect of the work
would be objective. Instead, they choose to look for the names of
Rabbins that lived centuries after the oldest Biblical writings were
The Book of the Law is another story. We know when, where, and by
whom it was written, and the original copy exists. Your comparison of
the Bible Codes to my application of gematria to verses of Liber Al
in which the author implies there are secrets hidden, is quite
frankly lame to the point of foolishness.
> > When success has not
> > been my guiding light, my certainty has been. In the end, my
> > certainty of discovering the 'Key of it all' will be the hardest
> > thing to explain away by critics such as yourself.
> Adamant belief in absurdities is perfectly commonplace.
Which is more absurd, someone that uses gematria and astrology and
finds meaning and significance in the usage, or someone that uses
them and finds no significance or meaning in them?
The momentum of my work is now comparable to that of rolling
thunder and lightning dancing on the horizon. Soon I will paint the
picture you ask for, but it will not be a rosy one for Crowleyites.