50030419 VII om peace
>> ...those who wish to serve elitist (rather than egalitarian) aims
>> might prefer to remain within dominating and hierarchical orgs
>> (like the OTO as compared to real Freemasonry, whose authorities
>> are elected democratically) perpetrated by those such as Crowley,
>> but in the end it means nothing without a solid experiential
>> link to results outside the imagination of deluded followers
>> in the wake of strong egos.
> You know nothing of my experience.
precisely, nor do other subscribers to this forum, which means
that corroboration will be difficult to obtain, and the more
extraordinary your claim, the greater level of evidence will be
needed to support said claim. don't be too surprised if you
are asked to present it. :>
> Organization is an effort to make Supernal Experience
> a more widespread thing, by assisting individual progress.
it is many things, inclusive of this supposed goal. orgs also
serve to focus attention and resources on those who construct
them (as on egotists).
> The A.'.A.'. is not a terrestrial Order ultimately.
you're thinking it is from some other planet or plane? I'm
not aware of any evidence supporting such (or a great
number of your other) contentions. again, if you have more
to show us which supports your more extraordinary claims,
please bring it forth to show us.
> Blavatsky was a Member and She wasn't even a Thelemite
> in the technical sense.
how can you tell she was a member? because she claimed to
be in communication with "masters"? are you aware of how
far she went to dupe and deceive people into thinking that
she had great power? does this sound like someone who has
the ear of the masters to you? not to me.
my impression is that those who demonstrably set about
deceiving others or puff themselves up (as you do) are
basically spiritually immature. perhaps we have different
teachers or standards of ethics. there are those who will
excuse all manner of heinous behaviour on the part of
their cult leaders (typically thereafter integrating the
same level of corruption into their own activities and
excusing it away as 'beyond our ability to comprehend').
> My own progress has come solely from individual effort
> without any human assistance.
wonderful. I don't see your demonstrating much of it here.
>>>> what Palace did it unlock?
>>>> What was inside this Palace?"
>> I don't see that any sort of palace is being referred to here.
>> please explain, if you differ. it seems to me a bunch of hyperbole,
>> or, as has been correctly characterized about my list of items
>> to look for in a scripture or Volume of Sacred Law, completely
>> subjective (and therefore of relevance only to the person making
>> the claims or looking for novel rudders -- quite possibly delusory;
>> those with critical thinking capacity dismiss it quickly and with
>> good reason).
>>> Answer: Fulfillment of Prophecy, the Solution to the Mystery
>> seems like hand-waving to me.
> If I will it so, it is so.
I haven't noticed this yet. perhaps you can offer something more
substantial than some words to support this extraordinary claim.
> If there is no Palace here, as you say, then I will build it.
no, I'd say that if there is no Palace there, then you're
blowing hot air, and are unlikely to build anything at all.
> And nothing can stop that. In my own Scheme of things I
> see a Grand Design, and its reality is established by the
> very Work I happen to be engaged in at this moment.
> That's hand-waving of the very best kind: Constructive.
internally, as a kind of bootstrapping, it might be quite
helpful to you, but one of the reasons that the Powers of
the Sphinx includes the Power to Remain Silent is that
until the actual achievement of the aim, claiming that
it is already achieved can undermine the project, and this
is particularly true when people point out to you their
perception that what you are saying is contrary to fact
(the Emperor Is Wearing No Clothes Problem).
>> What value does Crowley's scripture hold except as a cult
>> fetish object? Why should those who haven't identified this
>> value as you have take you seriously?"
> Crowley's Scripture is that of Aiwass, and oppose Him with all
> your might you cannot avail.
got a way to test that? I can burn the scripture pretty easily
and have been doing so for years. I know of no growing movement
taking it under their wing with any real political power. I'd
say that opposition to anything associated with Crowley and his
scripture is pretty easy to accomplish, mostly because all those
who are purporting its value are off-balance, ungrounded, and
prone to make extraordinary claims without evidence to support
them. you don't appear to be much different in this regard: look
at your proclamations about the state of the universe. yet they
do not accord with my perceptions, or that of many others.
surely you can understand why your contentions sound extreme.
> There is a Momentum here that exceeds us both.
I'm not aware of it, other than cultists following in the wake
of Crowley's tremendous ego and corrupt spiritual deceptions.
I'll agree that there is sociological momentum behind this text
and a good deal of it grabbed up by Crowleyans in a desparate
attempt to look powerful and persuade others to submit. however,
that there are cultists tells me nothing about the overall value
or placement of the text to which we're referring. it just gives
us reason to further critique your extremity as demonstrably
false and illustrative of having been duped by others, apparently
content to repeat said travesty in this forum with vainglory.
> I myself fought it every way for years:
that you, an apparent Crowleyan cultist and presumed prophet,
find such limitations, is not too surprising. if you had offered
no resistance to the memes of the Master, how could you have made
such a vocal zealot now? that said, because you were not up to
the job of resisting its idiocy says nothing about its value in
a cosmic sense, it only describes your personal problems and
why you have brought before us such a tremendous load of crap.
> IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU OR I WANT. This is something
> incomprehensibly Potent which will span all parts of the
> globe. And the blueprint for it all is in Crowley's Word.
> And if you "say not so" you won't make a difference.
more of your prophesying. do you have any evidence that any
prophecy made by you or your master has proven demonstrably
true over time in a way that is difficult to refute after
having been a clear assertion without ambivalence?
you didn't address this question:
why should those who haven't identified this
value as you have take you at all seriously?
>> ... this is in part what undermines the cult of Crowley,
>> in that so many of his devotees seem taken with his cult
>> lingo and are ignorant of the irrelevance of his fetishes
>> and manipulative devices that they display their extremity
>> and lack of foundation embarrassingly for all see (...it
>> serves as oriention for the wise and a signpost for the novice).
> NO. This is not about him, it is about Him. Again, my use of
> capitals is not unnecessary, in my view: it communicates something
> difficult to otherwise expound. And that is my technique. If you
> don't like it, don't read it.
my challenge isn't about not liking how you say things so much
as that I find value in opposing obfuscation (which you exemplify).
when you have little to say beyond aggrandizement without any
apparent implied meaning, it undermines your assertions. you've
also attempted to do this with my text (by falsely quoting me
and leaving out the bulk of my challenges to you), but I've
rectified that here so that my meaning will be abundantly
clear (as I oppose your basically religious methods) and
your arrogance will be seen for what it is.
>> this appears to be in part the problem with "the method of
>> religion" which so many Crowleyites like to rely upon
>> despite the protestation given against it by the whole
>> Goldawnian trad that springs from religious aims and
> You mean Aim of Religion.
no, I meant what I said. you're engaging the method of religion
(deception, playing with history, implied meanings, and general
obfuscation in an attempt to make yourself look special and
authoritative), but I'm calling you on that and asking for real
evidence beyond your claims. it has become apparent you have none.
as others have already mentioned, Brother Zero did a more elegant
and convincing job of presenting himself, however humorously. I'd
go as far as saying you appear to be illiterate and technically
challenged, demonstrating your lack of authority in at least some
quite pertinent ways.
>> it leads to an abject enslavement to images and symbols which
>> surround the Master, and indeed further and further from Thelema
>> (devotees demonstrate their lack of intention, freedom, and
>> instead, somewhat obliviously, make clear their futile activities
>> in the wake of those who intended to manipulate their followers
>> to their advantage).
> So now we have Thelemic Iconoclasts. I'm being proven the True
> Prophet daily.
your methods of "proof" appear to include very little that is of
relevance beyond your own mind and fervor. given your lack of
critical ability to reflect meaningfully upon your own assertions,
why should we take anything you say as more than empty boasting?
you still haven't addressed that question, and I've asked it more
than once. a few others have echoed it. you've provided a variety
of shallow "proofs" with little more than citation upon which to
fall back. I'm content to leave it here if you can offer no more.
> Did I not contend that the present would unfold along the
> pattern of the past?
hefty prophecy. where do you *get* this kind of cold reading?
>> Achad (...) is dead, as is Crowley. ....
> In a sense. Do you think death ends it?
yes, show me how they survived death. point to evidence that
they are not dead. I see no evidence for death being more
than a physical dissolution and subjective extinction. if
you have evidence to the contrary, please bring it forth.
>> ... the issue and condition of "fulfillment" only pertains
>> to those who are wrapped up in the drama of Crowley's
>> delusions about his position with respect to the universe,
>> plainly disproven by countless actual events to the contrary.
> You're just as deluded as He was, so am I.
no, I have quite a bit of evidence in support of my assessment
of who and what he was. biographies, whether constructed by
the man himself (good argument, btw, about his construct being
an 'autohagiography' and subject to similar corruption! ;>),
or by his cult of followers in his wake, are just one set of
evidence. there are many others. I don't think he or you have
offered much in support of the special position you and he
seem to wish to place him. you just want to claim it and then
have it remain unchallenged.
I'm not only challenging it, I'm content to point to clear
evidence to the contrary. since it is ultimately you that
is making the extraordinary claim (that Crowley was special,
that his scripture is important, etc.), then it is up to YOU
to support this with more than rhetoric, but I don't think
you're really up to the job.
> The difference is: Who will avail? Your hatred for
a presumption on your part which is unfounded. I have no
hatred for organization (is "Organization" somehow different
than this? you haven't specified and I'm not aware of hating
something which may be implied by this gesticulation).
> will not win in this world.
I would agree that opposing all organization is foolhardy.
luckily, as an anarchist, I don't equate rulership with
organization and am happy to see anarchistic orgs arise.
>>> The Fulfillment of Prophecy in such a convincing way
>> convincing to whom?
>>> is all the Proof I need to establish Who it is I am,
>> the baldest lie of all. the implication of your claim is
>> that WHO it is you are is established by some kind of
>> subjective assessment, when realistically, from our
>> perspective, as readers of a forum with some degree of
>> critical analysis, you have established nothing at all of
>> the sort unless and until you present evidence available
>> for review.
> Now I'm a liar.
that is correct.
> HOW DO YOU KNOW?!
because the proof you need to establish who you are is
in great part determined by the criteria of those who
are witnessing the spectacle of your embarrassing self-
aggrandizement absent clearly supportive evidence.
> You invalidate yourself with groundless name-calling.
it isn't groundless at all. I have established why and
in what manner you are lying (you do so about what it
will take to establish your role with respect to those
reading this forum, who are challenging you; you do so
because you want your contentions to stand without an
undermining of their substance, which is undemonstrated).
you say that all the proof you need to establish who you
are with respect to the UNIVERSE is a further assertion
of some silly prophecy. this is quite akin to Christian
contentions about the nature and importance of their
Jesus whose perfect prophecy-fulfilment from Old Testament
Jewish scripture is all that is needed to establish his
power and authority (hint: method of religion).
this is based on fallacy and lies. the prophecies were
the impetus to create the conformation with the prophet
and messiah. the figure was crafted to deceive and
persuade. no such historical fulfilment occurred. in
your case it is little different. you claim that you've
achieved wonderous things, but fail to substantiate it
when asked to confirm this in some way. you merely
reiterate your contentions, which is far far weaker
than actually demonstrating who and what you are in
some fabulous prophecy-fulfilling way we can agree on.
> I am sincere and I stand by what I say.
that and 50 cents will allow you to call anywhere in
the US! you can stand by it all you like, but if you
are called to *substantiate it with evidence*, and
merely return rhetoric, you shall be identified as
a fanatic and, when describing incorrectly what
criteria are set before you to achieve the reality,
the bar is higher than you have indicated. you keep
limboing below it and saying you're jumping over. ;>
ps I don't appreciate your "quoting" methods,
as they distort and misrepresent what I've
said and how I've offered criticism of your
cultish and religiously-vacant proclamations.
in the future, please leave more of my text
intact and respond directly to my queries.