Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [t93] Masters' ability to affect change

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Gordon Phillips
    ... You mean /some/ of the events surrounding the reception of Thee Booke ov thee Law /seem/ more mythical than historical? Or are you setting up a new
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 16, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Daimon Hellstrom"
      <hellstorm@e...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, mike marduk <rockout93@y...>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > To suggest that the Secret Chiefs, or any
      > > Master, was powerless to affect the lower levels of
      > > reality is rediculous. Historical examples abound
      > > (the events surounding the reception of Liber Al for
      > > example).
      >
      > Historical?
      > The events surrounding the "reception" of Liber AL are not
      > historical. They are mythical, at best.

      You mean /some/ of the events surrounding the reception of Thee Booke
      ov thee Law /seem/ more 'mythical' than 'historical?' Or are you
      setting up a new dogma of your own regarding Liber Legis?


      > Unless, of course, you consider "historical" all the similar

      Did Moses have a a modern photographic facsimile made of his
      transmission? No, I don't think so. 'Nature's pencil' (what
      photography was called shortly after its creation circa 1850) seems
      so much more reliable than the scrolls (or whatever the Jews/ Hebrews
      used ~2000 years ago) hand copied with ink by political priests. But
      hey, maybe that's just my bias!

      > narrations, as for instance Moses getting the Commandmends Tablets
      on
      > mount Sinai.
      >
      > Do you really believe A.C. to be a prophet in the way Moses is for
      > followers of Hebraism, or Mohammed for Muslims.
      >
      > Is Thelema a religion? is it based on dogma?

      Yes, Thelema is a religion and a cult. No, Thelema is not a religion
      and a cult. It is a philosophy, an outlook, and a mode of living,
      quite apart from 'saying Will' and all that other well-intentioned
      hocus pocus erroneously mistaken for 'Thelema' by some.

      >
      > Daimon

      87
    • 333
      always good to hear from child of one of the Marduk strain. and it looks like there are two of you here in conversation, former and postmodern. mike marduk
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 17, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        always good to hear from child of one of the Marduk strain.
        and it looks like there are two of you here in conversation,
        former and postmodern.

        mike marduk <rockout93@y...>
        #> To suggest that the Secret Chiefs, or any Master,
        #> was powerless to affect the lower levels of reality
        #> is [ridiculous].

        to believe in higher and lower levels is moreso folly.

        #> Historical examples abound (the events [surrounding]
        #> the reception of Liber Al for example).

        was that the confusion about the exhibit, whether or not
        the museum itself was open, exactly how the story got
        started that it was Rose that did the channelling, or
        the fact that the scribe put the book away for years
        without understanding its import? or do you mean that
        you were able to confirm the various extravagant data
        put forward by the maladroit purporter of the tedious
        tome? it wasn't called 'Liber Al' for nothing.

        "Daimon Hellstrom" <hellstorm@...>:
        # Historical? The events surrounding the "reception"
        # of Liber AL are not historical.

        there's the rub. *some* events in general did surround
        them. whether they were fabulous and historical, faked
        and nonhistorical, or ordinary and historical seems
        somewhat relevant, and less and less observable. there
        were some moves made 100 years after the fact to come
        to conclusions about it, but in general the religious
        will not want the hallowed "history" overturned.

        # They are mythical, at best.

        and we're not even talking yet about the various
        adjustments made after the fact by the scribe or
        his lover of the moment.

        # Unless, of course, you consider "historical" all the
        # similar narrations, as for instance Moses getting
        # the [Commandment] Tablets on [Mount] Sinai.

        again, how many of the myth-cycle stories are we going
        to consider here? the one where he gets *2* tablet sets,
        breaks one, providing us only with the negative? does
        it matter that this appears only important for Semitic
        peoples of particular tribes? is the Crowleyan scripture
        also similarly designated for certain beermaking lines?

        # Do you really believe A.C. to be a prophet in the way
        # Moses is for followers of Hebraism, or Mohammed for
        # Muslims.

        when the figure becomes a character, all things are of
        course possible. with the slide of time and the smear
        of history into legendizing and fakery, anyone, even
        no-goodniks, can be made into Prophets. other good
        examples here are probably people like Joseph Smith,
        L. Ron Hubbard, and, at the outskirts, Anton LaVey.

        scholars of these texts (Judaism; 'Hebraism', alike
        for 'Hebrews' is the sleight given to it by Thelemics
        pretending it is primarily important due to language)
        are more likely to point out the variety of attribution
        in culture-hero, pseudepigraph, and plain ignorance,
        though occasional anonymous-like names are given to
        supposed single writers (e.g. "The Yahwist"). even the
        term 'prophet' varies in its valence through time and
        the religions struggle with one another so as to be
        the last in the Golden Chain of Authority where the
        REPRESENTATIVE of the Oldest-is-Best might reign.

        # Is Thelema a religion?

        it is now. with the antics of the Beast did you really
        expect it to avoid hardening into cultism? he seemed
        to have actually fostered this development. why, given
        all the emphasis placed on doubt and science?

        # is it based on dogma?

        yes, but the dogma may pertain to the glories of how
        the scripture came into being, the various anecdotes
        and ridiculous claims as regards condition made by the
        self-proclaimed prophet, or the role with respect to
        the New Age that can't quite get astronomical.

        the Horns of the Doubt-Goat prevent too many
        metaphysical dogmas, but as time wears on we can
        attribute purity without spot to the reprobate,
        white-wash the criminal, and reportrait the sham
        into the very Saviour of the World. this isn't
        exactly dogma, but as it is believed despite the
        clear evidence left to us from the satan himself,
        his relief is starkly disclosing of the nature of
        religion, and the follies to which it yields itself.
        thus the virtue of the method of science emerges,
        and those who care little for rationality pursue
        it with all the gusto of 10,000 self-deluding egos.

        333
      • Daimon Hellstrom
        ... Booke ... No, I mean exactly what I wrote. I don t BELIEVE in 98% the fancy tales about messages from otherwhere handed out to so-called prophets . Call
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 18, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Gordon Phillips"
          <matthew-phillips@c...> wrote:

          > > Historical?
          > > The events surrounding the "reception" of Liber AL are not
          > > historical. They are mythical, at best.
          >
          > You mean /some/ of the events surrounding the reception of Thee
          Booke
          > ov thee Law /seem/ more 'mythical' than 'historical?' Or are you
          > setting up a new dogma of your own regarding Liber Legis?

          No, I mean exactly what I wrote.
          I don't BELIEVE in 98% the fancy tales about messages
          from "otherwhere" handed out to so-called "prophets".
          Call them Moses, Crowley or Rael, the meaning is the same, to me.

          I call it mythical because that's the proper term for this kind of
          stuff, unless you take its face value as true, by means of an act of
          faith.
          If you have faith, if you believe, then Thelema is a religion and
          A.C. is a prophet.
          If you don't believe and don't take everything at its face value,
          then you could be a magician, a philosopher, a thelemite or whatever
          you want to call yourself.

          >
          >
          > > Unless, of course, you consider "historical" all the similar
          >
          > Did Moses have a a modern photographic facsimile made of his
          > transmission? No, I don't think so. 'Nature's pencil' (what
          > photography was called shortly after its creation circa 1850) seems
          > so much more reliable than the scrolls (or whatever the Jews/
          Hebrews
          > used ~2000 years ago) hand copied with ink by political priests.

          Um... stone tablets.
          Double "um"... ~ three thousand is more appropriate, I'd say ;-)

          > But
          > hey, maybe that's just my bias!

          Call it bias, if you Will...

          >
          > > narrations, as for instance Moses getting the Commandmends
          Tablets
          > on
          > > mount Sinai.
          > >
          > > Do you really believe A.C. to be a prophet in the way Moses is
          for
          > > followers of Hebraism, or Mohammed for Muslims.
          > >
          > > Is Thelema a religion? is it based on dogma?
          >
          > Yes, Thelema is a religion and a cult. No, Thelema is not a
          religion
          > and a cult. It is a philosophy, an outlook, and a mode of living,
          > quite apart from 'saying Will' and all that other well-intentioned
          > hocus pocus erroneously mistaken for 'Thelema' by some.

          I see...

          Daimon
        • svartzabruder
          Daimon Hellstrom # # Historical? # # The events surrounding the reception of Liber AL are not # # historical. They are mythical, at
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 18, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            "Daimon Hellstrom" <hellstorm@...>
            #># Historical?
            #># The events surrounding the "reception" of Liber AL are not
            #># historical. They are mythical, at best.

            "Matthew Gordon Phillips" <matthew-phillips@c...>:
            #> You mean /some/ of the events surrounding the reception of Thee
            #> Booke ov thee Law /seem/ more 'mythical' than 'historical?'
            #> Or are you setting up a new dogma of your own regarding Liber Legis?

            "Daimon Hellstrom" <hellstorm@...>
            # No, I mean exactly what I wrote.
            # I don't BELIEVE in 98% the fancy tales about messages
            # from "otherwhere" handed out to so-called "prophets".

            neither do I. it seems ridiculous to do so, in this modern era.

            # Call them Moses, Crowley or Rael, the meaning is the same, to me.
            # I call it mythical because that's the proper term for this kind of
            # stuff,

            arguable. sometimes people relegate the 'mythological' or 'mythic'
            to that which pertains to cosmogenesis (origination of all things),
            eschatology (the end of all things), theology (the doings of gods),
            and undemonstrated superordinary events (like deluge mythos). no
            doubt some proclaim prophets qualify for the latter two categories.

            # unless you take its face value as true, by means of an act of
            # faith.

            without insight or some experiential support for it, agreed.
            there are of course those who maintain that they have special
            means of obtaining information (mystical discipline, for
            example, or insight given to them by gods, etc.) such that
            their own position is one of rational conclusions and even
            what might be regarded as empiricism (their observation
            includes extraordinary events or beings).

            # If you have faith, if you believe, then Thelema is a religion and
            # A.C. is a prophet.

            those are not the only real options available, however. another
            is as above, that one's own HGA or some superordinary being has
            revealed its truth and the essentialities of it to the individual.
            still another is that Thelema is a religion whose basis is
            empiricism and skeptical inquiry (no faith or preliminary belief
            is actually required), and further that Aleister Crowley is a
            prophet of some kind of humanistic and liberationist, yet
            anthropotheology (Deus Est Homo). I'm sure others might be
            created or discovered, though your point is well-taken.

            # If you don't believe and don't take everything at its face value,
            # then you could be a magician, a philosopher, a thelemite or whatever
            # you want to call yourself.

            quite so.

            #># Unless, of course, you consider "historical" all the similar
            #>
            #> Did Moses have a a modern photographic facsimile made of his
            #> transmission? No, I don't think so. 'Nature's pencil' (what
            #> photography was called shortly after its creation circa 1850) seems
            #> so much more reliable than the scrolls (or whatever the Jews/Hebrews
            #> used ~2000 years ago) hand copied with ink by political priests.
            #
            # Um... stone tablets.

            do they still exist? if so, where are they? one would think
            that inscribed stone would be around for thousands of years.
            this was certainly the case for those who preceded the Jews.

            there is a point to made, regardless of how much crafting
            of it has been achieved post-writ, that the scripture
            of Crowley WAS photocopied in the wake of the event.

            this is to be COMMENDED, and the transparency with which
            Crowley *seems* to want to present his cultic exposition
            is one of the reasons that I have maintained it is quite
            possible that he sought to drive rationalist post-Christians
            toward the disintegration of religion as he demonstrated how
            easy it is, over time, to turn cads and notorious individuals
            into what become regarded as "saints" and "prophets".

            if this latter theory is true (I have no real conclusive
            evidence that it is -- presumably he would have intimated it
            in several of his personal diaries and whatever; though he
            may have understood himself to be performing for all who
            came after him even in the crafting of his diaries and
            'Confessions' and refrained for admission), then he deserves
            comparable attention to the anti-religious antics of people
            like Anton LaVey and french atheist masons trying to erode
            fantasies and external gods possessing many human beings.

            fraternitas, libertas, humanitas!

            svartzabruder
          • Matthew Gordon Phillips
            ... /All/ the events are mythical? So, AC wasn t with Rose? Wasn t in Egypt in March-April 1904? Far as I can tell, no one disputes these parts of the
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 18, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Daimon Hellstrom"
              <hellstorm@e...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Gordon Phillips"
              > <matthew-phillips@c...> wrote:
              >
              > > > Historical?
              > > > The events surrounding the "reception" of Liber AL are not
              > > > historical. They are mythical, at best.
              > >
              > > You mean /some/ of the events surrounding the reception of Thee
              > Booke
              > > ov thee Law /seem/ more 'mythical' than 'historical?' Or are you
              > > setting up a new dogma of your own regarding Liber Legis?
              >
              > No, I mean exactly what I wrote.

              /All/ the events 'are' mythical? So, AC wasn't with Rose? Wasn't in
              Egypt in March-April 1904? Far as I can tell, no one disputes these
              parts of the 'myth.' Therefore your haphazard use of 'the' in 'the
              events' implies more than it really should. 'Some events...' would
              seem to be the phrase you are searching for. Then of course, if you
              wanted to be informative, you'd detail which events surrounding the
              Big Event you thought were fictional, and why you thought this.

              We all know about the 'is of identity' so... 'seems' might also seem
              like a better choice of words. Especially for one who seemes to claim
              having a skeptical attitude.

              > I don't BELIEVE in 98% the fancy tales about messages
              > from "otherwhere" handed out to so-called "prophets".
              > Call them Moses, Crowley or Rael, the meaning is the same, to me.
              >
              > I call it mythical because that's the proper term for this kind of
              > stuff, unless you take its face value as true, by means of an act
              of
              > faith.
              > If you have faith, if you believe, then Thelema is a religion and
              > A.C. is a prophet.
              > If you don't believe and don't take everything at its face value,
              > then you could be a magician, a philosopher, a thelemite or
              whatever
              > you want to call yourself.

              I take some of it at face value, I question the other 50%. That's on
              Tuesday's. On Wednesday's I accept all of it unconditinoally. On
              Thursday's I reject it all, without a thought. On Friday's I do all
              three if possible. On Saturday's, I transcend them all. Etc.

              Ok. Are we finished out-glibbing one another, now? Can we get back to
              the questions at hand, with a little non-formulaic thought?

              >
              > >
              > >
              > > > Unless, of course, you consider "historical" all the similar
              > >
              > > Did Moses have a a modern photographic facsimile made of his
              > > transmission? No, I don't think so. 'Nature's pencil' (what
              > > photography was called shortly after its creation circa 1850)
              seems
              > > so much more reliable than the scrolls (or whatever the Jews/
              > Hebrews
              > > used ~2000 years ago) hand copied with ink by political priests.
              >
              > Um... stone tablets.
              > Double "um"... ~ three thousand is more appropriate, I'd say ;-)

              I haven't heard there was any evidence of the 10 commandments 3000
              years ago. Care to provide some?
              My understanding is that a lot of this was oral tradition before it
              hardened into scrolls (roughly 2000- 2500 years ago).
              I will be more than willing to acknowledge your superior wisdom if
              only you can give me some evidence of it.

              But, of course, my central claim concerning 'nature's pencil' versus
              political priests writing with ink and scrolls stands (i.e. the
              former being more nuiversally regarded as more reliable than the
              latter), whether you find 'evidence' for stone tablets of the 10
              commandments made 3000 years ago, or not. We don't know exactly what
              the latter originally looked like, only what it said. We /do/ know
              what the former looked like, originally. Therefore, it seems
              trivially easy to forge the latter, while nearly impossible to forge
              the former.

              All fantastic claims seem unequal. Some seem more equal than
              others. ;)

              Mabopsa87

              [Moderator removed extraneous quotation.]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.