--- In email@example.com
, 333 <nagasiva@l...> wrote:
> great to see you here, mabopsa87!
> #># What's 'original' or 'real' in a land of fakes/ simulacra?
> #> Chja! when they aren't recognized as such, they can all be
> #> so original. their reality strikes primarily conceptual hues.
> more on this conceptual-foundation below.
> #># ...Does the 'source' matter so much as the content/ intent?
> #># Why?
> #> the imagined source is extremely important to the religious.
> "Matthew Gordon Phillips" <matthew-phillips@c...>:
> # I imagine myself to be religious, thelemically so,
> not sure what that means.
It is not rational to /always/ be rational. Certainly, at least, it
is not wise or self-serving. What happens when our emotional selves
dry up or atrophy from non-use? We become shadows of our real selves.
I would contend that 'believing' (not necessarily against something
rational like 'believing the sky is paisley colored', but in
something that is indeterminant such as 'angels are real, like the
wind' even though all my senses can't necessarily track them) is more
rational than not believing.
'I want to believe'
- poster on Fox Moulder's office wall
This recommended course of action does not recommend one becomes a
zealot 100% of the time.
> 'thelemically' is antagonistic to
> religion in my lexicon at base. where it intersects it may
> support the religious channel, but where it conflicts, the
> religious structure will be destroyed or corrupted, even
> inverted, left behind as valueless (because the individual
> is the delimiter of subjective value, regardless of accuracy).
> # and no such concern is ever so irksome as you [suggest].
> perhaps the difference is purely semantical. sometimes people
> take the term 'religious' merely to mean 'spiritual' without
> any kind of group worship, societal connection for masses, etc.
> if so, this may explain how we accord so easily in general
> (since I find absolute value in spirituality of many types).
I think yes, we have different meanings of words. Like everyone.
> # It's not so much that I don't wonder at all about the
> # Booke's genesis, merely that I do not fret too much about
> # it overmuch.
> but you do adhere to the notion of "accepting" it.
On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but not Saturdays or Sundays.
I know what I mean when I say 'I accept thee booke ov thee law.'
Same thing as when I say "I accept Newton's rainbow." I may not
understand it. I may not like it. I may disagree with some of it. But
in the main, it makes sense, and I plan on basing future decisions on
that same sense intelligence gained.
> there is
> a potentially nonthelemic emphasis on such acceptance.
Sure, potentially. But I would contend such would degenerate quickly
and burn out quickly, and be of no consequence.
> do it? just because it got a label from a writer as to its
/An/ answer is better than /no/ answer. So far, Tuesday's (when I
accept thee booke ov thee law) are no worse for me than Sunday's
(when i do not). In fact, Tuesdays are often superior to Sunday's!
> this is insufficient on its face for the purely
My 'acceptance' does not mean I evangelize to others regarding the
virtues of thee booke ov thee law.
"were it but to dine or to drink at them, it is the Law to give. Then
they shall chance to abide in this bliss or no; it is no odds. Do
220: ch. 3 v. 39
Thee Law Iz For All comments on this verse saying we are not to
cheapen thee gift by 'evangelizing.' This is satisfactory,
reasonable, and generous to me.
> I have at times defended this Evul Book as
> iconoclastic and inherently sustaining several different
> self-contradictory theoetical platforms, making of itself
> an all-encompassing Volume of Sacred Law. as such it might
> be employed within masonically-inclined frameworks for
> swearing and kissing and whatever. but why the religious
For me, to be 'religious' means to be respectful, quiet or
reverential. It also means to be loud, irreverant, and willing to
destroy. 'Idolizing' doesn't mean much to me in my life. But I don't
see my 'acceptance' ov Liber 220 as 'religious idolizing.' Unless it
can also be said that my 'acceptance' of Naked Lunch as a bible for
me, also amounts to religious idolizing. I also accept Arthur Rimbaud
as a poet, and also accept that his Drunken Boat and A Season in Hell
are two of the finest poems I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Is
this also religious idolizing?
I, on occassion, treat my wife especially well, and will defend her
if someone unjustly attacks her. Is this behavior also 'religious
> just to 'destroy and transcend'? that seems to
> be part of the cult-draw of Thelema. almost as if one says
> 'D00d, just write your own crap and worship (accept) it,
> and then do the Bad Thing and burn it! It's K00l!'
This conclusion is fine with me. A tad glib, but, OK.
Certainly, if this is the most serious crime that is leveled here, I
am not sure if we should be talking criminology.
> perhaps this is deprogramming for those who were raised
> to glorify and worship these Religion Books? Satanists
> proclaim this to a degree, and sociologists push it too.
I think this is a good portion of the story, an integral one at that.
> # I take the contents as satisfactory within themselves, l
> meaningless unless you specify its usage or contextual and
> applied character. "satisfactory" for artistic purposes?
> for religious purpose?
Well, satisfactory for me as an individual. My thirst for mystery and
thee unknown iz satisfied by Booke 220. I don't yet know how you
intend the word 'religious' so I will avoid these semantics, for now.
> presumably. and yet almost ANYTHING
> can be so, even very poorly-written and badly-organized
> documents. this is demonstrated the world over.
> # and if I want to critisize or analyze parts of the Booke
> # for myself, I do so on my terms, which have a lot less to
> # do with questions of facticity [/accuracy?], rather,
> # poetic applicablity, and other such lingistic, or
> # psychological glosses.
> again, somewhat weakly-used. are you merely saying that you
> enjoy its poesy and content on an aesthetic basis?
Right here and now, yes.
However, I am willing to share further opinions that are less
aesthtic/ religious and more psychological/ philisophical, if we can
but agree on some useful definfitions for our terms.
> no accounting for taste, as the saying goes. my impression
> is that personal evaluation of beauty is a private matter,
> but when we begin to ask what beauty in any PARTICULAR
> context, ontologically, may be found, we wander into the
> more difficult area of philosophic aesthetics, covered by
> modern writers like Pirsig in his Zen Motorcycle Maintenance.
> but hey, even classic poets are analyzed and critically-
> reviewed by the literate. is there some fear or problem
> about evaluating Crowley's scripture according to some
Certainly, some read The Class A Comment wrongly, and decide to
uncritically accept Booke 220, or adopt other anti-intellectual
stances, in the name of 'Thelemic purity.'
> this is often true for Religions of the Book,
> and would constitute a warning sign for the volitional.
Couldn't agree more. My 'acceptance' ov Booke 220 has nothing to do
with thinking that each word iz divniely inspired, must be
worshipped, etc. etc. My acceptance ov Book 220 also does not
preclude me from 'accepting' other books as Useful, Inspired,
> This expression is Thelemic,
> and you should accept it,
> then destroy it and transcend it.
> a formula for liberation! }:)
> # Historical? Bosh! Who's to say what 'historical' 100
> # years after the fact!
> in the Religions of the Book people do it all the time,
> and place a great deal of emphasis on it. for this reason
> the myths have gradually receded to the point where heros
> and demigods are the focus rather than strict in-the-clouds
God persons/ personas/ persnoalities rather than God heads.
> rational escalation reduces what is possible to
> confirm with any degree of certainty outside the general
> for thousands of years ago. therefore now these religious
> describe the fantastic powers of the great culture-heros,
> but newer religions focus on technique rather than feats,
> character and devotional sincerety rather than inherent
> deific condition.
> as such, the materialist strata of these Book religions
> are more reliable for their skepticism. Jews of this type
> focus on the historical basis for observation, rather
> than any supernormal result of deity-intervention; the
> Christians enshrine the moral principles of the parables
> or capitalize on the World Teacher human aspect, whilst
> and Muslims speak of the finitude of prophethood. with a
> rising rational scrutiny, less may be passed off as of
> the effect of deific munificence except in human form or
> as a designated representive. Moshe or Joshua or Mohammad
> gradually achieve or have a less pure visage to the
> literati, instead selected by the God to communicate the
> deva-missive to the masses, warts and all. can it really
> extend to reprobates and scallywags? Thelemites say yes,
> and if we can completely fabricate a "historical Jesus"
> out of scant evidence that is a Man-God, why not do the
> same with the pagan emperors or post-Christian Satanists?
Why not, indeed!
> that you are willing to be so dubious about a mere 100
> years is aligned also with my own skepticism, awash as
> I am in a culture where even intellectuals seem dupes.
> so I suspect your query is primarily rhetorical, and
> yet am interested in pursuing it plainly nonetheless
> in order to push our mutual point.
And 100 years is an an extraordinarily long period of time to mere
mortals and a blink of the eye to the Earth's superior intelligences.
100 years ago, there were no computers as we know them, very few
planes, cars, etc. The world was coumpletely different, by so many
standards! And yet, so similar, by as many other standards.
One of my history teachers said (and others have echoed a very
similar sentiment) that historians only study things 60 years + olde.
So, it ain't history unless it iz 60 years olde. 60 years iz thee
minimum amount ov time for thee perspective historians want.
Everything else iz TOO close for us to pretend to be objective about.
Crowley's person, then, isn't even strictly historical by this
definition (having died Dec. 1947, we'll have to wait another 2 1/2
years), though his Booke ov thee Law /is/ by these same standards
> # Who's to say what 'historical' is when angels don't
> # even live in this world, or who live on a subtler
> # plane, at a truer frequency?
> the method of science allows us all to say with some
> application of observation and conclusions based on
> consistent, sustainable logic. that the initial
> and successful (by application) conclusions have
> been material/physical and somewhat at odds with
> religiomagical folks is amusing, but typically the
> actual arena outside testing of brainwaves during
> meditation and some sociology is avoided (at first
> so as not to suffer the fate of Newtons, later so
> as not to totally destroy the cultural religiosity
> and establish a complete warfare-rift).
> your query immediately above is extremely important,
> therefore, from the perspective of this method, in
> that it challenges the religious to greater degrees of
> provenance than hearsay and community-enshrinement.
> the admission of nonphysicalist significance to such
> apparitions as angelos-messengers should tell us
> something more about those stories that feature them.
> it undermines the fairy-stories promoting religion
> to the mass and ought require an even more stringent
> standard for anything nonordinary purported by those
> who like to foster belief in it for their purpose.
> when the supposed bastions of such scrutiny ("Doubt!
> Doubt all!") begin mouthing faith-based assertions,
> we should wonder whether they are having us on,
> trying to make Slaves out of us.
> # Liber Cordis Cincte Serpente vel LXV sub figura ADNI
> # chapter ii, v. 34 is instructive, for me, on this
> # matter or [of?] origins:
> #CC$ Thy name is Death, it may be, or Shame, or Love.
> #CC$ So thou bringest me tidings of the Beloved One,
> #CC$ I shall not ask thy name.
> cute poetry. what does it have to do with establishing
> history? surely you don't think that poetry by the
> notorious is a reliable standard for empirical
> examination of the past! doesn't archaeology do a
> better job? wasn't even the scribe of this poetry
> taken to using archaeologists as his references?
I am saying it iz a non sequitur to answer a psychological,
mythological truth (such as to be found in poetry) with a physical
half-truth (such as, 'It was written on April 1st, not April 8-10th,
1904, therefore we must know the whole Booke to be false.').
We may as well say, "Einstein cheated on his taxes, therefore his
theories on relativity are suspect!"
> # I think the whole point of Liber 220 is to 'accept'
> # it on three or four different deepening levels,
> to this degree you conform to the main religious of
> Thelema, who are emotionally tied to the scripture
> taken to heart by the Master. if the point of the
> document is that one ought to accept the document,
> then my attitude toward it may make more sense: edit
> it to something one really likes; burn the original
Thee Booke's Comment (Class A) asks one to do this as well.
> to me this shows the proper relation
> to "scripture" undertaken by the volitionally-potent.
> the empowered make these items their own and do
> with them what we wish, including ignoring them.
> more on that below with regard to Tarot decks.
> # and then finally discard it for good, to transcend it,
> never accepting it leads to the same result.
No. That is a bit like saying, "Since we unlearn so much schoolboy
arithematics when we take algebra and calculus, maybe ought to skip
elementary arithematic and jump straight to calulus."
> what is
> the value of spending any attention at all on it? why
> not do the same with some Dr. Seuss book or Ulysses?
Dr. Seuss iz one ov my Saints. His The Grinch is particularly easy to
interpret 'cabalistically.' One of his Lorax paintings has taken the
place of my 666 Stele, and resides in my new and improved Kaaba! Note
to overly serious Thelemites: Horus said it was okay, because I
was 'bad' anyway, and needed remedial training.
> we start asking the same questions Discordians ask in
> wondering why ceremonialists aren't becoming liberated
> enough to invoke Bugs Bunny or a novel cartoon creation.
I take no umbrage at such laudable sentiments! Book 4's interlude
suggests as much, of course.
> didn't the demonstration of Budge's problems and all
> that Crowley drew upon to create the text sufficiently
> motivate the willful to throw out the entirety aside
> for using it to leverage societal clamps and program
> the impressionable Herd toward Slavery? is it
> possible that you are one of these Slaves?
Injesting iz better for the environment than littering.
When I crap it out, I'll make sure to put it about my 'war engine.'
Slaves is a relative term. Prophet means (to some) 'slave of God.' I
fancy myself a 'Slave' in this way. In the way you intend, a somewhat
Matrix like vision, it seems none of us have much choice in the
matter, unless we brave the perils Neo, Trinity, et al and are
willing to brave. I ask my students almost every day, "Who is willing
to be brave?"
My usage of the nomenclature of the Beast should not imply uncritical
acceptance of every one of his ideas on the matter. That you might
suggest a confusion taking place, I can understand. However, if I use
Newton's word 'fluxion,' it should not mean that I do not understand
(or even prefer!) Liebniz's 'infinitesimal' terminology, or another
as not yet known.
> # much as The (Class A) Comment suggests.
> this Class system was fashioned for Crowleyanity.
I infer you intend something pejorative by this term?
I don't have a problem being labelled. Just spell my name correctly!
> who enshrine it identify themselves as Crowleyites,
> NOT Thelemites.
The two are /always/ mutually exclusive in this case? Then we have
another semantics difference, apparently.
> the Thelemite might study such systems
> of authority but then eventually refashion them for
> their own use, if placing any emphasis on them at all.
> i.e. this is a cultic employment-mechanism, much as
> the Crowleyan scripture is promoted so as to become.
> # Probably this involves making your own inspired Booke.
> now we're talking. and yet, why go through the trouble
> of paying any attention to the man, or indeed to this
> particular text at all? what is its value to you? to
> the world, other than as an example of ridiculousness?
The world can take care of itself without my interference. I won't
speak for the world.
My preferences, inclinations etc. regarding my spiritual beliefs are
mostly meaningless to everyone but myself. But if you think you might
gain from hearing my opinion on the matter, I will comply:
I think it is better to rebel than to conform. I am unaware of any
other 'religious' text that proclaims so stridently and
uncompromsingly, the individual's import. However, I feel equally
reverential toward Thomas Paine and numerous others.
I think it is better to create something new (neophilia) than to
conform to something old. Booke 220 is newer than most religious
texts. However, I feel equally reverential towards Naked Lunch (WSB),
The Process (Brion Gysin), and numerous other newer texts.
> do you think it has extraterrestrial origins? (can
> you say "LAM"?) does its content convey something
> sociopolitically imperative? if so, what?
LAM is cute. Extraterrestrial? Who knows! Of course, the
extraterrestrials surely exist (or at least it is highly improbable
in a 100+ bilion galaxy universe, that they do not exist)! The only
question is: are they sufficiently intelligent (again, this is likely
given the projected deep geological/ astronomical time implied by
modern cosmology)? And are they able to communicate from afar? If so,
This last is especially relevant, as we don't not yet know how to
communicate from afar without running into the spped ov light (c)
limit. Even if the intelligent aliens are on Mars or the moon
(unlikely given the facts most people accept as reality), it would be
cumbersome to have a 'normal' conversation with them given the speed
Socio-political import? I imagine as much.
> # ...Most do not pull off gothik nearly so well, though.
> do you think it may sometimes
> obtain subjectively
It's nigh but all subjective!
> fail as it projects through the expression of those
> who experience it? i.e. does 'pull off the gothik'
> possibly stop at those who we cannot confirm actually
> DO it, at best? is there a "gothik recipe" which DOESN'T
> lead to a recursive regurgitation for the rest of us?
Hey, my tastes are as much fashioned by the culture stew I was born
in, as anyone else. I was born in early 1971. I am sure by my
mother's standards (born 1945), AC is not as cute as I perceive him
to be. She liked Bob Dylan, Joan Biaz, Woodie Guthrie and that whole
folk thing. She liked Dylan Thomas, WB Yeats, Oscar Wilde, etc.
She demonstrated in civil rights actions. I have expressed my
interests and concerns differently, but no less passionately.
> maybe we're just hoping to get some entertainment
Of course, spirituality should be entertaining. Religion's lack of
humor might be her sine qui non.
> the form of gothitude and those who are trying, in the
> main, are not good at it (while Crowley's writing skill
> is evident, but at points undermines the entirety)?
Not trying to set up AC as the Gothik exemplar, just more gothik than
> #># Why is the predecessor necessarily superior?
> #> for Religions of the Book, older is better. I suspect that
> #> this truly has something to do with Deistic sentiments
> #> (the more rational we become, the less we can actually
> #> connect with the Creator God what made it all go, so the
> #> older has deeper connection with this blatant myth).
> # Hmm. Interesting idea.
> it emerges quite specifically in contrast with Discordians,
> who ask the question you did and answer it in the opposite
> with the rationale that it comes from the *worshipper* or
> *the mage* rather than from some long-ago authority and
> divinities or superheros purported in scriptures.
> I've been pushing this with respect to the Tarot for some
> years now: that the Book of Thoth isn't the one created
> in mind by de Gebelin the Swiss, or Levi the Frenchman,
> or in art by Harris, or Colman-Smith, but instead, like
> the kitchen-witch, crafted within the ceremonial and
> dedicated pathworking visionquest of the mage hirself.
I think we should each make our own Tarot or Book of Keys. Or at
least, those who try will not have wasted their time. And it's fun!
> Shah (in his "Theophane the Monk" role) relates a story
> of like significance -- burning scripture one takes the
> time and effort to write oneself, every year, in
Not too different from Liber VIII or 'The Comment' (or the regular
ceremonial where a copy of the invocation is burned) if you think
> moving beyond this to burning ALL scripture, in mind if
> not in actuality, seems to be the path of the Magus. the
> *self-made* is the better over time and power in this.
In Magick Without Tears, this point is driven home time and
again. "Make it yourself." There is a heavy DIY ethic in this book!
Make your own 'qabalah.' Make your own instruments. Make your own
ritual. Make your own motto. The Master then makes his own Order. The
Magus makes his own Law. The Ipssissimus makes his own necessities
> #># ...Why would Catholicism's elite/ powerful deign to pay
> #># attention to any such attempts involved with the Booke o'
> #># the Law?
> #> it wouldn't. Thelemic religious see themselves as
> #> important enough to warrant such attention, is all.
> # I couldn't agree more. I was trying to suggest as much
> # with my question.
> are Thelemic religious worthy of the attention?
> when would they become so?
Not inherently so. Not to be dismissed, either, out-of-hand
simply /because/ of this association!
> # One of AC's main attractions is his bad boy rebel stance....
> several "crazy wisdom"
Ah, what a happy phrase: "crazy wisdom!"
I am reminded of Liber Aleph's subtitle.
> teachers attempt the same stance.
> those who took it more fully contrasting against the Christian
> context are definitive Satanists, as with the church of the name.
> # Thelema will remain attractive only insofar as it poses a
> # promise of cultural resistance. 'Subvert the dominant paradigm!'
> # seems to be one of Liber AL's truths it is pushing.
> this is a *very* helpful observation. granted that this is true,
> how successfully does it truly push it?
Good question! Each Thelemite must answer for themselves.
For myself, I think I am doing a good job being true to myself.
> in what manner? where is
> its iconoclasm and Bad Boy rhetoric falling flat and leading to
> the reinvention of the cult motive, drawing into it the dupable
> and easily led who just want a 'New! Different! Bad! Fun!' label
> and general presentation? analyzing the text would be required,
> but you say that you don't want to do that.
Did I say this? I am not averse to analyzing the text for my own
purposes. In regards trying to ascertain the patently ridiculous
(e.g. "Is this 'really' an inspired text?"), yes, I am averse to this
sort of a waste of time. But your line of questioning here (above) is
> # As long as those who 'accept' Liber AL are somehow bucking the
> # forces of concensus reality and whatever passes for 'normal,'
> # in that particular time and space, it (i.e. Thelema as
> # envisioned by the Beast and Liber AL) will thrive and survive.
> at some point this begins to sound self-contradictory. "Accept
> the Book! Accept the Book! Prove your independence!"
Anything not contradictory is false (or at least, boring).
> # When Thelema's [adherents] as a whole stop supporting such a
> # jihad, Thelema will finally die. I expect Thelema will last
> # a good 1900 years more or so, as the Book indicates.
> all kinds of whacky movements survive. humans are very shapeable,
> malleable, docile and trainable beings at times. once more this
> sounds like a faddish 'Let's All Rebel Together!' high school gig.
Perhaps. But I am not exhorting anyone to join me in my own brand of
folly. Not only would it be undesirable, it would be impossible.
Thelema is /not/ a fashion I wear when I tire of my Christian clothes.
> this is exactly how the Satanism factions are evaluated, however
> seriously they may be taken by their adherents in churches.
> # But if you give me a good reason to believe otherwise,
> "a good reason" will always be subject to re-estimation
> until a standard of evaluation is stipulated alongside it.
Yup. I guess we'll all have to wait and see.
> # I won't have any problem changing my viewpoint.
> Believe as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> # Certainly, I am sure of nothing, but given a relative
> # unknown, I accept the simplest easiest answer.
> there's a standard which might be used and abused:
> simple, easy, resolvative.
> trained as I was in the sciences through school,
I took numerous science classes in school, and did numerous extra
credit science camps in school. I've done numerous labs, and I am
relatively well-read in the sciences, both in their theorie and
practice. I particularly like astronomy, physics, chemistry, and
computer science. And as for you, what is your scientific education/
profile like, in more detail?
> my fallback
> rather consistently (with appendices) has proven simpler and
> easier than most other cosmological 'solutions' I've been
> offered by occultists:
> these are the fabrications and constructions
> of glorified monkeys. attributing to them more
> grand and important significance than this is
> fundamentally a faith-based affair pallateable
> to the fantasy-hungry and indisciplined mass
> bored with the observable, physical world and
> completely fearful of the termination at death.
'Glorified monkey' might be too generous a term, depending on who you
are referring to.
I have no problem recognizing my inner-monkey. Or admitting my
weakness, imperfection, self-deceit, etc.
I hunger for fantasy /at least/ as much as I hunger for so-
> that was as simple and easy as I could answer.
> this of course undermines *all* of the superordinary
> experiences and postulations of occultists the world
> over, and sets in stark ridiculous character the whole
> edifice of Bad Boy religion and any other enshrining
> pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die gods.
> elsewise we shall
> have to come up with how what is done is truly of
> value to these monkeys and what motivates them to
> such heights of self-deceit, hypocrisy, and error.
Monkeys hunger for new bananas. Thelema is a new banana.
Monkeys' error etc. has yet to be agreed upon or explicitly stated in