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

Re: [t93] Deja Vu at Boulaq ...or is it Cairo??

Expand Messages
  • Avalon Qadosh
    It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their cherished illusions questioned. I can think a far more likely scenario that AC got his details
    Message 1 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their cherished
      illusions questioned. I can think a far more likely scenario that AC
      got his details from a guidebook like the Budge one we know he owned
      and now in the Yorke collection. The fact is that Crowley claimed to
      have seen the Stele in the Boulaq in 1904 and the Boulaq was closed in
      1902, everything else is mere speculation. He claims to have had
      intimate contact with the staff as well, getting a reproduction and a
      translation made. Now how you take that can vary but I find it
      difficult to swallow that he supposedly had such intimate contact and
      yet didn´t even know the name of the place he was visiting, where he
      got his reproduction or where the people who he was paying worked.
      Realize too (and I know I am repeating myself here) that Crowley
      claims he was this whole time carrying out elaborate scams regarding
      his identity. His honesty in these matters is far from certain. The
      problem with the whole of Crowley´s account is that the closer you
      examine the details the less accurate his account looks. I have found
      that almost nothing he states that is subject to verification to be
      true. Except those items to be found in Budge´s Tour Guide. Hmmmm
      given that he was making up most of the myth of his life at that time,
      doesn´t that seem awfully suspiscious?

      Indeed and where have we seen this before? L Ron Hubbard anyone?
      Not to dis Crowley or anything but after reading the milkman letters and
      this account and other Crowley scams. Crowley was no better the Hubbard.
      At lest Hubbard was far mores successful then Crowley at them and built up
      hundreds
      of millions of dollars in his Scientolgy scam at least he was successful at
      it.

      4 J1m 8
    • threefold31
      ... Dwtw Excuse my ignorance, but did you ever prove that Crowley was on a ship with Annie Besant on April 6th, and NOT in Cairo at the times alleged in his
      Message 2 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, David Jones <choronzon.club@g...>
        wrote:
        > ...
        > given that he was making up most of the myth of his life at that time,
        > doesn´t that seem awfully suspiscious?

        Dwtw

        Excuse my ignorance, but did you ever prove that Crowley was on a ship
        with Annie Besant on April 6th, and NOT in Cairo at the times alleged
        in his accounts? (Not that this fact alone would prove he didn't
        receive TBOTL on Good Friday to Easter Sunday).
        The use of the term 'Boulak Museum' or 'the Museum at Boulak', seems
        pretty unremarkable, and less than conclusive as an argument against
        his claims. I often refer to our local 'art museum', when in fact it
        is called the Institute of Arts. I don't think this discrepancy
        justifies anyone claiming I've never been there.

        Litlluw
        RLG

        [Moderator reformatted post -- no top-posting PLEASE!]
      • eyeofhoor
        ... The *Milkman Letters* are fictional, as are many of the negative accounts generated about Aleister Crowley, who has become the occultist everyone loves to
        Message 3 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Avalon Qadosh <qadosh@s...> wrote:

          > Indeed and where have we seen this before? L Ron Hubbard anyone?

          > Not to dis Crowley or anything but after reading the milkman
          > letters and this account and other Crowley scams. Crowley was no
          > better the Hubbard. At lest Hubbard was far mores successful then
          > Crowley at them and built up hundreds of millions of dollars in his
          > Scientolgy scam at least he was successful at it.

          The *Milkman Letters* are fictional, as are many of the negative
          accounts generated about Aleister Crowley, who has become the
          occultist everyone loves to hate.

          A magician that uses his willpower and persuasion to fulfill his
          needs is far from a scam artist. Crowley was many things, but liar
          and scam artist are not among them.

          Prophet of L
        • Alamantra
          ... From: Avalon Qadosh To: Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:27 AM Subject: Re: [t93] Deja Vu at Boulaq ...or is
          Message 4 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Avalon Qadosh" <qadosh@...>
            To: <thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:27 AM
            Subject: Re: [t93] Deja Vu at Boulaq ...or is it Cairo??

            > It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their cherished
            > illusions questioned. I can think a far more likely scenario that AC
            > got his details from a guidebook like the Budge one we know he owned
            > and now in the Yorke collection. The fact is that Crowley claimed to
            > have seen the Stele in the Boulaq in 1904 and the Boulaq was closed in
            > 1902, everything else is mere speculation.

            I've done a fair amount of investigation, but I cannot say that his calling
            it the Boulaq after it had been moved discounts his story. It isn't all that
            unusual for a person to persist in calling something a previously familiar
            name. Also, according to Chapter 62 of Crowley's "Confessions" he was in
            Cairo in 1902. It isn't out of the question that he was familiar with the
            Boulaq at that time and persisted in calling it such out of a combination of
            familiarity and habit. There simply isn't enough data, based on the above,
            to make a definite determination.

            However, we must also acknowledge that there is no objective corroboration
            to Crowley's story or recounting of events either. We are left to take
            Crowley's account and as David Jones has pointed out, Crowley's account
            varies in the telling.

            All of this aside though, one can make certain determinations by the
            phrasing, the tone, the psychological profile of the writer of the Book of
            the Law. Crowley CLAIMS that it was too sublime to be him ...Yeah right...
            It is Crowley's work, but it is his "True Self" ...maybe it was some really
            good coke, or opium... but it was him loosing his fetters as a writer. (The
            presence of other "Class A" works indicate a duplication in process.)
            Though he doesn't really break any new ground, philosophically, he does an
            admirable job in writing a cohesive and artful summary of the conditions of
            manifestation as it occurs in contact with human awareness.
            He presents a Thesis, an Antithesis, and a Synthesis. This is a Hegelian
            process, which he advises one to become familiar with in the teachings of
            the A.'.A.'..
            The other thing one can acknowledge is that Crowley is quite the magician,
            and his Talisman (220 [11: Lust X 20 The Aeon]) worked, regardless of
            conditions of creations or even aesthetics for that matter. It did create a
            current and did influence culture. ...Maybe not in a way that Crowley would
            have envisioned, or even wanted, but who knows? One can compare bank
            accounts and find Crowley behind Hubbard perhaps, but Crowley's magick far
            surpasses what Hubbard did, and he did establish a current that has yielded
            a vast but measurable impact on the social landscape. ...Was Crowley a mug?
            Did he pull the occasional Scam? Was he TRICKSTER??? YOU BET HE WAS, and one
            of the better ones that we have seen for that matter. How does someone who
            is not a mug explore the real fringe of the human experience? This doesn't
            mean that he didn't have the goods ...you just have to decide if you are too
            good to get your junk from a mug.

            Also, as to that bank account issue. A. Crowley's magical obligations
            include an oath of poverty. (the provisio being that everything he has must
            go to the Great Work.) B. The mixture of wealth and poverty gives one a
            broader experience of the human equation. C. You can't take it with you. L
            Ron isn't nearly as colorful a character.

            Bliss:
            Alamantra
          • Avalon Qadosh
            ... When this topic went through here last year the thread must have contained 30 items. I think David Jones is onto something. That doesn t take anything away
            Message 5 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > > It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their cherished
              > > illusions questioned. I can think a far more likely scenario that AC
              > > got his details from a guidebook like the Budge one we know he owned
              > > and now in the Yorke collection. The fact is that Crowley claimed to
              > > have seen the Stele in the Boulaq in 1904 and the Boulaq was closed in
              > > 1902, everything else is mere speculation.

              When this topic went through here last year the thread must have contained
              30 items. I think David Jones is onto something. That doesn't take anything
              away from AC of course and his writings.


              > I've done a fair amount of investigation, but I cannot say that his
              calling
              > it the Boulaq after it had been moved discounts his story. It isn't all
              that
              > unusual for a person to persist in calling something a previously familiar
              > name. Also, according to Chapter 62 of Crowley's "Confessions" he was in
              > Cairo in 1902. It isn't out of the question that he was familiar with the
              > Boulaq at that time and persisted in calling it such out of a combination
              of
              > familiarity and habit. There simply isn't enough data, based on the above,
              > to make a definite determination.

              Other then ship passenger records but I'm just rehasning old news anyway.

              > However, we must also acknowledge that there is no objective
              corroboration
              > to Crowley's story or recounting of events either. We are left to take
              > Crowley's account and as David Jones has pointed out, Crowley's account
              > varies in the telling.
              >
              > All of this aside though, one can make certain determinations by the
              > phrasing, the tone, the psychological profile of the writer of the Book of
              > the Law. Crowley CLAIMS that it was too sublime to be him ...Yeah right...
              > It is Crowley's work, but it is his "True Self" ...maybe it was some
              really
              > good coke, or opium... but it was him loosing his fetters as a writer.
              (The
              > presence of other "Class A" works indicate a duplication in process.)
              > Though he doesn't really break any new ground, philosophically, he does an
              > admirable job in writing a cohesive and artful summary of the conditions
              of
              > manifestation as it occurs in contact with human awareness.
              > He presents a Thesis, an Antithesis, and a Synthesis. This is a Hegelian
              > process, which he advises one to become familiar with in the teachings of
              > the A.'.A.'..
              > The other thing one can acknowledge is that Crowley is quite the
              magician,
              > and his Talisman (220 [11: Lust X 20 The Aeon]) worked, regardless of
              > conditions of creations or even aesthetics for that matter. It did create
              a
              > current and did influence culture. ...Maybe not in a way that Crowley
              would
              > have envisioned, or even wanted, but who knows? One can compare bank
              > accounts and find Crowley behind Hubbard perhaps, but Crowley's magick far
              > surpasses what Hubbard did, and he did establish a current that has
              yielded
              > a vast but measurable impact on the social landscape. ...Was Crowley a
              mug?
              > Did he pull the occasional Scam? Was he TRICKSTER??? YOU BET HE WAS, and
              one
              > of the better ones that we have seen for that matter. How does someone who
              > is not a mug explore the real fringe of the human experience? This doesn't
              > mean that he didn't have the goods ...you just have to decide if you are
              too
              > good to get your junk from a mug.
              >
              > Also, as to that bank account issue. A. Crowley's magical obligations
              > include an oath of poverty. (the provisio being that everything he has
              must
              > go to the Great Work.) B. The mixture of wealth and poverty gives one a
              > broader experience of the human equation. C. You can't take it with you. L
              > Ron isn't nearly as colorful a character.

              Well his Org would have us believe otherwise ;-) I think Ron is a more
              fascinating
              character then Crowley only because he's more closer to our own time and
              lived
              near our own collective consciousness. Not to many people these days know
              who AC was
              but a lot know more about Scientology then the OTO. I've been in both orgs
              and
              I'd take the OTO over Scientology anyway. Thanks for the read.

              4 J1m 8
            • David Jones
              Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... Prey tell explain the following list then. You do realize that he was using several of these as his
              Message 6 of 25 , Jul 5, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Do what thou wilt

                Shall be the whole of the Law.

                > A magician that uses his willpower and persuasion to fulfill his
                > needs is far from a scam artist. Crowley was many things, but liar
                > and scam artist are not among them.

                Prey tell explain the following list then. You do realize that he was
                using several of these as his identities at the very time of the
                reception of the Book of the Law. And this usage included names under
                which he registered in hotels and presented himself for his benefit.
                There is contemporary newspaper evidence of such, not to mention his
                own subsequent accounts of these rather obvious scams. Then of course
                there is his pretended suicide.

                http://www.nthposition.com/themagicalworldof.php

                http://www.enterportugal.com/cascais.html


                Count Vladimir Svaroff
                George Archibald Bishop
                The Reverend P.D. Carey
                Major Lutiy
                Rec C. Verey
                Perdurabo
                Hilda Norfolk
                Barbay de Rochehuart (sic?)
                John Masefield Junior
                Enid Parsons, aged twelve.
                Ananda Vijja
                Ethel Ramsay
                Jeanne La Goulue
                John Roberts
                Alice Wesley Torr
                Alastor le Demon du Solitude
                Ankh-F-N-Khonsu, The Priest of the Princes
                Therion
                The Master Therion
                Khaled Khan
                Mahatma Guru Sri Paramahansa Shivaji
                Alastor (in Greek)
                To Mega Therion (in Greek) DCLXVI
                Abhavananda
                DCLXVI
                Ankh-af-na-Khonsu, the Priest of the Princes.
                666 The Prophet of the New Aeon.
                Ko Yuen
                Comte de Fenix
                Fra H.I. Edinburgh
                G.H. Frater O.M.
                Perdurabo
                666
                John St. John
                Francis Bendick
                A Quiller Jr.
                S.Holmes
                Alice L. Foote
                Eric Tait
                Nick Lamb
                Lemuel S. Innocent
                Robinson C. Crowley
                Christabel Wharton
                D Carr
                Percy Flage
                Laura Graham
                M. Tupper
                David Thomas
                A.C. Hobbs
                Hodgson Y. Knott
                Mark Wells
                Edward Kelly
                J Turner
                Thomas Wentworth
                S.C. Hiller
                E. Le Roulx
                V. English M.D.
                Professor Jacobus, Imperator.
                Tarr, M.S.
                Doris Leslie
                Mohammed.
                Kwaw Li Ya
                Panurge
                Cor Scorpionis
                Cerebellum
                Sumatra Wrapper
                Super Sinistram
                Sir Meduim Coeli
                Madame Bock Brune
                A Mourner Clad In Green
                Prob Pudor
                S.J. Mills
                James Grahame
                Cyril Custance
                Sir Maurice E. Kulm,
                Percy W. Newlands P.R.A.S., P.H.B.S.,P.R.C.S.,...,P.R.Y.S.,P.R.Z.S.,Etc.
                Jonathon Hutchinson, Natu Minimus
                Nick Lamb
                Caligula
                Martial Nay
                Marshal de Cambronne
                William Shakespear pp. Ouija Board
                Dost Achiba Khan
                Lord Boleskine
                Alexander Tabasco
                Miles
                Leo Viridis
                Cantab
                Victor
                Candlestick
                Ariel
                H Sapiens
                Morpheus
                The Brothers Lazarus
                Mrs. Bloomer Greymare

                Count Vladimir Svaroff
                H.D. Carr
                Rev C. Verey
                Professor Theophilus Von Schartzkopf Ph.D, etc, etc. Professor of
                Zoology in the university of Tubingen
                Professor Throld Thorwaldssen Late of the University of Mango
                Hilda Norfolk
                Perdurabo
                Ananda Viffa
                Ethel Ramsay
                Barbay de Rochechouart
                Gerard Aumont
                The Beast, 666, 9'=2' A.'.A.'.
                Macgregor of Boleskine and Abertarff
                John Masefield Junior
                Jeanne La Goulue
                Adam dias
                Enid Parsons
                John Roberts
                Leo Vincey
                Saint Edward Aleister Crowley 33', 90' X' P.G.M., U.S.A., etc etc etc
                George Archibald Bishop
                The Late Major Lutiy
                The Reverend P.D. Carey
                Abhavananda
                Frater Perdurabo
                Ankh-af-na-Khonsu
                LCLXVI
                The Master therion
                Therion
                Mahamtma Guru Sri Paramahansa Shivaji
                Fra H.I. Edinburgh
                Khaled Khan
                Comte de Fenix
                Algernon Robert Charles Brinburning
                Gerard Aumont
                The Beast 666 9=2 A.'.A.'.
                Macgregor of Boleskine and Abertarff

                Love is the
                law, love under will.
              • grefou
                ... Uh, okay. But was he a scam artist in terms of magick and spirituality? These seem rather the tools of a magician, only scams to the blind.
                Message 7 of 25 , Jul 9, 2005
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, David Jones <choronzon.club@g...>
                  wrote:
                  > ...
                  > Prey tell explain the following list then. You do realize that he was
                  > using several of these as his identities at the very time of the
                  > reception of the Book of the Law[?]

                  <snipped list>

                  Uh, okay. But was he a scam artist in terms of magick and
                  spirituality? These seem rather the tools of a magician, only scams to
                  the blind. But did he not invite people IN?

                  Magick does have an element of magic in it (in terms of deception)...
                  but did A.C. disemble where it counts?

                  The quote was "A magician that uses his willpower and persuasion to
                  fulfill his needs... " as your list admirably shows.

                  Perhaps he should have sworn off such games and presented himself as
                  the squeaky-clean Aleister Crowley (you know, like a preacher). That
                  would have been a scam indeed! (and, I wonder, would anyone have seen
                  through it?).

                  I say blessed is the Off-Kilter that, through it, we may more readily
                  discover our own cracks (hmmm, unghh! I think I've found one!).

                  -- G.

                  [Moderator reformatted post and removed unnecessary
                  quoted materials -- no TOP-POSTING!]
                • Ahn Eun Song
                  ... ... time, ... Why should I care if the Book of the Law was written April 8-10, 1904 or April 1, 1904? I can t yet
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jul 11, 2005
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "threefold31" <threefold31@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, David Jones
                    <choronzon.club@g...>
                    > wrote:
                    > > ...
                    > > given that he was making up most of the myth of his life at that
                    time,
                    > > doesn´t that seem awfully suspiscious?
                    <snip for brevity>

                    Why should I care if the Book of the Law was written April 8-10, 1904
                    or April 1, 1904? I can't yet find a reason. Does it matter to me if
                    it was 'really' written in London rather than the purported Egypt?

                    Would it really matter to my core beliefs regarding thelema, if Legis
                    was 'really' penned by someone other than Crowley in 1909? I can't
                    yet find a compelling case that would indicate this. My core beliefs
                    regarding thelema don't have to do with dates, places, or facts this
                    distant from my personal sphere.

                    When I 'accepted' Legis as a useful rule for living my life, it had
                    very little to do with purported 'facts,' and much more to do with
                    poetry, subjective beliefs, and generally unquantifiable things.

                    AES
                  • David Jones
                    Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... the blind. But did he not invite people IN? Hmm seems like a pretty credulous perspective to me. It
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jul 11, 2005
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Do what thou wilt

                      Shall be the whole of the Law.

                      >Uh, okay. But was he a scam artist in terms
                      >of magick and spirituality? These seem rather the tools of
                      >a magician, only scams to
                      the blind. But did he not invite people IN?

                      Hmm seems like a pretty credulous perspective to me. It allows you to
                      believe a liar and a scam artist when it plays prey to the prejudices
                      of your personal ego and to dismiss what you happen to find difficult.
                      I can hardly think of a more unsound foundation for one´s belief
                      structure. A.´.A.´. is supposedly based on the Scientific Method
                      after all and yet Crowley demands inerrancy and belief in a book as a
                      criterion, seems to be a pretty insurmountable contradiction if you
                      ask me. There is a nice quote is a book aptly titled the Book of Lies
                      (introduced by a lie as demonstrably false and egregious as Crowley´s
                      myth of the reception of the Book of the Law).

                      "I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank
                      and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the
                      morning."

                      Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith of eyeofhoor any day.

                      Love is the
                      law, love under will.

                      David R. Jones
                    • eyeofhoor
                      ... Jones, you are in no position to judge whether my experiences are a matter of certainty or faith, and you may never be in that position. The Masters of
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jul 11, 2005
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Jones <choronzon.club@g...> wrote:

                        > Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith of
                        > eyeofhoor any day.

                        Jones, you are in no position to judge whether my experiences are a
                        matter of certainty or faith, and you may never be in that position.

                        The Masters of Thelema will only reveal themselves to a few
                        individuals, with the qualifications needed having little to do with
                        achieved levels of education or initiation. One of the most important
                        traits of the Chosen Ones is the ability and willingness to suspend
                        disbelief long enough to evaluate an encounter with extraordinary
                        forms of energy without preconceptions. A diehard skeptic probably
                        has less of a chance than a gullible fool.

                        If you were a god or spiritual master, would you waste time and
                        energy trying to convince the unconvincible, or would you instead
                        choose a more willing participant? The willingness of Aleister
                        Crowley to assume alternate identities and engage in role-playing was
                        a prime trait that lent itself to his success as a mystic.
                      • grefou
                        ... 93s The Book is like a flag to those who already believe (through experience). It does not preclude doubt; it is merely the signifier that it was doubt
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jul 11, 2005
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David Jones <choronzon.club@g...> wrote:
                          > >Uh, okay. But was he a scam artist in terms
                          > >of magick and spirituality? These seem rather the tools of
                          > >a magician, only scams to
                          > the blind. But did he not invite people IN?
                          >
                          > Hmm seems like a pretty credulous perspective to me. It allows you
                          > to believe a liar and a scam artist when it plays prey to the
                          > prejudices of your personal ego and to dismiss what you happen to
                          > find difficult.
                          > I can hardly think of a more unsound foundation for one´s belief
                          > structure. A.´.A.´. is supposedly based on the Scientific
                          > Method after all and yet Crowley demands inerrancy and belief in a
                          > book as a criterion, seems to be a pretty insurmountable
                          > contradiction if you ask me. There is a nice quote is a book aptly
                          > titled the Book of Lies (introduced by a lie as demonstrably false
                          > and egregious as Crowley´s myth of the reception of the Book of the
                          > Law).
                          >
                          > "I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking;
                          > I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin
                          > in the morning."
                          >
                          > Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith
                          > of eyeofhoor any day.

                          93s

                          The Book is like a flag to those who already believe (through
                          experience). It does not preclude doubt; it is merely the signifier
                          that it was doubt that got you there. The Book is itself the virgin or
                          the corpse depending on how you came to it.

                          For me it is the virgin, and the true believers can go to hell (and so
                          can the Book if it gets in the way).

                          He is a con-artist to those that believe but a wizard to those that
                          doubt. If you are defending against him, then you are only defending
                          FOR the credulous. But you might be alert to the fact that the
                          A.'.A.'. involves a system of grades and it is the credulous who first
                          get in.

                          Do not blame Crowley that he used the tools of credulity to first make
                          his point. One might even conclude that one might reach enlightenment
                          quite despite the dear fellow, a sentiment with which he heartily
                          approved.

                          Are you saying the Book is a fake?

                          A fake what?

                          Did little Alick lie to you?

                          93 93/93

                          [Moderator removed extraneous quote and reformatted;
                          no TOP-POSTING please!]
                        • David Jones
                          Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... I never said that I was, but your rather desperate categorical assertion here demonstrates the weakness
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jul 12, 2005
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Do what thou wilt

                            Shall be the whole of the Law.

                            On 7/12/05, eyeofhoor <eyeofhoor@...> wrote:
                            > David Jones <choronzon.club@g...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith of
                            > > eyeofhoor any day.
                            >
                            > Jones, you are in no position to judge whether my experiences are a
                            > matter of certainty or faith, and you may never be in that position.

                            I never said that I was, but your rather desperate categorical
                            assertion here demonstrates the weakness and facile nature of your
                            position. There are plenty of true believers in the world, all you
                            have to do is go to any pentacostal church or shiite mosque, but what
                            seperates (in theory) Thelema from these is the criterion nay the
                            demand of empirical proof. The very core of Thelema is based not on
                            your beliefs nor whether or not I (or anyone else for that matter)
                            believes them or not, but on whether we as believers can and do have
                            true gnosis for ourselves. I have had many many spiritual
                            experiences, including the highest trances as defined by the mystics
                            of all ages, but I would never as you seem to be doing cry a
                            dependence on my personal experiences that anyone else save me should
                            believe anything. That idea and the promotion thereof is the most
                            dangerous and destructive of ideas, destructive particularly of true
                            religion. Because your demand for essentially non experiential belief
                            and dependence on those beyond the self (including it seems your
                            overblown ego) deprives many who could have true belief of the actual
                            experience, and further because the idea that religion can in any
                            sense be vicarious has caused the world untold suffering and would be
                            prophets like you who only encourage such a diminishing of Thelema to
                            the same standards as the faiths that have corrupted the world from
                            time immemorial debase Thelema to the same lowly standards. I and
                            many others have succeeded in having the deepest and most profoundly
                            influential spiritual experiences without ever having to sacrifice
                            doubt or the Scientific Method. That you seem to be trying to steer
                            Thelema in a path that would deny these fundamental elements seems to
                            me at least to be the epitome of anti Thelema and frankly disgusts me
                            in the extreme.

                            > The Masters of Thelema will only reveal themselves to a few
                            > individuals, with the qualifications needed having little to do with
                            > achieved levels of education or initiation. One of the most important
                            > traits of the Chosen Ones is the ability and willingness to suspend
                            > disbelief long enough to evaluate an encounter with extraordinary
                            > forms of energy without preconceptions. A diehard skeptic probably
                            > has less of a chance than a gullible fool.

                            Blah blah blah blah. Would be masters are a dime a dozen and that you
                            would tell other how to think instead of encouraging them to think and
                            discover for themselves is appalling. Frankly your would be proofs
                            and demonstrations are facile and have so far as I can tell convinced
                            no one but yourself.

                            > If you were a god or spiritual master, would you waste time and
                            > energy trying to convince the unconvincible, or would you instead
                            > choose a more willing participant?

                            How would you who knows nothing of the ways of the masters deign to
                            tell me who is enlightened how to think or act? There is no god where
                            I am.

                            The willingness of Aleister
                            > Crowley to assume alternate identities and engage in role-playing was
                            > a prime trait that lent itself to his success as a mystic.

                            So? You said he didn´t lie or promote scams. He did lie (often
                            simply to fool the gullible and get a better dinner table in a hotel)
                            and he did promote scams (like faking his own suicide and pretending
                            both the Master Therion and V.V.V.V.V. were people other than
                            himself). I have to wonder sometimes if you have even ever read his
                            diaries and autohagiography, give the blind and thoughtless hero
                            worship you seem constantly to exhibit. Either you can admit you were
                            wrong or we can basically dismiss pretty much everything you say as
                            deluded by your own true belief and lack of critical thinking skills.

                            Love is the
                            law, love under will.
                          • sarahpozi
                            93 ... Nothing personal but your obvious lack of objectivity seems to clearly indicate that you aren´t in that position either. ... Considering you just told
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jul 12, 2005
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              93

                              --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "eyeofhoor" <eyeofhoor@y...>
                              > > Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith of
                              > > eyeofhoor any day.
                              >
                              > Jones, you are in no position to judge whether my experiences are a
                              > matter of certainty or faith, and you may never be in that position.

                              Nothing personal but your obvious lack of objectivity seems to clearly
                              indicate that you aren´t in that position either.

                              > The Masters of Thelema will only reveal themselves to a few
                              > individuals, with the qualifications needed having little to do with
                              > achieved levels of education or initiation.

                              Considering you just told someone they werent in a position to judge
                              you this statement is pretty egotistical and megolomaniacal. Gosh I
                              sure wouldnt want someone like you arbitrating for me what thelema is.
                              Havent we had enough masters telling us what to do. I think I can
                              get in touch with the goddesses and gods as well or even better than
                              you can. When I do they dont go around telling me to tell others what
                              to think. I think you are talking to devils not goddesses and gods.


                              One of the most important
                              > traits of the Chosen Ones is the ability and willingness to suspend
                              > disbelief long enough to evaluate an encounter with extraordinary
                              > forms of energy without preconceptions. A diehard skeptic probably
                              > has less of a chance than a gullible fool.

                              So we should now believe you because you communicate with the
                              goddesses and gods and can tell us what to think and do RFLMAO.


                              > If you were a god or spiritual master, would you waste time and
                              > energy trying to convince the unconvincible, or would you instead
                              > choose a more willing participant?

                              If you were a spiritual master or a god you certainly wouldnt have
                              posted this.

                              The willingness of Aleister
                              > Crowley to assume alternate identities and engage in role-playing was
                              > a prime trait that lent itself to his success as a mystic.

                              Soror ?

                              whatever, I dont think one has much of anything to do with the other.
                            • eyeofhoor
                              sarahpozi wrote: ... By what word or deed have I demonstrated a lack of objectivity? ... Even if the statement is accurate? ;-) ... I
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jul 12, 2005
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "sarahpozi" <sarahpozi@y...> wrote:

                                "eyeofhoor" <eyeofhoor@y...> wrote:

                                > > Jones, you are in no position to judge whether my experiences
                                > > are a matter of certainty or faith, and you may never be in that
                                > > position.

                                > Nothing personal but your obvious lack of objectivity seems to
                                > clearly indicate that you aren´t in that position either.

                                By what word or deed have I demonstrated a lack of objectivity?

                                > > The Masters of Thelema will only reveal themselves to a few
                                > > individuals, with the qualifications needed having little to do
                                > > with achieved levels of education or initiation.

                                > Considering you just told someone they werent in a position to judge
                                > you this statement is pretty egotistical and megolomaniacal.

                                Even if the statement is accurate? ;-)

                                > Gosh I sure wouldnt want someone like you arbitrating for me what
                                > thelema is.

                                I wouldn't dream of it--apparently you fail to understand the
                                difference between a general observation and a directive. Do what
                                thou wilt.

                                > Havent we had enough masters telling us what to do.

                                Are there masters giving you orders? Who are they and what do they
                                tell you to do?

                                > I think I can get in touch with the goddesses and gods as well or
                                > even better than you can.

                                How can you make that determination?

                                > When I do they dont go around telling me to tell others what to
                                > think.

                                I never told you or anyone what to think, I just stated what *I*
                                think--there's a difference.

                                > I think you are talking to devils not goddesses and gods.

                                Thanks for telling me what *you* think. Can you explain how you
                                arrived at that conclusion?

                                > > one of the most important traits of the Chosen Ones is the
                                > > ability and willingness to suspend disbelief long enough to
                                > > evaluate an encounter with extraordinary forms of energy without
                                > > preconceptions. A diehard skeptic probably has less of a chance
                                > > than a gullible fool.

                                > So we should now believe you because you communicate with the
                                > goddesses and gods and can tell us what to think and do RFLMAO.

                                No, don't believe me, believe your own perceptions and experiences--
                                that's what I do, but evidently you have a problem with that.

                                > > If you were a god or spiritual master, would you waste time and
                                > > energy trying to convince the unconvincible, or would you instead
                                > > choose a more willing participant?
                                >
                                > If you were a spiritual master or a god you certainly wouldnt have
                                > posted this.

                                Then we can agree on something then--I'm not a god or a spiritual
                                master.


                                Prophet of L
                              • 333
                                50050713 ix om Hail Satan! David Jones : # Do what thou wilt # Shall be the whole of the Law. The word of sin Is Restriction. re
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jul 13, 2005
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  50050713 ix om Hail Satan!

                                  David Jones <choronzon.club@...>:
                                  # Do what thou wilt
                                  # Shall be the whole of the Law.

                                  The word of sin
                                  Is Restriction.

                                  re Crowley (uncited):
                                  #> was he a scam artist in terms of magick

                                  not perceivably. he defined Magick and thereby made enough
                                  loopholes and made it easy enough to qualify, going so far
                                  as to at points equate exercize of _will_ with it (anybody
                                  with a strong ego can determine themselves a mage this way).

                                  #> and spirituality?

                                  if he wasn't a scam artist, he seems to have been very bad
                                  at developing his spiritual condition. now some within the
                                  "spiritual community" (esp. on its edges) who think of the
                                  nature of spirit as some kind of power-reservoir, projectable
                                  into a beam or refinable into superabilities will of course
                                  indicate that his potency and abilities were "hidden" but
                                  very well-developed. those who have insight into rarefied
                                  subjective states may come to the more rational conclusion
                                  based on his writings that he didn't change much due to
                                  his spiritual disciplines, at least not fundamentally.

                                  #> These seem rather the tools of a magician,

                                  false, if there was no misquote. 'Magick' is the idea of
                                  Aleister Crowley, which hopes to incorporate or manhandle
                                  'magic' into submission for purpose of advanced marketing.

                                  the activity of the magician is magic. it doesn't require
                                  that one conform to Crowley's Magick, nor does it require
                                  the application to spirituality/mysticism. this latter
                                  fallacy is perpetuated by mystics using magic for their
                                  own purposes (and at points attempting to license or
                                  restrict it to their own cults).

                                  #> only scams to the blind.

                                  Magick was a scam in that it was and is primarily conceptual
                                  and may be achieved by anyone, layered over coventionality.

                                  spirituality is a scam where it doesn't exemplify success
                                  or reproduce what it ostensibly puts forward by profession.
                                  in the case of Crowley I'd like someone who has knowledge
                                  of the man's life to provide some evidence that he was in
                                  some measure improved by his spiritual disciplines beyond
                                  the conditioning he received and immaturity he demonstrated.

                                  #> But did he not invite people IN?
                                  #
                                  # Hmm seems like a pretty credulous perspective to me. It allows you to
                                  # believe a liar and a scam artist when it plays prey to the prejudices
                                  # of your personal ego and to dismiss what you happen to find difficult.

                                  commonplace in the occult and religiomagical world. it also supports
                                  the notion of what I've called 'stoplight magic' (convincing others
                                  and even ourselves that we have an ability to control the universe
                                  by successfully timing our movements so as to correspond with
                                  predictable changes, the inference of our potency a rational error).

                                  # I can hardly think of a more unsound foundation for one´s belief
                                  # structure.

                                  dogmatic appeal?

                                  # A.´.A.´. is supposedly based on the Scientific Method

                                  LOL

                                  # after all and yet Crowley demands inerrancy and belief in a book as a
                                  # criterion, seems to be a pretty insurmountable contradiction if you
                                  # ask me.

                                  totally. why do people continue to think of his expression as valuable
                                  when it includes these kinds of contradictions? abject ignorance?
                                  or does the prose of Crowley dazzle their socks (and mind) away?

                                  # There is a nice quote is a book aptly titled the Book of Lies
                                  # (introduced by a lie as demonstrably false and egregious as
                                  # Crowley´s myth of the reception of the Book of the Law).
                                  #
                                  # AC} I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking;
                                  # AC} I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a
                                  # AC} virgin in the morning.
                                  #
                                  # Give me the doubt of the Scientific Method over the Faith
                                  # of eyeofhoor any day.

                                  oh right, such an obvious dichotomy. no hidden Middle lying around?

                                  faith has its advantages for a jump-start. the Buddhists sometimes
                                  conceive of these kinds of help-me-ups as 'cognitive tools' to set
                                  the consciousness into a particular position or condition the
                                  initiate toward certain states of mind. 'brain-washing?' the Hoor
                                  Prophet's demonstrates fervency and sincere zealousness. these
                                  can be helpful characteristics of prophets and mystics.

                                  Invoke me under my stars.

                                  # Love is the
                                  # law, love under will.

                                  333
                                • 333
                                  50050713 ix om Hail Satan! Avalon Qadosh : # It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their # cherished illusions
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jul 13, 2005
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    50050713 ix om Hail Satan!

                                    "Avalon Qadosh" <qadosh@...>:
                                    # > It´s pretty typical of true believers when they don´t their
                                    # > cherished illusions questioned....

                                    quite so, and sometimes queries are badly-asked, history badly-
                                    retracted or researched. because someone issues questions to
                                    which there are objections this doesn't mean true believers
                                    are necessarily involved.

                                    "Alamantra" <Alamantra@...>:
                                    # ...we must also acknowledge that there is no objective corroboration
                                    # to Crowley's story or recounting of events either....

                                    thank you. the voice of reason.

                                    # We are left to take Crowley's account and as David Jones
                                    # has pointed out, Crowley's account varies in the telling.

                                    I don't trust this man's stories about himself.
                                    those who do so tend to be his cultist devotees.
                                    see for yourself.

                                    # ...(The presence of other "Class A" works indicate a
                                    # duplication in process. ...

                                    that's one way of looking at it (duplication of process),
                                    yes. another is that the text granted 'A' status was merely
                                    one described of a particular character so as to foment the
                                    cult in the wake of the master and serve as of sufficient
                                    clarity *unchanged* so as to grant integrity to the cult.
                                    these categories serve the effective purpose of 'councils'
                                    within Buddhism and Christianity solidifying scripture.

                                    # ...Crowley is quite the magician....

                                    not demonstrated. I'd say quite the contrary given what
                                    we know of his interior life and personal reflections.
                                    sufficient has been left behind to demonstrate that he
                                    was a raw piece of work, a spiritual infant of sorts,
                                    morally corrupt and perverted, maligned by his
                                    conditioning (primarily conservative Christian).

                                    # his Talisman (220 [11: Lust X 20 The Aeon]) worked....

                                    how did you determine this? reflection on his account?

                                    # ...One can compare bank accounts and find Crowley
                                    # behind [L. Ron] Hubbard perhaps,

                                    Hubbard's method doesn't include magic per se that I
                                    can recall in description (Hubbard's) or actuality
                                    (by my understanding of what constitutes magic).
                                    there are many ways to make money. perhaps you're
                                    just too willing to grant magic where $ is made.

                                    # but Crowley's magick far surpasses what Hubbard did,

                                    not demonstrated. can writers influence those who read
                                    their works? surely. to this extent, both men seem to
                                    have succesfully started cults in their wake, Crowley
                                    taking advantage of some extant ones while he was at
                                    it (the OTO, which solidified into a church taking
                                    Crowley as a prophet/saint, for example, plus he
                                    tried to influence others).

                                    # ...How does someone who is not a mug explore the
                                    # real fringe of the human experience? This doesn't
                                    # mean that he didn't have the goods ...you just
                                    # have to decide if you are too good to get your
                                    # junk from a mug.

                                    note the multiple negatives. it DOESN'T mean that he
                                    DIDN'T have the goods. very true, and very weak. we'd
                                    hope for more evidence that he *did* have the goods,
                                    and you've tried to point some of that out in your
                                    very wonderful post, thanks.

                                    # Also, as to that bank account issue.
                                    # A. Crowley's magical obligations include an oath of poverty.

                                    how convenient. it is very helpful to magicians that
                                    they may include, along with training which includes
                                    self-debilitating ego-destruction, recommendations to
                                    their cohorts for oaths of poverty so as to never make
                                    it possible to examine, via bank account comparison,
                                    precisely who is the more effective magician.

                                    mystics get into a row about this one every so often.
                                    it is precisely what text like 'The Book of Job' was
                                    written to instruct against: that the god gives the power
                                    to its favourites and the rest are frauds and shams --
                                    physical, conventional condition demonstrating success
                                    on a spiritual and moral level. it is of course false.

                                    # (the provisio being that everything he has must go
                                    # to the Great Work.)

                                    the Great Work, effecting the creation of an object
                                    which TURNS LOTS OF THINGS IT TOUCHES INTO GOLD
                                    would require an oath of poverty, wouldn't it? :)

                                    # B. The mixture of wealth and poverty gives one a
                                    # broader experience of the human equation.

                                    I don't see how this applies. you mean that because
                                    Crowley was a poor money-manager, selfishly seeking
                                    to provide nothing for his children and wives, and
                                    spent his inheritance and all the money he made from
                                    his projects, writing, and begging, on himself and
                                    his aesthetic and entertainment pleasures, that we
                                    should consider this "broader experience" and somehow
                                    indicates that his magic is more powerful? I am not
                                    following the logic or the conclusion in B. above.

                                    # C. You can't take it with you.

                                    not demonstrated. some of them Egyptian honchos had
                                    a veritable mint buried with them, along with their
                                    favourite dogs, ponies, servants, and friends (ack!).
                                    does this mean that they were stupid and put to death
                                    the very people who meant so much to them at the last
                                    possible time these individuals may have enjoyed life?

                                    or does it mean that you disbelieve in transmissions
                                    of wealth through certain but not all means? consider
                                    the spirit-money and spirit-opulence of some Chinese.

                                    the possibility of rebirth or reincarnation makes a
                                    careful planning of such eventuality a means by which
                                    a magician might pass on wealth or power to inheritors
                                    (and therefore themselves -- cf. Buddhist authorities
                                    and their notions of 'recognition').

                                    # L Ron isn't nearly as colorful a character.

                                    he seems to have struck a rather colourful pose,
                                    comparable to Crowley. the fact that he was able
                                    to so easily dupe and rip off Parsons may have
                                    something to say about Scientology vs Thelema
                                    (would that have been Round 1 of the Match?
                                    Ron winning both money *and* sex from Jack?).

                                    333
                                  • David Jones
                                    Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... I´m not sure how you define faking your own suicide for self promotion or pretending that there exist
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jul 13, 2005
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Do what thou wilt

                                      Shall be the whole of the Law.

                                      > re Crowley (uncited):
                                      > #> was he a scam artist in terms of magick
                                      >
                                      > not perceivably. he defined Magick and thereby made enough
                                      > loopholes and made it easy enough to qualify, going so far
                                      > as to at points equate exercize of _will_ with it (anybody
                                      > with a strong ego can determine themselves a mage this way).

                                      I´m not sure how you define faking your own suicide for self promotion
                                      or pretending that there exist secret hidden masters that you are in
                                      communication with who turn out to be the person making the claims
                                      about others, but to my mind these are pretty obviously scams (well
                                      intentioned or otherwise). As for pretending to be people he was not
                                      esp. in expertise and rank that he did not possess you can take that
                                      as you will, seems pretty duplicitous to me and to the degree that he
                                      used these identities to promote his own agenda they strike me pretty
                                      obviously as scams.

                                      > totally. why do people continue to think of his expression as valuable
                                      > when it includes these kinds of contradictions? abject ignorance?
                                      > or does the prose of Crowley dazzle their socks (and mind) away?

                                      I think they continue to accept this construct because they are merely
                                      substituting Thelema or whatever (insert favorite new age religion
                                      here) for the tired methodologies of traditional religion. I think
                                      that Crowley realized this to and hence his change in many ways of the
                                      methodology from the earliest Equinoxes to the later texts (esp. after
                                      the so-called acceptance of the BOTL by the O.T.O.). The craze of the
                                      era was new religions, witness Besant et al, which had gradually
                                      replaced the more scientific approaches of the late 19th to earlies
                                      20th centuries. The 40s and 50s had a similar scientific bent followed
                                      by the 60s and 70s similar craze for new religions with the present
                                      reactionary mode following.

                                      > oh right, such an obvious dichotomy. no hidden Middle lying around?

                                      Sure there is but IMHO opinion it must needs be a personal
                                      relationship, to offer a collective truth to those who as yet lack
                                      experience is dangerous and self deluding. I am willing to respect
                                      your experiences and value mine, but I remain skeptical about both
                                      especially and in some ways to the degree that either I or others need
                                      to convince. The idea that truth is a result of how many believe
                                      something is IMHO destructive of true religion. Similarly taking any
                                      value system (and religions are not by any means the only offenders)
                                      without questioning its origins and or motives at face value and
                                      trying to hide the unpleasant and often dishonest truths at their core
                                      does no one any good except those who profit from blind faith. My
                                      basic problem with eyeofhoor and others diatribes against my
                                      questioning of the origin myths of Thelema is that they want either to
                                      be able to ignore the inconsistencies or sweep them under the rug.
                                      They decry Christianity when it does the same thing in regard to
                                      questions regarding its origins or inconsistencies in its scriptures
                                      or dogma but are unwilling to shine the same light of truth on the
                                      foundations of their own faith, which to my mind is hypocrisy of the
                                      grossest kind. Now I fully realize that my critique is essentially
                                      futile with regard to true believers who will go to any lengths to
                                      pretend the feet of their idols are stone and not clay, but if I am
                                      going to indulge in this dialogue I cannot in good consciense let
                                      their hypocrisy slide by unmentioned.

                                      > faith has its advantages for a jump-start. the Buddhists sometimes
                                      > conceive of these kinds of help-me-ups as 'cognitive tools' to set
                                      > the consciousness into a particular position or condition the
                                      > initiate toward certain states of mind. 'brain-washing?' the Hoor
                                      > Prophet's demonstrates fervency and sincere zealousness. these
                                      > can be helpful characteristics of prophets and mystics.

                                      How so, to convince others of what they might not be convinced of
                                      themselves? I fail to see the value save as a tool to manipulate
                                      others.

                                      Love is the
                                      law, love under will.
                                    • 333
                                      50050713 ix om God-of-Magic-Day Deepsea333 (do you know when # 2 about the Locker is coming out?): # Do what thou wilt # Shall be the whole of the Law. Love is
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jul 13, 2005
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        50050713 ix om God-of-Magic-Day

                                        Deepsea333 (do you know when # 2 about the Locker is coming out?):
                                        # Do what thou wilt
                                        # Shall be the whole of the Law.

                                        Love is the law
                                        Love under will.

                                        re Crowley (uncited):
                                        # > # > was he a scam artist in terms of magick
                                        # >
                                        # > not perceivably. he defined Magick and thereby made enough
                                        # > loopholes and made it easy enough to qualify, going so far
                                        # > as to at points equate exercize of _will_ with it (anybody
                                        # > with a strong ego can determine themselves a mage this way).

                                        # ...faking your own suicide for self promotion

                                        motivation would probably come into the picture. even Jesoids
                                        faked the death of an individual in order to pursue the cult.
                                        this sounds like a temperamental author stunt.

                                        # or pretending that there exist secret hidden masters that you are in
                                        # communication with who turn out to be the person making the claims
                                        # about others, but to my mind these are pretty obviously scams (well
                                        # intentioned or otherwise).

                                        I don't think I understand some of this. the secret hidden master
                                        part may well have been sincere and on the level. certain shamanic
                                        states can include externalized voices, as can numerous
                                        religiomagical intelligence-communications, Oracles,
                                        elemental-interactions, etc., etc.

                                        if the hidden masters were as described by the more prudish and
                                        ascetic, then maybe they were just leading Crowley on a bit and
                                        giving him a thrill, asking him to promote the Cause.

                                        # As for pretending to be people he was not
                                        # esp. in expertise and rank that he did not possess you can take that
                                        # as you will, seems pretty duplicitous to me and to the degree that he
                                        # used these identities to promote his own agenda they strike me pretty
                                        # obviously as scams.

                                        very much agreed. Satanists would describe this as engagement
                                        of Lesser Black Magick (simple manipulations and deceptions).
                                        there is admiration for this within said community, though
                                        arguably this contradicts some Hermetic moral principles.
                                        I suppose with Liber Oz almost any behaviour is approved.

                                        # > totally. why do people continue to think of his expression as valuable
                                        # > when it includes these kinds of contradictions? abject ignorance?
                                        # > or does the prose of Crowley dazzle their socks (and mind) away?
                                        #
                                        # I think they continue to accept this construct because they are merely
                                        # substituting Thelema or whatever (insert favorite new age religion
                                        # here) for the tired methodologies of traditional religion....

                                        lovely hypothesis. perhaps the white-wash of Crowley becomes
                                        necessary in order to give prudish competitors a run for
                                        their money with a crisp and clean superhero avatar prophet.
                                        Jesus stories wouldn't be as much fun with a reprobate liar.
                                        turning Judas into a saint would be comparable, perhaps, as
                                        was done in some great science-fiction. [1]

                                        # > oh right, such an obvious dichotomy. no hidden Middle lying around?
                                        #
                                        # Sure there is but IMHO opinion it must needs be a personal
                                        # relationship, to offer a collective truth to those who as yet lack
                                        # experience is dangerous and self deluding. I am willing to respect
                                        # your experiences and value mine,

                                        yes, especially through such a thin medium as this.
                                        personal shared time and experience give me a better sounding.

                                        # but I remain skeptical about both especially and in some ways
                                        # to the degree that either I or others need to convince.

                                        sometimes that's called 'being reactionary' and can quickly and
                                        easily dissuade tentative weak proclamations about authority
                                        from entering your surrounds.

                                        # The idea that truth is a result of how many believe
                                        # something is IMHO destructive of true religion.

                                        the way you mean this I think I agree. all the same, the method
                                        of religion seems to incorporate this less-than-persuasive
                                        tactic of Herd-building as part of its toolset. I suppose one
                                        might consider it a type of super-egalitarian-democracy. it
                                        begins to resemble a good number of the New Age cosmologies.

                                        # Similarly taking any
                                        # value system (and religions are not by any means the only offenders)
                                        # without questioning its origins and or motives at face value and
                                        # trying to hide the unpleasant and often dishonest truths at their core
                                        # does no one any good except those who profit from blind faith.
                                        # My basic problem with eyeofhoor and others diatribes against my
                                        # questioning of the origin myths of Thelema

                                        it is imperative that the prophet protect the basic framework of the
                                        mystical structure, and criticizing what is perceived as 'throwing
                                        the baby out with the bathwater' is part of the value of prophets
                                        defending some class of religiomagic. he's doing his job well. :)

                                        # is that they want either to
                                        # be able to ignore the inconsistencies or sweep them under the rug.

                                        when this occurs it is sad, agreed.

                                        # They decry Christianity when it does the same thing in regard to
                                        # questions regarding its origins or inconsistencies in its scriptures
                                        # or dogma but are unwilling to shine the same light of truth on the
                                        # foundations of their own faith, which to my mind is hypocrisy of the
                                        # grossest kind.

                                        established positions with respect to popular cults can be expected.
                                        it will probably rest upon the initial character of the involvement,
                                        whether conditioned from early youth or adopted as a mature choice.

                                        # Now I fully realize that my critique is essentially
                                        # futile with regard to true believers who will go to any lengths to
                                        # pretend the feet of their idols are stone and not clay,

                                        quite so, but I don't believe we have this in the Hoorprophet.

                                        # but if I am
                                        # going to indulge in this dialogue I cannot in good consciense let
                                        # their hypocrisy slide by unmentioned.

                                        of course not. :) perceived hypocrisy is valuably identified.
                                        this applies in most methodologies.

                                        # > faith has its advantages for a jump-start. the Buddhists sometimes
                                        # > conceive of these kinds of help-me-ups as 'cognitive tools' to set
                                        # > the consciousness into a particular position or condition the
                                        # > initiate toward certain states of mind. 'brain-washing?' the Hoor
                                        # > Prophet's demonstrates fervency and sincere zealousness. these
                                        # > can be helpful characteristics of prophets and mystics.
                                        #
                                        # How so, to convince others of what they might not be convinced of
                                        # themselves? ...

                                        to motivate and steer motivation of zealous aspiration. different
                                        students require different standards of guidance and dogma in
                                        order to achieve anything but communication and disappointment.

                                        Invoke me under my stars.

                                        # Love is the
                                        # law, love under will.

                                        E666
                                        333
                                        ========== mmmmmm cherries
                                        NOTES
                                        ------
                                        1 -- http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/shaitan/liars.gm
                                        The Way of Cross and Dragon (by George R.R. Martin)
                                      • David Jones
                                        Do what thou wilt Shall be the whole of the Law. ... And somehow not dishonest or a scam because it was a stunt? Eyeofhoor stated categorically that Crowley
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jul 14, 2005
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Do what thou wilt

                                          Shall be the whole of the Law.

                                          > motivation would probably come into the picture. even Jesoids
                                          > faked the death of an individual in order to pursue the cult.
                                          > this sounds like a temperamental author stunt.

                                          And somehow not dishonest or a scam because it was a stunt? Eyeofhoor
                                          stated categorically that Crowley was neither a scam artist nor a
                                          liar, since his faked death was designed to promote his popularity it
                                          was by definition as scam, and since he also often choose to use fake
                                          names and titles to promote himself such as pretending to be Russian
                                          Count in order to get better rooms in Hotels etc. he was also by
                                          definition a liar. I´m really not too concerned here with the details
                                          of his motives nor attaching any moral or ethical value to any of
                                          this, just calling a spade a spade. I guess we could redefine scam
                                          and lie to exclude Crowley´s actions but then what meaning would they
                                          have?

                                          > # or pretending that there exist secret hidden masters that you are in
                                          > # communication with who turn out to be the person making the claims
                                          > # about others, but to my mind these are pretty obviously scams (well
                                          > # intentioned or otherwise).
                                          >
                                          > I don't think I understand some of this. the secret hidden master
                                          > part may well have been sincere and on the level. certain shamanic
                                          > states can include externalized voices, as can numerous
                                          > religiomagical intelligence-communications, Oracles,
                                          > elemental-interactions, etc., etc.

                                          Crowley´s Cefalu diaries reveal elaborate plans to self promote
                                          himself as a Hidden Master in order to profit from and promote O.T.O.
                                          nor is this the only case, as with his early plans for A.´.A.´. So far
                                          as I can tell from his diaries his plans are not in the least
                                          motivated by whatever voices he may have been hearing at the time in
                                          his head, but by sober, reasoned and self serving deliberation.
                                          Since monies were to be expected and the fact that the Secret Master
                                          in question was the notorious Aleister Crowley were to be hidden
                                          (specifically because of his reputation) then I have a hard time
                                          seeing how this is not a scam in the most classical sense; it is at
                                          least duplicitous. Again I am making no value judgement here
                                          whatsoever, it is a typical scam of occult orders and still goes on to
                                          this day. What I find curious here is that those who seem to worship
                                          Crowley the most or his works (including the BOTL) seem to be in such
                                          fundamental denial that this type of action was Crowley´s modus
                                          operendi, they seem not quite to be able to embrace it as a course of
                                          action. I have no problem whatsoever with doing that.

                                          > very much agreed. Satanists would describe this as engagement
                                          > of Lesser Black Magick (simple manipulations and deceptions).
                                          > there is admiration for this within said community, though
                                          > arguably this contradicts some Hermetic moral principles.
                                          > I suppose with Liber Oz almost any behaviour is approved.

                                          IMHO Liber OZ neither approves nor disapproves of anything, it merely
                                          allows. Because a legal code allows beastiality for instance or even
                                          free speech doesn´t mean that those who hold the right to practice
                                          either are in fact encouraged to do so. Much of the Lesser Black
                                          Magick idea comes from Aquino´s Setian doctrine and he was a
                                          professional deceiver for the U.S. Military so it is to be expected.
                                          Having had some discussions with him on the matter, I find his ethics
                                          rather sadly lacking.

                                          > lovely hypothesis. perhaps the white-wash of Crowley becomes
                                          > necessary in order to give prudish competitors a run for
                                          > their money with a crisp and clean superhero avatar prophet.
                                          > Jesus stories wouldn't be as much fun with a reprobate liar.
                                          > turning Judas into a saint would be comparable, perhaps, as
                                          > was done in some great science-fiction. [1]

                                          It´s pretty much the tendency of all religious movements. As they
                                          move into the middle class their practioners can no longer emulate the
                                          prophet to any significant degree and so he must be relegated to a
                                          voice and no longer a role model. In the case of Thelema it has sadly
                                          relegated much of the A.´.A.´. work such as the scholions to Libri
                                          Reguli and Samech and the Yoga as taught in Book 4 to mere curiosities
                                          since the leaders and instructors of many of the A.´.A.´.s seem
                                          incapable of actually teaching or performing the simplest tests set
                                          forth; and instead has substituted a rather loose interpretation of
                                          astral work, memorization, arm chair magick and dogmatic adherance to
                                          Thelema as religion and the Commentary in Class A as its chief dogma.

                                          > the way you mean this I think I agree. all the same, the method
                                          > of religion seems to incorporate this less-than-persuasive
                                          > tactic of Herd-building as part of its toolset. I suppose one
                                          > might consider it a type of super-egalitarian-democracy. it
                                          > begins to resemble a good number of the New Age cosmologies.

                                          And is fundamentally opposed by most Gnostic sects and their ideas
                                          regarding gnosis and election. The Gnostic picture (even the fairly
                                          mild Valentinian one) isn´t a pretty one for most of humanity, but it
                                          certainly seems to reflect the true human statistical relationship to
                                          religous understanding, even as expressed by most adherants.

                                          > it is imperative that the prophet protect the basic framework of the
                                          > mystical structure, and criticizing what is perceived as 'throwing
                                          > the baby out with the bathwater' is part of the value of prophets
                                          > defending some class of religiomagic. he's doing his job well. :)

                                          Maybe, I´m not convinced. I think that retaining the critical
                                          analysis esp. of the work upon which one depends the most, here that
                                          of Crowley if one is typical "orthodox" "Thelemite" or even more
                                          particularly of the work of oneself would if adhered to create a much
                                          stronger religion in the long run. I know I have numerous and
                                          vociforous critics on this point who would rather I held the party
                                          line re studying the BOTL etc. and didn´t critique leaders for buying
                                          into what I believe is the corrupt interpretation of Class A documents
                                          as interrant the Book of the Law, beyond critical study (through
                                          Source, Form and Redaction criticism). They may be right and the more
                                          that the movement tends toward blind faith and zealous true belief the
                                          more successful it may become, but I think it far more likely that if
                                          it accepts the false logical foundations of the previous religious
                                          movements then it will far more likely be tossed on the rubbish heaps
                                          with so many other failed world religions or relegated to a tiny
                                          insular sectarian movement unable to evolve to meeting the changing
                                          mileu in which it exists.


                                          > established positions with respect to popular cults can be expected.
                                          > it will probably rest upon the initial character of the involvement,
                                          > whether conditioned from early youth or adopted as a mature choice.

                                          Agreed and I doubt I´m having much success in pointing out the obvious.

                                          > quite so, but I don't believe we have this in the Hoorprophet.

                                          Maybe not, but his categorical defense of Crowley as honest and his
                                          uncritical acceptance of the origin myth of the BOTL mean that he is
                                          tending down this road. I expect opposition to my ideas, but I find
                                          categorical assertions where none are justified to be extremely
                                          dangerous. I don´t think eyeofhoor actually understands formal logic
                                          (he may eschew it as "evil" as and interpretation of "reason is a lie"
                                          I don´t really know) but he largely uses enthememes in his argument
                                          and I challenge you to examine his absent middle terms and tell me
                                          they are of this ilk. Until he is willing to clarify what apparently
                                          seems obvious to him but is clearly not so to his audience, then we
                                          are going to have problems. He frequently denies the implications of
                                          his own arguments and if these are the implications then it behooves
                                          him as their author and not us as his audience to clarify them.
                                          Pretending mastership and enlightenment when he is can´t address a
                                          particular point esp. as an opening premise is pretty weak as I think
                                          my mockery clearly demonstrates.

                                          > to motivate and steer motivation of zealous aspiration. different
                                          > students require different standards of guidance and dogma in
                                          > order to achieve anything but communication and disappointment.

                                          Maybe communication and disappointment are their lot then. Leading
                                          them to further delusion and more complex and appealing lies doesn´t
                                          really seem like a very valuable solution if the truth is the ultimate
                                          objective.

                                          Love is the
                                          law, love under will.
                                        • eyeofhoor
                                          ... I meant that Aleister did not lie as a means of scamming people out their money and possessions as a professional thief might, which is the true definition
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jul 14, 2005
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            David Jones <choronzon.club@g...> wrote:

                                            > Eyeofhoor stated categorically that Crowley was neither a scam
                                            > artist nor a liar

                                            I meant that Aleister did not lie as a means of scamming people out
                                            their money and possessions as a professional thief might, which is the
                                            true definition of scam artist. By claiming Crowley was a scam artist
                                            you are in fact stating that Crowley was a seasoned professional thief
                                            that ripped people off. Labeling someone as a scam artist is another
                                            way of saying the person is or was a habitual criminal. I see no
                                            evidence that indicates Crowley was a scam artist.

                                            When Crowley chose to change his name it was a matter of free will,
                                            he had the right to do so, and in doing so he implememted valid name
                                            changes, even if it were for only a day or five minutes. To label
                                            Crowley a liar for changing his name at will is ludicrous.

                                            If Crowley actually did fake his own death to increase his
                                            popularity, that act would be a publicity stunt, as opposed to a
                                            deception hatched by a scam artist whose intention is to steal from
                                            someone.
                                          • Alamantra
                                            eyeofhoor wrote ... GOLD BRICKS Teach us Your secret, Master! yap my Yahoos. Then for the hardness of their hearts, and for the softness
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Jul 14, 2005
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              eyeofhoor <eyeofhoor@...> wrote

                                              > I meant that Aleister did not lie as a means of scamming people out
                                              > their money and possessions as a professional thief might, which is the
                                              > true definition of scam artist. By claiming Crowley was a scam artist
                                              > you are in fact stating that Crowley was a seasoned professional thief
                                              > that ripped people off. Labeling someone as a scam artist is another
                                              > way of saying the person is or was a habitual criminal. I see no
                                              > evidence that indicates Crowley was a scam artist.



                                              GOLD BRICKS

                                              Teach us Your secret, Master! yap my Yahoos.
                                              Then for the hardness of their hearts, and for the
                                              softness of their heads, I taught them Magick.
                                              But...alas!
                                              Teach us Your real secret, Master! how to become
                                              invisible, how to acquire love, and oh! beyond all,
                                              how to make gold.
                                              But how much gold will you give me for the Secret
                                              of Infinite Riches?
                                              Then said the foremost and most foolish; Master, it
                                              is nothing; but here is an hundred thousand
                                              pounds.
                                              This did I deign to accept, and whispered in his ear
                                              this secret:
                                              A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE.


                                              COMMENTARY

                                              The term "gold bricks" is borrowed from American
                                              finance.
                                              The chapter is a setting of an old story.
                                              A man advertises that he could tell anyone how to
                                              make four hundred a year certain, and would do so
                                              on receipt of a shilling. To every sender he dispatched
                                              a post-card with these words: "Do as I do."
                                              The word "sucker" is borrowed from American
                                              finance.
                                              The moral of the chapter is, that it is no good trying
                                              to teach people who need to be taught.
                                            • Ahn Eun Song
                                              ... scam ... out ... the ... Thank you. I was hoping we were going to not abuse the English language! Words are meant to be used, not abused.
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jul 15, 2005
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In thelema93-l@yahoogroups.com, "eyeofhoor" <eyeofhoor@y...>
                                                wrote:
                                                > David Jones <choronzon.club@g...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Eyeofhoor stated categorically that Crowley was neither a
                                                scam
                                                > > artist nor a liar
                                                >
                                                > I meant that Aleister did not lie as a means of scamming people
                                                out
                                                > their money and possessions as a professional thief might, which is
                                                the
                                                > true definition of scam artist.

                                                Thank you. I was hoping we were going to not abuse the English
                                                language! Words are meant to be used, not abused.

                                                <snip for brevity>

                                                > When Crowley chose to change his name it was a matter of free
                                                will,
                                                > he had the right to do so, and in doing so he implememted valid
                                                name
                                                > changes, even if it were for only a day or five minutes. To label
                                                > Crowley a liar for changing his name at will is ludicrous.

                                                I couldn't agree more! Now, if DJones can prove that AC's name
                                                changes were an integral part of collecting money illegally, part of
                                                a pattern, than he might have a case. I suspect, however, that there
                                                is no case, and he is merely abusing the language.

                                                >
                                                > If Crowley actually did fake his own death
                                                > to increase his
                                                > popularity, that act would be a publicity stunt, as opposed to a
                                                > deception hatched by a scam artist whose intention is to steal from
                                                > someone.

                                                Your explanation seems the best and most likely: AC did it as a
                                                publicity stunt, to sell more books. If someone can make the case
                                                that this is illegal, I'd ask: which country is it illegal? Which
                                                time period? Does one illegal act make one a scam artist? Hmm.
                                                Doubtful.

                                                If one is interested in the topic of Crowley in Lisbon at this
                                                timeperiod, I found an interesting link:
                                                http://www.redflame93.com/Dickie.html

                                                Enjoy.

                                                AES
                                              • starc@
                                                ... He did claim to be OHO of the OTO... -- *
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jul 16, 2005
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 22:04 2005-07-14, eyeofhoor wrote:
                                                  >I see no evidence that indicates Crowley was a scam artist.

                                                  He did claim to be OHO of the OTO...

                                                  <duck>

                                                  -- *
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.