- Hello. This is some interesting stuff here. ... If the possibility of a inter-dimensional collective mind is taken into account, then perhaps this could takeMessage 1 of 145 , Feb 1, 2008View SourceHello. This is some interesting stuff here.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "james french" <jrfrench@...>
> Perhaps we are speaking across some unbridgeable metaphysical abyss,If the possibility of a inter-dimensional collective mind is taken
> but this looks like a false dichotomy to me.
> 1. We need not divide "God" and "human." This is a mistake made in
> Christian ontology, not Thelema, or indeed most other religions. If
> we must engage in baroque occult theory, we could say that Crowley's
> invocation in the pyramid put his Neschamah in tune with the latent
> egregore of the Egyptian pantheon. His Ruach then precipitated a
> dramatic revelatory experience which resulted in Liber AL.
into account, then perhaps this could take place. Crowley wore his
psychic filter, of course, but when the "girders of the soul" have
been loosened it becomes possible for information to enter an
individuals mind from across the asymptotic barrier of ego that
apparently seperates the Ruach from the Neschamah. Some type of
dimensional translator needs to exist for the information to manifest
into the space-time of Malkuth, however, and Crowleys knowledge base
and open mindedness would have provided many excellent reference
points to communicate through.
I have noticed that clear descriptions of deities, concepts,
and "spiritual entities" occasionally come through where there
appeared to be no reference point in the personal knowledge base.
When I take into consideration that sounds and syllables also exist
within my knowledge base, this becomes a little easier to
understand. The synchronicities surrounding some of these
experiences I find easiest to explain away by taking the possibility
of multi-dimensional entities (to include the incarnated magician)
into account. I have found that this is generally not a good
conversation topic with most people,though.
> 2. All truly creative writing is basically automatic writing.fairly
> Conscious deliberation ensures failure and abandonment.
> 3. Again, the known mechanics of this sort of thing, which are
> obvious, would apply. Any message, whether one frames it in termsof
> a being communicating from "outside" or takes a more circuitousroute
> through modern psychology, has to make its way through layers ofI agree...
> pre-rational distortion. Forgetting this is another mistake made by
> Christians who favor Biblical inerrancy.
It seems to me that if information originating from beyond the
infinite limits of the Ruach is going to make it's way past the ego
and into physical sensation/manifestation, then indeed it does need
some filtering to come through. A knowledge base, some type of
stucture, has to exist for the information to manifest through. This
in itself represents a limit to inter-dimensional communication. The
translator will always have, and needs to have, a point of view to
work with. If the information goes too far over the head of the
person used, then generally it won't come across. This might not
hold for all instances, as in intuition or perhap some strange
possession phenomena, but in general I get the impression that this
is the case. You cannot translate Spanish into English if you don't
know Spanish and even if you only know a little, you'll only be able
to translate what you can comprehend.
We simply cannot describe things which we have no words for. And
even if we create new words and descriptions to describe a complex
idea, if a concept falls too far beyond the constraints of our
knowledge base and the collective knowledge base of the world which
we inhabit, the information simply won't reach us... even if its
being passively received. We cannot make sounds (as far as I know)
and truly hear them if the sounds go beyond our range of hearing.
- 93 Tom, Pardon my delay in replying to your post. I was unavoidably distracted. In a message dated 2/23/2008 8:05:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... My ownMessage 145 of 145 , Feb 27, 2008View Source93 Tom,
Pardon my delay in replying to your post. I was unavoidably distracted.
In a message dated 2/23/2008 8:05:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> 93 Cam,My own experience has included involvement in the early 70s with two 'Abbeys
> camlion@... wrote:
> >Thelemic organizational experiments have always fascinated me, both the
> >successes and the failures will provide valuable insight for future
> >How does such a Thelemic 'dis'-organization work, and in what ways is it
> >preferable to, say, the A.'.A.'. and OTO models?
> Well obviously. there would probably be no general approach to such an org.
> It would be worth exploring the various alternatives. For our purposes I will
> discuss my experience with the QBLH and its applied format.
of Thelema' in the Los Angeles area. These started on a very small scale, in a
three bedroom house, but grew to occupy an eight bedroom house. I mention
these because they were so non-org oriented that they never even considered
themselves an org at all.
>Certainly, true 'initiation by Ordeal' cannot very well be staged by design,
> The basic premise of such an org is 'initiation b y Ordeal' meaning, that
> ritual initiation has a secondary, ancillary function to the greater process of
> magickal ordeal. Therefore, a 'ritual hierarchy' with its attendant admins
> and officers, is largely superfluous. Such a group has little or no
> organizational policy whatsoever, other than the propensity for its members to convene
> and work together in various ways. The focus of an org like QBLH is magickal
> work of all kinds. In Thelemic terms, that focus is sex magick. In QBLH,
> similar formula for the OTO's upper degree rites are given, again without oaths
> or vows of fealty to the order itself or its leaders. These are not rendered
> upon entry, but are given to those members who can 'ask the right question'.
> Therefore the process of initiation becomes a process of individually
> motivated deductive inquiry limited not by the constraints of org policy and the
> arbitrary, exclusionary judgment of leadership who may not be
> qualified to make such judgment. In this format, the only limitation is the
> volitional boundaries of each individual practitioner. therefore rituals are
> applied by dint of individual will and each member may openly experiment with
> any and all materials at hand at their whim. Thus there are no set rituals
> in such an org. Ritualism's secondary function in such orgs renders such
> centralism unnecessary. In fact, a central rite or rites would be
> counterproductive to the experimental basis and inquiry that is part and parcel of a group
> like QBLH or NOT.
and oaths or vows of fealty are to be regarded with the utmost caution, and
judged in relation to the individual's fealty to his or her own Will. Also, the
interests of the group need not include magick, or and other common subject at
all. The like-mindedness of a group can be limited to as little as the
furtherance of the Wills of the individuals involved. Of course, Wills of a feather
do tend to flock together, and group working sometimes has advantages that
outweigh its disadvantages. When this is the case, it is commendable.
>Not to poo-poo business in general, of course. Such groups certainly benefit
> Also, such an open inquiry will inevitably lead to further innovation and
> new data being incorporated into what is already a very loose set of precepts,
> beliefs and practices. Things like ALW and other 'new systems' are not
> criticized or defamed as a matter of militant competition. Unlike the OTO we are
> not in business. Such an open format for an org provides a much more level
> playing field in which occult arts can be reviewed in a far more empirical
by generating an income but, yes, I follow you.
>Yes, in the cases of the 'Abbeys' that I mentioned above, developments in
> Although such groups never try to create a formal orthodoxy, it is
> inevitable that
> some practitioners will achieve similar results and begin working together
> on a similar precept. Such has been the case in the QBLH with the use of
> 'astrologically timed sex magick'. The application of IX* sex magick in congress
> with the conjunction of the Sun and Venus and other planetary aspects has been
> a powerful tool of initiatory ordeal for many of us. Therefore the practice
> of this type of ritual has become something like an orthodoxy for QBLH
> members by virtue of their agreement and mutual use. However, other ideologies or
> applications are never knee-jerk rejected, they are seriously examined and
> possibly incorporated. Every orthodox precept is examined and for a time
> discarded. What you get is a 'crisis and observation' situation. Thus it seems
> inevitable that more and more structure will be enacted the longer the org endures
> as an institution.
areas of common practice evolved as you say. There were what I would consider
monumental breakthroughs in sex magick, to be sure.
>I consider both OTO and A.'.A.'. to be experimental. The results of the
> The downside of these orgs is that they almost never are able to build
> momentum beyond a small membership. Persons seeking to build the profile of such
> an anarchistic org into something like the OTO might find themselves
> frustrated. The lack of organization itself is a barrier to greater coverage and
> promotion of one's ideas. Plus, such orgs do not have recruitment as an intended
> goal, so as a non-priority, it is very difficult for the org to have a shelf
> life beyond the lifetimes of the original founders. The best the members of
> such orgs can hope for is that their deconstructive influence will shine light
> on the more orthodox, entrenched institutions.
> We may be a 'living laboratory' of sorts, from which the 'regulars' can draw
> data and incorporate in small amounts. Any constructive innovations that we
> devise may be assimilated into the collective at large. This too would serve
> Damon's agenda of '4th Way Transmission' in the QBLH. Orders like QBLH and
> NOT surely are not intended to survive as religious institutions, therefore
> they may not be in active existence for more than a few decades. However, others
> of like mind may take up this format in their own expressions of a similar
> organizational ideal. Hopefully, the ongoing process of 'cross-pollination' of
> things like QBLH with OTO and A*A* will continue.
latter system are very encouraging to me, on an individual level, while with the
former seems not yet to be fully developed along the lines of its model. Too
early to tell, in other words. OTO is a long range project, I think.
If there are 'cross-pollinations' of things like QBLH with things like OTO,
that would be natural and very interesting.
>I'm afraid that there is very little for us to argue about at the moment. ;)
> As long as we have some semblance of a true free speech system, folks will
> be able to express themselves in this manner. A neo-fascistic future could
> prevent this type of inquiry, with a government similar to the 'secret society'
> oligarchical format holding the gag.
> Revolutio Aldo Neccessitudo,
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]