Hi. Thanks for an enjoyable and interesting discussion.
>> I like your use of the word "superhuman." It may the most accurate
>>descriptive I've seen for it indicates the highest human processes
>>>rather than something other than a human; super: "of the highest
>An interesting point. I'm not sure if there is a substantial
>difference between superhuman and praeterhuman as far as the terms
>apply to Aiwass--so little is known about him that it's hard to know
>which term applies.
In terms of ontological orientation I have found it to be substantial,
indeed. ...enough so to take the time to mention it.
>It seems that almost all religions or movements
>seem to focus on events and characters of the distant past--I suppose
>it's convenient, and much easier to focus on persons and events that
>are almost beyond scrutiny and analysis, which makes Crowley somewhat
>unique; he seems to have held up pretty well to criticisms other
>prophets have not been subjected to.
Many of the biblical prophets ...as well as the prophets of Islam, for that
matter... have been criticized to the point of being sewn up in animal skins
and fed to wild animals or of finding temporary employment as human torches.
This is in addition to the other day-to-day problems such as tapeworm,
hookworm (a physical basis for 'demonic possession') ...lack of potable
water etc. I don't envy the past for prophets or for regular folk.
As far as Crowley holding up to criticism, I would contend that he isn't
criticized enough ...or can be for that matter. I don't mean as a scoundrel
or a junkie or being broke or any of the other worn-out, useless labels some
have seen fit to apply: ..Satanist ...a sacrificer of children... ---but
real criticism of the text and context and meta-text ...his 'word,' as it
were, using whatever limited means of illumination that we, ourselves,
possess. I can't recall how many times I've been chastised by email of some
'aspirant' (heavy breathing) who thought I was too harsh on the Master. I
can't tell you because, for one thing, its not true, and another ...I could
care less if someone finds it offensive. I'm not obliged to them in that
regard... I'm only obliged to do the Work ...which is reiterated over and
over and over again ...a matter of skeptical inquiry. There is no importance
whatsoever ...in regards to the work... to vindicate or refute Aleister
Crowley. Hanging any hopes on Aleister Crowley or trying to beat his carcass
is to invest in energy in the past, is pointless as regards the present, and
worthless as goes to the future. It's to get stuck on the page. Its to stop
writing the story. ...The beat(ing) goes on. The value is in the Work, and
his value is to be measured in the contributions he made for it (not his
sacrifices) ...which was significant, and this significance speaks for
itself. Everything else is leftovers for the tabloids, and those who think
life is to be found in tabloids. (Any such life exists only for the editors
and the bureaucracy.)
Now to do a little off-roadin':
Everything is connected to everything. This is the essential truth of the
human condition. We relate each thing as a symbolic representation and the
meaning of any one thing is given by its relationship to other things; so
the connections are matters of ontology and nomenclature and confined to a
symbol system's limitations as well as the abilities of the people working
with them. If a person takes an alphabet and rearranges the letters in a
matter that suits them, or even by simple trial and error, and then creates
a fixed set of corresponding number values, they are going to find that
there is a symbolic resonation that happens between that system and any
other similar system. Only one of two choices is possible: matched and not
matched. Both sets use the same finite letters and numbers and are taken
from the same symbolic meta-system. Since people have been playing with
their symbols since the dawn of the Word" there is plenty of past symbolic
information to relate to. In fact, that person going to create those
connections more than 'discover' them.
If, suppose, I create a system and am inspired by the numbers associated
with Liber Al, (or any other particular book, especially a book that mixes
letters and numbers and thus provides a great deal of 'first matter') then I
get words, phrases or ideas from my own arrangement of numbers and letters
that matches one of words, phrases or ideas in another system, I'm going to
find a significance.
To use a specific example: In the late summer of 1993 I began an experiment
and its idea was to pick a number ...any number that I might fancy for any
given reason whatsoever... and concentrate on that number. I was inspired by
someone who turned me on to the story of a friend who reported that he
always looked at the clock at 11:11, and after he told her, she found it
happening to her, then I found it happening to me and so on. This has
happened to enough people that if anyone wishes to google "11:11 meaning"
they will find that it is a widely reported phenomenon. Of course, I didn't
know any of this back at the time. I wondered if one could pick any number
...any number at all... and then see it began to manifest more and more.
The number I picked was 432. It was the first number to occur to me and the
reason I picked it in particular was because of its suggestion of inverted
sequence 4,3,2 ...1,0. I wrote a song called 432 and, its first recorded
version, uses a time signature that is 'indeterminate.' In other words I've
asked a number of different music theorists ...a couple who hold Master's
degrees... and I've gotten a number of different answers. (This brings up an
interesting point about differences in rhythmic emphasis of perception.) I
based the musical pattern on some of the things I've learned from years of
listening to Robert Fripp. That was the first step I did in my little ritual
to focus concentration on '432.' The next thing was I wrote the words
...which I wrote as a pure stream of thought, no worries about rhyme or
reason, --the important thing was to make sure it was an uninterrupted flow.
(against the broken rhythm):
"Look at your watch, it is 4:32. This I give to you from a pre-directed
After a very short time, 432 began to appear everywhere in my world ..and my
bandmates reported its frequency as well. It was the cost of a meal, or the
amount of change ...or the time on the clock when one of us would happen to
look up or a passing phrase on a television or an overheard conversation.
Other incidentals started attaching themselves to the 'significance factor'
...The number of years a Yuga (a Vedic Aeon that makes our little 2000 year
notion seem quaint) was 432,000 years.
Even now, when I google 432,000, I get:
Bel-Ashur and 432,000 Years History
for my first article and
The Number 432,000, ...which, in addition to telling us a bit about the
Hindus also tells us, "The Greek mathematician Ptolemy used 432,000 as the
totality of the "Great Circle" of musical frequencies." The blogger finishes
by saying, "Apparently the number 432 and any number gotten from adding
zeros (or dividing/adding/etc.) is rather important in our history. Then
again, I have to wonder if all numbers are important if we look hard
I disagree that we have to look hard enough ...All we have to do is look.
Finally here is a link on someone writing about "432." It doesn't really
resonate too much with me and so I only mention it because 1. it objectifies
further something that started out a completely subjective inquiry and 2.
the writer uses a dream to tie 432 in to Revelation 11:11 ...and 11:11 is
where this whole experiment started for me.
Rev.11:11: "And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God
entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon
them which saw them."
Which is WHY we shouldn't leave left-overs in the refrigerator any more than
3 1/2 days, I suppose.
But to bring all of this back to the Post-Crowley Thelema paradigm, I can go
to David Cherubim's English Qabbalah and for 432, he comes up with: "432 =
Bahlasti, Aiwass, Shaitan, Avenger, Warfare, Reguli, Lover, Mariage, Lust,
Liberate, Nuith, One Palace, Neschamah, World, Samsara, Amulet, Pantacle,
Money, Reason, Revealed, Siddhis, Nigredo, Mohammed, Krisna, Hanuman."
One could take that and twist it into any number of forms, patterns,
conjectures and inferences.
NAEQ associates 432 with "Ye are against the people, O my chosen!"
Greek numerology associates 432 with KATABOLH (conception) & PANTA
...and so on. Its all as meaningful or meaningless as a person is inclined
to receive it. It is a rudimentary transduction system, but the system is
worthless without the animating intelligence ...which I think of as the
highest aspect of human consciousness ... a point where individual human
consciousness is transcended ...or sublimated. It's not a godform, unless we
make it that way, either by choice or chance. Of course the "animating
intelligence" isn't confined to a particular transduction system. Its like
electricity. It's everywhere and if we get a filament and a wire, we can
manipulate it to create an effect of light ...but it isn't limited to
working in a lamp.
Back on the main track:
>An important point is that gods are expected to be able to transcend
>time, space, and knowledge, including language barriers. In the case
>of extraterrestrial or inter-dimensional beings, there would be no
>reason to believe they have the capacity to bridge language barriers
>easily unless they were incredibly advanced. Say for instance, an
>alien intelligence could observe human activities intimately and
>listen to our conversations--would they be able to develop an
>understanding of our language? I'm very skeptical about the matter.
>Even a highly advanced species would need training, probably from
>humans, to speak our languages.
>> An analogy that comes to mind would be my computer trying to
>>interface with a computer that was built circa 1945.
>Your analogy can also be applied to gods communicating which ancient
>humans, as in the case of ancient folktales such as those found in the
>Bible. Given the advanced state of human consciousness today compared
>to the distant past, it seems that if gods (or whomever*) did
>communicate with humans in the past, they would be more agreeable to
>do so now given our ability to better understand them.
"gods are expected to"
Since we create these expectations, then aren't we qualifying what a god is
or isn't? If 'another' intelligence doesn't match our criteria then it goes
unnoticed, or disregarded as 'dangerous'. Doesn't this make those images
subordinate to the will of the individual? If so, I have to wonder why we
even need gods any further, other than the fact that they're comfortable
...or, as Crowley described... "Household Gods." Doesn't all of this bring
us to the real formula and the real purpose behind the original Hermetic
inspiration: "Know Thyself" ...which is "Deus est homo"?
>On the other hand, we have no choice but to look
>for symmetrical patterns in the search for superhuman or
>extraterrestrial intelligence, but the criteria for acceptable
>occurrences must be stringent.
My own experiences suggest to me that the problem with this is that contact
with the Nagual isn't what most people would describe as an "acceptable
occurrence." It is disruptive as it's sole task ...its agency... is to "stop
the world." The primitive aspect of us ..as a species or in terms of
psyche... has nothing to classify an experience with, other than to say it
is incongrouous with the classification system. Thus we turn to the past
looking for metaphors that can give us a mental grip over unique,
inexplicable raw experience. The whole point behind Yeats' contact
experience, described in "A Vision" was to come up with new metaphors that
could identify and classify the expansion of reality ...which he described
with his gyres. The 'old aeon' is nothing more than a particular
symbolic-pattern-matrix of old metaphors that are not sufficient to the
scope of current experiences. The primary difference between it and a "new
aeon" is the difference between rigidity and elasticity, instituional
reverence vs. an emergence principle.
>> I have had several experiences that seemed overly coincidental to
the point that the experience had an effect that felt profoundly
meaningful...in some cases the experiences were objectifiably
meaningful as more than one person experienced similar effects, at
least to the point that their individual descriptions were very similar.
>Those situations are very hard to write off as coincidence, and should
suffice as evidence of paranormal activity on some level.
When I use the word "coincidence," I'm frequently misunderstood as many
people associate that word with the dismissive idea of "mere coincidence."
When I use it, especially in a vernacular for measuring non-ordinary events,
I mean it to be two or more incidences occurring which have tangible,
temporal connections. There is nothing "mere" about it. Rather than writing
it off, I'm thinking about writing them all out.
<interesting encounter respectfully snipped for brevity>
>Having experienced the episode described, it is quite easy for me to
>believe that Aiwass is an ancient personality of some sort, with an
>ability to reach across time and space.
Why do you think that this intervention against your would-be attackers had
something to do with Aiwass? ...Meaning... Why do you think it has something
to do with a historic entity, rather than the force of ...the very real
power... of taking a word and combining it with images, meditation, chants,
prayer, dedicating time etc (such as theurgy and thaumaturgy require) and
cultivating that day after day after day and then being able to project it
under an emotionally intense situation?