HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Commentary on Orgone Committee Charter
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:41:03 GMT

 An analysis of the Charter as a form of Oligarchic Acollectivism.
 by Emmanuel Goldstein

 The parallels between Autarchy and the form of government
described in George Orwells 1984 are interesting to say the least.
These are outlined below for your convenience:

 1. Everybody has an equal opportunity for access to the group
synergy. As OBrien explains to Winston that entrance to the inner
party is by exam and not contingent on nepotism or race at all.

 2. There are three social rungs- High, Middle, and Low. Or Blue
Yellow and Red. Or Inner Party, Outer Party, and Proles.

 3. The top level is subject to frequent upheaval and purges from
within itself to insure maximum performance.

 4. A primary goal of both the Autarchy and Oceania is to create
new languages to shape consciousness.

 The differences are also instructive:

 1. Autarchy is a form of Oligarchic Acollectivism, that is rule
of the Inner Party member of themselves and no others. Autarchs
have no Authority of any kind as Autarchs over any of the other
Circles. 

 2. Ingsoc was a philosophy of reducing the possible combinations
available to human consciousness through doublethink, while the
principle of dontjustthink is based on consciousness expansion.

 3. Ingsoc was based on the limitation of all emotions to hate and
fear, while Autarchy is based on the premise of love which contains
all other emotions within its scope. 

 4. The purges of the Committee Autarchs are self administered
rather than other administered. 

 5. The selection of the Autarchs is by the players of the game who
are not Autarchs, rather than the other way around. 

  Sex is peace.
 True Will not Slavery.
 Consciousness is strength.
 
 7. The newspeak of Ingsoc is predicated on the elimination of
words, the newspeak of the Autarchy is predicated on the expansion
of words, alphabets, images, and communications technologies, and
thereby consciousness.

 The purpose behind this Charter is to provide our Game with a set
of rules. Rules are what make Games possible. Since no form of
governing is better than the people who live by those rules, our
energy and attention have been focused almost soley on the
mechanisms that screen and select people with the inclination
and/or the ability to rise in rank.

Interested in communicating? Write to: Orgone Committee P.O. Box
614 Vanbrunt Station Brooklyn, NY 11215

SEX IS PEACE
TRUE WILL NOT SLAVERY
CONCIOUSNESS IS STRENGTH

Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Crowley and Gardner (was re: pentagrams)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:49:52 GMT

mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings) writes:

> Look at _Witchcraft for Tomorrow_ by Doreen Valiente. It is that book, I
>believe (it could be another), that has the story of her trying to track
>down who "Old Dorothy" was.

"The Search for Old Dorothy" is Appendix A of Janet and Stewart Farrar's _The
Witches Way_ (US title: _A Witches Bible, Vol. 2_).  The appendix is written
by Valiente for the Farrar's book.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Crowley and Gardner (was re: pentagrams)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:46:01 GMT


Robert Mathieson says that all of the Crowley material in the documents he's 
studied were from published Crowley material.  This was in response to Josh's
statement that GBG paid AC to write some of the BoS material.  There is a very
simple explanation for the myth that GBG paid AC to write the BoS.  GBG 
*bought* an OTO charter from AC shortly before AC's death.  This is clearly
explained in Doreen Valiente's _The Rebirth of Witchcraft_.  Anyone who is
making claims about the early days of Gardnerianism really needs to read this
book before saying anything.  Doreen was GBG's second High Priestess, and the
person who wrote or rewrote most of what is in modern Gardnerian BoS's.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
"We are secretly replacing the fine quartz crystals this medicine pouch maker
usually uses with Folgers crystals.  Let's see what happens...."
                                      --DACCrowell
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mark.terka@rose.com (mark terka)
Subject: Sex? Magick??
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:00:32 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-03-93 12:56
 > 
 >But what the author was postulating was that the rites used by this sect
 >are a form of mind control over the members....not in keeping with any
 >set of philosophy or codes.
 > 

 Oi> A different story entirely.  But this was not made clear in the 
 Oi> original post.

You are probably right...quoting only one paragraph can lead to
misconceptions, as the poster has the WHOLE chapter in front of him, yet
the reader has only the paragraph...


... ----->|*  MARK!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
---
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley and Gardner (and Brother Aureolis)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:13:18 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Br'anArthur mentions that Doreen Valiente received Gardner's own Book of
Shadows manuscripts (Texts A, B and maybe C in the Farrar's' _Witch's
Way_), and when I checked back I found two statements in Valiente's
_Rebirth of Witchcraft_ that Gardner had given her his original Book of
Shadows.  --  I had assumed that they had remained in her possession
after Gardner's coven split in 1957.

Is there any published statement, beyond the brief mention in Valiente's
_Rebirth_, about how the manuscripts passed from Gardner to Valiente?
Have I, perhaps, overlooked a more explicit statement in one of the Far-
rar's' books?  (What was *your* source, Br'anArthur?  I am intrigued.)

A bit more on "Brother Aureolis," now that I have my notes by the terminal.

His real name was George Alexander Sullivan (stage name Alex Matthews),
and his pamphlet on the magical use of concentration, meditation and
visualization had the title "The Break of Dawn."  It seems to have been
published at Liverpool by the "Rosicrucian Press" in 1927, and was only
4 pages long.  There is another edition, also published at Liverpool,
but this time by the "Bohemian Press" in 1932 and again in 1933; these
editions are 8 pages long.  He was the leading light of the Crotona
Fellowship of the Rosicrucian Order (so-called) and seems to have
published various other pamphlets and lectures for it, but I do not have
the precise details; these publications begin in 1923.  His other occult
organization was called the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes (this
goes back at least to 1897), for which he wrote "The Origin and History
of the Bull-Mysteries," published at Liverpool in 1922, 16 pages long.
All this is extracted from the British Museum General Catalogue of
Printed Books, under the headings "Aureolis," "Buffaloes, Royal
Antediluvian Order of," "Liverpool -- Rosicrucian Order, Crotona
Fellowship,"  "Rosicrucian Order, Crotona Fellowship," and "Sullivan
(George Alexander)."  Copies of all the items I have discussed are held
by the British Library.

Hope this is all of interest ...   -- Robert

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Meta-Agnosticism Without Tears from the Orgone Committee
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:50:12 GMT

Meta-Agnosticism Without Tears

Dear Fellow Committee Member,

You write inquiring as to the relative merits of Meta-Agnosticism over,
say, Anarcha-Eristianism, and, in the same line of your otherwise rather
vacuous missive, ask to quickly sum the points of the practical
application of my Clique's Official Party Line as you (the phrase
"rather snidely" springs to mind) put it. In twenty-five million words
or less you further specify! Very well.

1. Understand that everything you know is uncertain, including
uncertainty.  

2. Identify the elements of your conscious and unconscious self and
develop these elements of these faculties. These being: first your
knowledge of your self and the world around you, second your
feelings/intuitions, third your will -- the Life Force that enables you
to live and grow, fourth your daring -- the moment by moment course of
action you choose. Never falter from directing your development for
balance first, power second.

3. Step by step, get into the habit of developing and balancing these
faculties every day. After 10-20 years relentless practice, it will get
to be a habit all the time. 

4. You'll know what to do then.

                                -- A.P.B.

Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: scarrobi@shearson.com (Steve Carrobis)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Reply-To: scarrobi@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:58:15 GMT

In article 25243@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
> : 
> : I was indeed FAR from joking.  I was calling all those no-good, idiotic,
> : false-faced, twin-tongued 'earth-worshippers' the WORST aspect of Christian!
> : 
> : 'Evil' is a Christian concept.  Get with it, y'all.  Your syllogism is
> 
> Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, it appears that the all-abiding evil
> deity is a Christian invention.
> 
> Bill


like beauty isnt evil in the eye of the beholder.
evil is a cultural thing. you know the concept of the "NORM" and i dont mean
Peters.
i know that pentagram/pentacle have different functions depending on the 
runes drawn in them. but still culturally many of us are ingrained with 
the idea of the pentacle (inverted pentagram) as being of the darkside of things
which may or may not be true. those of u who are not bound by culture or 
closed minds dont see it this way.
unfortunately i have to stick to my guns. its like White/Black Magic. 
they exist. and u could use either to get an opposing result. 
but to say evil is christian is bull. Evil has to do with actions, that are 
not in accordance with customs of a tribe or peoples.
And There Endeth The Lesson .... 


---
Steve C. 

 ==> A wise man once told me - There ARE NO Wise Men !
                             - Just fools who think they are.
---------------------------------------------------------------		
 I understand you need someone to do work.
 I don't do work, but, I know this guy who does.
    -Vladimir Taltos
---------------------------------------------------------------

   	


Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: jasonp@bungie.prime.com (Jason Pascucci)
Subject: Re: misc.magick...
Organization: Prime Computer R&D
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:32:19 GMT

I've been putting off commenting more on this thread,
since I've been busy.

However, I do withdraw my mistaken calculations about 
propagation and readership. It will increase, more
than the statistics would show, for a few
reasons, but not near my estimation. I'll expect
a triple at a minimum. Again, when dealing with these numbers, 
you have to make the distinction between propagation
(number of sites), and readership (number of
people reading). These aren't linearly related.

Seeing that news.groups moderator has been and will be on 
vacation for a while, I haven't persued the RFD because
I wouldn't have been able to see it through
due to my impending doom^H^H^H^Hloss of access. 

If someone wishes, he or she may start the RFD in January, 
and has out the issues there. I'm fairly confident people
know my position, and my ideas will be represented,even
if I can't be there to defend them.

>Is there any way to keep a lid on idiots without assigning some form of
>regulator?  I.e. the patented 'Josh flame method' seems to work well,
>but is it consistently reliable?  Are there less violent alternatives?

I feel it's not consistently reliable. I believe I mentioned
automatic moderation...letting the moderator kill postings
from a person/place/domain as long as they keep acting obnoxious.
But, as I said, I'm not totally against so-called 'standard'
moderation, but that it isn't preferred. 

--
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Subject: Re: Daath
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:04:52 GMT

In article <L6ZZVB3w165w@hrnowl.lonestar.org> taarna@hrnowl.lonestar.org (Taarna savet) writes:
>In article (1992Dec11.075001.1@vax.somona.edu) mccalld@vax.somona.edu
>writes:
>>>  Why is Daath, knowledge, considered the false sepheroth?
>
>I believe it was Josh who responded with:
>>>  In the simplest terms, because it is artificial, that is, constructed 
>>>  by each qabalist.
>
>I felt that Josh's answer was perhaps the closest to the truth.  However,
>I think that the word "artificial" is a bit misleading.  To be even more
>precise, I feel that instead of using the word "artificial" we might try
>to think of it as being "achieveable".  Daath lies at the heart of the 
>"Path of the Priestess".  This path is by no means easy and represents 
>the changeover from "mother" to "crone".  To make a long story short,
>Daath, or knowledge, is not a __false__ sepheroth, but rather a 
>__hidden__ sepheroth, one that can only be revealed after the passing of 
>numerous experiences and time.


In another sense, "where Daath is, Kether is not; where Kether is, Daath
is not."

From this perspective Daath is indeed a false Sephirah; as Knowledge, it
is a representation (and thus a falsification) of Kether, which is
unknowable.  (It is possible to _be_ Kether -- to enter into absolute
Unity -- but one cannot know it, because knowing implies a duality between
knower and known, and there can be no duality whatever in Kether.)  Daath
is constructed by every conscious being, as its conception of what Unity/
"God"/what-have-you, and the process of crossing the Abyss becomes one of
removing the image so the reality can manifest itself.

If you happen to be emotionally attached to the image, this becomes the
Dark Night of the Soul; if not, the path of the Camel, which may be slow
(as desert journeys often are) but nothing worse...

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: My answers (was Re: ... Definitions of "evil")
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:37:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1hsml9INNq3e@shelley.u.washington.edu>, rjb@carson.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars) writes...
> 
[stuff deleted...]
> 

It would be nice to have a set of rules that worked in all 
situations, but I haven't yet found any.

>Thus one might say that ethical considerations are primary:  that although
>unethical activities might lead effectively to magical or mystical states,
>ethical considerations should take precedence.  

Maybe for some, in some situations...

>Or, one might say that
>esthetic or experiential considerations are primary:  that even a great
>crime is holy if it leads to God, and that the magical or spiritual
>context takes precedence.  

Maybe for some, in some situations.

>Or one might say that they are disjunct, that
>the mystical or magical attainment should be recognized, and the crime
>dealt with by the secular arm.  We might, for convenience, give these
>attitudes the names Classical, Romantic, and Modern, respectively.
> 
>Consider, then, some magical Jeffrey Dahmer (whose love, sweet love, was
>called a crime), with a fridge full of mandrake roots and holy celtic
>heads.  Which perspective seems most (as they say) appropriate?

For JD, I speculate that his crimes against others were for him 
magickally significant, despite the fact that others view 
them/him as abhorrent.  

Wonder what makes someone deviate so far from the norm in the 
first place.....Hmmmm....

>Casuistically,
> 
>               --LeGrand
> 
>{Does it seem that the Classical and Modern fall into one group, and the
>Romantic into another?  Would  a Thelemic perspective be totally
>different, or would it be a subset of the Romantic?  Or could a Thelemic
>perspective be either Roimantic or Modern?}

Don't understand what you mean by each of these.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: book IV part iv (was: Re: Hello)
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Dec21.035145.17849@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Dec21.181015.10106@primerd.prime.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:35:41 GMT


'the book of thoth' was, I believe, book IV part iv.

josh
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Magick Theory
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 11:23:37 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Dec30.094606.18355@sobeco.com> <72630@cup.portal.com>
  <1993Jan2.103930.1052@sobeco.com>

93!01.03 e.v.

I wrote:

My REAL challenge here, however is regarding your use of the word 'Will'
and how the mage 'decides' to follow it.  Who chooses this 'Will'?
Does the mage REALLY have a choice to follow the Will when it is so
painful and unsatisfying NOT to do so?  Aren't the 'laws of nature'
(so called) really a system of requirement with perilous penalties
for those who attempt to oppose them?  Aren't we trapped like rats
in cages, straining desperately to save our faces by 'choosing' to
act according to this Will which punishes us for attempting not to
do so?

(evil grin)


Ladislas replied:

Let me answer your challenge with a few questions:  have you ever asked
yourself why you're alive, why you were born?  Wouldn't you say that you 
were born because you Willed it or do you think you had no choice in the
matter?  Do you always keep away from that which you know might harm you?



Response:

I have asked myself these questions, yes.

I don't think that there IS an absolute answer there.  Having searched
valiantly for this 'I', it continually appears as a convention of social
communications, rather than anything substantial.  Then again, there does
seem to be SOMETHING here, making these characters appear upon this
screen.

I don't believe in 'free will', by the way.  I have been taught that
there are things which 'harm' this body.  Often when these actions are
taken there comes with it an intense pain.  Having learned quite quickly
that pain is something best avoided, it has only been recently that I've
discovered value in withstanding pain in the pursuit of discipline.
Beyond this there is little value to be found in it, though it may
well be a gradually more recurrent phenomenon in my lifetime, and I do
feel like it is less traumatic each time I encounter it directly.

So no, I don't keep away from all pain, but what does this have to do
with 'Will', choice and a feeling of 'motivation'?


Thyagi
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:41:37 GMT

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
: 
: I was indeed FAR from joking.  I was calling all those no-good, idiotic,
: false-faced, twin-tongued 'earth-worshippers' the WORST aspect of Christian!
: 
: 'Evil' is a Christian concept.  Get with it, y'all.  Your syllogism is

Well, I wouldn't go that far. However, it appears that the all-abiding evil
deity is a Christian invention.

Bill
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:37:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

In article <1hvf0nINNk8m@uwm.edu> hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>
>But, is there any way to separate the mechanics of magick from its
>application?  I can't imagine how you can.  --and that being said
>we're left with thelema.  Absolute and purely relative.


Huh?  Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me that mechanics 
and application (perhaps "means and ends" might be a more generally
applicable phrasing) can be distinguished fairly clearly in this case
as in many others.  Of course they affect one another...but the same
thing is true of me and the terminal I'm using just now, two quite
distinguishable things.  (At least in terms of the world of ordinary
consciousness!)

The mechanics of magic, at least as I understand them, are a set of
processes and disciplines for transforming consciousness -- things
like concentration, visualization, symbolic/ritual action, and so on.
Once learned, these could be used for any purpose you care to imagine,
and some you probably don't...  


>The problem with these questions is simple: ethics depends for
>justification on reason and reason is, by definition, finally
>incapable (on its own) of achieving an initiated point of view.  See
>William Blake.  ;-)


On the other hand, see Plotinus, whose initiated point of view (the 
source of a pretty fair majority of the Western esoteric tradition)
was squarely founded on a rational dialectic, and who insisted on the
study of dialectical logic as the way to mystical awareness...

(There's a fairly precise Hindu equivalent of this in Jnana-yoga; I
believe the Tibetan Buddhists also teach something of the sort.)

There's still a lot of Romanticism flapping around in esoteric circles
-- probably a holdover from the agonizingly Gothicke milieu of Bulwer-
Lytton and his ilk.  Yes, there are ways of attaining whatever-term-you-
want-to-use which dispense with reason, and there are also ways which
make use of it; take your pick.  (Or combine them, which seems a little
more productive to me...)

Feeling more than usually pedantic,

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: harish.reddy@factory.com (Harish Reddy) 
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Hello
Date: 27 Dec 92 01:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-8298v.32bis
Reply-To: harish.reddy@factory.com (Harish Reddy) 

TO:usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu


>I would love to learn more about 'Magick', partly for the power trip
BD.                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and, well, I think that it calls to me. I say think because it just
>might be an extension of a desire for power ect.
  .                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BD.Two good reasons *not* to respond to this person.

BD.Harish, magic is not about power-tripping.  If you want real power over people,
  .go into politics.


Look, I'm not interested in having power over people.  I don't know
why you misinterpreted, but the message that I am trying to convey is
that 1) I don't know very much about Magick
     2) I think that I would like to learn more
     3) I am not sure why I am interested in Magick

BTW Telling people not to respond to my message without finding out
the truth is simply rude.
---
 . 1st 1.00 #970 . If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?