HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:25:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Dec10.155541.3868@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (Hair Eris) writes:
>
>I've given a lot of thought to this over the years... and havealready taken some
>of the steps you've suggested (just in case)... but I've come to the conclusion
>that it makes a lot more sense to work to preserve what we (as a
>nation/culture/species/whatever) have now, rather than stand by and watch it 
>all fall apart and then try to re-build it.  
>Don't you think it's worth saving?
>

Well, yes -- at least some of it.

The problem is this.  Our current civilization is dependent on a system of
economic, agricultural and ecological practices which are unsustainable
even over a timespan of decades.  Even at the present time, we could
change to sustainable ways of living only at the cost of a massive,
wrenching dislocation involving a radical drop in the standard of living
across the entire developed world.  (Figures from one source I've read
recently suggest that we'd have to accept the standard of living of 
Brazil.)

Do you want to tell me that the voting public of this or any other of the
developed nations would accept this for fifteen seconds?

If the changeover to a sustainable society had started back in the 1950's,
when the world was first getting hooked on strip-mining its own future,
it could have been accomplished smoothly in the context of a steady 
increase in the standard of living.  If it had been started in 1970, it
probably could have been done with only minor dislocations.

Unfortunately, it's 1992, and even the supposedly radical changes being
considered by the new administration here in the US are little better 
than band-aids.  Admittedly, band-aids are better than the rubbing of 
salt in wounds that we've seen for the last decade...  But the changes
that would be necessary are being contemplated only by people out on
the fringe.

So here we are.  A small minority of us, maybe, are wiling to accept
the sacrifices needed to ensure a future to this civilization. We don't
have the power to get the majority, who aren't, to follow suit.  What
do you propose to do?  Spend the next decade or two in a fruitless
struggle, and then lay down and die?

Or do you want to take steps to see that someth8ing, at least, will come 
through?

That's how I see it, at any rate.  Comments (yes, and flames) welcomed.

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: misc.magick...
Date: 16 Dec 1992 18:56:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

i suggest talk.magick
moderated (with lenient post rulesjust keep the bible thumpers out)

i think misc.magick is okay, but to my mind putting it in the misc groups
diminishes the topic of magick.  to me it's like saying "don't mind us
we'll just take this little alley over here. don't hurt us."  perhaps, it
is my in your face attitude, but i think we can deal with the initial
bashing

i also think that putting it under sci.hermetics isn't quite right.  
hermetics is just a little narrower in my mind than magick is.  hermetics
generally covers the 'western' branches of magick, but not the 'eastern'

peter li'ir key, just this queer mystic ya know?
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:23:39 GMT

In article <JOSHUA.92Dec15095519@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>the thing is, you haven't really offered a solution. in fact,
>you have said that you don't think there is a solution (or
>rather, that you don't think the solution is feasible (reducing
>consumption, the whole lifeboat thing ... I agree, it is not
>feasible)). you merely cry 'doom doom' and recommend heading
>for the hills.
>

True enough, from one perspective.  I don't think there is a solution
if the problem is defined as "how do we keep the current industrial
civilization from breaking down?"  On the other hand, that's not the
way I define the problem.  To me, it's closer to "given that a collapse
is possible, what can I do to increase the likelihood of survival for
myself and the people I care about?"  I can't know that there is a
solution to this one, though I think it's more likely that there are
multiple solutions to be found -- and I think it's well worth looking
into.

>tell you what, I'll bet you $1000.00 that civilization will not
>fall by any date you care to name. I'll go further; I will bet
>$1000 against your $10 that civilization will not fall by any
>date you care to name.
>
>josh

Well, if I'm right, that $1000 is going to be worth diddley squat, and
if you're trusting on the various techno-fixes you've discussed to save
your butt, there's at least a fair chance that you won't be around to
pay up...

But I'm game.  First of all, though, we're going to have to come to some
kind of mutually agreed definition of what constitutes the collapse of
civilization.  It's not as quick or as simple a process as a lot of the
current Apocalypse-mongers tend to think, and historically there aren't
always clean lines of fracture you can point to.  (When did Rome fall,
for example?  476 AD?  1452 AD?  It was in a tailspin by the middle of
the fourth century, certainly, but people were still speaking Latin
dialects and using the remnants of Roman technology hundreds of years
later.)  Granted that if our current civilization falls, there will
probably be some fairly dramatic disruptions -- still, what definition
do you want to use?  Population crash?  Decrease in industrial capacity?
Breakdown of the current North American nation-states?

Still, I'd happily cough up $10, or more, to be proved wrong.  There are
people who look forward to a collapse; I'm not one of them, and I think
they're lunatics or fools.

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: sirbyte@brewich.hou.tx.us (William hancock)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: pentagrams and sepher sephirot
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 14:31:28 CST
Organization: The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US

dpschneider@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>      Well its just a thought... but now I have a question. In "Sepher Sephiro
> it is clear that at times Crowley does not use the numerical attributions of
> the final letters. At first I thought this was just a matter of using what
> works best, but in the back of The Law is for All, there is a listing of all
> the Hebrew letters and their numerical equivalents. This list clearly ignores
> the "special values" of the final letters, by specifically listing their valu
> as equal to the value of the normal letter. It does not even refer to the ide
> that these letters can be anything. but the same numerical value as their
> normal counterparts. Does anyone know why this is?

I, to start off, am not a big Crowley fan but the way you speak you sound 
as if you are comming from a cerimonial to O.T.O. background then if this 
is ture you can do one of two things;
A:  Goto level and ask your Higher Self or Spirit guide (for you 
Crowleyians) 
Reason being man cannot formulate a question he does not know the answer 
to.  
B: Wait.... If my 'shot in the dark was anywhere near close' questions 
like the one you just asked are to be nice Not Allowable wait until you 
are ready and the answer will become apperent.
Just because you get stuck on one certain topic does not mean go run an 
ask someone.(you obviously being a solitairy pactitioner) need to slow 
down and let the quabala do it's job by opening the doors for you when 
you are ready.  Takeing on the knowledge and power ahead of time can be 
quite deadly, literly, and yes even if you do banish the area completly.

                         -SirByte'*

-The voice of a true Magickian is an awe inspiring thing to behold-
                         -Me'*
Ahhtee Malkuth Ve Giboora Ve Gidula Olahmen +

------------------
sirbyte@brewich.hou.tx.us (William hancock)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (What a long, strange trip it's been)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:28:12 GMT


In article <1992Dec11.182521.19366@u.washington.edu>, grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes...
>In article <1992Dec10.155541.3868@engage.pko.dec.com> stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (Hair Eris) writes:
>>
>>I've given a lot of thought to this over the years... and havealready taken some
>>of the steps you've suggested (just in case)... but I've come to the conclusion
>>that it makes a lot more sense to work to preserve what we (as a
>>nation/culture/species/whatever) have now, rather than stand by and watch it 
>>all fall apart and then try to re-build it.  
>>Don't you think it's worth saving?
>>
> 
>Well, yes -- at least some of it.
> 
>The problem is this.  Our current civilization is dependent on a system of
>economic, agricultural and ecological practices which are unsustainable
>even over a timespan of decades.  Even at the present time, we could
>change to sustainable ways of living only at the cost of a massive,
>wrenching dislocation involving a radical drop in the standard of living
>across the entire developed world.  (Figures from one source I've read
>recently suggest that we'd have to accept the standard of living of 
>Brazil.)


There must be a way... there has to be.

>Do you want to tell me that the voting public of this or any other of the
>developed nations would accept this for fifteen seconds?
> 
>If the changeover to a sustainable society had started back in the 1950's,
>when the world was first getting hooked on strip-mining its own future,
>it could have been accomplished smoothly in the context of a steady 
>increase in the standard of living.  If it had been started in 1970, it
>probably could have been done with only minor dislocations.
> 
>Unfortunately, it's 1992, and even the supposedly radical changes being
>considered by the new administration here in the US are little better 
>than band-aids.  Admittedly, band-aids are better than the rubbing of 
>salt in wounds that we've seen for the last decade...  But the changes
>that would be necessary are being contemplated only by people out on
>the fringe.

Still.... if we could identify necessary changes then finding a way to
implement them might be possible... considering who and what we are.

>So here we are.  A small minority of us, maybe, are wiling to accept
>the sacrifices needed to ensure a future to this civilization. We don't
>have the power to get the majority, who aren't, to follow suit.  What
>do you propose to do?  Spend the next decade or two in a fruitless
>struggle, and then lay down and die?
> 
>Or do you want to take steps to see that someth8ing, at least, will come 
>through?
> 
>That's how I see it, at any rate.  Comments (yes, and flames) welcomed.
> 
>-- John Michael Greer
>   grimoire@u.washington.edu
> 

No... I don't accept that.

I say we do the work of the Paraclete and find a Way... 

If only we could break through .... open up a new frontier.. 
I'll find a Way...
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (My name is...)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:34:30 GMT


In article <JOSHUA.92Dec11143746@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>, joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes...
> 
>In article <1992Dec11.182521.19366@u.washington.edu> 
>grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
> 
>>  In article <1992Dec10.155541.3868@engage.pko.dec.com> 
>>  stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (Hair Eris) writes:
> 
>>   >					 but I've come to the conclusion
>>   >that it makes a lot more sense to work to preserve what we (as a
>>   >nation/culture/species/whatever) have now, rather than stand by and 
>>   >watch it all fall apart and then try to re-build it.  
>>   >Don't you think it's worth saving?
> 
>>   The problem is this.  Our current civilization is dependent on a system of
>>   economic, agricultural and ecological practices which are unsustainable
>>   even over a timespan of decades.  Even at the present time, we could
>>   change to sustainable ways of living only at the cost of a massive,
>>   wrenching dislocation involving a radical drop in the standard of living
>>   across the entire developed world.  (Figures from one source I've read
>>   recently suggest that we'd have to accept the standard of living of 
>>   Brazil.)
> 
>statements of this kind usually only take into account resources available
>on this planet; with the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources there
>is more than enough for everyone on the planet to have a high standard of
>living. if for whatever reason, we do not exploit extraterrestrial resources,
>I will admit things will probably get sort of grim, but I really don't think
>that is too likely (in other words, over the next 50 years or so, I fully
>expect systematic exploitation of off-planet resources to get off the ground).
>these club-of-rome, rifkinesque sayings of doom also fail to take into account
>the development of new technologies (like nanotechnology or fusion power)
>which are also more than likely in the near future.
> 

I agree, Josh... we have to get off this planet.. I've given a lot of thought
to this situation over the years and I always come back to this as the only
really sustainable solution.

>add into this the decimation of the populace likely to occur in many of the
>worst case nations, for various reasons, and you end up with a situation where
>there are fewer have-nots and more to go around.
> 
>>   So here we are.  A small minority of us, maybe, are wiling to accept
>>   the sacrifices needed to ensure a future to this civilization. We don't
>>   have the power to get the majority, who aren't, to follow suit.  
> 
>and I, for one, am very glad that you don't. just how, pray tell, would you
>'get the majority ... to follow suit', were you able to? confiscatory taxation?
>set up some camps? just take them out and shoot them? the possibilities are
>endless.
> 
> 
>josh

We could 'influence' them in certain directions maybe... a temporary bandid
at best though but maybe it would buy us the time we need.
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:18:23 GMT
Keywords: Pentagrams

 I read a post concerning the meaning of pentagrams(inverted) and wanted to
"explore" this topic abit more. First off, the inverted pentagram has as
much to do with satanists as a cross has to do with christianity; belonging
to neither originally, yet adopted by both. The premise that I'm refering to
is this simple: Why does a satanist use an inverted pentagram when a christian
doesn't use a verted one? Again, neither symbols have ever been any worse than
the intent backing their useage. The mystical outline of an inverted pentagram
is however that it means the dominion of material and strife over intuition,
spirit, and the subconscious.. And this is correct if one knows the meanings
of the points.. BUT AGAIN.. This symbol is no worse than it's weilder.. 
 To quote The Beast "Any Devil that is worshipped is no longer a Devil; it is
a God", and this idea makes perfect sense in the in the proper light that
a Devil is an agent of strife and not conformity. The silliness of the whole
matter makes light when one reads an unaltered version of the bible and sees
that there is no hell. Back to the matter of the inverted pentagram; The 
"Goat Head" is the silliest symbol I have seen yet, and the worst distortion
of a symbol as well. 
   1> What does the goat head have to do with the inverted
pentagram, besides perversion and glamouric attraction?
   2> What is the meaning of the goat head? It's a symbol, remember..
   3> What are these symbols used for?

 I myself lay no claim to knowing the answer to any of these questions, but
I am again inquisting the symbols. I only feel this is of relevance when
I take some consideration of how my youth in religion was.. I was born
a catholic; and kept ignorant of the meanings of all the symbols my whole
life. I felt disgusted when I soon learned that these symbols were all
borrowed from other "despised" cultures as a means for saying "Hey! we do
the same as you do, join our religion!", thank the divine that that never
happened. My personal feeling is that most "satanic" is an opposition to an
already illusionary system(christianity), and therefore makes it questionable
, however, in this case I make no claim to be an authority; I only want to
pose some ideas to see the feedback/wisdom gained. 


-Sean
-- 
| sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us |       I only look like I have a clue.           |
 -  Is it not amazing that so many religions have stolen symbols from other  -
 - religions that they despise? It almost makes you think :                  -
 - "What are they fighting about? They look the same to me!"                 -
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Dec16.194323.5575@wl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:11:20 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.194323.5575@wl.com> anzlovar@wl.com (Bob Anzlovar) 
writes:

>stanley@verga writes:
>>I write:


>   >>tell you what, I'll bet you $1000.00 that civilization will not
>   >>fall by any date you care to name. I'll go further; I will bet
>   >>$1000 against your $10 that civilization will not fall by any
>   >>date you care to name.

>   >:-)... Can I get in on this action too?  I'm with Josh.

>   Yeah, sure, like the $1000 is gonna do me any good after civilzation
>   collapses. Are you willing to pay iin $1's so it's at least usable for
>   wiping after visiting the bushes? :-)

we could do it in ounces of silver, or bullets or pepper or penicillin,
or whatever you like. 

josh
From: stanley@verga.enet.dec.com (Rising of the Light)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:22:10 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Dec16.134133.18046@cattnts.canada.ncr.com>, craig@cattnts.canada.ncr.com (Craig Campbell) writes...
>In article <1992Dec15.062017.9630@sobeco.com> ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.) writes:
> 
>>This civilization is gangrenous.  Like the Phoenix, it must immolate itself
>>to be reborn from its ashes.
> 
>Have you no eyes to see the good in our world as well?  Has life been so hard
>on you that you have given up entirley on our world (for should our
>civilization collapse, our world as we know it would surely be ended)?
> 
>Yes, there is plenty wrong with the world, but things are getting better.
>If we can survive, then I hope that we can grow and evolve into something
>better and better.  To destroy civilization and start over is drastic.
>To believe that things would then be better, naive (although optomistic in
>its own way) and simplistic.
> 
>I would suggest that our best hope lies in suffering through the trials and
>tribulations of our civilization's adolescense and allowing it / us to
>reach maturity.
> 
>>The collapse of the roman civilization didn't
>>wipe out all existing knowledge as some fear would happen should ours collapse.
>>I'd say the collapse of the roman civ. paved the way for our civilization.
>>I heard somewhere that when something dies, it favors the birth of something
>>new.
> 
>>In our century, we have become obsessed with keeping death away at all cost.
> 
>As well as calling death for no reason (suicides).  Different sides of the
>same coin?  How about the obsession with having it MY WAY, getting it NOW?
>We are barely learning to compromise.  Good things take time, the better
>the longer (Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that).
> 
>Build on what is available now.  Don't wait for someone else to build a better
>world from our ashes, they (probably) won't.  If you want a better world,
>then build one.
> 
>>Ladislas.
> 
>Merry Christmas,
>craig
>-- 
>Craig Campbell		|	These opinions are entirely the result of a 
>Systems Engineer	|	small butterfly crashing into the far side
>NCR Canada,		|	of the planet.  Chaos Rules.
>an AT&T Company		|	I speak for no one, except, possibly, myself.

Craig is right.  It's like a puzzle... an adventure... a quest.. we can figure
it out as we go along..
From: isc10295@nusunix1.nus.sg (QUEK KENG OEI)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: PostScript Thelema
Date: 10 Dec 92 10:24:15 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

James Uther (jimu@orthanc.cs.su.oz.au) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec02.235222.12834@microsoft.com>, tonypo@microsoft.com (Anthony Popek) writes:
: |> Since I work in a Windows/DOS environment, how do I read/print
: |> these files?
: |> 
: |> 				Loki
: 
: 	get a Mac.

Naaahhhh,
	No need, just ftp ghostscript, the PS viewer from the various
anonymous ftp sites.  The latest version should be 2.52.  You can view
in both DOS/Windows environment.
	As for printing, sorry, no idea.

Keng Oei

--
_____________+_________________________________+________________________________
Keng-Oei Quek| internet : quekkeng@iscs.nus.sg | BITNET:quekkeng@nusdiscs.bitnet
-------------+---------------------------------+--------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Keywords: Pentagrams
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:31:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BzL6FC.GLr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> you write:
>sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley) writes:
>
>>The only downfall of christianity as a whole is that it is WRONG. 
>
>Gods, the sheer intolerance in this statement!  This statement sounds exactly
>like a fundamentalist preacher telling us that all pagan religions are wrong.

Actually, NONE of the fundie preachers I have heard (and believe me, I have
heard some beauts), have EVER made a blunt statement of factual incorrectness
as this one seems to have been. All the fundies I have heard resort to morality
and "righteousness" and other such artificialities. By and large christianity
IS "wrong" in that it is based on fallacies, lies, historical innacuracies
& delusions. For more on this see alt.atheist or (occasionally) alt.satanism.

Now, if you think that Sean was referring to a Moral wrong, (which is possible,
though doubtful) it is quite likely that by _his_ moral standards, christianity
is wrong. By _my_ standards christianity is one of the most abominable meme
systems ever created. The truely rotten thing about it is that I am forced
to live on a planet infested with these "values". 

>Christianity, like all religions, is neither right nor wrong.  It simply is
>a vessel for individuals.  I would agree that the *organisations* which claim
>to be Christianity are wrong, but they aren't the religion no matter how often
>they claim to be.

I imagine that you are attempting to point out moral relativity here, though
the language is not clear to me.

ye servante of ye great olde ones...
-Scott