HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: "do[ing] stuff" (was Re: Is Magick worth the effort??)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:27:18 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <BsM4Dr.DEt@acsu.buffalo.edu>, oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
|>
|> I also suspected that many experienced mages believed that under 
|> unusual circumstances they could find a weak link or key-joint in 
|> causality and "do stuff."  (This view I find reasonable, though I 
|> think it happens far less often than reported.)
|> 
|> It is a complete surprise to me that experienced mages,  most of 
|> the experienced mages who read alt.magick anyway, believe they can 
|> "do stuff" routinely.

Why does this surprise you?  I wouldn't say I could "do stuff" routinely but
I've "done stuff" before and fully believe I could "do stuff" whenever I had 
the need.  

This reminds me of working around my kids.  They are really impressed by my
ability to do some things especially lift heavy objects (manually, not by
magic :-), especially my oldest.  Unfortuneately, this often has the side effect
of discouraging my oldest son since he's not as good as me nor can he lift as
much as I can.  Sure I am older, bigger, and have had more practice than him and
I make it look easy.  These explanations don't work.  However, when I point out
how much stronger and more proficient he is over his younger brother and
especially over his performance last year, it brings him out of his slump.

As for the routinely part, I take such claims with a large measure of salt.
I am of the magic-is-an-art camp which gracefully allows even the masters of the
art to produce crap occasionally...

|> Healing is not the same as manipulating causality, aka bending 
|> chance, aka doing stuff.

Oh? How so?

|> - Peggy -

-Christopher
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: I Ching and Magick Squares
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 15:16:27 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <64218@cup.portal.com> <64236@cup.portal.com>

9208.19 e.v.


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


Additional information about constructing Magick Squares follows.
The author is not referenced but may voluteer if desired.

Also one of my correspondents has a program to CREATE Magick Squares
which is for IBM PCs.  If you'd like to receive it, send him email.
His address is geversti@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Gordon Everstine).  Thank
you, Gordon, for your kindness.  I do not have the capability to
use such a program myself.

-----------------------------------------------------

To any magic square you can do the following:
 
Scale each element by a constant
Exchange two rows
Exchange two columns

and the square will still work.

Now suppose you have a magic square AxA and an algorythm to construct a
magic square of BxB with an arbitrary sum.

To construct a square (A*B) on a side, construct A*A squares BxB, with
sums that correspond to each square in A.  Then arrange them (Replace
17 with the square that totals 17, etc) into one larger square.

There seems to be an algorythm for both odd x odd squares, and
multiple_of_four x multiple_of_four squares, but I don't know what it
is...

I would be interested in a post of C source code that could do the
job... (Or Pascal, I actually prefer that language.)


---------------------

Invoke me under my stars.   Love is the law, love under will.


I am I!


Frater I Nigris (666)
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Duel?
Date: 18 Aug 1992 20:33:57 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <1992Aug18.152815.12451@engage.pko.dec.com>, stanley@verga.enet.dec.com writes:
|> 
|> In article <16r2h5INNc3u@early-bird.think.com>, cward@Think.COM (Christopher Ward) writes...
|> >In article <cstollen.6107@meltdown.chi.il.us>, cstollen@meltdown.chi.il.us (Carolyn Stollen) writes:
|> >|>   I definitely include "the grateful dead as a mystical experience
|> >What you appear to be looking for is alt.rebelion and/or alt.drugs
|> 
|> Ok Christopher... lets see how much magick you know.  
|> 
|> As a chaos magickian of the Grateful Dead tradition, I hereby challenge you 
|> to a test... a magickial duel.  Let's see just how good you are... lets 
|> have a demonstration of what you can do besides talk, ok?

Hahahahahha! For a second there I was sure I was reading rec.humor!

Since I've been "had at" by better'n you, go for it.  If I were you, however,
I'd save my strength for keeping my job at DEC, better yet finding a real one...

For the more mature reading this, I'd like to point out for the record that the above quote of mine was explicitly taken out of context by some lame interloper.
I changed the Subject: line so feel free to add to your kill file.

-Christopher
From: Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Distribution: world
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:01:40 PDT
Organization: Shades of Reality BBS - Medford, Oregon

In a message dated Thu 20 Aug 92  5:11, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert
McGrath) wrote:

|> I am suggesting that If a person is to make criticism like this it
should
|> be based on some form of factual data.  Otherwise, you have entered the
|> realm of the fundamentalist.  Besides; define "twisted".

 RM> Twisted means "not straight".  I have already repeated indicated that
 RM> my source was Colin Wilson.  I will state it even plainer--if Wilson's
 RM> depiction of AC's life is even half accurate, AC was definitely
twisted.
 RM> So cut out this "don't criticise without factual info".

The definition you are using to describe behavior is based on a specific
socially engrained "moral" code which uses Christianity as its "ideal"
model.  I simply, do not agree, or make judgements on people based on
anything other than my experience with them.  I don't like sheep mentality.

 RM> And don't call me a fundamentalist again, buddy boy.

I never implied that you were.  Re-read my message.  However,  if the shoe
fits...

|> OK.  Perculiar.  The point being that one should think things out before
|> doing anything some one tells you to.

 RM> The point being that one should write things so they ar not likely to
 RM> be misinterpreted, unless you are deliberately courting such mis-
 RM> misunderstanding.

If you want something that is easy to read, don't read Crowley.  He assumes
that the reader is going to use some form of common sense.  Besides, as to
the "child sacrifice"; if one is paying attention, by the time one gets to
that place in the book they should know exactly waht he means.

|> I no longer think a person needs to be "Jesus-like" , (i.e. without
fault,
|> etc.) to be considered a Holy Man, or to validate their Work.

 RM> I agree.  I never, ever, said AC was or was not a holy man, or whether
 RM> his "work" was "valid".  (I frankly couldn't care less.)  I said he
was
 RM> a twisted human being.  You may esteem his memory and work all you
want,
 RM> but don't flame me for expressing a perfectly justified description of
 RM> the life he lived.

Once again.  I don't feel that the life he lived has anything to do with
the system he left behind.  Why do we expect that a "holy" type of
personality is more capable of achieving magical systems tha one who is
not.  What is "holy" anyway?  If you percieved my post as a flame, I
apologize; it was not my intention to insult.

Love is the Law.
Gerald

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
From: knightster+@CMU.EDU (Shawn Clayton Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:09:39 GMT
Organization: Freshman, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

>|> The Male Child Sacrifice is the sperm.  Come on guys, Crowley said he
>|> performed this operation every other day for a year:  don't you find
>this a
>|> little bit funny?

I'm in a weird mood, so here's this food for thought:

From Liber AL vel Legis:

"All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my
writings, each for himself."

From Liber Stellae Rubeae sub Figura LXVI:

"21.  Then again the master shall speak as he will soft words, and with
music and what else he will bring forward the Victim.
22.  Also he shall slay a young child upon the altar, and the blood
shall cover the altar with perfume as of roses."

Now, as I interpret the Law, this can be taken to mean sperm. If someone
else wants to interpret the Law (of Crowley) to mean actual human
sacrifice, then they may have trouble with the law (of men).

Love is the Law, love under Will.

-shawn
No, I'm not a member of the OTO.  But I do like Thelema.
For those who dislike the high Thelema-to-other-stuff ratio on
alt.magick, my apologies.
From: Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: herbal freedom
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:22:36 GMT
Organization: Shades of Reality BBS - Medford, Oregon

In a message dated Thu 20 Aug 92  5:11, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert
McGrath) wrote:
|> 4. That truthful health information about dietary supplements is
permitted.
          ^^^^^^^^
|> 5. Tha the FDA has no prior restraint authority on truthful labeling or
|> advertising.                                       ^^^^^^^^

 RM> No criticism intended, but just exactly what does "truthful" mean? Is
 RM> this a standard legal term I'm not familiar with?  Otherwise, how is
it
 RM> intended to be interpreted?

In the context it is being used I would assume they mean factual (unlike
the information being desseminated about these herbs presently).

Love is the Law.
Gerald

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Brainwashing
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:25:31 GMT
	<1992Aug13.164741.14148@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science


In article <1992Aug13.164741.14148@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D 
Burdorf) writes:

>  In article <1992Aug13.143906.28816@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu 
>  writes:

>  >(Joshua Geller) posted a long (and thoroughly flawed) article by:
>  >|>[...]

>  >(BTW, therer are lots and lots of other factual errors, misinterpretations,
>  >and wildly misleading claims in the article.)


>  Like what?  Please be specific.  You blast the article for making statements
>  that are unsubstantiated and then you follow it with a general statement
>  that you don't substantiate yourself.  By doing so you create  a great
>  amount of suspicion for your own credibilty.  It's like saying that
>  A without B is false, but oh by the way A (without giving B).  Be REAL!

unfortunately, this type of behavior is not unknown on this newsgroup.
indeed, there are regular posters who, when not posting in this fashion,
are being unusual.

josh
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Merlin Tarot Workshop with R.J. Stewart
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:35:20 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science


In article <1992Aug17.135757.10628@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D 
Burdorf) writes:

>   1. Tarot cards based on the rennaisance are flawed in that they
>   were influenced by church belief in punishment as represented by
>   death, the devil, and the hierophant.  He claims that in the texts that
>   tarot symbols were derived from there was no such symbolism.  Also,
>   the texts contained references to goddesses and female symbols which
>   the church-influence rennaisance tarot creators eliminated.  Also, the
>   lack of an environmental message was not in the original texts but
>   had to do with the church's belief that nature is evil.

I am unaware of *any* tarot further back than the thirteenth or fourteenth
centuries. Perhaps when you see him next you could ask him what 'texts
that tarot symbols were derived from' he is referring to and where one could
obtain copies of these. As far as 'lack of an environmental message', what
a curious statement. concern for the 'environment' is very modern. I think
the earliest manifestation of it would be the polish governments actions to
preserve the wisent (european bison) in the 16th century (17th?). this was
exceptional. just about everyone, christian, prechristian, amerind (check
out the hunting customs of some of the american aborigines sometime. I
especially liked the 'drive the herd of bison over the cliff' technique as
well as the iroquois 'break down the beaver dam, kill the little buggers
when they come out to fix it, cut off their tails and leave the rest to
rot' technique), what have you, *no one* gave a shit about the 'environment'
before the late 18th century.

>   2. The Death card is not one of banishment but one of change,
>   Reincarnation was supported by the christian church until the 4th century 
>   when they removed it from their cannon, so they could control people with
>   the fear of eternal punishment.  

the hindu religious structure does pretty well controlling people within
a common worldview of reincarnation. perhaps he is not aware of this. this
interpretation of atu XIII is pretty standard G.'.D.'. stuff, BTW.

>   [more stuff ... but why bother?]

>   4.  The story of the tarot is that of the fool jumping off the
>   cliff and landing in the different cards which is why the Merlin tarot
>   has images that lead from one card to another (to answer John's question).

strange, I thought that you started in XXI (the world as it appears) and
counted up.

>   The class is going to continue indefintely every month.  I'm signed up for
>   the next one already.

if you feel like bringing these points up with him, and he feels like
answering, I'll look forward to seeing his replies next month around
this time.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: NLP
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:39:22 +0000

Amanda@intercon.com writes..

[..]

>....says "it's self-hypnosis and bunk in a pretty package,"

Like every other mundane aspect of a religion, Eh Amanda ?

:-)

BTW alt.pagan isn't worth reading since you left, so I did too!

Leo

From: cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:02:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:01:00 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <Gerald_Del_Campo.007v@sorinc.UUCP>, Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes in part:
[objects to my characterization of AC as "twisted"]
|> 
|> I am suggesting that If a person is to make criticism like this it should
|> be based on some form of factual data.  Otherwise, you have entered the
|> realm of the fundamentalist.  Besides; define "twisted".  
Twisted means "not straight".  I have already repeated indicated that
my source was Colin Wilson.  I will state it even plainer--if Wilson's
depiction of AC's life is even half accurate, AC was definitely twisted.
So cut out this "don't criticise without factual info".  And don't call
me a fundamentalist again, buddy boy.


|> OK.  Perculiar.  The point being that one should think things out before
|> doing anything some one tells you to.
The point being that one should write things so they ar not likely to
be misinterpreted, unless you are deliberately courting such 
misunderstanding.

|> I no longer think a person needs to be "Jesus-like" , (i.e. without fault,
|> etc.) to be considered a Holy Man, or to validate their Work.
I agree.  I never, ever, said AC was or was not a holy man, or whether
his "work" was "valid".  (I frankly couldn't care less.)  I said he was 
a twisted human being.  You may esteem his memory and work all you want, 
but don't flame me for expressing a perfectly justified description of 
the life he lived.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Distribution: world
Followup-To: 
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Keywords: 

In article <Gerald_Del_Campo.007v@sorinc.UUCP>, Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes:
|> In a message dated Tue 11 Aug 92  5:10, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert
|> McGrath) wrote:
|> 
|>  RM> Its difficult to say which is more twisted--instructing naive people
|> to
|>  RM> do human sacrifice, or doing it yourself.  That's Crowley all over--as
|>  RM> twisted as twisted gets!
|> 
|> |> The desire to cast stones without justification or proof is even more
|> |> twisted.
|> 
|>  RM> Are you suggesting that Al. "the wickedest man in the world" Crowley
|>  RM> was not twisted?
|> 
|> I am suggesting that If a person is to make criticism like this it should
|> be based on some form of factual data.  Otherwise, you have entered the
|> realm of the fundamentalist.  Besides; define "twisted".  
|> 
|>  RM> I think Wilson recounts that Crowley published a book which instructed
|>  RM> the reader that sacrificing a male child was necessary for the spells
|>  RM> to be fully effective.  
|> 
|> |> The Male Child Sacrifice is the sperm.  Come on guys, Crowley said he
|> |> performed this operation every other day for a year:  don't you find
|> this a
|> |> little bit funny?
|> 
|>  RM> Funny as in "ha-ha" or funny as in "peculiar"?
|> 
|> OK.  Perculiar.  The point being that one should think things out before
|> doing anything some one tells you to.
|> 
|> I no longer think a person needs to be "Jesus-like" , (i.e. without fault,
|> etc.) to be considered a Holy Man, or to validate their Work.
|> 
|> Love is the Law.
|> Gerald
|> 
|> -- Via DLG Pro v0.992
|> 

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Duel?
Date: 19 Aug 1992 13:36:56 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <1992Aug19.130951.29700@engage.pko.dec.com>, stanley@verga.enet.dec.com  writes:
|> 
|> Let the games begin. :-)  
|> 
|> We have all of reality to work within, Christopher...what will be the test?
|> 
|> Ground rules are that (1) no one gets hurt, and (2) it has to be something 
|> significant enough that it turns up on the news so we'll both recognize it.  
|> 
|> What is your speciality... what do you choose to do?

Ground rules? GROUND RULES? We don't need no stinkin' ground rules!

How about you bring up your half of the barrier sphere and I'll bring up
mine (so the bystanders aren't hurt) and we'll just throw raw force at each
other until one is dead.  I get to stand on the mosaic of St. Camber.

Oops, I forgot you're a chaos magician, right?  So, I'll walk the pattern
and you can call up the Logris and reach into Shadow for whatever you like.

BTW: :-)
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: [amanda@intercon.com: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)]
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <=_0m5ac.friday@netcom.com> friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) writes:
>If you would like to cite some specific "crackpot" notions of NLP, I'd
>be happy to let you know whether they're part of NLP or not.

My objections to NLP are esthetic, personally.  I have a problem separating
the NLP folks I've met (with one exception) from the marketeering types
who buy 1/2 hour slots on UHF to tell people how to give them money to 
learn to make more money than they could possibly need.  Frogs_Into_Princes
is one of the most amazingly trite self-help books I've read. 

There are some really interesting ideas in NLP.  I don't have any idea if
they have anything to do with neuroscience, linguistics, nor meta-
programming (or any other kind).  But just the concepts of eye movement
tracing are really interesting...


-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava_averett@unc.edu
/*  all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
    to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary 
    of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT.      */
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<a_!n##+.friday@netcom.com>
	<JOSHUA.92Aug18205813@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
	<nb!n6v=.friday@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 09:37:09 GMT


In article <nb!n6v=.friday@netcom.com> friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) 
writes:

>In <JOSHUA.92Aug18205813@bailey.cpac.washington.edu> 
>joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:

>>In article <a_!n##+.friday@netcom.com> friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) 
>>writes:

>  >    how much moola did you spend to become a master practitioner and
>  >    trainer (moola == lucre, coin, the long green etc)?

>  Well, lets see:  About $2,500 in 1981 for a 23-day Practitioner training
>  course over 7 month period (I got back much more than that on a consulting
>  gig I did for IBM in which I used my newfound skills to solve a problem
>  that had stymied everybody else for several months; I couldn't have done
>  it without those skills...wouldn't have even tried).

>  Then, in 1983, I took another intensive course of two weeks duration for,
>  as I remember, about $2,500.  Between those two programs, and during the
>  mid 80s I attended several conferences, meetings, short seminars, met with
>  colleagues.  The outcome of that was Master Practitioner status.

>   Richard Bandler appointed me a Trainer, based on demonstrated skills and
>  accomplishments (no further fees) in 1988.

>   Sufficient answer, josh?

indeed. concise, to the point, with an inspirational anecdote for
lagniappe.

>   P.S.:  Did you attend college/university?  How much did YOU pay?

my, we're rather defensive today, aren't we? but since you were so good
as to answer my question, I'll return the favor. I am basically self
educated, and doubt I have spent half that much for the various college
courses I have taken over the years. A more cogent question would be to
ask how much money I have spent for my magickal training (after all, I
didn't ask how much you spent to graduate from the no doubt fine and
reputable school you graduated from). And the answer to that question
is, possibly $500.00 for books.

josh
From: ex1neil@cybaswan.UUCP (Neil Woods)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Necronomicon <-- Legit?
Date: 18 Aug 92 09:30:57 GMT
Reply-To: ex1neil@cybaswan.UUCP (Neil Woods)
Organization: University College Swansea

In article <83950126@otter.hpl.hp.com> cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low) writes:
>Daniel Andrew Osher writes:
>
>>>Would it be too much to ask if other readers here would share at least the
>>>names of their favorite grimoires?  
>>
>>
>>For me, that's easy. I don't have any. I tend to take my working methods from 
>>several available sources. 
>>Thought the one I am currently reading is Liber Null with it's companion
>>Psychonaut.
>
>It's happening again.....I thought it was widely accepted that the Liber
>Null was fabricated by the English author Pete Carroll circa 1980. I don't
>see any harm in using works of fiction as magical grimoires, but I prefer
>something with a pedigree - the Necronomicon for example. 
>
>Colin

What makes you think that Liber Null is a fabrication? It seems to me to be
based opon the works of Austin Osman Spare. Please justify your "widely
accepted" comment.

BTW, on another note, you mentioned in a previous posting a publisher by
the name of Starry Wisdom (or something similar). Do you have the address
or telephone number?

-- 
Neil Woods.                 | JANET: ex1neil@uk.ac.swan.pyr
University College Swansea, | UUCP : ...!mcvax!ukc!swan.pyr!ex1neil
Wales, UK.                  | ARPA : ex1neil%pyr.swan.ac.uk@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.magick