HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:49:22 GMT

In article <memo.571718@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
> There are a few contemporary references to Crowley: Reading between
> the lines he was a rebel against a strict moral upbringing: He
> delighted in shocking people, he was very sensual, and deliberately
> explored every avenue of experience with very little regard for
> contemporary mores, or other peoples feelings.

In other words a Victorian Gentleman.

> Likewise I believe that much of what Crowley had to say was to shock.

Is your belief based on a casual survey of his published work,
an in depth analysis of his published work, or rumour?

> I am ALWAYS suspicious of pro-crowleyites: they always come to me
> tarred with the same brush - poseurs and sensation seekers. This is
> total prejudice on my part, and many Thelemites of my acquaintance
> are intelligent seekers of wisdom. Many others though are con-men and
> wankers.

I can't find fault with this, I suppose it's why I have resisted
temptation to join the extant organisations claiming Thelemic 
authority ( theres an oxymoron for ya) .
I count myself as an independent thelemite.

> I think that Aleister was a man - an ordinary man - with some
> problems and hang ups. As a result of his attempts to come to terms
> with these he arrived at certain (quite common) powers. Because of
> who he was and the time he lived in, he felt constrained to put these
> into some intellectually satisfying framework. A process that
> Thelemites seem to be still involved in :-) Thats all. I think he,
> and Thelema, are vastly overrated.
> Quite frankly, he isn't really important.

Crowley made his mark on the world and our culture, whether that mark is
important or not is something that can be judged by each individual.
Personally I find him, his work, and his legacy fascinating.

His literary output was prodigeous, if not always entertaining or
enlightening, but again those are charateristics to be judged relative 
to the judger.

Hermetics and Magick are fringe activities and arcane fields of study,
I suspect the vast majority of our species would find the entire
gamut irrelevant and unimportant in the long run.

For my money, I've found Crowley to be stimulating and innovative,
a leader who blazed many trails worth following.
Obviously your mileage may vary.

LUX ./. owen


--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
From: amanda@INTERCON.COM (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: NLP
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:34:47 GMT

> >....says "it's self-hypnosis and bunk in a pretty package," 
> 
> Like every other mundane aspect of a religion, Eh Amanda ? 

Heh.  Well, "mass market" religion, anyway.  At least NLP isn't
televangelism :)...


Peace,

Amanda Walker

Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: n9140397@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Michael J. Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Detailed notes on Merlin Tarot Workshop with R.J. Stewart
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:05:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.144743.24898@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>In article <keYNWJy00iUx05gIcP@andrew.cmu.edu> ak32+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ann Laurel Kopchik) writes:
>
>>
>>>He said that modern tarot understanding is mostly based on work
>>>done by victorians (Waite, Mathers, Crowley, etc.) which were
>>>intellectuals coming from strict disciplinarian regimented 
>>>backgrounds that sought to bring order to the cards, but missed
>>>out on much of the spiritual aspects partly because many ancient
>>>texts that weren't available then are available now.
>>
>>?? Which texts are these?  (This is not a flame, but honest curiosity)  
>
>According to Stewart, most of the modern tarot books are based on
>the work by the big three (Waite, Mathers, and Crowley).  Certainly
>any Golden Dawn type of Tarot is based on their work.  Crowley's Book
>of Thoth is the only one I know of off hand.
>
Which ANCIENT texts... I'm also honestly curious.

Dymen


Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Liber XLIV - The Mass of the Phoenix
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:37:17 GMT


I tend to refer to this ritual as "Crowley channels Dr. Suess".  I guess the
point of the bad verse is to see if the practitioner can retain enough control
to say this whole thing without laughing.  And my flatmate cringes at the
thought of people actually rubbing bread in an open wound.  Having lots of
nurses in his family, he is well trained in sanitation and health.
"Gangrene, anyone?" :-)

              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
                               Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher Ward)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley's Significance?
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:47:01 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <cstollen.6107@meltdown.chi.il.us>, cstollen@meltdown.chi.il.us (Carolyn Stollen) writes:
|> [ranting about some trucker in NM deleted]
|> 
|>   But I digress...

No kidding.

|> There is always the possiblity of an alt.crowley or even a alt.magic.real
|> 
|> holyness is, BUT WHERE IS it?  
|> 
|> "nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile."
|>   I definitely include "the grateful dead as a mystical experience"
|> I havent seen that included in rec.music.gdead
|> love as a mystical experience
|> shiva worship
|> tibetan buddhism (anyone done 10,000 prostrations?  100,000?)
|> arica, silva, est, scientology (as a mysical route I said)      
|> surfing, silva, est, scientology(as a mystical route I said),
|> surfing, anything (imho) but the big 3 (jew,christian,muslim),
|> or their flamers.

What you appear to be looking for is alt.rebelion and/or alt.drugs
From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:12:35 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <BszDtD.68M@acsu.buffalo.edu> oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
[re: colin low's article...]
>The reason I asked the question is because 1.) You expressed a 
>*very* definite opinion that acquisition of the powerbook was 
>without a doubt magick.  This implies you have a theory of 
>causality to back it up.  Then you came out with 2.) that causality 
>is a large can of worms.  
>
>I did not understand how you could have 1.) and not 2.) to back it up.  
>(Of course, if you had come up with a theory about causality I would 
>have thought it silly, because no one has one yet that is not based on 
>just opinion and a little scientific hocuspocus thrown in to make 
>it look good.)  If you're just dancing with the chicken for the hell 
>of it though, then it all makes perfect sense.  

I believe causality is a large can of worms, and I believe that what I 
did with the powerbook was magickal.  However, I do not have an articulated
theory of causality to back it up.  Only experience.  One suspects that
Colin gives me the benefit of the doubt because he has parallel pragmatic
*experience* that gives him some reason to think that I might not be just
talking out of my hat.

Magick is like making love, creating art, or various other (dare I say?)
crafts and arts.  You don't have a theory of painting, although you can
have theory which refines your ability to learn it, and you can develop
methods of criticizing it.  I have never met anyone with a 'theory of
horsemanship' for example, from which anyone could get on a horse the 
first time and ride it.  However, I can *show* people how to do what I
do, more easily than I can describe it.  And I can easily discuss finer
points with other 'horsey' people, so to speak.  

Since vocabulary is so often based on common experience, something one says
may make sense to some people, and nonsense to others.

-- 
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.      */
From: c1741@moncol.monmouth.edu (MICHAEL CARSON)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Intellectual involvement in Magick
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:42:41 GMT
Organization: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, N.J.  07764

In article <msmuga.713167039@vega> msmuga@vega.math.ualberta.ca (M. Smuga-Otto) writes:
>
> Incidentally:
> Has anybody heard of or practiced MATHEMATICAL magic?
> (this would not necessarily be the same as numerology- it would rather
> be a mystical union of the subject with a particularily arcane mathematical
> theory...)
>
>						-Mike Smuga-Otto
>						humble student.

	I seem to remember hearing of something in the writings of Pythagoras.
I couldn't give you any real references, though, as I've never even SEEN 'em,
much less read 'em.

|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
|o| Of Course I speak  |      michael carson       | Carpe Diem, Man.        |o|
|o|  only for myself.  | c1741@moncol.monmouth.edu |                -me      |o|
|o| Would YOU let me   +---------------------------+-------------------------|o|
|o|  speak for you?!?  |      All flames to: nobody@moncol.monmouth.edu      |o|
|o|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|o|
From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <=t#nn2g.friday@netcom.com>, friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin) writes...
>In <64300@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:

Carol Anne,

>I've been  
>wrestling with how to convey any sense of this through this all-digital
>medium, and I'm stymied.  The only thing I've been able to do on the
>conference system I use (The Well), is offer people exercises they can go
>do which we can dialog about later.

If you post the exercises, I'll try them.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick

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

 
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:44:53 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Necronomicon <-- Legit?
	<83950126@otter.hpl.hp.com>

>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. 

heh... That's funny, most people I know think that Lovecraft invented
the Necronomicon, which was then made up a few times to look good. I
would regard your statement as a clever joke, but I know better. Sigh.

-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Unity
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:08:49 GMT

In article <BszC19.Mrq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>Has anyone put together a synthesis of the things that work?  NOT what beliefs,
}>rituals,... the various magicks have in common but what parts that do something
}>are held in common?
}
}Well, this presumes that what we call magic is one entity.

Not exactly.  It would presume that human beings are involved.

}I don't accept that
}premise.  

Do you buy that idea?

}I believe that there are many different magics, and that they have
}different "things that work".  

That's nice.  Maybe the commonality isn't even what YOU call "magic".  Hard to
tell until you look.
From: eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:30:14 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <JOSHUA.92Aug19043709@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> joshua@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joshua Geller) writes:
>
>In article <nb!n6v=.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)?
>
>is, possibly $500.00 for books.
>
>josh

Gosh, Josh, you've gotten out cheap. I'm impressed.  

To the list in general: 
As a small point, I have never understood why people object to other folks
putting down good money to learn something.  Admittedly, I'm pretty tight
myself, and never have sunk out large sums of money for seminars of any kind,
but from my perspective there are a lot of things out there than folks 
spend their money on, and who am I to suggest that they don't. 

While aspects of NLP may be more available through other sources to the 
readers of this list, and maybe to computer literate professionals in general,
there are a Lot of folk out there who don't have a clue, and don't know
psychotherapy from satanism.  There are plenty of folks out there who think
that Freemasonry is a religion.  

The point is, that if there is stuff out there that is a nice package, that 
people can learn something they didn't know before that appears to be useful 
to them (regardless of the source); then if someone else can package it and
make a buck, then good for them. 

I'm not really concerned with its "validity" either.  One's perspective of
the validity of reality is highly subjective and if my grandmother wants to
contribute money to some religious figure who appears to be fairly shallow
to me. ....well, it does appear to make her happy.  I know lots of folks 
who have problems with getting money for "teaching", and feel that 
brash commercialism cheapens it somehow.  People will measure value given
for value paid and react accordingly in each case.  

If there are people out there who have studied NLP and found it to be mostly
useless (and they paid for in time at least), and if they were able to figure
out why they find it useless, then they probably know something they didn't
before.  Maybe it will lead them to something that they do enjoy more. 

I know people who are later in life embarrassed when they tell me that they
have taken EST seminars, or were initiated as witches by the Frosts or some
other pay for initiation group, or were Da'ists, or took Gurdjieffian
waking seminars, or whatever.  I tell them not to be embarrassed for me,
cause I suspect that whatever it was, it was something on the path that
led them to their current state and contributed. 

I'm NOT advocating doing any of these things.  As I said, I just generally 
don't.  If I can ever figure out a good way to market what I do however, I 
probably will  -) . .

					-eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Subject: Re: Magical Power(book)
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:37:29 GMT

From article <BszDtD.68M@acsu.buffalo.edu>, by oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown):
> In article <83950124@otter.hpl.hp.com>, cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low) writes...
>>Peggy Brown writes:
>> 
>>>If you say its a large can of worms then why do you have such a 
>>>firm opinion about whether or not unknown causal events are 
>>>involved in "everyday" magic(k)?
>>>
>>>Its not at all clear on what your opinions are based.  No need to be 
>>>rational, logical or consistent here; I'm not a stickler for 
>>>these.  If its intuition that's OK too. 

[...]

> I did not understand how you could have 1.) and not 2.) to back it up.  


Enough already.  "Back it up"??  Let me try to boil this down: Peggy,
you're asking for a rational basis for something that's
extra-rational.  Doesn't that strike you as a bit... well, useless?
Or are you asking another question entirely?

> (Of course, if you had come up with a theory about causality I would 
> have thought it silly, because no one has one yet that is not based on 
> just opinion and a little scientific hocuspocus thrown in to make 
> it look good.)  If you're just dancing with the chicken for the hell 
> of it though, then it all makes perfect sense.  

Still looking for reasons.  Get out your Tarot and have another look
at the 16th trump.

> I understand what you mean about trying to unify worldviews. 
> My solution, not the greatest, is to *not* commit myself to any
> particular belief system or theories.  I find myself doing so now 
> and then, but its just temporary and could change at any moment.  
> With magick I play one view off against the opposite and find it 
> leads to many insights I would not have ordinarily gained.


This is pretty much what Colin suggested..  I think you just like the
friction.  That's probably a good enough, ahem, reason.  ;-)


hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: jasonp@cunix4.Prime.COM (Jason R. Pascucci)
Subject: Re: Benign magic spells (empathy?)
Organization: Prime Computer, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:48:08 GMT

In article <4eZ32ai00awQQ2fExy@andrew.cmu.edu>, Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> mcmorris@vet.vet.purdue.edu (brandywine) writes:
> > -brandywine
> 
> Out of curiousity, how?  How does one take down the empathic "barriers"
> that block others' feelings?
> 
> Nanci

Like many things (such as falling off a log, or becoming 'one with 
the universe') the only explanation I could ever offer is, like 
the Nike commercial, Just Do It. 

Also like many things, for some people it takes practice, others
seem to be unable to develop it, and still others it comes
relatively easy. I've never heard of a person who doesn't 
have the barriers, but I suspect such a one would be a likely 
candidate for a mental institution. Unfortunate, but likely. 

Perhaps a path to dropping these barriers is deliberate
empathic experiments. Pick a person who you judge as having
'strong emotions', and spend some time with them, talking. 
Block out their 'obvious' projection of emotion, such as 
vocal tonality, facial features, posture, etc, and 
concentrate on what's left. 

In my studies, (to avoid any commentary, I will state that these
are wholly unscientific, even if they aren't), I have
found that there is a pretty definate 'range' to unfocused
empathic 'projections', if you will. So, a Guns and
Roses concert may be little more powerful then a group
of 20 bible students sitting in a room. Equally, one person
venting their feelings in your general direction may
cause more damage then either. 

Equally, if you are 'unprepared' for an emotional attack,
(an ogg, if you will :) then it's effect may be significantly
strengthened. However, I feel in these circumstances
that spiritual development comes into play. A well-controlled
Adeptus might very well be able to open hirself to
ANY empathic projection, can look at it impassionatly, 
and remain unaffected by it. 

To further muddy the waters, I have generally done equally
unscientific (for my purpose) observation and analysis
as to emotional projections and their effect on my
perception of the (obviously magickal) Plastic Medium. 
For example, while I can feel I am aware of the emotional
state of an audience at a concert, I still see the
disturbance in the Medium affecting individuals,
and specific ones at that, not the 'mob' in general.
However, my intuition is that they are related after a
fashion. The resolution of this is left as an excercize
to the student. 

-- 
Jason R. Pascucci
jasonp@primerd.prime.com
From: kc2z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin W. Cooney)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: "do[ing] stuff" (was Re: Is Magick worth the effort??)
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:09:55 GMT
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Another message from that backlog that I went through:

plord@pioneer.uspto.gov (Paul Lord) writes:
> >       I would argue that there is nothing (or at least VERY little)
> >that happens that can't be explained casually.  
> 
> first: I assume you mean "through cause and effect" where you wrote 
> "casually" (causation? causually? causally? ick...)

yes.

> Bell's theorem?

I haven't heard anyone on alt.magick explain this theorem since you
posted this, or explain why it applies to magick.  I might have missed
something, and if so, please send it Email.  If not, a public reply
would be nice :)

-Kevin
From: ijd@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Ian J Dickinson)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:25:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Detailed notes on Merlin Tarot Workshop with R.J. Stewart
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.magick


>>>>> On 21 Aug, Peggy Brown (PB) wrote:
PB> About that tarot deck, save your money, unless you really want to 
PB> spend a lot of time figuring it out (which I'm still doing) :).  

PB> o The major arcana is great.  
PB> o The minor arcana boring.   
PB> o What the $#$@@# are these ace cards!  Like the stag with 3 
PB>   circles over its head?   Yo, Chris!  Ask RJ why the ace cards are 
PB>   not explained in the book.  They're listed in the index, but 
PB>   when you turn to the page, they're not mentioned at all.
Yup. I'd like to know this as well.

PB> o And most pressing of all, why are the cards numbered unlike cards on any 
PB>   other deck?  I had to write in the quabala numbers myself in 
PB>   pencil.  Also, I use Dion Fortune's Mystical quabala to 
PB>   interpret stuff, especially for the court cards and the minor 
PB>   arcana, because RJ's book doesn't explain these either.  (I 
PB>   suspect he was dealing with a tight deadline where the book
PB>   is concerned.)
Looking at the shelves in the bookstores over here, RJS seems to come out
with two or three books *a year*.  They all contain interesting bits if you
hunt hard for them, but they all have the same "rush-job" feeling about
them, and are uniformly abysmally edited.  In fact, I usually find it a
real hard slog to get from cover to cover of one of his books.  For this
reason, _Celebrating the Male Mysteries_ lies untouched on my "to read"
pile!  I would like to see him take more time to write each book (no more
than one a year seems pretty reasonable :-), write longer books so he can
put in more detail, and get an editor.

Incidentally, the best piece of writing I have seen him do is an appendix
to _The UnderWorld Initiation_, which is an extract from his personal
journal. If only he would write like that all the time.

PB> - Peggy -

Cheers,
Ian.


|Ian Dickinson    HP Labs Bristol (Knowledge Based Programming Dept)   England|
|Email: ijd@hplb.hpl.hp.com    | Enough if something from our hands have power|
|   These opinions are mine,   | To live and act and serve the future hour    |
|  and not (necessarily) HP's  |                                 - Wordsworth |