HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Crowley and Gardner (was re: pentagrams)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 08:05:27 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <JOSHUA.92Dec24014950@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>
  <1hcec3INNhgi@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>

9212.24 e.v. 

[I'll be out of town until Sunday, please cc responses via email, thanks.] 


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


Robert Mathiesen posts what is for me one of the more interesting
pieces of information I've seen in quite some time. Besides stating his
sources (original documents in Toronto) and claiming that Gardner copied
much from Crowley's works in order to create the Toronto manuscript,
he speculates on the REAL origins of modern Wicca.  Read it for yourself.
A beautiful analysis.  I have a few questions in response.


What, exactly, is this 'Toronto manuscript'?  What relationship does
 it have to Gardner's _Book of Shadows_?

How important is the Toronto manuscript to Gardnerian practice and the
 Gardnerian tradition generally?

In other words, how much influence have the writings he copied from
 Crowley's works had in the history of Witchcraft?



Robert:

More interestingly, one can show that the texts in Gardner's own
_Book of Shadows_ are full of unacknowledged quotations from earlier
occult publications of various ages, and NONE of these quotations are
from any book published after 1929.  


Response:

Do you know this because you have examined all the books after 1929
or because you have successfully located the sources for the quotations?
If you have located them, could you give a few of the titles of the
major sources?



Robert:

Gardner himself claoims he was
initiated in 1939, and I see no way he could easily have been initiated
much earlier than that, from what is known of his career.  The easiest
conclusion one may draw is that Gardner's own _Book of Shadows_ is
copied from the work of a predecessor active in the 1930's, and that
this predecessor was the true "founder" (or "foundress") of modern
Witchcraft.  


Response:

When you say 'modern Witchcraft', what are you talking about?
JUST Gardnerianism and its offshoots?  Or other sects as well?
Would you say that the entirety comes under the category of 'Wicca'?

To put it less provocatively, just how far do you think that Gardner's
 'Witchcraft' extends into modern practice?  Do you think that it
 had major influences upon traditions like 'Faerie'?


Robert:

One such person, who clearly fits this
profile, is Dorothy Clutterbuck; another would be "Brother Aureolis," who
seems to have been the leader of the group.


Response:

Is there information available about either of these individuals in
published sources?  What can you tell us of their histories and
interests aside from the qualifications you've already mentioned?



Thank you very much for your time and your insight.  This is quite
remarkable information you are passing along, Robert!


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


I am I!


Frater (I) Nigris (666)
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo The Butcher=)
Subject: A Proposal for an Experiment
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:18:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

A certain mail-list with which I am peripherally involved, has a practice of
getting together every now and then & taking certain recreational chemicals 
while on line. Their purpose in this is to generate "synchronicities" shared
among them. So far they have been somewhat unsucessful in this venture.

I recently (20 minutes ago actually) proposed that they attempt some kind of
group magickal experiment. Instead of doing drugs all at the same time; why 
don't they all perform the same magickal ritual?

Since the degree of occult knowledge among this group varies greatly I proposed
that they all try something easy; one of the pentagramme rituals for example.

Of course, Thyagi does this every week to a certain extent on whatever MUD it 
is that SHe uses. The difference would be that it would not be online, but
coordinated online. While I do not know what exactly goes on in these MUD
forays, I do realize the power of the virtual world over the imagination &
imagine that such workings as take place there are quite effective.

The difference would be that all participants would be in their ritual 
chambers. I have found that workings with all the regalia are most effective
for me (though "astral" rituals have been quite effective), perhaps others
concur.

In any case, members of alt.magick would provide a controll as I imagine there
is very little overlap between the groups (and if there is, please keep your
silence untill the work is complete, so as not to interfere with the controll).

Considering what could be learned by a work of this magnitude (the people on
the newslist are from all parts of the globe) vs. the minimal effort put in,
such an experiment seems a worthy way to spend 10-20 minutes...

It is unfortunate I thouht of it after (or rather, on) the winter solstice.
This might have been a nice time to attempt something like this. A date must
of course be agreed upon.

Anyone interested in this group magickal experiment get in touch with me... 
locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu
From: kanderso@reed.edu (Karl Anderson)
Subject: Re: Bi/Pan Sexuality and the New Aeon from the Orgone Committee
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 09:28:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.012549.5874@uumeme.chi.il.us> sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley) writes:
>In article <Leo_Sacher.039r@kumear.apana.org.au>
>Leo_Sacher@kumear.apana.org.au (Leo Sacher) writes:
>>[about sexual methods of achieving...]
>>one-pointedness. Does Orgone or any other group represented here have
>>anything to say on the subject?
> [...]
>  Do you WANT to be approved by some group or organization? I couldn't call
>one's sexual life a matter that should be "sanctioned" by any group.

Is this a flame on those of us who might find it useful to constrict
our actions to the recommendations of a group or organization?  

>The
>whole thing rests on the assumption that groups have the "ability" to
>legislate this part of life. 

I have given this ability to groups before.

You don't have to go to Sunday school anymore.  You can stop
crusading.

Does anyone listening doubt that constricting one's actions can be a
useful method of changing the way one thinks?

>-Sean

k


Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: More recent report on Co-Op for Orgone Committee
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:49:08 GMT


Blessed Be Fellow Orgonic Orgonians!

     The Plans are whizzing away. Although it will take years for the
seeds of the Engineer's Sub-Committee to have work on the Prime Material
Plane, the astral work being done on the Land Co-Op is growing at an
ever increasing rate.

     Project Outreach is going smoothly. The information that was and
continues to be discussed is being offered to the masses as they are
able and willing to hear it.

     The Engineer's are glad to see so much activity on the board here
and would like to offer our thanks for your continued diligence in our
partial seclusion. The next General Meeting will be happy to hear our
latest reports on the Water Battery, and the Tidal Harvest plans for the
generation of 24 hour year round electrical energy needs of the Land
Co-op.

     The timetable is set at seven years at the moment of this
printing,as far as the first cornerstone ritual is concerned. We would
like for all members with the proper clearance to please begin to
cogitate what they would like to put in the cornerstone of the Orgone
Committee Recreational and Serious Magic Work Spa.

     Would like to talk more but there are places to read about and
theories to study.

Blessings of Odhinn and Bestla,

May your path be filled with Wisdom and Wonder,

Sex is Peace/True Will Not Slavery/Consciousness is Strength

           Faunus
  Land Co-op Engineer's Corps
            of
     The Orgone Committee



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 18:05:00 GMT

SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:

>Doreen Valiente writes about the early history of Gardner's coven, and
>tells us that it split into two covens around 1957 (hers and another),
>and that subsequently Gardner left the other coven and proceeded to
>initiate people on his own.  She kept Texts A, B and C as a legacy of
>these events; and the other coven also appears to possess at least one

Um, Robert misremembered on this one.  (The rest of his long post is accurate
to the sources he and I have both read, though I am not certain that Wicca
predates GBG.  Robert himself doesn't claim that it is certain that there was
a coven before GBG, just that he finds it likely.)  However, back to my point...

Valiente has Gardner's Books of Shadows not from the time she worked with him, 
but as an inheritance at the time of his death.  She and he had made up past
differences enough to become close friends at the time of his death.  They
were still not working together, but GBG apparently decided that she was the
best person to leave his BoS manuscripts to.

BTW, Robert, I would *love* to see a collection of the texts such as you are
proposing.  One of my major problems (though only one) with Kelly's _Crafting
the Art of Magic_ is that he extracts from the BAM without giving the whole
text so that we can see for ourselves what was going on.  IMO, anyone reading
Kelly's work should keep a large container of salt on hand, because his book
is *very* heavily biased to support his personal issues with GBG.  :-(
Caveat lector!

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: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Keywords: gloom doom magic survival
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:28:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.235903.15792@u.washington.edu> grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
>
>I wonder how common the materials for these cannons are, though, and how
>readily they could be made out of more common metal (say, scrap cars and
>rebar broken out of concrete).  This might be a short-term problem...

 Normal material = Big Boom inside and surrounding cannon.

 Don't do it. That is the reason old anti-aircraft barrels were used,
since most materials aren't up to having LARGE explosians within them to
throw a six-inch conical shell. Such materials can be made (obviously) but
I wouldn't reccomend melting a car down for the metal unless you had to.
Of course, if you have no choice, you learn to work with it and to not
overly stress the metal.

Wassail,
G.G.
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Reading List and Talking to me
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 11:46:01 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Dec20.231536.23603@primerd.prime.com>

9212.21 e.v.  [Happy Dark Days folx!]

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


Jason the Scooch writes, quite reasonably:

Well, regardless of the reasons, here's my recommended
reading list (not in order, and probably not complete, either)
Astral travel is fairly minor in the scheme of things,
but #4 gives a workable formula. 

[Most of this list deleted]

3) Book 4, Crowley, parts 1, 2 (bound together, usually), and 4
(aka Magick in Theory and Practice) (I believe it was 3 that
was never written, but I might have gotten the numbering
messed up.)


Response:

My understanding is that Part 1 concerns mysticism, Part 2 concerns
magick, Part 3 is 'Magick in Theory and Practice' and Part 4 was
never written.  HOWEVER, lately I'm being told that Part 4 is
_The Book of the Law_.  I remember seeing some listing of _Book Four_
in which Crowley specified what it was he intended for Part 4.  Does
anybody know what this is/was?  Let's clear this one up, eh?  Thanks.


Jason:

Avoid the newer books. Yes, there's a lot of good information in them,
but until you have a grounding, adn can see what the hell
they are actually talking about, it doesn't get you that far. 
I've seen some real atrocities, with some real gems deep down
in the middle. Horrible. Actually, I normally class
4 as a 'newer book' with similar pitfalls, but it has enough
redeeming features to be worthy of early study. 


Response:

I agree, it is sometimes wise to look to newer items for examples
of what to AVOID.  Also, some newer tools can be bridges to understanding
an old one, so it would seem to depend upon how accessible the old one
really is (just like in invocation to an Old One, eh Lupo?  Hehehe).


Jason:

[Omissions]

If you are going to ever want to talk to Tagi, study up on
latest physical theory, heavily so on Mutliworld theory. 
And having a good grounding in Cyber-reality would
help too. 


Response:

Oh that ain't necessary.  Perhaps if you want to UNDERSTAND me, but I'll
gladly listen to anybody who has something substantive to communicate or
ask regarding the subjects of my interest.  I learn most from people who
are just starting out.  It's that 'beginner mind' that is so valuable!

Harish, don't let them fool you.  It is the NOVICE that is the most wise
with respect to the subjects of magick and religion.  The reason that all
those 'teachers' will be after you to pay them homage is because you
have the power until you submit to their 'knowledge' and 'wisdom'.

I advise either remaining ignorant or studying until you lose what you
came to get.  Good luck!


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


I am I!


Frater (I) Nigris (666)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Hello
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:05:28 GMT

In article <3320.726.uupcb@factory.com> harish.reddy@factory.com (Harish Reddy)  writes:
>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.

Harish, I read your statments the same way as friend BD.  If you intend
to learn anything about magik, then the first thing to learn is to better
manipulate symbolism.  "a desire for power ect." is generally about power
over others.  If you had stated something like "a desire to gain power
over myself" or perhaps "a desire to control my own inate power", you 
would not have (IMHO) gotten BD's response.

It is inhearent in a question, that the question sets the stage for the
answer.  You set yourself up for the response you got.  BD was not being
"simply rude", his statement "magic is not about power-tripping" was good
solid information, and by it's phrasing (and symbolism) was a request
to others not to respond until you could work out a better question
based in part on his response.  It seems that you have done that, and 
I hope you get lots of responses that will help you in learning the
theory and practice of magick.

My statement (and there are others better qualified) is that
"Magick is in large part a matter of symbolism and intent, and therefore
you must master both symbolism and yourself first".  I myself have
real problems with the latter.

--Lowell Morrison
--Uncle Wolf

>---
> . 1st 1.00 #970 . If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex?
>
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Keywords: Re: MINDWALKING Buddhists, oh my!
Date: 28 Dec 92 02:19:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Dec27.052624.22349@linus.mitre.org>, tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
:
[lots and lots deleted for brevity]

: 2 UNDIVIDED WHOLENESS - THE LENS AND THE HOLOGRAM
:
:
: WHEW!!!!!!!!!!!! that's about all I can put in tonight. Pretty heady 
: stuff eh!? Well I must say I like it, and I understand it, and on some
: level it's right and obvious. The intro to this chapter is a must read for
: you philosophers. Merry Christmas and congratulations for those of you
: who made it this far.
:
Thanks for typing that long piece in.

I will read the whole book myself at some point, but I do have a
couple of comments on what you keyed in.

While quantum mechanics and relativity have some very interesting
implications, the technology for handling such implications doesn't
presently exist in physics, as far as I know. (Who knows, maybe my
theorist friends have been keeping something juicy from me.) The
hologram, observer effects, relativity; are all anecdotal evidence
pointing to something interesting. It is still, however, metaphysical
speculation.

The point I want to make is, physics doesn't 'prove' any of these
notions of a holographic universe, etc. It is my own feeling that such
a picture of the universe *cannot* be proved, ever, mathematically,
because it is beyond proof or disproof, analysis, reason,
'objectivity'. 

'The Tao proven by theorem is not the Tao'

		cheers,
			Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Date: 26 Dec 1992 23:58:52 -0500
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: intercon.com

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo The Butcher=) writes:
>For thee absolute last time (NOT) the question was, what is the historical 
>basis for the moral categorization of the upright vs the inverted pentagram.

[adding more detail this time :)...]

According to my own research so far:

The categorization of the "inverted" (one-point-down) pentagram as
"evil" vs.  the "upright" (one-point-up) pentagram as "good"
originates in the writings of Eliphas Levi in the 19th Century, most
notably the works "The History of Magic" and "Doctrine and Ritual of
Transcendental Magic."  He is also the originator of the now-infamous
goat's head glyph.  Eliphas Levi (actually the pen name of Alphonse
Louis Constant, a French Catholic deacon) was one of a number of
writers who constituted a reaction against 18th century rationalism.
His works have had a lasting effect on French magical traditions, and
were instrumental in the development of the Tarot as a serious tool of
Hermetic magic, despite its humble beginnings in Gypsy fortune-telling.

Levi was the first Hermetic writer to assign an elemental (or perhaps
more accurately, alchemical) meaning to the pentagram, which before
him had been used principally as a protective glyph denoting the five
wounds of Christ (and as such, occurs in both orientations in Gothic
cathedrals and cloisters all across Europe)).

Now, I would be more than interested to hear about evidence that
contradicts the derivation I give above; however, I have yet to come
across any "evil" connotations of the pentagram, or the orientation
thereof, that predate Eliphas Levi (who lived from 1810-1875).

This is not to say that his analysis is nonsense--far otherwise, in
fact.  If you apply his elemental attributions to the points of the
figure, the orientation does indeed profoundly affect the resulting
connotations.  However, it is a mistake to believe that this
interpretation is any more "traditional" than 150 or so years, or for
that matter particularly pagan.  It has, however, been picked up by
modern paganism, and has been (comparitively speaking) neglected by
modern hermeticism, which has focused primarily on the Tarot and the
Kabbalah.

If anyone wants to put this into a FAQ, feel free :)...


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.010859.23783@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer) writes:
>(John's comments are preceeded by ':')
>: >> 
>: >> a) in order to make it your group is going to have to have sources of food
>: >> and other resources in its control that will meet its needs for the
>: >> indefinite future.  That doesn't mean huge stockpiles -- it means having 
>: >> the necessary skills to create those resources out of naturally occurring
>: >> raw materials.  Farming is an obvious example.  You'll want some stored
>: >> food, in case the processes of collapse involve changes in the weather
>: >> patterns sufficient to wreck your crops a couple of years running, but
>: >> beyond that you're going to want to concentrate on learning how to produce
>: >> food, not just living off an irreplaceable backlog.
>
>You had better concentrate more on finding ways to protect your production.
>Otherwise, others will take it away from you.
>

See the discussion of defense issues later in the same posting.  Of course
this is an issue -- but you have to be able to produce food, etc., in order
to have anything to defend (not to mention living defenders...)

Obvious enough, but I've met a modest number of right-wing survival
types who act as though they can eat bullets...

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Sex? Magic??
Date: 2 Jan 93 03:58:31 GMT
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan01.223118.20106@rose.com> mark.terka@rose.com (mark terka) writes:
>
>Date Entered: 01-01-93 17:26
> I recently finished reading Parts of Donald Michael Kraig's book
> "Modern Magic - Eleven Lessons in the High Magical Arts". A very
> good book for either novice or expert.
>
> Only one disturbing quote caught my eye, in the cahpter on Sex Magic.
> He spoke of a sect "one organization I am familiar with has the leader
> determine sexual partners. this includes having to be in an adjacent
> room while your mate has intercourse with another person. This allows
> you to hear every sound."
>
> This gentleman is a UCLA graduate with extensive expertise in such
> topics as the Kabalah, Tarot, Magic and Tantra and is the Editor of
> fate Magazine so I assume he knows what he is talking about. Thing
> is, has anyone else heard of a sect like this...doesn't sound like
> more mainstream  CM groups...

 Well, I consider Kraig a bit of an immature putz at times but I agree
that that book is good. The group he is refering to sounds like the
Frosts' School of Wicca (though Wiccans don't usually consider what the
Frosts do to be Wicca) which has included all sorts of things in the past.
ask over on alt.pagan about it.

Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.satanism