HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Pagan Psychologist Needed
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:39:32 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

I know that this message is going to be distributed a LOT farther than
nessesary for the need, but please bear with me, as this system lacks the
capacity to limit news distributations.  I posted it here, because there are
many in the area who don't read the local newsfeeds, and I figured on a lot
better chance of a reply.

One of the users of my system is in DESPERATE need of a pagan psychologist. 
s/he is on the verge of suicide, but does not want to go to a regular
psychologist because of fear that s/he might be considered crazy.

(The problem is basically rooted in a relationship problem, but s/he is
psychically connected to his/her lover, in a fashion that most psychs would
consider impossible, and therefore a figment of his/her imagination...)

The person lives in the Chicagoland area.  Western suburbs.

If you know of a someone that could help, please get in contact with me via
Email as due to time constraints on me I may be unable to catch all of the
messages that fly forth.

I can be contacted at -> krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us <-

Thanks in advance to any help that may be given, as well as to the
understanding of everyone outside the Chicagoland area.

Krikket  --  a.k.a. Doug Krick  --  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us   

"An armed society is a polite society"  -- Bob Heinlein
"Robert Heinlein died for your sins"  -- A butten seen at Cons, approved by
                                         Mrs. Heinlein when she saw them...
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: jlevitt@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mortiana)
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Exper
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 10:51:42 GMT

CSMSETS@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (CSMSETS) writes:

>          .
>          .
>>You will find that many people who post here make no claim about believing
>>in the supernatural.
>          .
>          .
>Who said Magick was supernatural in the first place? I (and maybe
>others that read this - maybe more of the Pagans) consider Magick
>as being very natural.

>Take this for what its worth (oh no, I hope I didn't start another
>endless thread about how the ENTIRE WORLD should view this and that|).
>   --Ed

I agree with ed that magick is very natural as all our energies come from 
within. what is more natural than that?

mortiana
a.k.a. Julie Levitt
a.k.a. Opal
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: miss059@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Pug)
Subject: Money and magick revisited...
Organization: Pug's Pub and Pleasure Palace
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:50:06 GMT

After returning from the grave of illness, I'd like to TRY to clarify a
few points that I apparently have made no where near clear in the past.
The use of magick to gain money I feel is wrong. The use of skills to
gain money I feel is great. The difference being that using your skills
in magick to gain money to benefit someone willing to pay your for it is
great, but if one would try to cause money to come to them via the use
of magick is wrong. One is allowing others to have their own free will
to give them their money and the other is the possibility of using force
to cause the money to come to you. I'm still not sure if I'm clarifying
this at all, and in the state of mind I still am, I wouldn't be
surprised if it made no sense at all. What I'm talking about in using
money for magick, is the type of people who say, "Well if you can work
magick, then why don't you have a million dollars?" They seem to assume
that we would want to manipulate others to just give it to us or to just
make it appear from nothing. Magick is hard work and if used towards a
mean, I feel it should be rewarded, but I don't feel that money is a
great enough thing to work towards only that part of life.

Hope this made some sense at all.

Take care.

-- 
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |       "Teachers are supposed to
Phelim Utred Gervas      Society       |        teach you *HOW* to learn 
Pug                      Generally     |        not *WHAT* to learn."   
  miss059@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu  |  pug@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |  pug@wixer.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.cyberpunk
From: pmartz@dsd.es.com (Paul Martz)
Subject: Re: Help me to summon a demon!  Now!
Reply-To: pmartz@dsd.es.com (Paul Martz)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 14:43:17 GMT

In article <57473@cup.portal.com>, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:
> [Someone said I didn't know how to invoke.  I'm trying to prove them wrong.
> What is the most hostile and dangerous Demon that I could conjure?  Got any
> suggestions for names of those in principle power??  I don't want to mess
> around with anything too inconsequential on my way to the top.]

Bozo the clown.

Donny Osmond.

Herve Villechaize.

Florence Henderson.
-- 

   -paul	pmartz@dsd.es.com
		Evans & Sutherland
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:16:08 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.132459.27045@PA.dec.com>, stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:
|>>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
|>>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
|>>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
|>
|>I think this was science populist Frank Casti ?  Excellent presentation of the
|>way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical 
|>questions.  He also wrote a book about 'certainty,'  but I haven't read it.

I read some more last night and STILL forgot to get the guy's name. Oh
well...While I haven't gotten to the end of the "what is reality"
chapter, the explanation of Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem is very
interesting, to say the least.

|>>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
|>> 
|>>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
|>
|>There are some researchers currently studying the possibility of
|>applying Chaos mathmatics to brain activity patterns.   Interesting idea.
|>
|>Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
|>term and general concept primarily ?   

I've only limited contact with Chaos magick (I read _Practical Sigil
Magic(k)_ by Frater U.D.), but it wasn't mentioned at all. I think
they are refering to Chaos as in Chaos vs. Law, not Chaos as in
Sensitivity to initial conditions.

|>					todd

DDA

--
dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
				-Stevie Nicks

Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: once again, theory of magick from MinT&P
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:09:50 GMT

ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) writes:


>For all newcomers:
>Not everyone who is a regular poster in this newsgroup agrees with the 
>material in this excerpt.  As someone else put it: "we are not a monolitic
>entity."  I do not agree with the way Aleister approaches magic.  I am sure
>he would not agree with my style if he were still alive and using the net.

we await eagerly, BA, your theory of magick which (one assumes) will be
as coherent as crowley's.

josh
From: cal@otter.hpl.hp.com (Colin Low)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:26:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Liber Reguli and Pentagram directions
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: alt.magick

rjb@milton.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars) writes:	 

>Gilbert (p 70) remarks, "His [Waite's] insight into Kabbalism is
>praised by Gershom Scholem, the greatest living authority
>on the subject, in _Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism_
>(1946)."  Which explains why Waite refers to him as "Dr.
>Gerhard Scholem," his name before he changed it.
>
>_Major Trends_ unfortunately is not ready to hand, so I
>cannot check the context.  (I do intend to look it up in
>the next few days, though.)

The quote I had in mind comes from "Major Trends" and runs as follows:

"Nor have we reason to be proud of the fact that the greater part of
the ideas and views which show a real insight into the world of Kabbalism,
closed as it was to the rationalism prevailing in the Judaism of the 
nineteenth century, were expressed by Christian scholars of a mystical
bent, such as the Englishman Arthur Edward Waite of our days and the German
Franz Josef Molitor of a century ago. It is a pity that the fine
philosophical intuition and natural grasp of such students lost their
edge because they lacked all critical sense as to historical and philological
data in this field, and therefore failed completely when they had to
handle problems bearing on the facts."

I would guess the sort of thing he means is Waite's failure to conclude
that the Zohar was written by Moses de Leon - an easy mistake I guess.
Could have made it myself ;-)

Later in the same book Scholem backs up his previous comments:

"In English literature on the subject A.E. Waite's "The Secret Doctrine
in Israel" represents a serious attempt to analyse the symbolism of
the Zohar. His work, as I have had occasion to remark at the outset
of these lectures, is distinguished by real insight into the world
of kabbalism; it is all the more regretable that it is marred by an uncritical
attitude towards facts of history and philology, to which must be added
that he has frequently been led astray by Jean de Pauly's faulty
and inadequate French translation of the Zohar, which, owing to his
own ignorance of Hebrew and Aramaic, he was compelled to accept as
authoratative."  

Perhaps I shouldn't mention the "brilliant misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of Alphonse Louis Constant" or the "highly coloured
humbug of Aliester Crowley and his followers".

I'm surprised he didn't annihilate Mathers while the stream of
literary invective was flowing so passionately.

Colin
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:43:58 GMT

saracen@netlink.cts.com (Ann Olson) writes:
|[...] ...that all axiomatic systems are incomplete. The
|Scientific method is an axiomatic system and therefor can not be complete by
|this theorum...but who knows, someone may yet disprove Godel's Theorum.

Scientific method, whether "complete" in any sense or not, is not an
axiomatic system in the sense used in Godel's incompleteness theorems.
-- 
Keith Ramsay            Even if a proof from given axioms can, in
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca     principle, be found mechanically, is it not
                        often found in ways not all that different
                        from finding a new axiom? -Georg Kreisel
From: mayor@ic17.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: straight A's
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:03:56 GMT
Reply-To: mayor@ic17.umeeng
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 60@edit.mndly.umn.edu, bahn@edit.mndly.umn.edu (Christopher Bahn) writes:
>In article <92081.115319REGHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> REGHC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>
>>Yes I want to get A's in college, How is this possible? Is this some kind
>>of gimmick?
>It's MAGICK, of course.

Yes.  Money is accepted for this kind of magic ;)
---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------"Yes, I'll have your lab marked by tomorrow...now go away ----
------- and DONT tell any other students where I'm hiding!"---------
----------- email: mayor@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca --------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...


In article <1992Apr13.214511.20817@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, mayor@ic10.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor) writes:
|>In article 9180@PA.dec.com, dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio) writes:
|>>
|>>In article <1992Apr5.223050.10775@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
|>
|>>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
|>>
|>>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
|>>
|>>DDA
|>>
|>
|>  I want to have free will, but chaos theory is not the way to it.  Chaos
|>is a relative term...we do not see order, but it is not random!  
|>Essentially chaos theory shows us that we don't have a hope in heck :)
|>of being able to determine something that is chaotic, but it does NOT
|>say that it is NOT determined.  Yes, all fluid flow, air currents, etc
|>etc have a chaotic nature...but they are also deterministic.  
|>  Chaos theory does NOT lead to free will.

I don't see the problem. Chaos theory pertains to systems that are
extremely sensitive to initial conditions and IMO, the brain is one
such system. Can you tell me the difference between a system that
isn't deterministic and one that is, but so sensitive to initial
conditions that you cannot predict it's behaviour beyond a few
minutes?

Besides, although we talk of Free Will, I submit that few of us do
things "randomly" but that Free Will is actually sorta deterministic
in that placed in the same situation again, most of us would do the
same thing. The "Free" in Free Will usually doesn't mean random, it
means unpredictable from the outside...Kinda like chaotic! :-)

|>DISCLAIMER: This has been the scientist speaking, not the magickian :)

Same here...


|>cam.

DDA
--
dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
				-Stevie Nicks
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 23:07:00 EDT
From: Luis Sanchez <LSANCHE@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: balticon rendezvous?
Distribution: usa
 <1992Apr14.043422.367@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <1992Apr14.052430.24232@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <1992Apr15.145535.27523@samba.oit.unc.edu>

lll
From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:13:26 GMT
Organization: University of Bath, England




>In actual fact, it would seem that you are the one who is deluded.  You
>presume that a practicing ritual magician actually cares whether or not
>you believe him.  Or anyone else for that matter. 

Fine, all I'm saying is that as far as I am concerned, give me some evidence
if you want me to believe what you are saying.

>"scientific" method on a form of art seems patently ridiculous!  You
>might as well try and "replicate the results" of Da Vinci or Picasso as
>to try and duplicate a ritual performed by an adept in the pursuit of
>his own true will.

At least Da Vinci and Picasso present the results of their art to the
world.

>  
>So, if you must assume that anyone who refuses to discuss very personal
>things publicly is a charlatan and not to be trusted...  Then you will
>find that this newsgroup above all others is stuffed full of charlatans
>and liars!  There, now you can go and put on your smug facade of
>superiority and tell everyone you can get to listen "I knew they were
>just a bunch of fakers!"  {Meanwhile, the true magician sits back with a
>small knowing smile upon his lips.}

Look if it turns you on to stay in the closet then do so, but don't
be suprised if the rest of the world considers you to be a maniac, because
like it or not, society as a whole tends to treat people that are 
secretive with suspicion.  Since Homosexuals have come out of the closet,
they are more accepted than they used to be.
From: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: bibal?
Reply-To: xcz13@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:09:23 GMT

would like to mention the fact that the bibal has been
translated, mistranslated and IMO contorted exstensively
over the centures. Not to mantion the fact that it wasnt
wrighten till several years after the events described
took place. The way I see it one sohould read the bibal
and decied what thyey think is right as it is now more
a work of men (the transleters) the of god. I am 
cathlic, a speritual cathlic is the way that I put
it. As far as I am concerned we all must find our
own ways. The way that best sutes you is the way that
you should go. 

ELF-KIN	on the lighter side of reality?
From: mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:32:37 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematics, University of Bath, UK

In article <9sgZiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> misha@netlink.cts.com (Michael Glosson) writes:

>
> 
>Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
> 
>I saw and fairly much ignored your inquisitive post of a few days back,
>mainly because it was too general.  What kind of rituals are you interest
>-ed in?  I attend Gnostic Mass at least once a month, and hope to one
>day be an officer in that ritual.  I perform a variant of the LBRP on
>a daily basis, and now, as the Thelemic Holy Days approach their 
>about the N.O.X. signs and their relationship with the Star Ruby Ritual.
>  
>Maybe you could use my example as a bit of a guide line for future 
>inquiries.  As the true rulers of the City of Diaspar are known to say
>"State your question.  Please think clearly."

What I would like to know is 

1) What is the act of the LBRP and other rituals consist of?

2) What did you feel when you performed it?

3) What was the effect of the ritual?  Did it bring you to an
altered state of consciousness?  Did you contact any spiritual 
entities?  What if anything did you communicate with them?
Did you notice any effect that the ritual had on your state or
the state of others in the physical relm (mental/ emotional/ or physical).

Thanks for your response
From: lyn@wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu (Myself)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: illusions, technics
Date: 13 Apr 1992 16:40:37 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: illusions, technics, spontaneous


   Can anybody point me in the direction of a technics on Illusions ( _NOT_ )
 magic, as in fx, but magick, as in conjuring. My library is small and slow
growing, so I want to make the best of it, and I have not seen reference to, or
any trace of, technics on this. Thanx, 

			" The One and Only "-Doc Hollywood
				Myself Lyn@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
From: lapena@athena.cs.uga.edu (Chito Lapena)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:53:44 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>
>Wow aren't you mr. negative know it all.  Personally, I find the subject
>of magick quite fasinating, but I've been quite bored with this newsgroup,
>because it's just loaded with a bunch of intellectual details.  I thought
>is might be interesting if people would be willing to share their experiences
>instead for a change.  One charge that people make of magick is that its
>just a bunch ranting and raving and no action.  All the secrecy is just
>to cover up that there isn't anything behind it.  I hope it does something
>for you to act holier than thou, but it doesn't do anything for me but
>bore me.


I have a ritual for you: turn on your tv to Geraldo. When you see
something about people drinking goat's blood and stuff flying around,
say these words to yourself:

"Oh how terrible but oh so fascinating."

If you really find the subject of magick fascinating, you wouldn't be
bored with some of this newsgroup. Then again you might be confusing magick
with box-office effects. One of the credos (which can be found on the
opening page of the Musaeum Hermeticum) of magick is that it is 
not for the sake of magnificence or sensationalism but for the sake
of gaining knowledge and manifesting will on earth. That could get
pretty boring if you admit you have nothing to manifest.



-chito


-- 

=======================
Allez chercher mon jouet sous le canape.
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Girl with a problem
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  7 Apr 92 20:33:43 GMT

n8743494@henson.cc.wwu.edu (The Stranger) writes:

>I have to agree with John on this one, Tarot does not cause those problems 
>IMHO.  However, they could be caused by an gulity conscience.  

or an underlying psychiatric problem.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.folklore.urban
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Girl with a problem
Followup: alt.folklore.urban
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:13:54 GMT

Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes:

>In a message dated Tue  7 Apr 92 07:05, 890780m@ace.acadiau.ca (darrell Ian
>wrote:

> I>  I am posting about a friend of a friend. She was apparently playing 
> I> with some Tarrot Cards alone in her room in residence and since then
> I> she has 
> I> had a few problems. Such as flickering lights, curtins opening and
> I> closing 
> I> by themselves, shot glasses flying across the room at her, her room
> I> being 10 
> I> degrees cooler than the rest of the house (starting at the door), and
> I> one 
> I> night she was awoken by something touching her and she had some
> I> wetness 
> I> across her neck. Some of these incidences have been witnessed by other
> I> 
> I> people. Anyone have any ideas about a solution before she has to go
> I> through 
> I> exams with her "problems"?

correspondance with the perpertrator of the original post has revealed 
that this is the infamous FOAF popping up again. anyone who doesn't know
what a FOAF is is referred to alt.folklore.urban, as is this thread.

>A Lesser Banishing Ritual of The Pentagram might help.  However, I think
>that most of those manifestations are manifested by the person involved, as
>the Tarot cards have no power in themselves.

if in fact they exist at all.
From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:31:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: acsu.1992Apr17.133227.14700
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr17.101013.19671@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes...
>In article <1992Apr13.155704.19084@mksol.dseg.ti.com> Christopher.Ward@dseg.ti.com writes:
>>

CD,

>Is it?  Look at all the problems caused in the world by religion.  I think
>it is a valid criticism.

I do not have a great sense of history, but I'm pretty sure that in the last 
age religion was the *big thing*.  In our age the *big thing* is science.  
That should tell you something.  It tells me something, anyway.

Modern persons tend to limit their perceptions by the bounds of science.  
(Pre-modern persons limited their perceptions by religion.)  As science moves 
into the mystery dimension these bounds are expanding, but why limit them at 
all?

I'm hurt you never said anything about the John Ruskin article I typed in - 
especially for you.

By the way, I'm the one you called a "religious freak."  I suppose that's 
another journalism technique?

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick