HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kc3u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kerwin Yap Chua)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Any other Akkadians out there?
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:43:43 GMT
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Hello out there.  Am new to this newsgroup, and I'm wondering if there's
anybody out there who is specifically into Ancient Mesopotamian faith. 
If so, does anybody have any suggestions as to books or resources for a
devout but uninformed Akkadian (other than the N-con, which we don't
talk about anyway)?  Eagerly awaiting response.
 
KYC
kc3u@andrew.cmu.edu
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: The pentagram
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:08:01 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

In article <1992Sep3.134332.11359@ddsw1.mcs.com> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com
(Eshin-Fun) writes:
>>>rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> Does anyone know the origin of the pentagram...

> It is a venerable symbol used
>by Wiccans, Masons, and Pagans representing Truth, Knowledge, and Divinity
             ^^^^^^
		- where do you get this idea? I'm honestly curious.

							Peter Trei
							Editor, Masonic Digest
From: eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: The Definitive Crowley .-) List of Books
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:28 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Ok. .well, Josh was the only one who asked me to post a list of crowley
books I liked, but here it is. This is a list of books which "me" thinks
is what you need to read to 1) understand enough Crowley to make useful
judgements, and 2) what is useful that he wrote regardless of considering
that it was he who wrote it.

a)  Magick in Theory and Practice.

A nicely dry book devoid of a lot of raving which is an excellent primer.
I heartily recommend it, especially in conjunction with a good hatha yoga
class.

b)  The Book of Lies.

Crowley's parallel to the Tao Te Ching. A book which continues to be
illuminating to me whenever I read it.  A collection of 1 page chapters
in poetry / prose which has multiple levels on which it penetrates.

c)  The Confessions of Aleister Crowley

His autobiography.  This book is most illuminating in order to learn about
Crowley, his positions on various topics, his politics, etc.  Without it,
it can be nearly impossible to figure out when Crowley is having you on,
and when he's not.  With it, you have a bit more of a clue.  Reading a lot
of his writings is difficult without reading this book.  Reading the two
above books, you probably don't need this one.

d)  The Book of the Law.

A prophetic vision.  Highly subjective, and embedded with much that is
either senseless, obscure, or hidden.  Nonetheless, it is not long, and
is central to a lot of informed discussion on many of Crowley's motivations
and/or purposes.

e)  The Vision and The Voice.

The ostensible results of one man's visions who performed the Enochian aethyrs,
or "calls", like Kelley and Dee did.  It is important to read this book in
several ways.  The first might be to read it all at one sitting, then 2nd
might be to read 1 chapter and study it, then read the next, etc.  The impact
varies considerably by doing this.  Actually, I like this book so much, that
I'm completely unreasonable in proclaiming it to folks, so you can pretty 
much ignore what I just wrote about how it is important to read this in 
several ways.  It is, however, an advanced text, not gonna be understood by 
folks who don't have a good background. ....oh bullshit.  just read it. 

That's my list.  If you read Crowley, and pretend that it was translated into
english by Steven Wright or some other funny person, then you'll be much 
better off. Crowley is funny, and if you lose sight of this, then 
you'll miss a lot.  Quite possibly, but definitely on my top 10 list any day
of funny things I have read, funniest is the Aethyr in the Vision and the Voice 
which invokes Choronzon. And I say this not only as someone who loves good
comedy, but as a magician, priest, whatever you want to call me. 

I could give commentary on a lot of books of his NOT to read. But hey, I'll 
leave that for another day. .. ..

				-eddie@legba.oit.unc.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: markk@sagredo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Lost Keys of Fremasonry
Date: 1 Sep 1992 00:32:44 GMT
Organization: SunSoft South
NNTP-Posting-Host: sagredo.west.sun.com

I recently picked up and read this work by Manly Hall.  I very much enjoyed
it, but I saw little relationship between that book and the Shriners I 
have known.  I was simultaneously impressed and depressed - impressed by the
significant structure dedicated to completing an important work - depressed
by the fear that these keys are indeed lost (or at best little-used).

I have knowingly known a few high-degree masons.  While they were nice guys,
none of them impressed me as having made great progress towards the completion
of Hiram's labor.  Comeraderie ... yes.  Philanthropy ... yes.  Fraternity
... yes.  Spiritual growth, transformation and purification ...........

Are there lodges that are more dedicated to the spiritual growth elements 
of masonry?  Is everyone over twelfth degree actually dedicated to building
the temple and I just never noticed it?  Is the spiritual path actually 
tended by a few 38+ degree wierdos who have long since learned that talking
about it is alot like teaching a pig to sing?
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: AGLA
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 15:11:34 EDT
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA

I'd like to collect some input on pronunciqations for the "godname" AGLA 
as used in the lesser banishing.....

Any 'real' or 'would-be' hebrew scholars available for comment?

I have my own opinion on the matter, and am curious as to other's 
opinions.

Later, Bill
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: guest@dhhalden.no (.GJEST)
Subject: Re: Magic/magick/midget/maggot???
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:04:21 GMT

In article <27AUG199214475909@zeus.tamu.edu> spb0457@zeus.tamu.edu (SubGenius) writes:

>(.GJEST) writes...
>>Someone please tell me; whats the difference between 'magic' and 'magick'?
>>G.H.  	

>+----------------------------------------SubG---------------------------------+
>RTFM.

>That being said:
>Although I've heard endless hours of bloviating over the difference, the 
>operable variation seems to my mind to be that you usually get laid when
>you're practicing magick.


>The extra "K" is a throwback to the wayback days.  Mankind used to have no
>rules for spelling and grammar.  Look at, say, Chaucer:

>       As verily as the pox doth kylle and the sonne doth shyne,
>       Canst thou surely phuque both thee and thyne.

>Awful!  In 1775, Dr. Sam Johnson published the first Dictionary of
>the English Language.  It was greeted with extreme enthusiasm, and was used
>exclusively for looking up the definitions of dirty words.

>Thus, by the time that Al Crowley and that lot started writing their great
>leather volumes, everyone REALLY THOUGHT that the way to spell the word
>"magic" was with a "k."

>When the word processor was discovered and the first spell-checker (heh)
>found in an old steamer trunk in an attic in Bath and Wells, the publishers
>were completely abashed.  To save face, they hit upon the cunning
>plan of pretending like they REALLY WANTED to spell it that way all along.
>This they did.



>Hope this clears everything up.


No, it doesn't.
I still don't see the point in having alt.magic and alt.magick
		---GH---



>Obfuscatorily,
>Yours etc.,





>SubGenius
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: AGLA
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:46:20 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com

In article <13517.2a9be9b3@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, cranmer@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
|>wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman) writes...
|> > Any 'real' or 'would-be' hebrew scholars available for comment?
|> 
|> I guess I'm a 'wannabe'.  I'm currently transcribing the 1st 3 books of
|> Genesis into a more 'readable' form of Hebrew (i.e. Roman letters).  Why?
|> Who knows.  I may do the same someday with the _Enuma_Elish_, and maybe
|> Hesiod's _Theogony_.  Creation myths have a kind of power for me, as do
|> ancient languages.

I'd put myself also in the wannabe category.  I'm doing good just getting 
the Hebrew alphabet down to where I can draw, name, and number the letters.
One thing I did, though to get better at verifying various claims as to
esoteric translations and/or meanings in Hebrew scripture is to get an 
interlinear Bible.  It has Hebrew on one line the equivelent english word
underneath (numbered so it can be used with a concordance and dictionary).
In the margins, it provides a paragraph translation (what you usually see
in an english Bible).  Much easier than doing my own translations and yet
I can still cover the english lines to attempt my own translations.

--Christopher
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Learning Styles
Date: 27 Aug 1992 13:02:08 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com


Interesting approach.  My wife studied child deveopment in college.  The
learning styles she was taught ran a little differently:

	Visual - learns by seeing things, pictures, demonstrations, seeing
		things written on the blackboard or overhead.  Remembers
		by seeing the picture in their head and applying it.

	Audio - learns by hearing.  These types get the most out of lectures
		and learning by repeating things out loud.  I imagine they
		remember by talking to themselves or somehow verbalizing.

	Kinesthetic - learns by doing/touching.  These people get little out
		of lectures or repetitive drills but work better when they
		can draw or write things themselves.  I'm actually quite
		like this.  You can draw me a map or tell me directions or
		phone numbers and I'll forget but if I write it down I usually
		don;t even need to bring the paper.  I can remember it.

My own thoughts are that each of these is heavily influenced by your Jungian
type.  Your Introverts are likely to mull over massive data input and process
internally while your Extroverts may prefer a study group.  Your iNtuatives
will make "intuative leaps" in understanding while Sensates build theirs
in smaller gradual steps.

This might be an area to explore in yourself to tailor your own system of
learning.

--Christopher 
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Another Crowley question
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:34:29 GMT

In article <Gerald_Del_Campo.008f@sorinc.UUCP>, Gerald_Del_Campo@sorinc.UUCP (Gerald Del Campo) writes in part:
|>  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.
Now I'm REALLY mad.  First you call me a fundamentalist, now
you are calling me a christian and a sheep.  This is total and 
complete BS, as I have absolutely no use for Christianity or its 
moral code, and I formed my own opinion based on limited data. 

Sure, I am making a moral judgement of Crowely's behavior,  but it is
based on rather diffused notions of proper human behavior,
such as the notion that deceiving your friends is bad, exploiting
your friends is bad, cheating your friends is bad.  That is
"not straight" and that is what I am talking about.

|> Once again.  I don't feel that the life he lived has anything to do with
|> the system he left behind.  
I haven't said ANYTHING AT ALL about Crowley's writings or his "system".
ALL I said was that, so far as I can tell, he was a miserable excuse for
a human being.  Perhaps his writings have some value to you or others,
but that has little to do with my characterization of his behavior.

I get the distinct impression that you are an enthusiastic apologist 
for AC.  I draw no conclusion from that hypothesis other than to
infer that there is little point in arguing with you about AC,
as you are taking it personally and I'm not.

|> If you percieved my post as a flame, I
|> apologize; it was not my intention to insult.
If you want to avoid insulting me, don't EVER call me a christian
again.  And you might omit references to how I'm acting like
a sheep.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:46:45 -0400 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Magic/magick/midget/maggot???
	<guest.74@dhhalden.no>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.magick: 28-Aug-92 Re:
Magic/magick/midget/mag.. .GJEST@dhhalden.no (1604)

> >Hope this clears everything up.


> No, it doesn't.
> I still don't see the point in having alt.magic and alt.magick

Oh, the difference between magic and magick on *Usenet*. That's easy.
There's people who do stage magic (rabbits, hats, linking rings, that
sort of stuff.) Then there's people who do magic (ritual magic, Crowley,
athames, that sort of stuff.) The topics do not overlap to any noticable
extent. Therefore they should have separate newsgroups. Therefore they
need separate names. I believe alt.magic (stage magic) was created
first, so the creators of this group chose "magick" as a reasonable
alternative with some precedent.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.magick: 28-Aug-92 Re:
Magic/magick/midget/mag.. Shawn Clayton Knight@CMU (682)

> >The spelling magick was created by Crowley because he was incredibly
> >pretentious.  It is unnecessary, and will sometimes get in the way.  I will
> >always spell it magic.

> BA:  Not to be excessively inflammatory, but have you considered jumping
> into traffice just because Crowley never did?  Crowley worship is not
> good but nor is Crowley bashing (all the time, unconstructively).

When not referring to Usenet newsgroups, I avoid the spelling "magick",
for exactly the reasons Br'anArthur mentioned. Not Crowley bashing; it's
just that there's no reason to misspell a word to differentiate two
usages that can almost always be differentiated by context.

One of my friends differentiates the pronunciation as well -- "mayj-ik"
vs the standard "maj-ik" -- which I find even more irrelevant.

--Z


"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
From: mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris)
Subject: Re: herbal freedom
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 07:58:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:
: Just a brief note:  I heard yesterday that the FDA is going to demand that
: products without proven efficacy be removed from the OTC drugs.  These 
: compounds include such proven nostrums as calamine lotion.  Without doing
: extensive, and expensive, drug testing, apparently, the FDA doesn't want
: to extend a ticket to anyone exept Ortho, Glaxo, Burroughs-Wellcome, and 
: such...
: 

Check out a book called How to Buy almost any Drug Legally Without a
Prescription by James H. Johnson. Things are still available, you
just have to work for them.j
--
Mary E. S. Morris    |  The future exists first in imagination, then
mesm@netcom.COM      |  in will, then in reality. -- Galivan Burwell
=====================================================================
Netcom - Online Communication Services San Jose, CA
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: AGLA
From: wce@hogbbs.scol.pa.us (Bill Eichman)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 04:27:30 EDT
Organization: The Heart of Gold BBS, Lemont PA

cranmer@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> > Well, I've seen two versions of the phrase, "Aieth Gadol Leolam Adonai", 
> > and "Atoh Gibor Leolam Adonai", both referring in some way to the 
> > "mightiness" of the "Lord".
> 
> Thanks.   I think I have seen the latter somewhere.  It has many similar
> elements with the Qabalistic Cross, no?

You know, I found another version "Atoh Gibor Leolam Amen", a version 
that was singing in my ears when I wrote those first two....

Anyone have any opinions of the jewish use of 'amen'?

> 
> > (YHVH is another such non-word, not obviously or traditionally a 
> > notarikon-phrase, in this case, but not fully a 'word', either. how about 
> > ADNI and AHIH? What is their ancestry?)
> 
> I believe they are 'real' Hebrew words.  ADNI is simply 'Lord', and AHIH,
> I think, is 'I am' in some declension or another.  The phrase that God uses
> somewhere in the Pentateuch :  "I am that I am" or "I am that which is",
> is, AHIH AShR AHIH, I think.

Yes, I had gathered that they were 'real words'-- I'm curious about their 
origins as words, their etymology. Also, the comparitive dates for the 
origins of, for instance, YHVH and AGLA as these 'sacred non-words'.

> 
> The overall fourfold nature of the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram,
> as well as the fact that the god-names contain four letters, (as WELL as
> the fourfold nature of the serpent formulae of circumambulation), have
> always suggested to me that they should be pronounced with 4 syllables.
> I've used a kind of 'canting' style similar to what Rabbis do to augment
> the vibrating of god names, thus:
> 
> Yah-hay-way-hay  \
> Ahh-doh-nah-eee   \  ...with the accent on the 3rd syllable, and the
> Ehh-heh-yee-ehh   /     4th lower in pitch than the rest.
> Ahh-gay-lay-ahh  /

Yes, I've done the same thing myself, experimenting with different 
vibratory and resonant qualities in the sounds. Also experimented with 
3-syllable pronunciations for each name, and quite a few other 
variations. I found it real useful, the experimentation, that is. Just 
thinking about it all a bit, these days-- wanted to get some ideas about 
_how_ the ritual is being performed around the country/world.

Thanks, Bill
From: cward@Think.COM (Christopher)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Working in Groups
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:15:52 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: galaxy.think.com

In article <mcanga-.mesm@netcom.com>, mesm@netcom.com (Mary E. S. Morris) writes:
|> I tried the Rosicrut. mail stuff, but dropped really fast when I found
|> that they didn't teach anything I  didn't already practice.

I've seen a number of Rosicrutian-by-mail advertised.  I'd be interested in
seeing you post who you dealt with.  What you were looking for and why that
group fell short of your needs.

--Christopher
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: smolivr@gestalt (Linda Oliver)
Subject: in need of an explanation
Organization: NASA/LeRC
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:10:55 GMT


I hope this isn't too bizarre or just too coincidental . . . but here it  
goes . . . 

Last year I met a man and we became quite close friends.  We are both  
married so our friendship was plutonic but there was always some kind of  
spark or chemistry between us that neither could explain or understand.   
Our relationship has since ended because his wife became very jealous and  
made terrible accusations; she even went so far as to harass both my  
husband and I at work.

Beginning with the first time I spoke with him up until recently I've  
noticed that a spider will either be on my person or within very close  
proximity of me whenever he's around.  The first few times I just ignored  
(after the first time we spoke a spider had actually crawled inside my  
shirt), the next few times I assumed were coincidental (once he walked in  
my office in the dead of winter only to point out a spider within 6 inches  
of me).  Our friendship is over, however, and recently I was talking about  
him and noticed a spider crawling up my pant leg.  

I realize I'll receive some sarcastic replys to this but if anyone can  
tell me if there's any meaning associated with spiders within the context  
of my situation, I'd really appreciate the explanation -- this is just too  
strange.

LAMO  
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Long excercise in theory (cosmology)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:21:34 GMT

markk@sagredo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe) writes:

>Physicists, mathemeticians and engineers are schooled in a world view, and
>as a result we can send our eyes and hands to other planets.  Judges and
>politicians are schooled in a world view, and as a result thousands of people
>are executed as heretics.  In the first case the acquired world view was "TRUE".
>In the second case the acquired world view was "FALSE".  This difference in
>"objective truth" seems to have very little effect on the extent to which the
>world view can be translated into reality.  The importance of "objective 
>reality" may have been much over-stated.

Uhm, what definitions of "true" and "false" are you using?  I may be more
comfortable with the former worldview than the latter, but I don't think it is
possible to judge any worldview to be either true or false.

>Things that affect peoples' minds can affect the real world.  In fact, things
>in peoples' minds are likely to have a greater effect on the world than
>most aspects of "physical reality".  The potency of things that exist "in 
>the mind" is readily obvious.  If anything, it is the potency of things "in 
>the real world" that must be called into question.  

>	The law of gravity may be objectively valid, but this does not
>	have much effect on our ability to fly.

Well, I haven't seen anyone fly in a way that was not in complete accord with
the law of gravity--have you?

>	The law of entropy may be objectively valid, but this does not
>	have much effect on our ability to evolve, purify and build.

It certainly does.  I don't think you understand the law of entropy.  We do not
in any way violate the law of entropy.

>	The incompleteness theorem may be objectively valid, but this does
>	not have much effect on our ability to discuss arbitrary systems
>	of truth and expression.

This has nothing to do with "things 'in the real world'"

>	Death may be final, but this does not have much effect on the
>	ability of a philosopher to speak to and influence people who
>	will be born thousands of years after their death.

How does this call into question those "things 'in the real world'"?  This seems
perfectly consistent with "the real world" to me.

>The laws of physics are not "laws of behavior", but merely "conclusions drawn
>from observed behavior".  Observations and conclusions can be in error.  Even 
>a valid observation can still be irrelevent.

The laws of physics are not "the real world"--they are merely a model of how
the "real world" works.  Just because a model is a model does not mean that what
it attempts to model is also a model.  (Sorry about that sentence, but it is the
most logically precise way I can say it.)  I think you are confusing the map
with the territory.

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: rjb@milton.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars)
Subject: Re: Unicursal Hexagram
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:07:37 GMT

I suppose thousands of people will make this remark, but...

The unicursal hexagram was popularized by Crowley, but already existed in
the Golden Dawn material, as many people have pointed out in the past
few years.  It was embedded in a paper about "lineal figures" (pentagons,
 pentagrams, hexagons, hexagrams, etc) in magic.

It's an interesting paper, and one more indication that more dishes
were served at the Golden Dawn buffet than most of the dinner guests
bothered to sample.

--LeGrand