HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tncp9@isuvax.iastate.edu (D. Pendragon)
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Reply-To: tncp9@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 05:32:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.223050.10775@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
>
>What is reality?  This promises to forever be a controversal question.  The 
>practice of magick seems to encourage people to belive that reality is a 
>function of our interpertation of reality.  Whereas the person who has 
>faith in reality as presumed by physics, would say that it is true that all 
>of our theories of reality are based on interpertations of reality, but 
>this in no way detracts from the fundamental faith in the presense of a 
>reality that is not dependent of our knowledge of it.
>
>For those who question the independent existence of reality, I pose the 
>question "Why is there as much agreement as there is about what is solid 
>and common experience to everyone?"

To me, reality is what I perceive it to be.  If I "feel" something ("Feel",
meaning sense by what I perceive as sight, sound, touch, taste, smell,
experience in the way of emotion, etc.) then it is real.  I can not deny it's
existance, although other people (or animals) may not perceive them, or not
perceive them in the way I do, because I have only my own perspective, my own
frame of reference from which I must judge things.  My version of reality must
be my own, and no others.  So, you could conceivably receive as many answers to
this question as there are people willing to respond.  Every person perceives
differently.

And it definitely must depend on the individuals beliefs (whether they reside
in what I perceive as "scientific" and what I perceive as "religious" or a
combination of the two will have a great effect on what a person will perceive
as real).  My version of reality is thus highly individualistic, and may or may
not coincide with what other people feel.

>Kermit@FSU or rose@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu.bitnet
>If you want to be sure I see your response, please e-mail me.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the signature file of Kermit Rose.
>
>Believing in dichotomies leads to hardening of your logic.
>
>What determines the existence of Free Will?
>I strive to believe only what is true. I have faith that whatever is 
>true will also be logically consistent and knowing truth will increase my 
>capacity to be kind.
>Peace is the way to peace.  Hostility is the way to hostility.

-D. Pendragon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill's commentary on man:  Man will occassionally stumble upon the truch,
but most of the time he will pick himself up and carry on.

(Referring to us as a race, not just men...   :-)  )
From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: masonic morals & dogma
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <92101.084109J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>, J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson) writes...
>It would seem to me that the "naturalistic" explanation for Masons excluding
>women can be found in Lionel Tiger's _Men In Groups_.  This anthropologist
>points to the universality of men's groups across time and in different
>cultures, and sees this as related to the need for male solidarity in
>the hunt.
> 
>An esoteric explanation of the practice of excluding women was given to
>me by a fellow Mason who is also a priest of the Liberal Catholic Church.
>His explanation is that the different psychological/spiritual makeup of
>men and women would require that women perform some of the rituals in
>reverse (left-handed) from the male version.  Thus, it would be difficult
>to integrate male and female ritualistic practices together.  This
>explanation also applies to ritualistic practices in his church.

Disclaimer: This is not directed toward the poster.  It is a response to his 
            friend's explanation.

What a pile of doo-doo!  Please ask your friend to explain:
  o What is the difference in psychological/spiritual makeup between men
    and women?
  o If there is a difference (I don't believe there is a significant one)
    how does that relate to which hand is dominant?
  o How do left-handed men fit in?
  o Is this offical church bullshit, I mean dogma, or did your priest-friend
    invent it himself?

This left-handed/right-handed stuff is a new one for me.  In my (considerable) 
experience with the Catholic Church it seems to me that "who does what" is 
based entirely on genitalia.  Hands have never entered into it.  (Unless of 
course, hands touch genitals, which should only happen under certain 
conditions too complicated to explain.)

- Peggy -
From: CSMSETS@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (CSMSETS)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Magic & the Scientific Method? (was Re: Ritual Magick Exper
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:19:42 PDT

          .
          .
>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
From: DAHUGH@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Sex Magick
Date: 8 Apr 92 12:18:52 GMT
Organization: University of Liverpool

First,apologies if I may have missed any previous threads on the subject.

Can anyone help me in finding out about Sex Magick?I know very little
about it and wish to know from an academic viewpoint.Possibly I may
consider practising if I find a worthwhile cause and the rites are
agreeable.

Many thanks in advance

Peace and Love

David.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 22:35:21 EDT
From: Luis Sanchez <LSANCHE@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Santeria
 <1wi9iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> <1992Apr15.163357.26767@gdr.bath.ac.uk>

Esta alguno interesado en discutir Santeria?
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Where to start.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:05:42 GMT

r9h@pandanus.cs.ntu.edu.au (Ecto the Green) writes:

>I have been living under the impression that to reach a goal, you must start somewhere.

>Under this impression, I am imploring to those who know to give me some sort
>of starting point, so that my goal of reaching knowledge of Magick, and if
>Fate has it, use of the aforementioned, may be reached.

>Please reply with whatever you see as fitting to respond to my query.

>Rohan.

>r9h@pandanus.ntu.edu.au

To answer this query, I would need more information about you:
What do you already know about magic?
What do *you* mean by magic?
How do you tend to think/work best in general?
What sort of world view do you presently use?
Have you studied any types of magic?
Have you practiced any types of magic?
Do you know what sort of things are your strong points?
Have you observed any magical talents in yourself?
Have you developed any magical talents that you have?
What are you looking for?  What are your goals?
Why do you want to learn magic?
What do you think is involved in learning magic?
What do you think is involved in practicing magic?

These questions are not some sort of test to determine your fitness for magic--
I believe that everyone is an appropriate person to learn magic.  However, 
there are many different styles of magic; without good information, I cannot
point you in a direction which reflects you.  Without that information, any
person would be likely to point you in their own direction.  This, in my
opinion, is one of the major problems in magic today: my-path-works-so-it-is-
what-you-should-be-doing-ism.

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Weird! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date:  9 Apr 92 15:24:23 GMT

mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.200857.26908@ccu.umanitoba.ca> mayor@ic15.umeeng writes:
>>In article 18018@gdr.bath.ac.uk, mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:

>>>I was wondering if anyone out there might be brave enough
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>to share some experiences they've had with ritual magick?

>>Unfortunately, this strikes me as a junior-high way of getting somebody
>>to do something stupid.

>>[stuff deleted]

>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.

there is this thing called the rule of silence (anyone who has done any 
reading in magick at all has run into this; part of what is called the 
four powers of the sphinx 'to know, to will, to dare and to keep silence');
anyway, it doesn't really have anything to do with secrecy. different 
people interpret it different ways. the way I interpret it, I won't talk
(usuallly) about any specific experiences I have had. I'll talk about stuff
I think might be possible, or probable, I am not unwilling to talk about
specific techniques or methods or anything like that, but I won't talk about
any workings I have done or the results thereof (or lack of results thereof).

why this should be I find sort of difficult to put into words, but I will
draw an analogy: say you want to perform the magickal act of murdering an
enemy. there are several conditions which must be met for the successful 
performance of this act.you have to know how to kill in the general sense,
you have to have the will to kill this specific person, you have to dare
to do it (perform the specific act) ... and you really *should* tell
no one.

josh
From: walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: What is reality?
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:03:10 GMT
Organization: Punk Walrus Enterprises, Inc.


What is reality?
 
My simplistic view <possibly to the point of inaccuarcy> has satisfied my
curiousity for years. It took a lot of thought, but here is how I define it:
 
Reality is the subjective organism's repsonse to perspective external
stimuli.
 
It does not give what is real or isn't, but just states that if you respond
to it, it's real.


=================<<< <  <   < *Punk Walrus* >   >  > >>>=================
[  \||/  |       ---------------------------------------       |  \||/  ]
[  (o-)  | "It might be in the     ||  walrus@bessel.umd.edu   |  (o-)  ]
[   /\   |  basement, I'll go up-  ||  Punk Walrus on the      |   /\   ]
[ Punkus |  stairs and check..."   ||  FanTek BBS 301-203-9582 | It's   ]
[ Walrus |       -- M.C. Escher -- ||  SF&F Author Extrordinare| Punkie!]
=========================================================================
"Reality... wow... what a gnarly concept, dude."  -Biff Walrus
From: mayor@ic15.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Hopping on the Ouija Bandwagon ...
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:34:10 GMT
Reply-To: mayor@ic15.umeeng
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 56859@cup.portal.com, Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva) writes:
>9204.03
>
>Now where I come from, telling others not to take on more than they can
>handle is considered bad manners.  After all, there are SOME of us, who
>do that for fun.  Call us cowboys, call us crazy, but SOME of us make
>the choice to do it.  We take the risks, we buy the time, we do the Thing.
>
>I hope that some of youz aren't fixin to suggest we stop our hooplah.
>We ain't buggin no babies or fruzzin no thrumpits.  We is cool to the max.
>
>(mumblin as he walks down that Hall...   )
>
>Yours in Jah,
>
>Tagi


Yeah, you're right, I know :)
<shrug>
You write something meaning one thing one day, then the next day when
you look at it, it says something else....

What can you do when you live in a zoo?
:)

cam

---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------"What? You mean burning purple urine isn't normal?!?"---------
----------- email: mayor@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca --------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:44:35 GMT

mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:

[stuff deleted, ending with a summary of the scientific method]

>If you refuse to present your results or even your experments in detail, then
>there is no logical or rational reason why anyone else should accept what
>you claim.  

There is no logical or rational reason to beleive in magic--unless you have
experienced it for yourself.  Some of us make no claims that magic is
scientific.  IMO, and the opinion of the person whom I know and respect who
has been practicing magic for around half a century, magic is an art, based
in the human psyche, but having consequences far beyond the individual's 
psyche.  It cannot be explained by science, since science (by definition)
cannot address the existence of spirit.  Science also cannot explain human
consciousness, though it can learn about some of the interfaces between the
physical body and the psyche.  The most that science will ever be able to say
about magic would be, "we have observed repeated correlations between the
declared intent of observed persons and resulting events; there are changes in 
the state of consciousness, as monitored by eeg's etc., while these persons
are claiming to be performing magic."  Good scientists remember that correlation
is not proof, and is nowhere near explanation.

>Since you refuse to present experiments and results, then I can only conclude
>that you are deluded and not to be trusted.

Well, I would hope that you would judge me (if you met me in person) based on
my actions, rather than whether or not I believe in magic.  People seem to trust
me--that's good enough evidence for me that I am doing something right in my
life.  As to whether I am deluded--you would have to judge me on my own merits
to know that.  Even then, it is possible that I am not easily deluded in
general, but have deluded myself in this particular.  

My point it that belief in magic *ought* to be based on experience, not on
another person's say-so.  If you want to find out if magic works, commit 
yourself to about five years of practicing it--with complete suspension of
disbelief.  That's about how long it took me to decide (through seeing my
perceptions corroborated by others many times over) that what I was doing
was not a delusion.  The reason I practice magic is that the process of magic
has transformed my life in directions I like.  The abilities to make interesting
things happen are just fun side-effects.

One other opinion: I think that worrying about whether magic is scientific
or not is a major time-waster in this newsgroup.  I am sure that others will
disagree.  Some will probably feel that I am trying to hold back the search
for truth by suggesting this.  Oh, well.  :-)

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Weird! :-)
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Tall Tales...
Date: 9 Apr 92 08:12:15 GMT
Reply-To: Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

mayor@ic15.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor)

Yes I did. It was your electricity that lit up my yo-yo.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

        Once when I was near Stonehenge, I bent a coat hanger into
        the shape of an ancient symbol...when I pointed it at the
        rocks, I received a great electrical shock. My mother one
        time while thinking about her daughter felt a great searing
        pain on her arm, so she called her. At the same time, her
        daughter had just burnt herself on a flaming copy of "The New
        Age and what it means to YOU".

All I can say, is that you probably deserve what is undoubtedly
coming to you:-)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: once again, theory of magick from MinT&P
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:00:23 GMT


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.

This is called freedom of choice.  It tends to be popular in this newsgroup, 
even between opponents such as josh and myself.  The only thing we can agree
on is that the other has the right to disagree. :-)

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Weird! :-)
From: oispeggy@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr8.150128.24388@gdr.bath.ac.uk>, mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes...
>In article <1992Apr6.200857.26908@ccu.umanitoba.ca> mayor@ic15.umeeng writes:
>>In article 18018@gdr.bath.ac.uk, mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>>>
>>>I was wondering if anyone out there might be brave enough
>>                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>to share some experiences they've had with ritual magick?
>>>
>>
>>Unfortunately, this strikes me as a junior-high way of getting somebody
>>to do something stupid.
>>
>>Why would somebody stick their neck (and their energy) out for this?
>>
>>Why am I even bothering to respond to this?  
>>Bah! 
> 
>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.


Ever occur to you that maybe its personal, you know, private?  People tend 
not to blab their personal experiences to the net.

- Peggy -
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: rjb@milton.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars)
Subject: Re: Re: Liber Reguli and Pentagram directions
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 04:38:09 GMT


Yes, Crowley (and the Golden Dawn before him, or at least certain people 
in it) was taken with gematria.  It would be an interesting question
in some ways to trace out similarities and dissimilarities in say
Crowley's use of gematria and that of the Golden Dawn before him
(especially Mathers and the other more technically minded members),
and the differences with older Kabbalistic approaches.

The major wrinkle that AC did not exactly introduce, but certainly
wrestled mightily with, was the result of realizing that there was a certain
arbitrary quality to the whole thing, which nevertheless was not merely
arbitrary.  Thus the famous set piece in which he extracts deep meaning
from nursery rhymes, and then turns the joke on its head by pointing out
that it is not just a joke.  There is an interesting parallel here with
the strictures of Jewish Kabbalists who insisted that gematria and its
related tools were not avenues to truth except in the hands of someone
who was already in touch with the truth -- because otherwise one could
make any text mean anything.  The converse is, as Crowley pointed out,
when any text can mean anything, any text can point to the truth (which
includes among other things the truth that what anything signifies is
open to interpretation).

This, by the way, to wind us all back to the subject line, is something
I have long thought about Crowley's use of inverted pentagrams and 
so on:  in part it came out of an experimental impulse -- an impulse to
see whether the symbols had power in themselves, or whether they took
their power from the system of signs in which they were embedded.

This provides us with two modes of "satanism" that might arguably be
in play here.  (1) the simple mode, in which one simply inverts the
standard symbols, and (2) the meta mode, in which one controverts the
"orthodox" claim that the symbols have meaning in themselves by
inverting them and using them in ways that don't fit the "orthodox"
usage.  The second mode doesn't only use inverted symbols, it inverts
the orthodox symbols as well by relativizing the othodox/heterodox 
distinction.  But as time goes on it seems it declines into either
simple inversion, or mere difference (as the difference between 
dagger=fire and dagger=air is mere difference, and not a distinction
between good guys & bad guys, or between square and hip).

A dance of categories indeed...

--LeGrand

Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@coombs.anu.edu.au (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Any Ideas on things not understood.
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:19:11 GMT

CCS105@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>     I have been warned by friends about certain things I do which seem to
>distort these parallel universes, takeing into account probability..etc..
>For example, if you dream something, and then change the events when you find
>you dream is actually taking place.  Or other things which just change what
>happens to you in this plain. 

there is no evidence whatsoever that parallell universes even exist, much
less that any actions you take or don't take affects them, much less that this
affect would be malignant.

I'd find something else to worry about....

josh