HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitchell@seas.smu.edu (Utopium Enterprizes)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: Utopium Enterprizes
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:00:16 GMT

Thus wrote porta@wam.umd.edu (David Delaney Palmer):
>In article <71824@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>>I only have one question for those moralists (especially from 'earth-based'
>>religions) who preach that the 'point-down' or 'inverted' pentagram
>>(heptagram, nonagram, or even trigram!) is somehow indicative of 'evil'
>>or 'malevolence':
>>Toward what, precisely, is the point directed?
>>Figure it out, kiddies.
>
>	I think you need to figure it son!  There is no such thing as
>a hell or a devil in earth based, Goddess based religions.  The next
>time you post know what the hell you are talking about.
>
Wait a second! Follow Thyagi's logic out before creating devils that he never
invoked (well, not THIS time anyway)...

To wit, making a syllogism:

1) An inverted pentagram points at the earth;
2) An inverted pentagram symbolizes evil; therefore,
3) The earth is to blame for the evil of the inverted pentagram.

Simple, no?

Of course, you have to realize that Thyagi was JOKING. (Or maybe not. ;) ) I
stand by my earier claim that whether a symbol is evil or not has only to do
with the magician, and the purposes to which he chooses to use it. 

I live by simple rules which others may consider moralistic. I avoid that
label, since to me morals tend to be cut and dried, and socially defined. I
prefer to act in accordance to the Law of Thelema. "Do what thou wilt shall be
the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will." Murder would go
against my Will to Live, as Crowley suggests, simply because there are those
(judges, vengeful relatives, etc.) who would wish to harm me in some way for
my act. What is more, I am concerned about karma (that is, the web of caus-
ality). Miixed with the human tendency to work out anger violently, it's
apparent that I should try to keep my violence to at least a justifiable
level... :)

I now return this thread to it's original scheduled topic. 
-- 
                  Utopium Enterprizes - mitchell@seas.smu.edu
                  Martyrdom - it's just a stone's throw away!
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 22:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.034109.12591@wam.umd.edu> porta@wam.umd.edu (David Delaney Palmer) writes:
>In article <71824@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>>I only have one question for those moralists (especially from 'earth-based'
>>religions) who preach that the 'point-down' or 'inverted' pentagram
>>(heptagram, nonagram, or even trigram!) is somehow indicative of 'evil'
>>or 'malevolence':
>>
>>
>>Toward what, precisely, is the point directed?
   Well depending on your height.. Your genitals.. one possible meaning of
this interpretation of this being the dominion of passions<symbolized by
Yesod/Sexual Centre/Genitalia/Animal Intelligence "etc">. If we were
to "lay back" in the tree of life as shown in "The Middle Pillar" and
formulate a pentegram the traditional manner, we soon see that the point
of a verted pentegram would touch "Kether(or your favorite alternate
spelling)".."The Crown" as it were of all being/spiritualness.. 
 To reverse the pentegram the point would fall squarely in "Yesod(again,
insert your favorite alternate spelling", which in it's very nature is
illusion, animal passion/intelligence, etc. In any case; a proper analysis
dispels any relation to evil, at least in qabalistic sense. However, if
we jump to another system, Hindu for example.. Then the point of the 
inverted pentegram falls in SWAPNA-The Formative World, and the seat of 
instinctual desire(Swadhisthana Chakkra), still again.. the same rules
/conditons apply. I could fairly say that the source of all evil is
basically our own lack of understanding.. 

>>
>>
>>Figure it out, kiddies.
>>
>
>
>	I think you need to figure it son!  There is no such thing as
>a hell or a devil in earth based, Goddess based religions.  The next
>time you post know what the hell you are talking about.
>
   Relax..
 Someone can be incorrect; It is more appropriate to correct them than
flame them<and furthering mental detriment of individual(s)>.

-Sean

-- 
| sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us |       I only look like I have a clue.           |
 -  Is it not amazing that so many religions have stolen symbols from other  -
 - religions that they despise? It almost makes you think :                  -
 - "What are they fighting about? They look the same to me!"                 -
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Pentagrams
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:04:22 -0600

It all matters on perspective bad yes evil?


 * Origin: Dark Knight's Table (1:282/31)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo The Butcher=)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:18:14 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <72304@cup.portal.com> Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>If someone will write up a comprehensive FAQ entry regarding:
>
>Q: What is the significance of a Pentagram?
>
>
>and email it to me, then I'll be happy to maintain it and
>repost it when this subject comes up AGAIN.

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.
Noone has come up with anything new thus far, only parrotings of what I 
specifically stated I had heard before, i.e., use as symbol for a man, pointing
to the ground, pythagorean elements with spirit lowest; everyone knows about
these "time-life books" explanations. I was looking for history, esoteric 
knowledge. 
I got angry pagans.

Sorry if this is not some technological exposition of the latest fashion in
Cabbalah, which I assume is more to your liking. Personally (pointless flame
& request for "lightening up" on the subject), I think we should chop this
"tree of life" down & grind it up for toilet paper. Seems to me a very 
restrictive map of the magickal universe which many westeners have obsessed 
on for far too long.

-Lupo (flame personna)
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<1992Dec23.013634.25055@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
	<1992Dec23.035912.6167@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
	<1992Dec23.162455.7996@wl.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 09:49:50 GMT


In article <1992Dec23.162455.7996@wl.com> anzlovar@wl.com (Bob Anzlovar) 
writes:

>   The pagan movement got rolling more during that time, but its origins go
>   a little further back than that (but I'm not one of those who say it
>   goes back for generations). Much of the pagan movement goes back to
>   Gerald Gardner (I think that's his first name) & there are those who
>   contend he stole much of his material from Crowley.

he didn't steal it. he hired crowley to write up some rituals etc for him.
some of "gardner's" rituals contain passages in enochian, which are in 
crowley's unmistakable 'self-pronouncing' spelling (ie, the enochian word
'vorsg' (properly pronounced, approximately, "vorsg") is spelled 'vaoresaji'
or something similar. this, by the way, is taken from s. l. mcgregor-mathers
guidelines to pronouncing enochian). crowley was rather penurious in his later
years.

>   In the last two issues of _Green Egg_, there're a couple articles which
>   put forth the thesis that _Stranger in a Strange Land_ is really about
>   Thelema, but doing so without pushing the hot-buttons that most folks
>   have about Crowley. (Altho Crowley *is* mentioned once in the book.)

that's pretty obvious to anyone with even a slight aquaintance with both.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: misc.magick...
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science
	<Dec.21.00.53.54.1992.2373@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 09:44:58 GMT


In article <Dec.21.00.53.54.1992.2373@ruhets.rutgers.edu> 
farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:

>   There are plenty of opposing opinions in this group without including
>   Xtians. I think the point is not so much to censor differences of
>   opinion as much as to limit the number of times one gets the same
>   fundie formulas ranted at one.

(a) there are several christians already on this newsgroup whose opnions
    are clueful and valued.

(b) christian != fundie.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: cn573@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ray Henry)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Hello
Date: 25 Dec 1992 06:06:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Regarding your .sig, I've always heard it as "As ye harm none,
do as ye will."  Subtle difference there. :)
Antryg
-- 
Ray Henry   cn573@cleveland.freenet.edu

Sometimes with Bill Shankster in piggyback.  :)
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Date: 26 Dec 92 01:03:40 GMT
	<1992Dec25.091534.14473@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Organization: Institute for the Study of Ancient Science


In article <1992Dec25.091534.14473@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com 
(bill nelson) writes:

>   scarrobi@shearson.com (Steve Carrobis) writes:

>   : my point exactly. glad we agree on a few things. 
>   : how to do good by using "bad" MAGIC.
>   : use the BAD magic to nail a fellow practioner who is your nemesis but 
>   : who has` also been plagueing a town with his mischief. get it ?

>   I get it - but I don't agree. I have never felt that "two wrongs make a
>   right" - no matter how bad the original wrong.  I would expect two negative
>   actions to add to each other - not cancel.

besides, if you are bound and determined to 'nail' the booger, and it is
justified in your opinion etc, why not just shoot him? that's a perfectly
good magickal act, it is more likely to be effective, it's more direct and
has a sort of elegance about it.

josh
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mark.terka@rose.com (mark terka)
Subject: Sex? Magic??
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 22:31:16 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


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...


... ----->|*  MARK!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
---
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Pentagrams
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:36:34 GMT

locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Lupo the Butcher) writes:

: and "righteousness" and other such artificialities. By and large christianity
: IS "wrong" in that it is based on fallacies, lies, historical innacuracies
: & delusions. For more on this see alt.atheist or (occasionally) alt.satanism.

And you don't think that the pagan faiths are not? If so, then you have a 
lot of reading to do.

Bill
From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Why are we having this discussion (was moderation)
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:18:48 GMT
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

I guess I'm dense.  Why again is it that we are figuring out how to fix
something that isn't broken?

We are talking about how to organize ourselves to deal with hypothetical
cranks in a hypothetical significantly increased volume in a hypothetically
more broadly distributed news group.  That is three hypotheticals out in my
book, and in my experience arguing about detailed plans for dealing with
situations that are three hypotheticals out is time poorly spent.

If a wider dissemination means that the interactive character of the group
will suffer greatly, and that it will impose considerably more work on
a few individuals (without whom the whole idea falls apart), then perhaps 
wider dissemination is not a good thing.  

This all seems to be predicated on the assumption that "alt." status is
a bad thing, and that non-alt status is the goal to which we aspire.  The
truth of this assertion has not yet become apparent to me.
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Crowley and Gardner 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:51:33 GMT

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

>Br'anArthur mentions that Doreen Valiente received Gardner's own Book of
>Shadows manuscripts (Texts A, B and maybe C in the Farrar's' _Witch's
>Way_), and when I checked back I found two statements in Valiente's
>_Rebirth of Witchcraft_ that Gardner had given her his original Book of
>Shadows.  --  I had assumed that they had remained in her possession
>after Gardner's coven split in 1957.

>Is there any published statement, beyond the brief mention in Valiente's
>_Rebirth_, about how the manuscripts passed from Gardner to Valiente?
>Have I, perhaps, overlooked a more explicit statement in one of the Far-
>rar's' books?  (What was *your* source, Br'anArthur?  I am intrigued.)

Hm, I suspect I did the same thing you did--I assumed.  I checked myself, and
could find no explicit refernce to how the documents got into Valiente's hands.
She mentions several documents which she received, but never says when or how.
I noted that there are *two* documents entitled Ye Book of ye Art Magical, the
one Kelly (ab)used for his book, and one which Valiente has.

Having no specifc statement to go on we can only speculate as to when she 
received the documents.  I tend to suspect that it was at the time of GBG's
death, since he would have had no reason to give her his copy of BAM.  On the
other hand, the Farrars' "Text C" is said to be the BoS which GBG and Valiente
created together--Kelly says that Gardner continued to edit the BoS after the
split with Valiente.  However, Kelly states that there are differences between
Text C and the pamphlet "Witch", which the Farrars treat as being the same as
Text C.  It is possible that the Farrars only distinguish between radically 
differing versions, since they also refer to Sander's BoS as practically
identical with Text C.

An interesting detail I ran into during the search was that Arnold Crowther
was the person who introduced GBG to Crowley in '46, yet Crowther wasn't
initiated until at least '56, when he introduced Patricia (who may or may not
have become Mrs. Crowther yet) to GBG.  I haven't found an initation date for
the two of them, but they were initiated together, so it must have been at 
least '56 and before '64 (when GBG died).

An amazing feature in this is that GBG was almost 70 when he initated Valiente,
and 79 when he died--that man just kept going and going! :)

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
From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Date: 30 Dec 1992 22:43:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec30.174838.26427@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin ) writes:

>As far as mastering oneself, mental discipline is all that is required. 
>Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>
>And yes, it _is_ a moral question that you bring up. There is nothing implicit
>in the mechanics of magick that involve some moral principle. Morality is
>no more involved in magick than in any of the sciences. 
>
>Sure, lots of "white light" new-agers mouth platitudes about "Karma". It is
>not suprising that _they_ fall prey to their own karmic mantras; their 
>subconcious fears defeat them.


Hmm.  This is accurate enough as far as it goes; so far as I know, there 
is indeed nothing in the mechanics of magic that involves moral principle.
The example of the sciences is a fairly exact parallel.

But are mechanics the only points of issue here?  There are no moral
factors in the chemistry of organic nitrogen compounds, the physics of
explosions and impacts, and the biology of the human brain.  It seems
to me, though, that if someone makes use of these factors to go up to
a six-year-old child and blow its brains out with a pistol, there are
issues of morality involved somehow...

The mechanics of magic do not involve moral principles.  The application
of magic, like any other human action, _necessarily_ involves moral
principles.

This is in no way a plea for some particular dogmatic moral code!  (Put
those flamethrowers down for a moment, please.)  IMHO, at least, the
various dogmatic moralities are as much of a cop-out as the fashionable
sophomore relativism we see so much of these days.  If it's a plea for
anything, it's for what used to be called moral philosophy, before that
term became too staggeringly old-fashioned:  more simply, for the idea
that actions (particularly those that have a drastic effect on others)
should rise out of some attempt at a personal understanding of their
meaning, and of the way they affect the world (defined however).

I also tend to think that quaint behaviors such as kindness and the
avoidance of unnecessary violence will tend to maximize my own
happiness, as well as that of others.  Maybe that makes me a white-
light platitude-mouthing New Ager; I dunno...  :)

-- John Michael Greer
   grimoire@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Magic and Morals (was: Re: Harish)
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:05:00 +0000


>Definitely not the fashion now to say something is simply wrong; 
>sounds so judgmental, but now and then its refreshing to do so - 
>though risky.:)


I think you're completely wrong there actually Peggy.

;-) FX {blows a kiss}

PS how's the baby and the brother?
From: ladislas@sobeco.com (Ladislas A.)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Question:  What is the definition of "Evil"?
Keywords: christianity vs pagananism, christianity vs satanism, symbolisms
Date: 23 Dec 92 06:11:15 GMT
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

I've tried to follow the thread about pentagrams and it made me wonder what
exactly "evil" is, in the minds of the posters.

Most agree that christianity is "wrong" either because of the organizations
that support it or by its philosophy.  Someone said that satanism (LaVey's)
is better than xtianism because it uncovers the sacred lies (or some such).
Some agree that "evil" is strictly a xtian concept.  On the symbolism of
the inverted pentagram, some say it's a symbol that xtians identify with
"evil".

I have a few questions for those who followed the thread, those who commented
and anyone else who might be interested in the concept:

1) What is "evil"?  How can it be defined as a non-temporal concept?

2) Since Good Ol' Jesus has become the scapegoat for some wackos' definition
   of "christian thought/law", where is it mentioned that Jesus labelled some
   act or thought "evil"?  (serious, documented responses only, please) 

3) How does A. Crowley define "evil" (if he does) and how (if he defines the
   concept) does it relate to his "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of
   the law" (please correct the phrase)?

I look forward to reading your answers and will post my own shortly.

Ladislas.
From: SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Crowley and Gardner (was re: pentagrams)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:36:20 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Joshua Geller writes that Gerald Gardner hired Crowley to write the rituals
of modern Wicca or Witchcraft.  As a scholar working on the textual criti-
cism of Gerald Gardner's original Book of Shadows, who moreover has already
been given an opportunity to study Gardner's oldest manuscript of these
texts (now in Toronto, and also studed by Aidan Kelly), I am able to say
that about three-fourths of what is in the Toronto manuscript is directly
copied from Crowley's *published* writings, chiefly the _Goetia_, _Book
Four_ and _Magick in Theory and Practice_.  This includes the Enochian
material which Geller cites in his posting.  All these texts have been
lightly touched-up by adding references to witchcraft in interesting places.

Had Crowley written such material for Gardner, he would have been more inven-
tive.  It is most unlikely that anyone would have paid him good money merely
to extract appropriate materials from his own published works, when for this
same money one might have gotten him to be really creative.  At this point
I would be inclined to doubt the truth even of a signed handwritten letter
by Crowley himself saying in so many words that he had done such work for
Gardner.

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.  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.  This "founder" was undoubtedly English, was well acquainted
with some form of masonry and also with Theosophy, and had some interest
in the kind of tantric materials being edited and translated by "Arthur
Avalon" [John Woodruffe], possibly as a result of some years spent in
India.  This "founder," no doubt, belonged to the Coven into which
Gardner was initiated in 1939.  Since Gardner met this Coven in the
context of a bunch of Theosophically-inclined Co-Masons headed by Annie
Besant's daughter, I see no reason why the "founder" should not have
belonged to that group of people.  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.

(Robert Mathiesen, Brown University, SL500000@BROWNVM)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: mimir@hardy.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: Singin' Those Apocalypse Blues
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:31:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.005658.23227@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>
>He never said anything about medieval cannons. Muzzle loaders were used in
>the Civil War - possibly to some extent in the First World War.

 *Muzzle* loading cannons were first used in the Civil War? Don't you mean
breech, perhaps? All the cannons I've ever seen (from ships and castles)
are loading from the front, open end (aka the muzzle).

 Either I've really missed something or...

Wassail,
GG

Newsgroups: alt.magick