How can one practic...
 
Notifications
Clear all

How can one practice magick with out mucking up your life?  

Page 3 / 5
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:06 am  
"name538" wrote:
Views are either correct or incorrect.

This, in my opinion, is an incorrect view.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:44 am  

it's not a view or an opinion it is a fact, and your opinion has no bearing on facts.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 8:36 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
I don't particularly care for the cut of his jib. What I do object to, though, is having him rammed down my throat - as the actress said to the bishop - by his goddam fan club.

Erwin's atheistic take on Thelema is both novel and appealing in the UK. Of course people are going to want to talk about it. Just like the Typhonians go potty talking about Grant (ond oh boy - do I get tired of see that on the board). Well - tough titty. You folks aren't about to take your tunnels and your spiders and god knows what else and crawl back into the woodwork, and neither are the people who appreciate Erwin's work. So I guess we'll both have to accept that - that's the way things are and live with it.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
17/04/2010 9:30 am  
"alrah" wrote:
Erwin's atheistic take on Thelema is both novel and appealing in the UK. Of course people are going to want to talk about it. Just like the Typhonians go potty talking about Grant (ond oh boy - do I get tired of see that on the board). Well - tough titty. You folks aren't about to take your tunnels and your spiders and god knows what else and crawl back into the woodwork, and neither are the people who appreciate Erwin's work. So I guess we'll both have to accept that - that's the way things are and live with it.

Yes, I agree that my post was a little over the top, which I regret. In essence, though, I was refuting your suggestion that I'm one ofthe "Erwin haters".

There have been some interesting responses to the original post. In my own case, interest in the occult is something which has been there as long as I can remember, took many twists and turns - ghosts, Buddhism, Spiritualism, and more - before intensifying as Magick. It's an impulse the drivesme, rather than something I choose to do. It hasn't mucked up my life so far as I am aware, but has been very challenging and fulfilling.

It is my opinion that in essence, as Noctifer says, we do not so much live as are lived. I believe Magick to be a path of increasing awareness of and alignment to True Will, which I believe to be collective or cosmic in origin rather than individual.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
17/04/2010 9:44 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Erweenie? lol. You'll have to include yourself then Michael. The Erwin haters appear to have the same obsessive quality as the Friends of Erwin. Different sides of the same coin. Bleh.

I'm not an Erwin hater; on the contrary, in my opinion there is much to admire about him: his articulacy, for instance, his range of intellect. Admittedly, I don't particularly care for the cut of his jib. What I do object to, though, is having him rammed down my throat - as the actress said to the bishop - by his goddam fan club.

Oh, for Crowley's sake.

Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

What you seem to object to is just a bunch of people saying that Erwin's writings are definitely worth checking out, even if you think the man himself is a jerk.

(I personally wrote my comment praising Erwin's writings, because I wanted to refute those who said, in essence: "Erwin is a jerk, therefore his writings and ideas have no value.")

This is a public forum of the Aleister Crowley Society, and we are having an on-topic conversation about "How can one practice magick without mucking up your life?" If you can't stand the sight of people recommending Erwin's writings about that very topic, tough. Don't read these forums then.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
17/04/2010 9:55 am  
"HG" wrote:
Oh, for Crowley's sake.

Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

What you seem to object to is just a bunch of people saying that Erwin's writings are definitely worth checking out, even if you think the man himself is a jerk.

(I personally wrote my comment praising Erwin's writings, because I wanted to refute those who said, in essence: "Erwin is a jerk, therefore his writings and ideas have no value.")

This is a public forum of the Aleister Crowley Society, and we are having an on-topic conversation about "How can one practice magick without mucking up your life?" If you can't stand the sight of people recommending Erwin's writings about that very topic, tough. Don't read these forums then.

I agree, and have already apologised for that remark in the post above.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 10:38 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
I'm looking for smaller subtle changes like to get rid of this terrible bad luck I seem to have floating above my head

One cause of bad luck is when you freely discuss your practice of magick and others form a negative opinion of you based on slander and gossip. That social perception, once created, is a force that opposes and seeks to contain and neutralize your Will and it can take serious effort and a long time to dissipate this kind of perception. That’s why one of the virtues of the Sphinx is “Keep Silent”.

Persistent bad luck is a sign that a person is, on a deep level, not in harmony with their self or surroundings. The first step is to step back and figure out the root cause. Were you screwing around with invoking spirits? Did you intentionally or unintentionally harm or offend someone close to you? Was there a painful relationship break-up? Also psychic vampires are attracted to people in trouble, like sharks to blood, and you might question your circle of friends – look for the person manipulating your problems and emotions to sink their claws into your deeper all the while claiming to be the only person who understands or can help you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 11:05 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
Erwin's atheistic take on Thelema is both novel and appealing in the UK. Of course people are going to want to talk about it. Just like the Typhonians go potty talking about Grant (ond oh boy - do I get tired of see that on the board). Well - tough titty. You folks aren't about to take your tunnels and your spiders and god knows what else and crawl back into the woodwork, and neither are the people who appreciate Erwin's work. So I guess we'll both have to accept that - that's the way things are and live with it.

Yes, I agree that my post was a little over the top, which I regret. In essence, though, I was refuting your suggestion that I'm one ofthe "Erwin haters".

Fair enough. There was someone who recently remarked on the Babalon box that not everyone who hit's you with a stick is a zen master, however - how much more useful is it to remember to treat everything that happens as an interaction of your soul with God - and use the sticks and stones to check on habitual ego defenses we throw up that often blind us from seeing the way things actually are.

I don't actually think you are an Erwin Hater, but you seemed a little off balance for a while. Insults can do that. Or rather - that which responds defensively to them can, and you've came in for some personal flak from Erwin of late.

There have been some interesting responses to the original post. In my own case, interest in the occult is something which has been there as long as I can remember, took many twists and turns - ghosts, Buddhism, Spiritualism, and more - before intensifying as Magick. It's an impulse the drivesme, rather than something I choose to do. It hasn't mucked up my life so far as I am aware, but has been very challenging and fulfilling.

It is my opinion that in essence, as Noctifer says, we do not so much live as are lived. I believe Magick to be a path of increasing awareness of and alignment to True Will, which I believe to be collective or cosmic in origin rather than individual.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I was also driven from an early age along the path, and like you - there was no choice about it. It did 'muck up my life' but that was entirely necessary. You can't forge steel without fire, and you can't work with fire without getting burnt.

Noctifer put it very well. We are lived. Being 'lived', being the 'House of' our True Selves, makes any insult truely irrelevant, and Death is but change in the greater life of God - that universal energy always moving and changing everywhere in everything. I feel we are not greater than the birds, the tree's and the whispering grass - we are only small parts of this whole that delights in us as it lives us.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 11:51 am  

Greetings

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
It is my opinion that in essence, as Noctifer says, we do not so much live as are lived. I believe Magick to be a path of increasing awareness of and alignment to True Will, which I believe to be collective or cosmic in origin rather than individual.

Best wishes,

Michael.

"alrah" wrote:
...how much more useful is it to remember to treat everything that happens as an interaction of your soul with God...
"alrah" wrote:
Noctifer put it very well. We are lived. Being 'lived', being the 'House of' our True Selves, makes any insult truely irrelevant, and Death is but change in the greater life of God - that universal energy always moving and changing everywhere in everything. I feel we are not greater than the birds, the tree's and the whispering grass - we are only small parts of this whole that delights in us as it lives us.

Thank you both. I could’nt have put it better myself!

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
17/04/2010 12:01 pm  
"Maldoror" wrote:
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
"spike418" wrote:
"Maldoror" wrote:
the more lucid members

Lucidity is not a merit badge, nor is it synonymous with being correct, don't be mislead

In my oh so humble opinion- never atruer word (or phrase) spoken Spike.

Of course it isn't a merit badge, it's entirely possible to be spectacularly wrong with startling clarity. However, it seems to me that lucidity can be a virtue when you're trying to discuss subtle or difficult subjects.

Agreed partially but like most tools it has a double edge. Some times subtle and difficult subjects are impossible to deal with using lucidity or reason. In my day job I often have to interpret legislation and case law, then argue such with others. I often find that the more lucid make me suspicious and this is usually justified.

I also feel that Mr Hessles lack of any significant experience in magickal practice blinds him to the subject. A bit like sitting in a car without turning the ignition key and refusing to believe in the existence of the internal combustion engine because of the absence of evidence. Almost reminds me of Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye and stating "I see no ships"


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
17/04/2010 12:17 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"HG" wrote:
Oh, for Crowley's sake.

Nobody is forcing anything down your throat.

I agree, and have already apologised for that remark in the post above.

Whoops, you're right, I seem to have missed your apology.

My apologies for not noticing your apology, then.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 12:49 pm  
"spike418" wrote:
I also feel that Mr Hessles lack of any significant experience in magickal practice blinds him to the subject.

How do you know that Erwin lacks 'significant experience in magickal practice'? That's an assertion that I often hear put about, but it runs contrary to what I've heard, and appears to have arisen without being grounded in any actual fact. As I recall, he was part of a magickal order at some point in his life, and that 8=3 he appends to his sig was conferred upon him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 1:37 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
and that 8=3 he appends to his sig was conferred upon him.

Really. Did the Secret Chiefs confer the 8=3 grade on Erwin? What else did you hear?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 2:07 pm  
"tai" wrote:
"alrah" wrote:
and that 8=3 he appends to his sig was conferred upon him.

Really. Did the Secret Chiefs confer the 8=3 grade on Erwin? What else did you hear?

No, no - that's how I got my 8=3, didn't you hear? Keep up!

Sarcasm aside - the alt.magick archives are public access. Go look. You might have to go back a very long time, but I can't help thinking that the task of finding such a needle in a haystack will do you an enormous amount of good. Up to you though. Have fun! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 2:27 pm  

Well, if it's on the archives of alt.magick then it MUST be true... Because Erwin says so.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 3:01 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Your failure to address my question is again noted.

Anyone reading this thread can see that you have failed to provide any specific example of a false conclusion that Erwin has drawn and evidence that leads you to a different conclusion.

I strongly suspect that this is due to the fact that you have not read Erwin's work in any serious way, a suspicion confirmed by the way you bizarrely mischaracterize his work as attempting to deny that Crowley was an occultist.

At any rate, if you ever feel like actually addressing my question, I'm sure the community would be eager to read your specific example and evidence.

Los I think you misjudge other members to be of a similar vein to yourself. You are beginning to sound like an apprentice to the god of argumentation for the sake of argumentation. However I do find that there are rather alot of people of that ilk here.
Regardless of this kindest regards,


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 3:23 pm  
"name538" wrote:
it's not a view or an opinion it is a fact, and your opinion has no bearing on facts.

I may be wrong but I took Noctifers post to be what is known as wit. I take it you are familiar with that concept before you start getting frictious aswell.
Regards,


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4503
17/04/2010 3:26 pm  
"name538" wrote:
TRUTH IS TRUTH it is not a matter of personal opinion.

And the TRUTH of the matter (any matter) is that it's all illusion!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 3:27 pm  

Not sociopaths? I beg to differ. Rabid animals, some might say, and in fact some have.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 3:36 pm  
"name538" wrote:
Views are either correct or incorrect.
"Noctifer" wrote:
This, in my opinion, is a [laughably] incorrect view.
"name538" wrote:
it's not a view or an opinion it is a fact, and your opinion has no bearing on facts.

...in your opinion. One which, in my opinion, is incorrect. 🙂

PS. 8=3 and similar attainments are supposed to indicate states of spiritual attainment, or types of consciousness, and as such cannot be meaningfully conferred, only recognised by others. It's not an academic qualification, but a spiritual one. That's my understanding anyway. ...running around waving a "grade" (especially this one) in an attempt to to say just how much ego you no longer have is so contra-indicatory it's not funny. Or rather, it is funny (but not, too).

May I direct you to this sobering report by a certain LaShTalian on the dangers of illegal oath-taking: http://www.themagickalreview.org/occult-newswire/health-warning-1365.php


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/04/2010 3:55 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I will agree that you want your understanding to be as clear and concise as possible. However, if it was already completely clear, that sort of defeats the purpose of the HGA who's very nature is to make things clear, doesn't it?

You very well cannot claim to be a millionaire just because you know what a million dollars is, and you certainly cannot understand what it is like to be a millionaire until you are. This who business of "I understood my HGA perfectly before I obtained the K&C" is simply downright absurd.

You’re confusing two kinds of understanding here.

There is a difference between understanding what something is and having practical experience of something.

I’m saying that acquiring practical experience of something is greatly aided by knowing what that something is.

To use your example, knowing what a million dollars is doesn’t make you a millionaire, but it will be much easier to make yourself a millionaire if you have a definition of “a million dollars” and if you know a process by which you can become a millionaire, and how it works.

Knowing the definition of HGA doesn’t automatically make you attain, but it sure as hell is going to help you acquire the experience necessary by telling you what it is that you’re looking for. For example, knowing that the term is just a convention and not an actual “being” external from the magician is going to save a lot of time.

Now, it may be possible to accidentally become a millionaire without knowing what a million dollars is and without consciously trying – just as, I suppose, it is possible to accidentally attain without knowing what you’re doing – but I submit that your chances of success increase dramatically when you know what it is that you’re trying to do and how best to go about doing it.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to have really misread my tone here, and I can only say that I did not mean anything as a “personal attack” against you. We are discussing ideas here, and if your idea is really that repeating rituals with only a dim idea of what an HGA actually is can “work,” I’d like to know exactly what it is that you define as “working” and how you think the repetition of rituals actually makes it “work.”

I’ll note that nobody on this thread has yet offered any kind of an answer to that question, and I’ve been asking it for a while now.

Camlion:

Not true, Los, Hessle denies [“that ceremonial magick can be an effective tool”]

I’m going to do what you’re apparently incapable of, Camlion. I’m going to use evidence to show that you’re wrong. Ready?

From Hessle’s Thelemic Primer: “Since the practical side of Thelema requires a rigorous investigation of the real nature of the self, many practices may be employed by the Thelemite — such as meditation, divination and ritual — which are of a religious or occult nature. However there is no need to believe in any of the various supernatural “theories” which often accompany such practices.”

Now, I will grant that Erwin has said on a number of occasions that he personally thinks ceremonial magick is silly and that in the vast majority of cases it doesn’t help anyone at all – particularly in cases where people just “do the work” without knowing what they’re trying to do, with the faith that it will just somehow work -- but the point here is that he is clearly saying that it *is* a tool available to the Thelemite – who is so inclined -- to be used ideally in the service of “a rigorous investigation of the real nature of the self.”

The part he’s objecting to is the attribution of supernatural theories and explanations to the experiences after the fact – which, as I discussed earlier in this thread, would be an example of incorrectly using reason to try to reach a conclusion about the world.

Obviously, Erwin does not deny that occult practices are tools that *can* be used by some Thelemites so inclined in the work.

I trust you’ll be withdrawing the statement that I’ve just demonstrated to be false. Any time you’re ready to give me a specific conclusion and some evidence, I’d be happy to hear it.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
17/04/2010 3:59 pm  
"Noctifer" wrote:
PS. 8=3 and similar attainments are supposed to indicate states of spiritual attainment, or types of consciousness, and as such cannot be meaningfully conferred, only recognised by others. It's not an academic qualification, but a spiritual one. That's my understanding anyway. ...running around waving a "grade" (especially this one) in an attempt to to say just how much ego you no longer have is so contra-indicatory it's not funny.

Well said - although I'm not really clear on the gossip of this: has Erwin actually claimed the Grade at any point? Because if he has, then someone ought to let him know that some impostor has been writing in his name, producing all this merely interesting, merely intellectual stuff, that hints of strong emotional undercurrents swirling around a powerful self-image (i.e. perfectly ordinary, well thought-out, but totally un-numinous writing).

I'm 51 years old, been interested in Crowley for years. I've seen them come and go. You get these people every now and then - people who try to "take over the movement", or "tell everyone how it should be done", or something of that nature - not to mention the farceurs who just like to stir up s**t for the sake of it. I'm not entirely sure whether Erwin is of this ilk, but nevertheless, I sense a disturbance in the Force ...

We know what attempts at "Catholicizing" a mystical/magickal movement have done in the past.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/04/2010 4:18 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
has Erwin actually claimed the Grade at any point? Because if he has, then someone ought to let him know that some impostor has been writing in his name, producing all this merely interesting, merely intellectual stuff, that hints of strong emotional undercurrents swirling around a powerful self-image (i.e. perfectly ordinary, well thought-out, but totally un-numinous writing).

Not that it’s particularly relevant to the thread (what *is*, though?), but Erwin has written before about exactly this question, disputing the assumption that an 8=3 must be some kind of automaton who is constantly humble and who only writes, er…”numinous” things (by whose standards, exactly?): http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=8 4"> http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=84

For the record, I neither know nor care what Erwin’s “grade” is or what anyone else’s “grade” is. I think the very practice of claiming “grades” is pointless because it’s something that no one outside of the individual in question can ever confirm or deny.

Noctifer:

One can't talk about anything except memories, fantasies, or the reality of the present moment. That's all "my life" really is, a sort of narrative made by the ego of these components, two of which are subjective. The only "real" part of that is the experience of the present moment. Whether or not that moment is "mucked up" depends only upon how you are situated in relation to it, and how much opposition your ego poses to it.

You and I have had our disagreements before, but I think this is an excellent answer, one that accords nicely with my answer to the question.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:17 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
I'm not entirely sure whether Erwin is of this ilk, but nevertheless, I sense a disturbance in the Force ...

Good - that's a good sign he's doing his duty: -

"The open preaching of this Law, and the practice of these precepts, will arouse discussion and animosity, and thus place thee upon a rostrum whence thou mayst speak unto the people." -Aleister Crowley, "Liber CCC: Khabs Am Pehkt"

A magister is supposed to challenge you, puzzle you, arouse your curiosity, animosity and has the duty to (in an intelligent and mindful fashion) be a bastard on occaision. People/adepts on the path need safe adversaries - they don't need a magister to hold their hand and be their best buddy and fluffy teaching bunny. And believe me when I say they run the risk, not the students.

Have you been reading Jerry Cornelius's blog lately? There's one hell of an interesting and revealing insight when he quotes McMurtry saying to him that there was a danger he could kill him. The ego does and can kill what it percieves as 'the opposition' when it's in a corner.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
17/04/2010 5:36 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
I'm not entirely sure whether Erwin is of this ilk, but nevertheless, I sense a disturbance in the Force ...

Good - that's a good sign he's doing his duty: -

"The open preaching of this Law, and the practice of these precepts, will arouse discussion and animosity, and thus place thee upon a rostrum whence thou mayst speak unto the people." -Aleister Crowley, "Liber CCC: Khabs Am Pehkt"

A magister is supposed to challenge you, puzzle you, arouse your curiosity, animosity and has the duty to (in an intelligent and mindful fashion) be a bastard on occaision. People/adepts on the path need safe adversaries - they don't need a magister to hold their hand and be their best buddy and fluffy teaching bunny. And believe me when I say they run the risk, not the students.

Have you been reading Jerry Cornelius's blog lately? There's one hell of an interesting and revealing insight when he quotes McMurtry saying to him that there was a danger he could kill him. The ego does and can kill what it percieves as 'the opposition' when it's in a corner.

Aye, I agree with that general idea - but my point is precisely that I don't get that sense from Erwin.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:39 pm  

The formula of a Magister is Love, alrah. That's pretty much it (imHo). Call me an insensitive prick if you like, but I just don't get none o' that vibe from Erwin. Being an arsehole is easy. Trust me.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:40 pm  

Pipped at the post! gurugeorge beat me to saying the same thing... lol


ReplyQuote
Horemakhet
(@horemakhet)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 525
17/04/2010 5:45 pm  

It strikes me how some of you are defending someone who deserves no respect. This man has insulted everyone here (except Paul)- I could not think of a worse ambassador for AC's work. He is not a Magister Templi; he is a Fake. Like Camlion says: this is someone who has been 'bluffing' from the beginning. I would not trust him for a second.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 5:48 pm  

Oh come on. He's been published by Lulu. That must count for something...

It strikes me now, how sublimely on-topic this thread may possibly be seen to have remained.

(Irony ALert)


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
17/04/2010 5:50 pm  
"Los" wrote:
For the record, I neither know nor care what Erwin’s “grade” is or what anyone else’s “grade” is. I think the very practice of claiming “grades” is pointless because it’s something that no one outside of the individual in question can ever confirm or deny.

You might want to re-read One Star In Sight - there are objective tests for all these things. A Grade in the A:.A:. very much is something that can be confirmed or denied by someone else who's "been there" (just like those old Zen stories).

I'm not saying somebody should be a Schmoo to be believable as an MT, but Erwin's writing is just plain, old-fashioned egoistic. It's all about the great Erwin, the great Erwin's perspicacity in having discovered the One True Interpretation of Thelema, the great Erwin's superior intellect, and the stupidity and (on occasions - horrors!) wilful blindness of others. The great Erwin oozes and pours over the paragraphs, in the painstaking minuteness of the proofs, evincing the acute desire to show that HE is right.

There's a certain subtle, barbed irony that's missing - a gentle, sympathetic, yet at the same time mocking humour for our shared plight (the human condition). There's no loftiness in Erwin's writing - it's all "Yes I'll have a loaf of that lovely bread there, please, and make that 2 pints of milk".

It makes sense, but at the end of the day, it doesn't shift anything, doesn't light a fire under your arse.

This kind of shopkeeper's vision of Thelema is something that Crowley would have scorned. He despised that kind of rationalism (e.g. when he laughs about "Judas McCabbage" and all that).

No, frankly I'd rather have the crazies, the mad jumble, and have an emergent order precipitate from all that networking that's solid, alive, vibrant and real, not the product of one mere mind. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

What Erwin is doing is like the farmer who goes out every night to tug his plants up a little bit to help them grow. It's what the rationalistic "Catholicizing" tendency did to Christianity, and we don't want a repeat of that situation, thanks very much.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/04/2010 6:28 pm  

The formula of a Magister is Love, alrah. That's pretty much it (imHo).

But “love,” in a Thelemic context, isn’t about sentimentality – it’s about perceiving reality as it is and accordingly expanding one’s sense of self into a union with the universe in which one maintains “right relation” to its constituent parts.

As an illustration of this, Crowley writes, for example, in the New Comment to II:59 “Consider the right attitude to adopt in the matter of cholera. One should love it, that is, study it intimately; not otherwise can one be sure of maintaining the right relation with it, which is, not to allow it to interfere with one's will to live.”

EDIT: And, as if I needed to add it, from Liber II: "Lo, while in The Book of the Law is much of Love, there is no word of Sentimentality. Hate itself is almost like Love! “As brothers fight ye!” All the manly races of the world understand this. The Love of Liber Legis is always bold, virile, even orgiastic."

“Love” in a Thelemic context has little to do with “let’s all play nice.”

Horemakhet:

He is not a Magister Templi; he is a Fake. Like Camlion says: this is someone who has been 'bluffing' from the beginning.

I don’t care if you don’t like a particular person – but if you’re going to start claiming that someone whose writings have been recommended by several people is a *fake*, then that’s a claim that I think needs more substantiation than “I don’t like him.”

If he’s a fake, it should be pretty easy to point to a false conclusion he draws, shouldn’t it? And then illustrate, through evidence, why it’s a false conclusion. Let’s see you do it, and then let’s talk about “bluffing.”

Gurugeorge:

I'm not saying somebody should be a Schmoo to be believable as an MT, but Erwin's writing is just plain, old-fashioned egoistic.

There’s an implicit claim here that the writings of an 8=3 cannot possess certain characteristics – or, to put it another way, that they must possess certain other characteristics (loftiness, gentleness, sympathy, etc).

Where are you getting this from?


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
17/04/2010 6:42 pm  
"alrah" wrote:
"spike418" wrote:
I also feel that Mr Hessles lack of any significant experience in magickal practice blinds him to the subject.

How do you know that Erwin lacks 'significant experience in magickal practice'? That's an assertion that I often hear put about, but it runs contrary to what I've heard, and appears to have arisen without being grounded in any actual fact. As I recall, he was part of a magickal order at some point in his life, and that 8=3 he appends to his sig was conferred upon him.

Alrah
This response on a previous thread

"Erwin" wrote:
"spike418" wrote:
A few questions Erwin
1. Have you ever practiced magick and if so over what timescale?

Depends what you mean by "magick". For something approaching a period of ten years, many moons ago, I indulged in LBRP-type personal rituals, meditation, divination, "skrying in the spirit vision", yes, all that stuff. Meditation, and very occasionally divination, I still indulge in as desired, but not for achieving mystical states or foretelling the future. Seriously attempting to evoke demons and the like appeared way too ridiculous to bother with right from the beginning, if that's what you're asking - as far back as my memory stretches I've never been an idiot. I've never worn a magic robe or a pointy hat in my life, not even at fancy dress parties, and neither have I ever given myself a magical motto, grown a goatee beard, worn a pentagram around my neck or referred to myself as "Frater". The last time I seriously gave any consideration to the possibility of supernatural beings or phenomena, I was probably about five years old, and that was Santa Claus, not Bune.

"spike418" wrote:
2. Are you aware of any investigations into the efficacy of ritual magick? (and to clarify I mean the full fat robes incense et al and not the occult lite symbolised by dowsing, psychic experiments, spritualism etc)

Of course not. No occultist would ever dare to take part in one, and no self-respecting scientist could ever conduct one whilst keeping a straight face. An occultist who is interested in finding out whether his stuff actually works is an extreme rarity, but you don't need to carry out investigations into "the efficacy of ritual magick" in order to debunk, any more than you need to carry out investigations into whether fairies really are stealing your socks, even if you could manage to find an occultist who's prepared to go out on a limb and tell you exactly what it is he believes he's accomplishing in the first place. As I've described at length, the whole sorry charade of supernatural belief is so patently absurd that its adherents can be quite correctly described as "idiots" without the need for much more consideration. I'm sure some disgruntled occultists have attempted to send the odd goblin my way over the years for revenge, but I certainly appear to be hanging in there somehow.

"spike418" wrote:
3. What lead you to conclude that occultism as commonly understood is a fantasy?

Evidence. Observing over a long period of time that it doesn't do what it's frequently and blindly believed to do. As far as a belief in the supernatural goes, you don't even have to look for that type of evidence, because it's all around you as I've already explained.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 7:48 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
I'm not saying somebody should be a Schmoo to be believable as an MT, but Erwin's writing is just plain, old-fashioned egoistic. It's all about the great Erwin, the great Erwin's perspicacity in having discovered the One True Interpretation of Thelema, the great Erwin's superior intellect, and the stupidity and (on occasions - horrors!) wilful blindness of others. The great Erwin oozes and pours over the paragraphs, in the painstaking minuteness of the proofs, evincing the acute desire to show that HE is right.

There's a certain subtle, barbed irony that's missing - a gentle, sympathetic, yet at the same time mocking humour for our shared plight (the human condition). There's no loftiness in Erwin's writing - it's all "Yes I'll have a loaf of that lovely bread there, please, and make that 2 pints of milk".

You ARE spot on this week, George.

To follow along with these ideas just a bit, the idea of this level of 'Mastery' implies having attained to a successful resolution of egoic complexes that otherwise would not only leave one straddled with dangerously dead weight whilst 'in flight' but, even worse, be likely to cause these complexes to blossom into cancerous bloom, stimulated by the sudden acceleration of such an abrupt liberation. It is a leap not to be taken lightly nor prematurely because it is so very likely to create a monster of 'Erwinic' proportions, if you will. If Hessle did indeed 'leap before he looked' at some point in his life, this really does explain a great deal to those who Understand the meaning of these ideas, ideas which Crowley took such great pains to elaborate upon in his writings.

Concerning "Erwin being mean to people," as mentioned above, meanness is not the point at all. Being mean to people is not, in and of itself, a good thing nor a bad thing, so long as it is done VOLUNTARILY, DELIBERATELY, ON PURPOSE. If, however, a person is cruel INVOLUNTARILY, COMPULSIVELY, OUT OF THEIR OWN CONTROL, and this behavior defeats their own purpose, turns people off when the intention is to turn people on with their ideas, as with Hessle, then this behavior is very bad thing, mostly for him. People must somehow look beyond this bizarre behavior to find the 'great ideas' being presented. Intermediaries, such as our poor friend Los, must be used to filter out the awful stench of these rotting egoic complexes before they are apparent to the audience. The 'great ideas' are, in effect, poisoned by the sorry psychological state of the person at their source. I am not saying that the human ego is a bad thing, it is not, it is a necessary part of one's make-up, but it must be kept in its place and not allowed to run amok, like a foot is carefully kept out of one's mouth.

This is not a 'Master' or an even person who is successfully doing his true Will, this a person with serious self-defeating problems, one with a pretty '8=3' picture of himself which is contradicted by the obvious facts about him.

It is unfortunate that the poster who brought up Hessle's name in such a positive context did so, necessitating a rebuttal from those who know better.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/04/2010 8:03 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
It is unfortunate that the poster who brought up Hessle's name in such a positive context did so, necessitating a rebuttal from those who know better.

By all means, let's have such a rebuttal of ideas.

I'll ask, I think for the fourth time now, for a specific false conclusion that this writer has drawn and evidence that leads you to draw a different conclusion.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
17/04/2010 8:49 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Where are you getting this from?

From my understanding of Crowley's writing, mystical writing generally, and my own experience.

To my mind, if someone claims the Grade of MT, then that means they have no ordinary sense of self at all - i.e. their everyday sense of self is that of God (one among many ways of putting it). Perhaps a more accurate way of saying it would be that they don't abide in their ordinary sense of self, but abide rather in their sense of being God. (I say this because any "glimpse" will give an abeyance or seeing-through or "disappearance" of the ordinary sense of self, and a concomitant sense of being the Universe, God, or whatever one likes to call it - the difference with the MT is that it's permanent, and that the location of their everyday sense of being, is in the Supernal Triad).

This should be evident in their writing: you ought to feel a thrill of some sort as you are reading them, as of imminent danger, or at the very least, something exciting, something numinous, just touching the edge of your consciousness. If you were ever attracted to Crowley, that's what you felt; if you've ever been attracted to other great mystics from other traditions (e.g. Tibetan - I get the same sense from some translations of Tibetan stuff, or Zen stuff, Gnostic stuff, etc.) that's what you've felt.

There should also be a sense of playfulness, of irony. Some have this more than others. Crowley had it a lot. But it's always present in high level mystics. There's a lot of subtle humour, and every utterance is a teaching - a teaching about YOU, your real condition, what you really, really are.

This, I do not get from Erwin. It's not that he's particularly wrong about anything, and I agree with many things he says - but IF he's ever claimed the Grade of MT (and I'm still not sure that he has done - I haven't seen him claiming it here, and all I've seen here are rumours), then I'm extremely dubious about it. It just doesn't gel.

What do you think the "Temple" is?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 9:02 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Where are you getting this from?

From my understanding of Crowley's writing, mystical writing generally, and my own experience.

To my mind, if someone claims the Grade of MT, then that means they have no ordinary sense of self at all - i.e. their everyday sense of self is that of God (one among many ways of putting it). Perhaps a more accurate way of saying it would be that they don't abide in their ordinary sense of self, but abide rather in their sense of being God. (I say this because any "glimpse" will give an abeyance or seeing-through or "disappearance" of the ordinary sense of self, and a concomitant sense of being the Universe, God, or whatever one likes to call it - the difference with the MT is that it's permanent, and that the location of their everyday sense of being, is in the Supernal Triad).

This should be evident in their writing: you ought to feel a thrill of some sort as you are reading them, as of imminent danger, or at the very least, something exciting, something numinous, just touching the edge of your consciousness. If you were ever attracted to Crowley, that's what you felt; if you've ever been attracted to other great mystics from other traditions (e.g. Tibetan - I get the same sense from some translations of Tibetan stuff, or Zen stuff, Gnostic stuff, etc.) that's what you've felt.

There should also be a sense of playfulness, of irony. Some have this more than others. Crowley had it a lot. But it's always present in high level mystics. There's a lot of subtle humour, and every utterance is a teaching - a teaching about YOU, your real condition, what you really, really are.

This, I do not get from Erwin. It's not that he's particularly wrong about anything, and I agree with many things he says - but IF he's ever claimed the Grade of MT (and I'm still not sure that he has done - I haven't seen him claiming it here, and all I've seen here are rumours), then I'm extremely dubious about it. It just doesn't gel.

What do you think the "Temple" is?

Well first of all, I think a lot of accusations have went around in the absense of an accused - which is in bad taste to say the least.

Secondly - I think the mod has ended this conv, and we ought to bring it to a graceful end rather than see it forcefully locked which is the next option.

Thirdly - any attempt to judge another MT is laughable and presumptuous. You just hang yourself from your own petard.

'Quack.'

Let's call this branch of the thread ended and get back to the OP point - if it still has any mileage...


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/04/2010 9:31 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
This should be evident in their writing: you ought to feel a thrill of some sort as you are reading them, as of imminent danger, or at the very least, something exciting, something numinous, just touching the edge of your consciousness.

This actually gets us pretty close to the original topic of the thread because it, like the OP, demonstrates a tendency to perceive things through a fantasy lens instead of perceiving things for what they are.

The idea that an MT’s writings need to be “numinous” – by whose standards, exactly? – or that they need to embody a “sense of playfulness” or whatever (again, by whose standards?) is something that appears to be completely and totally your invention.

Similarly, the idea that magick “creates problems” – presumably by some supernatural means – is something that is completely and totally in the imaginations of some practitioners. More generally, the idea that some life events are “problems” – implying an ideal “should be” for one’s life – is an idea cooked up by the imagination.

The question really becomes “how do I move away from the perception of things as problems to the perception of things as they actually are?”

I’ve offered quite a few thoughts on this subject so far. Suggestions from others?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 10:25 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Similarly, the idea that magick “creates problems” – presumably by some supernatural means – is something that is completely and totally in the imaginations of some practitioners.

You could say anything is completely and totally in the imagination of some ppl, including your assertion. It says nothing. The onset of ordeals is a key characteristic of real-life initiations that occur through the practise of magick. If ordeals have no reality for you, then you are not referring to magick, but stating merely an opinion on what you imagine the topic is about.

"Los" wrote:
The question really becomes “how do I move away from the perception of things as problems to the perception of things as they actually are?”

No, the question was, "how can one practise magick without mucking your life?"


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 10:50 pm  

Why would it be that to annihilate the SELF would leave some one this all loving, sympathetic non-confrontational sort of numinous master out to be gentle and bring peace and love to the world.

Let us look at things which have little or no ego. A wolf has little self image, can not recognize itself in a mirror and though she shows gentleness to her pups, she will savagely tear out the throats of an intruder and break the necks of her prey.

And a hurricane which has no ego at all, which none the less has a WILL, it has an inertia that pushes it beyond ego, and yet a hurricane is not a kind and gentle master, the hurricane will brutally obliterate anything that gets in it's way, without hesitation or remorse.

Why should we think less of the MT, who has annihilated his Ego completely so than there is no Hesitation or Remorse in no preference for survival over death, for peace over war, for Truth over lies, All that is left is the FULL force and inertia of the WILL to manifest itself in ANY WAY that it can, without preference to conditions, without concern for the feelings and well being of ones material vessel other than as a necessity to use it to achieve the WILL, and no concern for the feelings or well being of those who get in the way of that WILL either.

The sage (like the Tao) treats all things as straw dolls, which is to say as if their only use and value is to be sacrificed to his WILL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
17/04/2010 11:10 pm  
"name538" wrote:
The sage (like the Tao) treats all things as straw dolls, which is to say as if their only use and value is to be sacrificed to his WILL.

Pretentious drivel...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/04/2010 11:42 pm  

93,

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I will agree that you want your understanding to be as clear and concise as possible. However, if it was already completely clear, that sort of defeats the purpose of the HGA who's very nature is to make things clear, doesn't it?

You very well cannot claim to be a millionaire just because you know what a million dollars is, and you certainly cannot understand what it is like to be a millionaire until you are. This who business of "I understood my HGA perfectly before I obtained the K&C" is simply downright absurd.You’re confusing two kinds of understanding here.

Am I?

There is a difference between understanding what something is and having practical experience of something.

Agreed. What you said was "crystal clear understanding" if I remember right. You did not say, "a basic intellectual foundation of the general premises of the HGA", or anything of the sort. What you stated implied that one already had a perfect understanding of the HGA beforehand.

If that's not what you meant, then I suppose our disagreement is solved on that point.

I’m saying that acquiring practical experience of something is greatly aided by knowing what that something is.

To use your example, knowing what a million dollars is doesn’t make you a millionaire, but it will be much easier to make yourself a millionaire if you have a definition of “a million dollars” and if you know a process by which you can become a millionaire, and how it works.

Not trying to sound sarcastic, but my first response to this was, "well duh". However, my very original point (back to the H2O again), is to explain a definition of "million dollars" you have to explain the concept of a "million" and a concept of "dollars" which are two quite separate concepts, and the explanations of each can be books in their own right. Put simply to the example, they are elements inside of a system that may be used in combination to formulate the "idea" of the definition of a "million dollars". And that is just formulating the definition. My point is, if a person doesn't know what a million is, and doesn't know what a dollar is, then how can a person possibly know what a million dollars is?

You can explain someone the concept of a million dollars until they feel like they understand if completely, but they aren't a millionaire until they actually have a million dollars, which is a completely new experience from just learning what a million dollars is. If I'm reading you correctly, we agree on this.

What I think we do not agree on, is that you seem to have the idea that you can explain to someone what a million dollars is and how to get it, and they can become a millionaire, whereas I would rather explain to someone the concept of numbers and money, and let them work from there. Either method is valid, but we are definitely speaking of two different methods, or more appropriately, two different parts of a method set.

Knowing the definition of HGA doesn’t automatically make you attain, but it sure as hell is going to help you acquire the experience necessary by telling you what it is that you’re looking for. For example, knowing that the term is just a convention and not an actual “being” external from the magician is going to save a lot of time.

This is quite different from a "crystal clear understanding". Just so we can be clear though and avoid continuous senseless arguments, what is your definition of "understanding"?

Now, it may be possible to accidentally become a millionaire without knowing what a million dollars is and without consciously trying – just as, I suppose, it is possible to accidentally attain without knowing what you’re doing – but I submit that your chances of success increase dramatically when you know what it is that you’re trying to do and how best to go about doing it.

Agreed.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to have really misread my tone here, and I can only say that I did not mean anything as a “personal attack” against you.

I read your entire post with as much serenity as I read every post, until I saw "you had better". I'm quite sure you can understand where a phrase telling someone they "better" do something is both obnoxious and intrusive, especially in a dialogue between two Thelemites.

We are discussing ideas here, and if your idea is really that repeating rituals with only a dim idea of what an HGA actually is can “work,” I’d like to know exactly what it is that you define as “working” and how you think the repetition of rituals actually makes it “work.”

Los, this is why I asked you to define Spiritual Experience.

When I first began practicing actively in 1997, I had no freaking idea what I was doing. I tried so many various things it isn't funny, and went from system to system. While I was making growth and progress, it was really a phase in which I learned what things were. It was like studying a fully built house and learning what 2x4's, sheetrock, molding, carpet, tile, etc. were. This was and is very important information to anyone who plans on building a house.

My HGA brought me to Thelema, and the works of Crowley in 1999, I believe it was. It was "completely happenstance", and has been a part of my Path ever since. In the house analogy, the fundamental or foundational knowledge and practices let you know what various parts the house is made of and how to put them together, but the HGA is what teaches you how to read the blueprints, if the analogy makes any sense.

Sure, you can just go learn to read blueprints, but blueprints aren't going to tell you everything you need to know about building a house. In this analogy, I my point is that one verily does need the fundamental knowledge and practice of what the components of a house are made of in order to help build an effective one, along with the knowledge of how to read blueprints. Fundamentals come first at any rate, even if you plop a set of blueprints down in front of someone and say, "Okay, let me show you what all of this is and does".

Like I said before, we are talking about two different phases of the same process. I do think we will argue again some day though, as you and I always have. Hopefully next time, "as brothers fight ye".

93 93/93

P.S.

General remarks on the thread (not a part of the conversation between Los and I):

As for Erwin... to be quite honest, I haven't been to his Website, and don't really care to go. His posts on this Site have solidified that idea in my mind. I don't like the guy, I don't respect the method in which he approaches people, and that is enough to make me want to stay away from his Site. Now, if you are going to ask me to sift through his 800-something posts (or however many he has) just to find specific examples of that behavior then I must simply ask you to find it for yourself. All of the people that run around here saying "prove it" with something so subjective as one's personal opinion towards another person are simply ridiculous. For all of the self proclaimed "Masters" on these Forums, it disheartens me that I have to be the one saying this:

In the matter of one's personal opinion about another person, such opinions are subjectively a part of the worldview of the opinion holder. Unless that person makes various claims about the other person which are obviously not just opinions, then the tactful reply is not to ask them to 'prove it'. No one needs to prove that they think Crowley was an asshole, for example. If someone says, "Crowley was an asshole", that is a statement of opinion, and if you want to debate or dissuade them from that opinion it is you who has to convince them that Crowley is not an asshole. If however, someone says, "Crowley took my cat from my backyard and sacrificed it to Pan", then you can verily say "prove it."

"8=3":

Just stop it. ALL of the people on here to lay open claim to "8=3" like they do are full of themselves. That is my opinion. In the context of the above, if you wish to dissuade me from thinking you are full of yourselves then you should "prove it". If not, then I will continue to think that you are simply full of it. No man or woman I have ever met or known who was an actual Master would even come close to flaunting it like some of the people on these Forums do, and it is simply disgusting. Is it really just a sign of the times? Have we really gone from Israel Regardie's, "I am only a Probationer" to "I am a Master of the Temple everyone" in just under 30 years?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2010 12:07 am  

NO
TRUTH IS NOT A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR
Thus it does not matter if Erwin is a complete and total jack ass, it does not matter if he murdered 50 people in cold blood and raped the pope, what he says is True or false not ANYTHING to do with what he does or how he acts.

2+2=4 not be cause the I am a nice swell guy who is polite to everyone, 2+2=4 is true for jerks, killers, sociopaths. It is TRUE if Hitler says it and it is true if Mother Teresa says it

TRUTH just is TRUE and it was true before erwin was born and it will be true long after he his dead, and it is true for you and me, to dogs plants and to GOD.

IT JUST IS TRUE, how can you not understand that!!!

When I say hey read this quote from Erwin, where he proves that 2+2=4.
Then you say 2+2 does not equal 4, I reuse to read anything Ewin writes because he is a mean guy, he will his just a no good fink and I refuse to read or believe anything he says.

Well the argument is Does 2+2=4 or does it not =4
the argument in not about If you find Erwin to be a nice guy or not.
IT has not one god damned thing to do with how the math works, how much of an ass you believe the mathematician to be.

Dr. Theodore Kaczynski AKA the Unabomber is a brilliant mathematician who has written several essays. Not to mention his disposition "Industrial society and it's future" which is a brilliant political, sociological and psychological assessment of modern society and the problems than threaten the collapse of the old aeon social system as well as the beginnings of the new aeon system.

The truth or his math and his politics, is not changed by the fact of his being a terrorist whose bombing campaign killed 3 innocent people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2010 12:40 am  

Ok name538, here’s a little test for you. Read Erwin’s essay on the HGA:

http://www.erwinhessle.com/writings/pdfs/The_Holy_Guardian_Angel.pdf

I'm not going to give the game away, but its obvious that Erwin has no clue about the HGA while Crowley, in contrast, is speaking about an objectively real phenomenon cloaked in mystical language. The real amusement starts on page 29 when Erwin starts quoting Crowley but doesn’t realize what is being described. Think of five blind men feeling an elephant and coming up with five different answers. There’s a great big hole in the center of that essay and it exists because Erwin essentially doesn’t know what he’s writing about.

Now extend that analogy to Erwin's authority on magick and you might get the picture...

One last comment: I find it amusing that so-called rationalists, who continually exhort Lashtal members to avoid forming fancy subjective pictures in their minds, are so prone to the same mistake, namely imagining Erwin is some kind of Master or guru. In psychology it's called projection.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
18/04/2010 12:43 am  
"alrah" wrote:
Thirdly - any attempt to judge another MT is laughable and presumptuous. You just hang yourself from your own petard.

LOL "another" MT - how many do we need in this party? 🙂

The burden of my post is that I think MT is a pretty high level thing, and as far as I can see, nobody here manifests anything like it - certainly not Erwin, or you, or me. I'm not sure if there are even any Adepts here, or hanging around any "occult" messageboard. It's all too much of a tea party. Everybody wants to keep their cake and eat it.

But it's a bit of a manifestation of the very occult mucked-up-ness being queried in this thread, to claim the Grade when you obviously don't have the chops.

But as I say, I'm not ragging on Erwin for definite, because I don't know whether he has claimed it or not - so far, all I've heard is hearsay.

It wouldn't surprise me though, put it that way.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
18/04/2010 12:48 am  
"name538" wrote:
NO
TRUTH IS NOT A RESULT OF BEHAVIOR
Thus it does not matter if Erwin is a complete and total jack ass, it does not matter if he murdered 50 people in cold blood and raped the pope, what he says is True or false not ANYTHING to do with what he does or how he acts.

2+2=4 not be cause the I am a nice swell guy who is polite to everyone, 2+2=4 is true for jerks, killers, sociopaths. It is TRUE if Hitler says it and it is true if Mother Teresa says it

TRUTH just is TRUE and it was true before erwin was born and it will be true long after he his dead, and it is true for you and me, to dogs plants and to GOD.

IT JUST IS TRUE, how can you not understand that!!!

When I say hey read this quote from Erwin, where he proves that 2+2=4.
Then you say 2+2 does not equal 4, I reuse to read anything Ewin writes because he is a mean guy, he will his just a no good fink and I refuse to read or believe anything he says.

Well the argument is Does 2+2=4 or does it not =4
the argument in not about If you find Erwin to be a nice guy or not.
IT has not one god damned thing to do with how the math works, how much of an ass you believe the mathematician to be.

Dr. Theodore Kaczynski AKA the Unabomber is a brilliant mathematician who has written several essays. Not to mention his disposition "Industrial society and it's future" which is a brilliant political, sociological and psychological assessment of modern society and the problems than threaten the collapse of the old aeon social system as well as the beginnings of the new aeon system.

The truth or his math and his politics, is not changed by the fact of his being a terrorist whose bombing campaign killed 3 innocent people.

Jesus, what crap. You've clearly wandered into this website by accident.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 655
18/04/2010 12:56 am  

Oh, is it a 'Teaparty' than, I think there more MP's than MT's here in the Sphere of Malchut, most unfortunate, however. . . .


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
18/04/2010 1:04 am  

I fail to see any problems in this essay.
It is a clear explanation of what the HGA is and the process of attaining to it.
It clears up the mystical language and removes all unnecessary supernaturalism.
It does a very good job of translating Crowleyese into clear language of Science and Psychology.

I do not accept Erwin's claim of 8=3 either.
from his writing on what that entails, it sounds more like he is describing the loosening of the personality elements, which is the effect of passing the cross between Temperance and the Tower.
So, if he has fully completed the work he describes as the state of the 8=3 Ego. Then I would place him at 5=6. But, ultimately it is based on his subjective experiences, and I can't know his experience other than by what he claims.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
18/04/2010 1:12 am  
"Los" wrote:
The idea that an MT’s writings need to be “numinous” – by whose standards, exactly? – or that they need to embody a “sense of playfulness” or whatever (again, by whose standards?) is something that appears to be completely and totally your invention.

By your own standards, obviously! Have you never felt a sense of the numinous? Never noticed Crowley's playful irony?

I'm not saying I'm any great expert, but I've got enough experience under my belt to know who's bulshitting and who's serious. There seems to be no recognition whatsoever of what Crowley was really talking about by any of this Erwin camp. It's all just a rationalistic take on Thelema that gets right about a tenth of it (playful irony there - did you notice?)

But you haven't answered my question! Please humour me: what do you think the "Temple" is, in the title "Master of the Temple"?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
18/04/2010 1:21 am  
"name538" wrote:
It is a clear explanation of what the HGA is and the process of attaining to it.

No, it's an opinion.

HGA is somethng extremely intimate. Nobody can lay down the law on what it is and what it isn't. You are trespassing.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
18/04/2010 1:24 am  
"name538" wrote:
Why would it be that to annihilate the SELF would leave some one this all loving, sympathetic non-confrontational sort of numinous master out to be gentle and bring peace and love to the world.

Let us look at things which have little or no ego. A wolf has little self image, can not recognize itself in a mirror and though she shows gentleness to her pups, she will savagely tear out the throats of an intruder and break the necks of her prey.

And a hurricane which has no ego at all, which none the less has a WILL, it has an inertia that pushes it beyond ego, and yet a hurricane is not a kind and gentle master, the hurricane will brutally obliterate anything that gets in it's way, without hesitation or remorse.

Why should we think less of the MT, who has annihilated his Ego completely so than there is no Hesitation or Remorse in no preference for survival over death, for peace over war, for Truth over lies, All that is left is the FULL force and inertia of the WILL to manifest itself in ANY WAY that it can, without preference to conditions, without concern for the feelings and well being of ones material vessel other than as a necessity to use it to achieve the WILL, and no concern for the feelings or well being of those who get in the way of that WILL either.

The sage (like the Tao) treats all things as straw dolls, which is to say as if their only use and value is to be sacrificed to his WILL.

I think tai already said what needs to be said about this, but never having been one to miss an opportunity to over-egg the pudding, Nietzsche studies are


> thataway.

"Annihilate the SELF" - pfeh.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 5
Share: