His point is it only becomes achievable for real then. Similarly H.G.Wells, didn't he write, in Victorian Britain, about rockets leaving earth?
Why is it only “achievable for real then"? What would have made it unreal before? And isn’t there a discrepancy there where Wilson indicates that the Circuit has actually been in use since c. 500 B.C.? Also I don’t think there was a tenable analogy with H.G. Wells there unless you care to explain further.
Personal details? No. sorry.
So much for this “radical honesty” schtick then, david, when you’re still running scared of putting anything down which you fear might put you in a vulnerable position. Still think I’m going to vampirise you? For your and everyone else’s information, I’m fifty five. Big deal – no massive secret there about that. Why on earth the paranoia on your side?
25-35 thing? What was that?
The 25-35 thing was in relation to Reply #24 where I was referring to your quote from the deoxy website which you gave in Reply #15. I asked whether it was your position (i.e., how much you agreed with the proposition) that anyone over 25-35 [relatively, “when this was written”] would either be incapable of, or would find very difficult to achieve, future advancement along the lines laid down, in the same way as those beneath that age? Why would the “Woodstock generation” be too old and set in their imprinted ways to be able to change (or as the writer puts it, “receive the neurophysical signals for extra-terrestrial migration”)?
"you might also give the reference for where it is you reckon A.C. writes in his diaries about colonizing Venus."
Go here at page 60
I’m still no wiser. What is it with you that you can‘t just print a passage with full accreditation details (showing author, work, page number, year of printing or edition number, etc) following the example you must have seen myself and belmurru and some others do? Is it so fantastically hard, or are you just trying to be deliberately perverse and difficult?
Maybe this is not a crock. And maybe it is.
Incidentally, the quote you attribute to me in Reply #48 as indicated is not mine: I think you’ll find it’s Los’s, from Reply #41. If you’ll take a friendly tip you must pay more attention to detail, david! If not it might prove to possibly lead to your future undoing.
N Joy
Circuit 4 ... go look it up if you want an answer ;D
“And here's another thing!” (I seem to have omitted...)
Why is that relevant?
Why is it relevant? 😮 Well because it would show what sort of a character you have, for a starter. And that is relevant in view of all the material you’ve posted in relation to showing radical honesty and needing to be true to oneself, etc. In fact you’re markedly coming across as rather evasive and wriggly, for someone who is supposed to want to come forth instead as so open and unbounded & there rather seems to me to be the stench of some double standards being flung around in the air (primate style).
These post-postmodern days in particular, a lot of people (including myself) use signs from common culture to provide analogies where appropriate and in doing so have found nothing which would justify anyone’s providing an H.M. Bateman “The man who …” moment (go look it up). In addition to the left-field entry of Sesame Street by ayino, and The Simpsons habitually used by Los as noted, there were also postings here recently which have referenced South Park and The Flintstones. Not all of these would be held in the same esteem of course, but in all of them, whatever other criteria for assessment may be used, the sentiment behind “don’t judge a book by its cover” should rank high among them.
There’s a tendency for some, usually of the older fogeyish sort and less of them as the years go by, to look down and frown derisively upon cartoons and their ilk as being in some ways not worthy of the same sort of ‘serious’ consideration that more ‘highbrow’ ‘academic’ works of art would deserve. And believe it or not, it wasn't that long ago (within living memory) that "graphic novels" used to be called "comic books." 😮 😮
Given these different positions, are you going to "honestly" acknowledge where is it you stand on all of this issue of intellectual snobbery, then?
N Joy
Yes but Hitler is very relevant to SMI2LE.
I'll come back to this when I re read "exo-psychology" where there is more on external techno change and it's relation to DNA mutation.
You're an authority on RH?
You're 55? Great eh? I don't care if you're 155.
By the way RH doesn't function fully on forums such as this, where there is Pre-Mod. This forum is about discussing AC and facts about his life, some trivial, some extremely trivial and some very pertinent.
Because of the narrow- minded bigotry Leary must've had experience when discussing SMI2LE with them.
It's easy. Go to my last link and scroll slowly down (pass the foreword and pass the introduction then you will be in the actual diary notes) past p5 on to p15 then the next page in this link (as many pages are omitted) is p59 and then the one after that is p60. It will take you 10 seconds. I can't find it in the Diaries but it is in that link.
If you are actually going to go through the trouble, might I recommend reading Info Psychology instead. Wouldn't want to go basing your theories on a book Leary himself superseded.
This forum is about discussing AC and facts about his life, some trivial, some extremely trivial and some very pertinent.
Ah, but where does one draw the dividing line?
"jamie barter" wrote:I’m still no wiser. What is it with you that you can‘t just print a passage with full accreditation details (showing author, work, page number, year of printing or edition number, etc) following the example you must have seen myself and belmurru and some others do? Is it so fantastically hard, or are you just trying to be deliberatelyIt's easy. Go to my last link and scroll slowly down (pass the foreword and pass the introduction then you will be in the actual diary notes) past p5 on to p15 then the next page in this link (as many pages are omitted) is p59 and then the one after that is p60. It will take you 10 seconds. I can't find it in the Diaries but it is in that link.
The reason you are being asked repeatedly to actually provide the information that is cited is that p60 is not available in the preview on Google Books. All you need do is quote the passage you are referencing with a page# citation. Why is that beyond you? It will take you 10 seconds.
Yes but Hitler is very relevant to SMI2LE.
indeed, as is shown in the film Iron Sky.
Well I can see the p60 on Google Books but I will try and do a screenshot. Its about AC talking about "crossing to Venus".
93!
Google Books randomly changes the sector of pages one is allowed to see.
But david is speaking about this passage:
"The Magical Diaries of Aleister Crowley 1923" ed. by Stephen Skinner, Neville Spearman, 1979, pp. 59-60
" Note that Cheth[sup:1hzt6i5s]60[/sup:1hzt6i5s] is the first of the Paths which join the Supernals to Microprosopus. (P.S. This is not correct! I am sure I said ’last’ not ’First’; or at least meant 'First' counting from Tau. The following paragraph shows this to be true.) I am the first man to bring a direct message from them. From this, by the way, it will be possible to predict the course of the evolution of humanity in more detail than previously. The next Magus will bring a Word whose Ietter is Zayin, & his successor those corresponding to Vau & He.[sup:1hzt6i5s]61[/sup:1hzt6i5s] Then there will be a frightful Aeon without a Word while Daleth[sup:1hzt6i5s]62[/sup:1hzt6i5s] is in course, & then the final communication, the pure & perfect Three-in-One Word of Gimel[sup:1hzt6i5s]63[/sup:1hzt6i5s] will be transmitted, after which the race will become extinct. We shall either cross to Venus[sup:1hzt6i5s]64[/sup:1hzt6i5s] or be dissociated completely. Note that the question which I have not solved in these meditations is really the eternal 'Who am I?”
Editor's note 64 by the way reads: [sup:1hzt6i5s]64[/sup:1hzt6i5s] In this context Crowley means the physical planet Venus.
Funnily the very last sentence before this passage reads:
"I may in short be teling the truth by lying to myself, when to tell the truth to myself would be a lie.”
Which might be the last word AC had on that other Radical Honesty/Troll thread.
Anyway, I forgot what david wanted to show with this Venus quote, but he himself hopefully not, else Jamie will remind him, I am sure.
Love=Law
Lutz
"The Magical Diaries of Aleister Crowley 1923" ed. by Stephen Skinner, Neville Spearman, 1979, pp. 59-60
" Note that Cheth[sup:3oo1swej]60[/sup:3oo1swej] is the first of the Paths which join the Supernals to Microprosopus. (P.S. This is not correct! I am sure I said ’last’ not ’First’; or at least meant 'First' counting from Tau. The following paragraph shows this to be true.) I am the first man to bring a direct message from them. From this, by the way, it will be possible to predict the course of the evolution of humanity in more detail than previously. The next Magus will bring a Word whose Ietter is Zayin, & his successor those corresponding to Vau & He.[sup:3oo1swej]61[/sup:3oo1swej] Then there will be a frightful Aeon without a Word while Daleth[sup:3oo1swej]62[/sup:3oo1swej] is in course, & then the final communication, the pure & perfect Three-in-One Word of Gimel[sup:3oo1swej]63[/sup:3oo1swej] will be transmitted, after which the race will become extinct. We shall either cross to Venus[sup:3oo1swej]64[/sup:3oo1swej] or be dissociated completely. Note that the question which I have not solved in these meditations is really the eternal 'Who am I?”
Editor's note 64 by the way reads: [sup:3oo1swej]64[/sup:3oo1swej] In this context Crowley means the physical planet Venus.
Here Crowley is of course alluding to a doctrine first stated in “The Paris Working”, referring to reincarnation in progressively subtler bodies on the planets going to towards the Sun, rather than "colonization" in Leary's sense:
“With regard to reincarnation, the heliocentric theory is right. As we conquer the conditions of a planet, we incarnate on the next planet inwards until we return to the Father of All, when our experiences link together, become intelligible, and star speaks to star. Terra is the last planet where bodies are made of earth; in Venus they are fluid; on Mercury aerial; while in the Sun they are fashinoned of pure fire.”
(“Liber CDXV. Opus Lutetianum. The Paris Working.” In Hymenaeus Beta, ed., The Vision and the Voice with Commentary, and Other Papers (Weiser, 1998), p. 373 (Opus VIII, 12 January, 1914))
Besides his meditations on the subject in his diary in 1923, he also mentions it in the early ‘40s, in his letter 47, “Reincarnation”, in Magick Without Tears:
“One theory – see Opus Lutetianum, The Paris Working – says that when one has quite finished with Earth-problems, one is promoted to Venus, where ‘bodies’ are liquid, and thence to Mercury, where they are gaseous, finally to the Sun, where they are composed of pure Fire. Eliphaz Levi says: ‘In the Suns we remember; in the planets we forget.’”
Ok Belmurrur thankyou. I was trawling through the pdf pages for a while and I could not find it, but anyway the editor seems to think AC was talking physical migration? Venus is not habitable at all so maybe it was a Theosophical type of migratory idea.
I'll come back to this when I re read "exo-psychology" where there is more on external techno change and it's relation to DNA mutation.
OK fair enough, whenever then. I won’t forget. (The same as I haven’t forgotten that you still haven’t got around to accounting for how many Veils (= plural) of Paroketh there are meant to be - according to your reckoning. (Or you could just confess you were honestly mistaken there, if that was truly the case.)
You're an authority on RH?
You're 55? Great eh? I don't care if you're 155.
By the way RH doesn't function fully on forums such as this, where there is Pre-Mod. This forum is about discussing AC and facts about his life, some trivial, some extremely trivial and some very pertinent.
Your barely disguised defensive-aggressive tone here is noticeable, as is the fact that you still are running scared of stating how old you are – you must therefore be very young! I’d estimate no older than mid-twenties. As I've already said, you also need to address your paranoia and possibly whatever barely disguised latent embarrassment/ shame issues you may have. No, I never claimed to be “an authority on RH” as I'm sure you must fully know – but I would have thought these would be prime examples of what rad honesty would need to deal with? Do correct me here if I’m wrong...
And can I get this clear: you’re inferring you’re still in pre-moderation?
Because of the narrow- minded bigotry Leary must've had experience when discussing SMI2LE with them.
After trying to analyse your ghastly English style here (rad honesty once again?!), this doesn’t really answer the question. For a start, it’s based on an assumption you’ve made that Leary actually discussed SMI[sup:2ju6dde2]2[/sup:2ju6dde2]LE and experienced bigotry with all of the “Woodstock generation”, when (if you check again you’ll see) I was really asking what your own viewpoint (position) was. I had rather hoped your debating skills were better than they are, but they seem to be lacking a bit. Do you perhaps want to have another go and try again?
OK, now that I can - at last - see the A.C. reference you were alluding to (and actually have the Skinner edited book on my shelf), this is actually more in the way of a passing theosophical-type (for you, think metaphysical) consideration and certainly does not allude to the business of the physical logistics of manned colonisation of other planets, which is what Leary has in mind. Can’t you tell the difference – they’re worlds apart (if you forgive the pun).
The explanation which belmurru gave is quite correct and I have nothing that I could add to it. You’re barking up the wrong tree, david, and howling at the moon.
I imagine that your constant continued inability to cite a reference properly is one of the main things about you which is pissing people off on the forum. It’s certainly the case with me. That and the cherrypicking manner you have with addressing points – some (if they get referred to at all) might get a sentence of a few words in insufficient reply, yet one closer to your preferred hobbyhorse of the moment can get paragraphs, youtube connections and whatever else. In this fashion (as I’ve remarked before) you take after your one-time guru Los whom, if you remember, has thoroughly dismissed your remarks about SMI[sup:2ju6dde2]2[/sup:2ju6dde2]LE and the True Will as
Reply #41 by Los on: July 15, 2015, 01:27:48 am:
it sounds like you've got it entirely backwards
Incidentally, I notice you just spelled belmurru with an extra “r” at the end” – hard for this to be a typo, since the ‘r’ key is 3 keys to the left of ‘u’. Please see my remarks in my previous post about your need to pay special attention to detail.
I await (the tone of) any further remarks of yours with interest. :-
N Joy
Oh yeah that should've been veil.
Did you ask Los or is he also keeping his air of mystique? Lol. How about Tao? Shiva? Etc etc?
The Woodstock generation, Joni Mitchell etc? Leary when he says "Woodstock generation" meant the ones who were no strangers to circuit 5 realities. It's common sense. I'd estimate that most wanted some sort of Middle Earth society on earth or some sort of manifested Gnostic xtian ideal on earth. That is , a a macrocosm for society that was the microcosm that was Woodstock. Apparently there was not one single violent incident at Woodstock. Compare that to modern festivals where serious crime usually takes place.
Well the editor thought it was the physical planet, Venus. Blame him for the disinfo.
This disagreement excites you or something? See my second Reply #48 to Los on that issue.
You must've missed it.
No zany sign off.
You're right. If I make a reference to something I once read, then I should make a direct and exact reference to the actual book's page number etc.
No, the editor is correct. Crowley did mean the physical planet but he did not mean that physical persons physically go there. It's an afterlife spooky-wooky kind of notion.
OK
No, the editor is correct. Crowley did mean the physical planet but he did not mean that physical persons physically go there. It's an afterlife spooky-wooky kind of notion.
OK
Hehe that's actually worse.
By the way, that "OK" signature you use looks like you are laying down the law.
OK, as in "capiche?" Haha
You’ve adopted a slightly different tone, in that you may be being ironic although so subtly done it’s hard to tell. Had you been drinking or imbibing some other stimulant for the weekend perhaps beforehand? Anyway it’s a slight overall improvement - “I guesse”...
Did you ask Los or is he also keeping his air of mystique? Lol. How about Tao? Shiva? Etc etc?
The Woodstock generation, Joni Mitchell etc? Leary when he says "Woodstock generation" meant the ones who were no strangers to circuit 5 realities. It's common sense. I'd estimate that most wanted some sort of Middle Earth society on earth or some sort of manifested Gnostic xtian ideal on earth. That is , a a macrocosm for society that was the microcosm that was Woodstock. Apparently there was not one single violent incident at Woodstock. Compare that to modern festivals where serious crime usually takes place.
The connection was with Leary’s slightly ”ageist” remark about Circuit 6 being barred or extremely difficult for those over 25-35 at the time of Woodstock to access. Naturally, I wondered whether your position was if you agreed with this and therefore how old you might be relative to it, and since I was actually replying to you, Los's, Tao's, Shiva's or anyone else’s age didn’t come into it. I didn‘t realize it was such a big deal to you, keeping it secret, but if it means so much to you then carry on! I am sure your readers all have formed their own ideas anyway.
This disagreement excites you or something? See my second Reply #48 to Los on that issue.
You must've missed it.
God yes it excites me! I find the dynamics fascinating (- haven't you worked out by now that if you agree with Los too much he finds it uncomfortable & will turn round and bite your hand?!) I’m not sure I can wait for the next development, in fact - can you give me an update on your present position?
What do you mean, your "second Reply #48" ?? I found that particular reply a little bit muddled on the whole, incidentally (what with bringing in Hitler and all ;D). Feel free to restate it, if you like.
OK, as in "capiche?" Haha
I don’t mean to piss on your joke (if that’s the right word), but this would be only the case if OK had put a question mark after his name at the end – i.e., “OK?” Hoho
(Don't forget to reply re your intellectual snobbery, btw!)
This sign-off is specially dedicated just for you, david
N Joy
Goddess, I have to stop reading david's threads.
Please, someone, anyone, post summat else. My daily Lashtal visits are melting my head.
Please, someone, anyone, post summat else. My daily Lashtal visits are melting my head.
You are not alone. Slowly but surely LAShTAL is becoming "Live from New York" ... The David Show!
He knows eveything about anything and can prove it in snappy comeback comments. No end in sight. World without end.
Please, someone, anyone, post summat else. My daily Lashtal visits are melting my head.
You are not alone. Slowly but surely LAShTAL is becoming "Live from New York" ... The David Show!
He knows eveything about anything and can prove it in snappy comeback comments. No end in sight. World without end.
You must be one of his favourite guests then, Shiva, because you've replied 10 times! David brings up some interesting material, & he has the tenacity of someone who is young & passionate about what he delves into. This should not be discouraged, & what I'm seeing over the past year or so is an old guard debating him. Granted, it's not always the best that the ACS has to offer! Personally, I don't like Timothy Leary, but it's completely justified to discuss his ideas here. I'm reading, but skipping over the personal attacks...(kind of like a few other threads on record 😉 )
You make some interesting points. The Olde Guard has no objection to youth. The objection, when it manifests on the forum threads, is to attitude and accuracy.
After pondering the motive for this thread I realize that Leary, in his writings, was (literally) trying to make a science out of "spiritual experience". Ultimately, attempting to superimpose his version of what True Will may be onto his models, is seemingly, a road to nowhere. This sort of pit was discussed in the Thelemic Practice thread ( http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=5825.15), reply #20 to be exact, where I found a relevant point made by Los in response to someone who suggested that it would be useful to "make a science out of Thelema" as follows;
I don’t really agree here: I'm not looking to make a "science" out of Thelema in the sense of figuring out the exact biological process going on during attainment, and I absolutely do not think that such knowledge is necessary to attainment.
We all know that a person doesn’t need to know *how* exactly a car works in order to drive. We just need a rudimentary mental model about how the whole thing works (car full of gas plus turned ignition key = car start; right pedal = go; left pedal = stop; stick thing = put car into drive mode). That model -- which we can test and build up -- is really all we need. In a similar way, we don’t need to know *exactly* what’s happening in our bodies when we attain in order to do so. What we need is a practical model of how attainment works, and that's what I provide in my second post on this thread.
To add to this and to be blunt, who cares what's happening on "the bio-molecular level" when this or that "circuit" is "turned on" by this or that yoga (vegetative, chemical or otherwise)? No, what is True Will, which practices reveal it and how do you know?
I don't know enough about that particular model, and I think as a general point most models of that kind (e.g. Wilber) are a bit too previous.
However, there is something to all that stuff, I'm pretty sure, and I think as science progresses a more realistic picture of it will emerge - one that's not slave to pretty pictures and numerological neatness.
The way I think of it is in terms of the Triune Brain theory, the L/R brain split, and a dash of the Jungian concept of Archetypes (which in Jung's best - IMHO - version, actually refer to layered instincts, which have fairly simple "minds of their own", which articulate themselves to the conscious mind in the movement and play of archetypal symbols, in dreams and astral visions).
Our brains are comprised of several layers of semi-autonomous functioning sub-systems, which inherit somewhat the mode of functioning of the ancestral form they exemplify. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - our developing embryonic forms as we develop in the womb echo the embryonic forms of the animal ancestors in our past. It's not really that much of a stretch to think the brain has an archaeology that echoes this.
That being the case, there's your reason-based rationale for Magick: astral visions are a way of communicating with and smoothing out the interaction between those sub-systems, including the "demonic" archaic forms (e.g. "lizard brain", "monkey brain", that type of thing).
This psychoanalytic process of smoothing out the folds makes the Khu "transparent", unties knots (complexes), makes the brain (any brain of sufficiently complex development) what it truly is, or the "servant" of what it truly is: metaphysically speaking, the Universe's method of cognizing some of its own infinite possibilities.
The mind that formerly saw itself as "pertaining to", or "belonging to" the body, now sees itself as "pertaining to" or "belonging to", the Universe at large.
An excellent assessment George. If you are interested in this subject I recommend Leary's "Game of life" which goes into more detail.
GuruGeorge has no need of references to anyone's work. ::)
Really? Not even Freddie Mercury?
Our brains are comprised of several layers of semi-autonomous functioning sub-systems, which inherit somewhat the mode of functioning of the ancestral form they exemplify. "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - our developing embryonic forms as we develop in the womb echo the embryonic forms of the animal ancestors in our past. It's not really that much of a stretch to think the brain has an archaeology that echoes this.
The dragon looked very similar to any large dinosaur, apart from the abiity to breathe fire lol.
Dr R.A.Wilson said that higher circuits are tuned on permanently by tantra done under the influence of pot. I believe he assimilated this knowledge from Crowley's writings. The person who does this has in effect, to use Leary speak, mutated. Those who do this are no longer what they were before. Now, in terms of the OP, would you not say that this is the route to True Will moreso? That is, turning on these higher circuits is the process by which we discover True Will.
To be blunt; no higher circuit turn-on= no True Will ; larval (reactive) human.
Higher circuit turn-on= True Will; post larval E.T. (non reactive) human.
Why do you beleve that? Why could it not have been a matter of Leary's personal experience?
Why do you beleve that? Why could it not have been a matter of Leary's personal experience?
Didn't Leary say somewhere that one way of looking at what he was doing was continuing the work Crowley started (mentioning him specifically by name)?
I don't think he meant that he was a "Crowleyian" or a Thelemite or anything, rather that he just saw some parallel or resonance with what AC did; but at the very least, he had to have been familiar with AC to make that statement, because in fact there is some parallel or resonance between what he was doing and what Crowley was doing. "Loosening the girders of the soul" at a societal level (i.e. helping particular individuals loosen the girders of their soul more easily and more safely, and it be more of a socially accepted thing).
Why do you beleve that? Why could it not have been a matter of Leary's personal experience?
Didn't Leary say somewhere that one way of looking at what he was doing was continuing the work Crowley started (mentioning him specifically by name)?
I don't think he meant that he was a "Crowleyian" or a Thelemite or anything, rather that he just saw some parallel or resonance with what AC did; but at the very least, he had to have been familiar with AC to make that statement, because in fact there is some parallel or resonance between what he was doing and what Crowley was doing. "Loosening the girders of the soul" at a societal level (i.e. helping particular individuals loosen the girders of their soul more easily and more safely, and it be more of a socially accepted thing).
I have sympathy with that point of view, gurugeorge. I was merely questioning the apparent assumtion by david that the knowledge would have come from an assimilation of Crowley's writings rather than Leary's personal experience.
Why do you beleve that? Why could it not have been a matter of Leary's personal experience?
I was actually talking about Wilson. Nevertheless Leary seemed to already know this before Wilson mentioned it to him and he may've come to the same conclusion himself. Anyway, back OT;
To be blunt; no higher circuit turn-on= no True Will ; larval (reactive) human.
Higher circuit turn-on= True Will; post larval E.T. (non reactive) human?