pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/12/85)
The following is in reference to one message in the New Age Digest #4 posted by Tim Maroney. It had the following header: >Date: Thu, 10 Jan 85 23:48:33 pst >From: dual!joshua!josh@Berkeley >Subject: Stuff, and the NAD This was part of the introduction to the "Introductory Aleister Crowley Bibliography": >More subtle, however, is Crowley's sense of humor. He often sets up logical >traps for the unwise; he makes statements that are baldfaced lies for the >purpose of making the reader think (or disposing of the reader who is >unable to). For example, in his book "Magick" (also titled "Magick in >Theory and Practice"), there is a chapter entitled "Of the Bloody >Sacrifice: and Matters Cognate". The following lines are interesting: > > "For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly > choose a victim which contains the highest and purest > force. A male child of perfect innocence and high > intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable > victim." > >Yikes, that sounds scary. Then there is the footnote: > > "It appears from the Magickal Records of Frater Perdurabo > [Crowley--ed.] that He made this particular sacrifice on > the average of about 150 times a year between 1912 e.v. and > 1928 e.v." > >Obviously something is skewed here. No way he sacrificed 150 humans >a year; Gilles de Rais may have, but that was when nobility could >get away with anything. I am not going to ruin the joke by explaining >it; it is rather more interesting to figure out on your own. Suffice it >to say that neither quote is really a lie; just some games with words and >their effects. OK, I be the fool. (What else is new?) Maybe the author or Tim could "ruin" this joke for me. I guess I'm lazy (or maybe just unable to think). How about it? At your "disposal", -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/15/85)
Would that Josh could ruin it for you, but he isn't in network-land any more. I don't think it's foolish (in either the bad or the good sense) not to get the joke, but I'm afraid you won't find anyone who will spell it out, except perhaps in some of the published Crowley journals' footnotes. Here's an unhelpful hint: all the secrecy in the book is actually about a set of closely-related topics. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/17/85)
>Would that Josh could ruin it for you, but he isn't in network-land any >more. I don't think it's foolish (in either the bad or the good sense) not >to get the joke, but I'm afraid you won't find anyone who will spell it out, >except perhaps in some of the published Crowley journals' footnotes. Here's >an unhelpful hint: all the secrecy in the book is actually about a set of >closely-related topics. >-=- >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Definitely unhelpful; and truely disappointing. I would like to give Crowley the benefit of my doubt that this really is a joke (never mind that might I have a hard time seeing the humor in such a joke if it were one); that somehow he didn't really advocate human sacrifice at all. I would think that people who so strongly object to charges of satanic practice against Crowley and his disciples (is that a good word?) would be a little more helpful in clearing up any misunderstanding. Josh's inference that people who don't understand can't (or won't) think doesn't do it, I'm afraid. By the way, what's the "good sense" of being foolish? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (06/19/85)
> By the way, what's the "good sense" of being foolish? > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd " Have done with learning, And you will have no more vexation. How great is te difference between 'eh' and 'o'? What is the distinction between 'good' and 'evil'? Must I fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense this is! All men are joyous and beaming, As though feasting upon a sacrificial ox, As though mounting the Spring Terrace; I alone am placid and give no sign, Like a babe which has not yet smiled. I alone am forlorn as one who has no home to return to. All men have enough and to spare: I alone appear to possess nothing. What a fool I am! What a muddled mind I have! All men are bright, bright: I alone am dim, dim. All men are sharp, sharp: I alone am mum, mum! Bland like the ocean, Aimless like the wafting gale. All men settle down in their grooves: I alone am stubborn amd remain outside. But wherein I am most different from others is In knowing to take sustenance from my Mother!" --Lao Tzu -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Send lawyers, guns, and money... -Warren Zevon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/26/85)
>From Paul Dubuc: > Definitely unhelpful; and truely disappointing. I would like to give > Crowley the benefit of my doubt that this really is a joke (never mind > that might I have a hard time seeing the humor in such a joke if it were > one); that somehow he didn't really advocate human sacrifice at all. I > would think that people who so strongly object to charges of satanic > practice against Crowley and his disciples (is that a good word?) would > be a little more helpful in clearing up any misunderstanding. If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is obviously impossible to get away with that. As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. I have no desire to tear down a veil that was put up by a Magus. No one told me what the subject of secrecy was; I had to figure it out myself. It does not involve any imposition of one's will on another, such as involving someone in something without their consent, or killing or wounding someone, as should be obvious to anyone who has read my expositions of Thelema. It does, however, run counter to taboo-list morality in its Jewish, Moslem, and Christian manifestations. You would not find any such difficulty in Hindu or Taoist cultures. And that's such an obvious hint that I may have already overstepped the proper boundaries! No more, sorry. "Disciple" implies slavish obedience and worship. I disagree with Crowley on a number of points and I do not worship him. So I don't think it's a very good term. If you need to refer to us as a group for some reason, try "Thelemites". Just don't call us late fo -- oh, never mind. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
wkp@lanl.ARPA (06/27/85)
In article <464@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Tim Maroney writes: > It > does, however, run counter to taboo-list morality in its Jewish, Moslem, and > Christian manifestations. You would not find any such difficulty in Hindu > or Taoist cultures. > I think that this statement is a little unfair. Taboos? Let's not forget that Hinduism theologically and socially justifies the Varna (the four main castes plus the Untouchable caste). Paraiyans, Kammalans and Pulayans, etc. to this day are discouraged from (for example) eating with or marrying each other. I rather like the Upanishads, Puranas, and the Bhagavad-Gita, but much of these writings are no more sophisticated than some of the sacred writings of Western religions. So let's be fair. I myself feel that emphasis on social justice and charity is an important part of any religion, and performing ritual ablutions if another (lower-caste) human being comes within a distance of 64 feet of you is not something to be proud of. -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp "A demd, damp, moist, unpleasant body!" --Charles Dickens
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/27/85)
>From Bill Peter: > >It does, however, run counter to taboo-list morality in its Jewish, Moslem, > >and Christian manifestations. You would not find any such difficulty in > >Hindu or Taoist cultures. > I think that this statement is a little unfair. Taboos? Let's not forget > that Hinduism theologically and socially justifies the Varna (the four main > castes plus the Untouchable caste). Paraiyans, Kammalans and Pulayans, etc. > to this day are discouraged from (for example) eating with or marrying each > other. > I rather like the Upanishads, Puranas, and the Bhagavad-Gita, but much of > these writings are no more sophisticated than some of the sacred writings > of Western religions. So let's be fair. I myself feel that emphasis on > social justice and charity is an important part of any religion, and > performing ritual ablutions if another (lower-caste) human being comes > within a distance of 64 feet of you is not something to be proud of. Since I specifically stated that the subject of secrecy was taboo only under the Jewish, Christian, and Moslem taboo lists, this whole message is a non sequitur. It seems you misread my message as claiming that only those three religions have taboos. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/29/85)
>> = Paul Dubuc > = Tim Maroney >> Definitely unhelpful; and truly disappointing. I would like to give >> Crowley the benefit of my doubt that this really is a joke (never mind >> that might I have a hard time seeing the humor in such a joke if it were >> one); that somehow he didn't really advocate human sacrifice at all. I >> would think that people who so strongly object to charges of satanic >> practice against Crowley and his disciples (is that a good word?) would >> be a little more helpful in clearing up any misunderstanding. > >If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human >sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is >obviously impossible to get away with that. No, I didn't believe the 150 part. (That was apparently added by a commentator anyway) But that's not what I'm talking about above, is it? The issue I wanted to get clear is that Crowley did not accept human sacrifice in principle. No matter. Some folks have already let me in on the "joke" by mail, and I am convinced that their explanations make sense. I'm glad they had a little more faith in me than you in this respect. >As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? >I have no desire to tear down a veil that was put up by a Magus. No one >told me what the subject of secrecy was; I had to figure it out myself. >It does not involve any imposition of one's will on another, such as >involving someone in something without their consent, or killing or >wounding someone, as should be obvious to anyone who has read my expositions >of Thelema. Pardon me, but my expositions of Christian doctrine haven't kept some people from interpreting it in the worst possible light, either. It didn't know your expositions were authoritative interpretations of Crowley's writings or that they should be received as such by others. >It does, however, run counter to taboo-list morality in its Jewish, Moslem, and >Christian manifestations. You would not find any such difficulty in Hindu >or Taoist cultures. And that's such an obvious hint that I may have already >overstepped the proper boundaries! No more, sorry. Proper boundries? So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate murder? >"Disciple" implies slavish obedience and worship. I disagree with Crowley >on a number of points and I do not worship him. So I don't think it's a >very good term. If you need to refer to us as a group for some reason, try >"Thelemites". Just don't call us late fo -- oh, never mind. It doesn't imply that to me, unless you're talking about the biblical "bond slave". Most people think of chattel slaves when you say "slavish". Is that the impression you get? BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/01/85)
> >If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human > >sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is > >obviously impossible to get away with that. > > No, I didn't believe the 150 part. (That was apparently added by a > commentator anyway) But that's not what I'm talking about above, is it? > The issue I wanted to get clear is that Crowley did not accept human > sacrifice in principle. No matter. Some folks have already let me in > on the "joke" by mail, and I am convinced that their explanations make > sense. I'm glad they had a little more faith in me than you in this respect. All this reminds me of an incident that happened when I was about 12 or 13 years old. The story is that a guy in my class crucified a child he was supposed to be baby sitting, believing that he could invoke the occult to bring it back to life. I can't swear that this is absolutely correct for my parents refused to discuss the matter, and the information had to come via the gossip mongers. However the kid was pretty weird, kept to himself alot, and would occasionally come to school with a rat's skull on a chain around his neck. We never saw him again after the incident. The point of all this is that some people do not have the ability to put things in perspective. Some will swallow anything that is held to be true by "authority". If Crowley is joking, there are people out there who will not understand this. Look at all the crap in bookstores on astrology and the occult. There are people who will accept chunks of this at face value. I think that it would be a time bomb if his "joke" was placed in with the astrology and occult section. Padraig Houlahan.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (07/02/85)
No, the figure 150 is from the book, which you'd know if you read things before criticizing them. I did not tell you the meaning of that passage because it is the antithesis of occultism to ask someone else to lift a veil for you. Remember that occultism is the uncovering of what is hidden, the lifting of veils. It has nothing to do with trusting you or not. I would not tell anyone, because doing so cannot conceivably lead to virtue. I do not know why anyone told you, unless it was simply that they were tired of hearing this discussion. I have never twisted your expositions of Christianity. All my statements about Christianity come from study of the scriptures and history of the religion. If my knowledge were from second-hand introductions on the network, I would simply keep silent. Finally, I did not and never have referred to the passage as a joke. It is a veil cast across a particular technique. If you wish to see some humor in it, fine, and if not, fine. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (07/03/85)
>> = Tim Maroney > = Paul Dubuc >>As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >>subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >>subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. > >The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward >the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? Maybe I can help clarify what Tim is saying (or at least what I think he is saying). Replace the phrase "subject of secrecy" with "subject of the secrecy" and it should make more sense. >So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate >murder? There is not any reference to murder at all. Only to sacrifice, and we all know that there are many forms of sacrifice. The readers are left to draw their own conclusions. >BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, >but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. Maybe calling it a joke wasn't the best description possible, but you should be able to see that many people use the word "joke" to indicate that they are not really serious. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/04/85)
> The point of all this is that some people do not have the ability to > put things in perspective. Some will swallow anything that is held > to be true by "authority". If Crowley is joking, there are people > out there who will not understand this. Look at all the crap > in bookstores on astrology and the occult. There are people who > will accept chunks of this at face value. I think that it would be > a time bomb if his "joke" was placed in with the astrology and occult > section. > > Padraig Houlahan. That's the risk with satire. Without a warning label on it, some people won't know the difference between satire and the real thing. Partly because truth is stranger than fiction, even the most ridiculous fiction. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/09/85)
From Tim Maroney: >No, the figure 150 is from the book, which you'd know if you read things >before criticizing them. But did Crowley actually write it? The original article quoted it as a footnote. Since it speaks of Crowley in the third person I assumed it was added later by someone else: "For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose a victim which contains the highest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim." Yikes, that sounds scary. Then there is the footnote: "It appears from the Magickal Records of Frater Perdurabo [Crowley--ed.] that He made this particular sacrifice on the average of about 150 times a year between 1912 e.v. and 1928 e.v." >I did not tell you the meaning of that passage because it is the antithesis >of occultism to ask someone else to lift a veil for you. Remember that >occultism is the uncovering of what is hidden, the lifting of veils. It has >nothing to do with trusting you or not. I would not tell anyone, because >doing so cannot conceivably lead to virtue. Fine. But you should have said this sooner instead of telling me >If you are willing to believe that Crowley killed 150 people a year in human >sacrifice, then I'm sure nothing I could say would dissuade you. It is >obviously impossible to get away with that. As I said before, the issue wasn't what was said in the footnote. It was whether Crowley viewed human sacrifice as acceptable or not. I am not an occultist, so I don't really care about violating it by asking a question. The reason I asked for the explaination in the first place is because you and others have ridiculed Christians for interpreting your beliefs as Satanic. You insist that they are not, that there is some hidden meaning to obscure passages like this, but straightening the whole thing out "cannot conceivably lead to virtue"? You've spent a lot of time knocking the Bible for moral judgements you think are unjust. Yet here we are supposed to accept something Crowley says as "satire" (someone else's term) and just take your word for it. >I do not know why anyone told >you, unless it was simply that they were tired of hearing this discussion. Actually they responded to my first inquiry. I don't think they are Thelemites (at least, not anymore). They just had it figured out and told me. >I have never twisted your expositions of Christianity. All my statements >about Christianity come from study of the scriptures and history of the >religion. If my knowledge were from second-hand introductions on the >network, I would simply keep silent. I didn't mean to imply that you had. It's just that you said that your expositions of Crowley's writing should have prevented us from interpreting his morality so as to advocate human sacrifice. I've studied Christianity first hand myself and I have given my perspective of it here. That hasn't prevented others from giving their own unfavorable opinion. I don't think it should. You seemed to think that your perspective of Crowley should carry more weight for others than a Christian's does of Christianity. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/09/85)
>>> = Tim Maroney >> = Paul Dubuc > = Robert Pease >>>As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >>>subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >>>subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. >> >>The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward >>the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? > >Maybe I can help clarify what Tim is saying (or at least what I think >he is saying). Replace the phrase "subject of secrecy" with "subject >of the secrecy" and it should make more sense. Ok, I guess it does make more sense. Is that what you really meant, Tim? >>So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate >>murder? > >There is not any reference to murder at all. Only to sacrifice, and >we all know that there are many forms of sacrifice. The readers are >left to draw their own conclusions. I said "appearing to advocate murder". What do you call a sacrifice with a "victim"? Are we playing juggling games with semantics here? (I'd still like an answer to the original question, if it's allowed an answer). >>BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, >>but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. > >Maybe calling it a joke wasn't the best description possible, but you >should be able to see that many people use the word "joke" to indicate >that they are not really serious. Yeah, you're right. I guess I was being too picky there. Considering the subject of the "joke" however, I would hope that I wouldn't just be asked to believe Crowley wasn't serious and also be refused an explaination. That's the whole bone I had to pick with Tim. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd