On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It also appears > from the frequency of variations of the word "belief" that it is this > dulling faith you seek.
I use the word belief in a similar way to how you have used "appears" in the above sentence. My purpose is to let you know that I know that I am not certain, but have reason to think something is true. I am more than willing to examine evidence that I have not seen which might change my beliefs. That is the main reason that I have been writing to you. So far you have perked my interest but I also feel that you have not shown me any reason to believe that you have a significantly deeper understanding of these subjects that I have. I am still open to changing my mind or even just having some fun talking about these subjects that both "skeptics" and religionist find unbearable. On Nov 7, 12:05 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is no stoicism nor humility called for in kabbalah. There is > that element in faiths that include kabbalah. That is like saying > English or Latin requires humility. It is a pattern in faith that undo > significance is given some element of the experience of thinking. > Those sources you refer to are distortions of faith. It also appears > from the frequency of variations of the word "belief" that it is this > dulling faith you seek. I would recommend a narcotic over faith. > > Transcendent states exclude ego. Escher in prolonged attention to the > act of etching looses sense of self and experiences transcendent > concepts. The same thing happens in many such endeavors that require > prolonged and intense attention. QBL requires prolonged and intense > attention. What is inevitable is not a requirement. > > To win at chess lose yourself in the game. Is it a requirement because > worded that way? Or is it inevitable in the process of winning? > > http://niggerwise.com > > On Nov 7, 10:08 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 7, 2:28 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Isparklaria, YOU NEED HELP! > > > BBDD, if you really have all of the experience with QBL that you > > claim, then I could use your help, if I decide to pursue that study. > > In that case, I would actually be grateful for any help you could > > give me. > > > On Nov 7, 2:28 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All your notions on this subject are extremely flawed! No, there is no > > > > demand for stoicism in kabbalah. None at all. > > > QBL and other more recent takes on Kabbalah may not require stoicism; > > I don’t know much about QBL; my only knowledge of QBL comes from books > > and a little bit of dabbling with some ideas found in them. On the > > other hand the old literature on Kabbalah makes it clear that > > practicing Kabbalistic meditation without first transforming ones > > personality so that one is stoic will likely lead to big problems. It > > is possible that the methods of QBL have changed enough from Kabbalah > > so that this is no longer necessary to be stoic. > > > This is from on link that back up what I say about stoicism and > > Kabbalah:http://www.cs.utah.edu/~spiegel/kabbalah/jkm07.htm > > 7.21 Humility > > One must obtain the level of humility before being able to experience > > authentic kabbalah. And what is humility? This is none other then to > > be stoic, to be indifferent to one who complements as one who insults. > > [629] Bittul – nullify means humility in Hebrew. > > > There are many books and web pages that also say that stoicism is > > needed. I believe them not because they are merely from what seems top > > be a good authority (and I have heard this advice from people who I > > also believe were knew what they were talking about), but I believe > > this because it seems reasonable. I know from even low-level > > meditation that one can have problems if one is easily influenced by > > these experiences. Stoicism is necessary to keep things in > > perspective. > > > I am very busy today, so I might not get back to you until much later > > this evening. I see that you wrote some things about Thelema, but I > > have not yet read them. I am planning to read them later. At that time > > I may also respond. > > > On Nov 7, 2:28 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Isparklaria, YOU NEED HELP! > > > > All your notions on this subject are extremely flawed! No, there is no > > > demand for stoicism in kabbalah. None at all. There is no demand for > > > anything. There is a path for success. No, stoicism is not an element > > > of that. You are confusing different systems of Western esoteric > > > initiation. > > > > You are sighting some of the most peripheral and nonsensical material > > > available. Anton for example. Child I knew Anton. As mentioned before, > > > I lived across the street from Kenneth Anger. There were three of us > > > laying the ground work for Thelema back then. Kenneth Anger, Kenneth > > > Grant, and myself. Anton was the community fool. He was the giggle > > > factor. All that he wrote was a very distorted comic book version > > > designed to pick pockets. > > > >http://niggerwise.com > > > > On Nov 6, 3:23 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:46 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Still no reason to be cruel jerk to > > > > > > everyone. > > > > > Another thing about Crowley's approach is that it had certain elements > > > > in common with the old school (Kabbalah). Whether coincidence or not > > > > the old school claimed that one was not ready to begin the real work > > > > until one had acheived a high degree of stoicism. You are probably > > > > familiar with the saying that one should feel the same when insulted > > > > or praised. Only after achieving this state should one begin serious > > > > meditation. Crowley it appears required the same attitude in his > > > > students. It seems as if he believed that treating them badly would > > > > help develop this stoicism. Unfortunately of them were pushed over the > > > > edge. > > > > > Here is some more important information about Crowley’s approach to > > > > illuminism from Robert Anton > > > > Wilson:http://www.enemyonbothsides.com/2004/10/wretched-october-day.html > > > > > One of Crowley’s major contemporary interpreters, Robert Anton Wilson, > > > > outlined certain additional requirements for engaging in the practice > > > > of Scientific Illuminism in his Cosmic Trigger vol 1. These are “a) > > > > being in excellent health b)being competent in at least one athletic > > > > skill c) being able to conduct experiments accurately in at least one > > > > science d) having a general knowledge of several sciences e) being > > > > able to pass an examination in formal logic being able to pass an > > > > examination in the history of philosophy including Idealism, > > > > Materialism, Rationalism, Spiritualism, Comparative Theology, etc.” > > > > RAW also notes that “[without this] kind of general knowledge and the > > > > self-confidence and independence of thought produced by such study, > > > > magick investigations will merely blow your mind.(p. 72)” > > > > > The article continues by the author (*NOT* R A Wilson) I am putting > > > > this here for others who read this sight and are not familiar with > > > > Crowley’s magic. > > > > > So what interest might this be for a contemporary psychonaut? After > > > > all the basic methodology that Crowley outlines in his training Libri > > > > is that of a kind of intentional self-delusion. Wouldn’t investigating > > > > these methods prove fruitless? What is there of value here once all > > > > the Crowleyana is shaken off? And why bother with physical fitness or > > > > athletics at all? > > > > > What Crowley’s system of Scientific Illuminism teaches is not simply > > > > self-delusion but rather learning to pull the wool over your own eyes > > > > and as such learning about the nature of the mind and its contents. > > > > This might seem like a fruitless endeavor, but unless one has engaged > > > > in such intentional manipulation of perception and learned how it is > > > > done one will never know how much of your own “hard won Initiatory > > > > experience” is not simply a product of using your preferred wool, > > > > especially in cases of Deity Mysticism. These methods also teach one a > > > > certain amount of healthy skepticism about one’s own magical > > > > experiences and helps to provide a more conscious understanding of > > > > events self-exploration can engender. > > > > > At its essence Scientific Illuminism is the combination of three > > > > things: Rational Training, Meditative Practice and Ritual Magic. This > > > > combination is perhaps one of the most effective methods for fully > > > > realizing your potential as a magician. Of all of them perhaps the > > > > most important is that of Rational Training. Rationality has long been > > > > falsely seen as anathema to magic. What it is anathema to is not magic > > > > but rather pre-rationalism masquerading as significance. > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:46 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > No, it is not. It was because he was an a hole. One reacts in > > > > > different ways due to early repression. So that is why he couldn't > > > > > keep his hands off his own junk. Still no reason to be cruel jerk to > > > > > everyone. > > > > > >http://niggerwise.com > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:05 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why do I consider him a perv? Well, it has nothing to do with his > > > > > > > sexual preference for himself, if that is what you are wondering. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > base it on his inclination for excessive indulgence and > > > > > > > compulsively > > > > > > > hurting, to the point of destroying, any who showed they cared for > > > > > > > him. > > > > > > > Okay, I'll buy that. I suspect that it had a lot to do with the fact > > > > > > that his parents were members of the Plymouth Bretheren. For those > > > > > > who > > > > > > don't know, this ws the sect (cult?) that launched the current > > > > > > Rapture > > > > > > craze more than 150 and fifty years ago. > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:05 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why do I consider him a perv? Well, it has nothing to do with his > > > > > > > sexual preference for himself, if that is what you are wondering. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > base it on his inclination for excessive indulgence and > > > > > > > compulsively > > > > > > > hurting, to the point of destroying, any who showed they cared for > > > > > > > him. > > > > > > > >http://niggerwise.com > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:44 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 11:33 am, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > reading that perv, Crowley, does. > > > > > > > > > In what way do you consider Crowley a pervert? I am not saying > > > > > > > > that he > > > > > > > > was- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
