That said, I do have a challenge. If you understand it all that well, are you independent? Do all things come easy? Is wealth yours enough to create it for others? If not, question how deep your understanding. It is about things that make us more effective. Success in it has obvious symptoms. And don’t fall back on that old wheeze of you don’t need all that much. Those who are steward of self are steward in the world and the world does need all that much.
http://niggerwise.com On Nov 7, 6:02 pm, BBDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not a contest, dear. I have no intention of showing you any > reason to believe or feel anything at all. I don't struggle to > understand this particular subject matter. I work it. I use it daily. > Now, I do enjoy talking about it. Most especially with those who use > it on the level that I do, and even more with those who apply it in > the arts. None of it is about redeeming souls or making a better > world. It is more about mastering engraving and metallurgy. It is far > more about properly shearing a gem stone. It is more about stimulating > mind through art. I don’t really give a damn about all the New Age > take on it. Man nor the world is intended to be perfected but we can > strive to do perfect creations. > > http://niggerwise.com > > On Nov 7, 4:58 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
