hara wrote:
> 50071215 xi!
>
> shalom alechem, my kin!
>
> Joseph Littleshoes
isp.com>:
> >>hara wrote:
>>
>>>Joseph Littleshoes
isp.com>:
>>>>>>>I keep an updated copy of 777, a copy i update as regularly as i can.
>>>>But that is merely an intellectual exercise and given some of the
>>>>African concepts names and numbers i have ran across recently im not
>>>>even sure of my attributions. Lwa = Dharma?
>>
>>No i meant "Lwa" but i have only recently fond a few pages with voodoo
>>and hoodoo glossaries.
>
>
> I'd be interested to know what other attributions are associated
> with each and what leads to this marriage/syntax/intersection.
I will dissect and translate your "transmission" over the next few days.
I have found some of it i don't need to reference as, in so far as i
think i understand you, i think we are in agreement.
But of what's left, at least 2/3 of it i have not, at this moment a clue
what you are writing. I have found that i can "translate" you but your
writing, as i have written before, is very dense and so it takes me a while.
>
>>>that is a convention, yes.
>>>do you keep your 777 online where others might view it?
>>
>>Oh gracious no, i wore out my old MDR (magicians desk reference) long
>>ago and was just able to salvage most of my additions (spilled vial of
>>patchouli oil:) but have never put it back in that one page format, each
>>line on one page, as per the privately printed O.T.O. version.
>
>
> what operating system and software were you using?
I was talking about various versions of "hard texts" not "soft ware". I
have a PDF 777 but i cant edit it, and the one html version i have seen
on the net looks so bad on the net i never thought of making a copy of it.
>i don't think of 777 as sacrosanct, and as
> anything other than in a minor way a convenient kernel upon
> which to improve.
I think Crowley said or wrote much the same thing about it. And of
course in the essays he questioned the validity of any such a compendium.
>
> over time i've become very much more familiar with matrices of this
> type in part because i've constructed a number and have geared some
> toward specific workings. I resisted even *having* a copy of 777
> for years until one of my kin gave one to me. my reasoning was very
> specific and sound: i thought that cementing to any standard was a
> crutch that i did not want to even be tempted doing,
If i had found Agrippa first, but it were the essays in 777 that led me
to Agrippa and other "tabulators."
> and i wasn't
> completely sure what the use was for a standardized matrix. through
> time i confirmed that, outside ceremonial orders, i had no need for
> such a standard, as i naturally constructed them as a matter of my
> ritual and investigatory occult activities and found them to be
> more convincing that Crowley's and Bennet's efforts (anybody
> ever seen what Crowley inherited?).
There might even be a natural or "organic" matrix there to be discovered.
>
> people don't talk about this kind of thing very often, i notice, at
> least not in public. there are numerous variations possible coming
> off of conventional symbolism in contemplation of numerous cultures,
> and this proliferates substantially as multiple cultures are matched
> up and some system considered for their resolution in the mind of
> a working mage. in some sectors (Elements, for example) there are
> roadblocks for this kind of reductionism, though i'm finding ways
> of resolving this issue within the Book of Thoth.
There are also situations where a "true believer" cant or wont accept
any variation on a theme.
>
> my aim is two-fold (at least) in the construction of these matrices.
>
> for one my aim is the conceptual and symbolical assimilation of all
> cultures that interest me and seem to have at least a single if not
> a multiple of resolved symbolic platforms. it intrigues me that the
> Bennet/Crowley 777 (did Bennet have help from anyone?) was also not
> completely satisfactory to Crowley as he published and Regardie
> introduced it.
> it should NOT have been, as regards cultural
> knowledge, and only the foolish or inexperienced have suggested
> to me that it, or its like, might be.
Ok here i would ask you to explain that last sentence, i don't
understand it.
> it is a tool,
yes ok
> and as such,
> the consciousness of the mage constructing it is as important a
> factor as the realism of the cultural strands inherent to it.
If i understand you than i would agree, what one brings the system is as
important, if not more so, than the system itself?
>
> in other words, like a magical object which one constructs, there
> is no "right way" to construct such a matrix, only rational
> criticisms as to its associations from the outside as regards the
> cultures one is assimilating and the elegance or coherence of the
> entirety. these will bear on the likelihood that the magical link
> will be effective in its use so as to result in magical success,
> adding the factors of the mage's skill and the circumstances and
> components assembled for the spell.
And that, that, CAN be done is an easy assumption to make for various
reasons. IF it can be done, how it is done, seems to me, less important.
>
> my other, and more specific, aim in such constructions is for
> a particular subjective and operational effect. whatever the
> orthodox may contend, there is no optimum or sanctified set of
> associations excepting for readymade tools such as the Harris-
> Crowley Thoth deck (because it comes complete with them inside
> its graphic symbolism), as i see it, because i don't have the
> same axiomatic foundations from which they tend to base their
> assessments.
>
> my impression, therefore, is that, absent these realities, it
> make smore sense to me to orient to my current consciousness
> and the local culture and language around me, rather than to
> assimilate some middle-eastern mythos and fashioned history
> which is, to me, unlikely, as the 'best matrix dataset'.
What can i say, i like reading myth and legend of other cultures, i like
trying to integrate them into what i have decided about "Magick" is
relevant to me.
>
>
>>>is it substantially like the Bennett/Crowleyan matrix?
>>
>>Im not sure how you mean matrix
>
>
> in a conventional sense: a lattice
Conceptually, for me, more like a ladder, in its "conventional" sense
that can be ascended or descended, but at the same time a sort of
spherical version of a tessaract.
>of key terms and the ideas
> with which they are associated. this is a means to conceptually
> associate very different kinds of things along a prospectively
> harmonic key which one might "tug", magically, to effect one's
> desires (mystical or more pragmatic).
Do you mean have an effect on ones desires or effect as in getting what
one desires?
> sometimes this is done
> via meaning, and sometimes via a numerical evaluative. very
> often it is done along proximate lines, such as having come
> into physical proximity (as when one uses someone's clothing
> or business card in conventional spellcasting for the icon
> of the spell's target).
>
>
>>but my Weiser edition
>>"Introduction by Israel Regardie
>>This edition includes Liber 777, Gematria (from Equinox Volume 1, Number
>>5), and Sepher Sephiroth (from Equinox Volume 1, Number 8)... 336 pages"
>>Is in various pieces and i most often refer to the few columns in Book
>>IV if i need a reference.
>
>
> oh yes i'm familiar with the published versions of this. so you were
> building from that root in a 32-harmonic with the Crowleyan Tree of
> Life. did you make refinements, or just add accumulatively?
Accumulatevly...i think?
>
> re the suggestion to engage a Tree of Life's components and contemplate
> its various strands, potentially creating an effect like synethesia:
>
>
>>>>>divinatory orientation.
>>>
>>>>Interesting. Are you arguing randomness?
>>>
>>>no, system review like doing 16 readings with 16 (or 4) different
>>>decks of Tarot (or cartomancy) cards to determine what the result
>>>might be as to my present condition.
>
>
>>"Oy Gevult!"
>
>
> I've done this through long periods of time when assessing divination
> tools or coming to try to learn about them (as when sequencing Yijing
> with Tarot while learning about Yijing). my exploration of the Harris-
> Crowley Thoth (my first Tarot deck, my favourite still) was such that
> i wasn't feeling the New Age heart-felt support in the cards, or the
> references that i tend to use in interpreting them, so i supplemented
> with something more akin to my interests (neo-tantra, collage) that
> had a supportive feel to it. the combination was quite satisfactory.
> I have met one or maybe 2 others who did likewise (with the same
> tools, and a number who were familiar enough with both so as to be
> able to understand my expression about them), and within the past
> few years i've focussed more on magic (talisman-making, mojo bag
> construction, etc.), and on the construction of the Book of Thoth
> as i understand it within my working chamber/contemplations.
And we all know how painful that can be:)
Seriously, i admire not only your ability to describe what you are
doing, but the doing of it even more. I personally have moved away
from actual objects to more "astral" efforts.
Yes thank you very much for the hawk feather, it is coming back home
after a few months, and now that it has been in its recipients
possession it has, i feel, become "associated" with that person, along
with the citrine quartz, sunflower petals, cinnamon and the pantacle i
constructed for the medicine bag.
>
>
>>>I've used 2 decks this way
>>>and found it very helpful (Secret Dakini and Thoth Tarot). often
>>>in the reverse order as the Thoth was more cutting and discipline
>>>and the Dakini was all heart and support.
>>
>>Hmm i find it to be the exact opposite, the Crowley more
>>abstruse and mystically subtle and the Dakini more
>>"Cutting Edge" and to the point, almost blunt.
>
>
> interesting. could be how our consciousness intersects them both.
> you haven't said anything of their compassion or friendliness.
The Thoth was love at first sight, a mad passionate affair that still
burns brightly, my one true love, but there are several decks i have
strayed with, the Dakini being one i actually worked professionally
with, for a while.
>
>
>>I have tried using not only numerous decks but different tools
>>for one reading, a tarot reading complemented or accented by
>>an I Ching reading,
>
>
> I've done this also. it seems it must be a commonplace for those
> who are interested in occultism for any length of time to engage
> this kind of multi-tool usage. it must vary, particularly for
> those who see it as a single-line trajectory of mystical works.
>
>
>>often with a good deal of astrology thrown in along with some gemetria
>>and other numerological manipulations, and a touch of bibliomancy just
>>to top it all off in one session.
>
>
> one may 'home in' within such a varied sounding.
>
>
>>But i stopped doing that maybe 15 years ago to concentrate
>>on the single tool of the Thoth deck.
>
>
> yes, that's a good way to refine your skills and expand that
> tool's usefuleness to you.
>
>
>>>>>the purpose of receiving the transmission
>
>
> elaborating here now that i know of your meaning, i was very
> interested in reflecting on the term 'transmission' here as
> the significance of 'kabbalah' (i.e. my response was in
> reflection of the Jewish mystical society and its workings,
> manifesting to the outside world as writings or spoken
> expressions; this has correlates amongst Christians and
> neoGnostics).
I tend to think its not so much that i am receiving a transmission as
much as i am constructing the ability or perhaps mastering the ability
to decipher chaos, to see and sometimes impose patterns where none exist.
In some cases i do think a chaotic state may by "crystallized" just by
becoming aware of it.
All so, whether it makes any sense or not i have had transcendental or,
some might argue, psychotic experiences with the Thoth deck i have never
had with any other deck.
>
>
>>>>Isn't that an assumption?
>>>
>>>damn straight. I am not even sure i know what you mean here, but
>>>you are quite correct that i made a decision as to his meaning,
>>>a supposition, assumption, and ran with it.
>
>
>>If i read you correctly you were implying if not assuming
>>not only a validity
>
>
> I don't know what 'validity' might mean in such a context.
Ultimately the validity of the transmission is its existence, which i
question, but also, whether there is a more correct form of information
that could be said to be transmitted. I do not accept this but i
acknowledge the theoretical possibility.
> I don't assume that the conventional notions of religion
> are literally reflective of the real (that any specific
> cult has a handle on the Creator of the cosmos and single
> true authority of the universe, no; i don't have evidence
> that such a Creation occurred or that such an authority
> exists in any sense, though i fantasize my God there upon
> occasion).
>
>
>>but an existence to any message that might be received.
>
>
> that seems obvious that a large body of data is being
> transmitted (in books and in personal instruction).
And i was thinking more in the sense of "enlightenment" or satori or
samadhi, the "light bulb" moment.
>
>
>>I question the objective existence of the "transmission"
>>even more than any message that might be assumed to be
>>of it.
>
>
> strange. perhaps we have different ideas about it then
> and i'll watch for your more central meaning.
Essentially i think cultivating the 'Transmission" may create it,
seeking an answer may create the answer rather than there being some
objective answer waiting to be found.
>
>
>>I think a study can produce a gestalt or result that
>>may not have been designed into the system.
>
>
> agreed. not sure how that factors into what you're
> describing as a possibly nonextant transmission.
We merely call it a transmission till what ever that transmission is
changes our perception of it.
>
> maybe you're talking about matrices that we create
> on our own, and the fact that we may not be truly
> engaging anything that is 'sending' something. that
> seems quite logical to me, and if that is your
> meaning, i would agree and say that it would be
> better described as 'delving' (a single-pointed
> self-exploration and mystical endeavour) which
> may or may not have other repercussions.
I would replace "delving" with "exploring" and agree with the rest.
>
> too often in conventional occultism only the large-
> scale systems and physically active endeavours are
> deemed likely to yield results,
By whom?
> but where divination
> and magic intersect i think there is a broad range
> of possibility that most fail to understand. your
> observation that there may be, in reality, no
> "transmitter" is a helpful refinement of some
> personal and divinatory orientation as i would
> describe it, and it analyzes, if so, the personal
> delving that divination and contemplative magic
> may include for its actual process.
>
> granted that there is in actuality no transmitter,
> does this affect how you relate to it or what you
> call it?
Sure, "it" does not cease to exist, merely any objective transmission,
which is replaced by exploration and discovery and creation with in the
organic matrix that already exists.
>
>
>>>>that there not only is something there to receive
>>>
>>>in a conventional sense it is mappable, traceable,
>>>in books. in an oral sense it is attested to by bodies.
>>
The existence of the tools, their traditional uses, and the claims made
for them are mappable.
>>The existence of the tools, their traditional uses,
>>and the claims made for them.
>
And the rest im saving for tomorrow, though when it comes to math.....
--
JL
.
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Consult
http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
Moderation Team at moderators@
alt-magick-moderated.org
