|
Post by stephen on Jan 11, 2016 14:35:51 GMT
So, because I expressed my impression/recollection of the colour scale which Grant says he is using for the Qlippothic Sentinels of LIBER 231, I am being "absurd" and "dogmatic" apparently. Guess its just as well that my spelling is usually fairly accurate, otherwise I'd probably come in for a bloody monologue a la mode NOT 2 about that as well.
A quick look in NOE suggests that Grant uses the Daughter/Princess/Empress Scale for backgrounds generally with other infusions, depending to some extent on what looks/works well for visualisation, which seems to me to be eminently sensible.
Seems that any criticism of Grant or any mention of Crowley gives our NOT 2 a fit of apoplepsy resulting in a mish-mash of information and invective that I for one am beginning to find tedious.
|
|
|
Post by Al Khadir. on Jan 17, 2016 16:57:46 GMT
Not 2. You are totally misunderstood and an asshole to boot. As said before get a life. If you are an advert for the typhonian traditions then I am perfectly happy to work with my own system that works for me instead of trying to be divisive and refusing to listen to anyone other than your inner clique.
You quite obviously havnt understood any initiatiatory experiences you have had as you feel the need to quote from others rather than your own personal expriences, whether my spelling is correct or not.
innit
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Jan 18, 2016 14:18:17 GMT
Not 2. You are totally misunderstood and an asshole to boot. As said before get a life. If you are an advert for the typhonian traditions then I am perfectly happy to work with my own system that works for me instead of trying to be divisive and refusing to listen to anyone other than your inner clique. You quite obviously havnt understood any initiatiatory experiences you have had as you feel the need to quote from others rather than your own personal expriences, whether my spelling is correct or not. innit NOTE BY MODERATOR
Al Khadir:
I realise that you have strong feelings about the response of NOT 2 to your previous posts, but please do not use terms of personal abuse such as "asshole" or anything similar when referring to another user of these forums, or indeed anyone else for that matter. There's nothing wrong with robust debate, but please do not make personal remarks like this.
There are no formal Forum Guidelines at present. Since such guidelines boil down to a simple essence - be civil to each other, and be respectful of copyright - there shouldn't be a need to spell things out.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Mar 6, 2016 19:54:05 GMT
So, because I expressed my impression/recollection of the colour scale which Grant says he is using for the Qlippothic Sentinels of LIBER 231, I am being "absurd" and "dogmatic" apparently. Guess its just as well that my spelling is usually fairly accurate, otherwise I'd probably come in for a bloody monologue a la mode NOT 2 about that as well. Stephen,
Yes, congratulations on the spelling. But reading needs work, as you've taken issue with something I did not say in the statement you actually quoted with perfect accuracy only a few millimeters above your response.
For absolute clarity, let me spell it out :
The notion that there is a "correct" or "incorrect" Golden Dawn colour scale for use with the Qliphoth of Crowley's Liber 231 - or Grant's Nightside of Eden, a separate book, nb. - is, obviously, a dogma. This dogmatic notion, this dogma, is absurd. Not you, and not for expressing yourself, as if I would suggest anything of the sort. What you express might be absurd, but you are not absurd for expressing it, not unless you identify with it. The dogma is the subject of that sentence. The dogma. It, this dogma, is baseless (unless Moina Mathers is - or was - infallible). As such, it is absurd.
Al-Khidir's post pretended to "correct" Grant's use of colour in Nightside of Eden, a ridiculous posture without anything but ego behind it. You, in defence of Grant, stated that the colour scale Grant used was "the correct" one. An inversion of Al-Khidir's position, both of you nonetheless speaking as though an objectively "correct" or "incorrect" colour scale for the Liber 231 Qliphoth exists, with yourselves as its minister. It doesn't, and you're not.
These dogmatic statements, yours and Al-Khidir's, I regard as absurd, because, as I have said, they are baseless.
If you disagree, you have equal right as do I to post to whatever length of reply is demanded by its detail and scope. There is no limit - and you can say this to anyone who suggests you are talking too much. Go for it. It's actually what the forum is for. Writing. It's what we come here for.
Educate me if you disagree.
2.
You're welcome to find it tedious.
Do you know what I find tedious, Stephen?
Sentences of more than three misspelled syllables being called "a fit of apoplepsy", and carefully composed responses being dismissed as a mish-mash, when you've barely even tried to engage with them.
Pretentious blow-ins espousing in the worst-written drivel ever committed to a web forum their baseless nonsense dogma of the moment, empty pronouncements by virtuoso ignoramuses whose primary purpose seems to be to "prove Grant wrong" in the worst-written posts ever seen, or to "fix his gematria" without having a clue about what his gematria is being used for, or to "correct his colour scale" in proto-Neanderthal for god's sake, whatever next, like that's the purpose of magic! To "correct" surreal books written by other people, using things written by yet other people, all of them dead, none understood.
When you dismiss a detailed, leisurely and articulate sharing of a view that happens to challenge yours on fundamental points as "a fit of apoplepsy" when the word is apoplexy, for a start, without any indication you've actually grasped the criticism whatsoever.
As for your comment on the length of my post - it's not more than some of yours, and who cares if it is? It is a subject that deserves and demands nuance and detail, not twitter. Presumably there are some of us left who have attention spans.
Speaking of monologues, how can it be a monologue if it is a response to someone else's post? That's a dialogue.
Yours in non-mobile Becoming, N0t 2
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 7, 2016 15:04:52 GMT
I've had a lot of nonsense to deal with in my material affairs of late and there are topics here that I would rather turn my attention to, but I suppose that I owe NOT 2 a response to his observations, despite the fact that he seems to be taking the same high-handed attitude as usual. Had rather hoped that he would let these trivial exchanges die their natural death; after all it took him long enough to respond to my expressions of annoyance, but Not So, can only hope he did not spend too much time in the composition of his response.
NOT 2: You did rather come down like a ton of bricks on Al Khadir for his comments and I think it was this that prompted my first short post. He was after all drawing on his own experiences, despite the way in which he may have expressed them, and therefore, deserved the courtesy of a listen. I am all for dialogue, but a dialogue should at least make a honest effort to engage with the other, rather than commence with a series of condescending put-downs; otherwise it is no better than a rant, or a monologue in sheep's clothing. And your initial response was something of a condescending rant, if we note such phrases as mindless sickophantic Crowley-worshippers, bless them, for example.
When we make reference to a 'Western Esoteric Tradition' or a Magical Tradition, or even the Typhonian Tradition, it implies that we are working on a basis already established by others who have gone before us, no matter how ancient, or not so ancient as the case may well be; we do not just make it up as we go along, no matter how creative or innovative we may be, otherwise it would not deserve the name of a tradition. And alas, I must finish there for now, as my computer time is up.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 8, 2016 13:13:01 GMT
Actually, that's really about all that I had to say, or intend to say on the matter.
Be assured, NOT 2, that I feel that the Typhonian Mysteries forums would be a duller place without you, and I will be happy to engage in dialogue with you on future topics if and when they arise.
In the meantime, I have no doubt that there is much else to be said on the subject of LIBER 231, but not by me, here and now.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jun 14, 2016 21:32:54 GMT
I've had a lot of nonsense to deal with in my material affairs of late and there are topics here that I would rather turn my attention to, but I suppose that I owe NOT 2 a response to his observations, despite the fact that he seems to be taking the same high-handed attitude as usual. Had rather hoped that he would let these trivial exchanges die their natural death; after all it took him long enough to respond to my expressions of annoyance, but Not So, can only hope he did not spend too much time in the composition of his response.
NOT 2: You did rather come down like a ton of bricks on Al Khadir for his comments and I think it was this that prompted my first short post. He was after all drawing on his own experiences, despite the way in which he may have expressed them, and therefore, deserved the courtesy of a listen. I am all for dialogue, but a dialogue should at least make a honest effort to engage with the other, rather than commence with a series of condescending put-downs; otherwise it is no better than a rant, or a monologue in sheep's clothing. And your initial response was something of a condescending rant, if we note such phrases as mindless sickophantic Crowley-worshippers, bless them, for example.
When we make reference to a 'Western Esoteric Tradition' or a Magical Tradition, or even the Typhonian Tradition, it implies that we are working on a basis already established by others who have gone before us, no matter how ancient, or not so ancient as the case may well be; we do not just make it up as we go along, no matter how creative or innovative we may be, otherwise it would not deserve the name of a tradition. And alas, I must finish there for now, as my computer time is up.
Stephen,
Thank you for your further views on my responses to Al-Khidir, for your remarks upon the intervals between my posts, and for your kind words in your other post - I agree wholeheartedly that everyone is entitled to their view and to express that view their way (and in their own time). Likewise, others are entitled to respond as they feel appropriate (and in theirs). However, it ought to be clear enough that my "condescention" was in parody of the fact that his own post was unbelievably condescending - presuming to "correct" Grant's colour scale usage, and done so rudely - and I also found the further dogmatic statements about "right" or "wrong" colour scales made by you to be not dissimilarly so. My mode of response was actually a way of pointing this element of condescension out, emphatically.
My expression "mindless sickophantic Crowley-worshippers" is unapologetically directed at anyone who believes Aleister Crowley is an infallible authority on literally anything at all, ever, including (and perhaps especially) himself. He had many virtues and many, many, many, many, many, foibles. His writings are powerfully framed, but full of holes. He also just made stuff up to have a little win when it suited him, to get back at people with whom he had fallen out, usually as a result of his own interpersonal incompetence, parasitism, or typical psychopathic bullying that characterised all his human relationships, once he felt he had an advantage. So, if Crowley began a tradition, I simply don't care, and rare is the tradition which he inherited or transmitted without radically altering it in any case - take the Heh-Tzaddi switch, for example.
Your remarks on "Tradition" don't hold water for me. When you say: "we do not just make it up as we go along, no matter how creative or innovative we may be, otherwise it would not deserve the name of a tradition", I couldn't disagree more.
Reality does not need a tradition to maintain it.
If we didn't just make it up as we went along, it wouldn't be magic.
Also, at a certain point of one's work, just "making it up" becomes inevitable as one encounters situations upon which Tradition is mute. Dogma and Tradition are not equivalent.
With Magic, surely, if the history of modern occultism is anything to go by, "Tradition" actually demands that we forge our own magical universes. The fact that one is doing so is itself the Tradition, and this is how it is preserved. Every heresy is the next dogma, and so on, forever.
Things like the GD colour scales (whose authors Sam and - mostly - Moina Mathers, would have been utterly appalled by Crowley's Liber 231 had they lived to see it) are tools, not a cage. From a purely "Traditional" point of view - that is, the home tradition of the Golden Dawn's colour scales that Crowley stole without attribution and pocketed the proceeds from his publications thereof despite inheriting a massive fortune and being born into immense privilege - none of the colour scales actually apply to the Qliphoth, and you're not meant to be doing naughty things like talking to Qliphoth anyway, because they're taboo - according to Tradition. If Crowley started the tradition of using GD technology to do Qliphoth workings, then Grant is starting his own tradition of colour scale usage in his way (which I am yet to see demonstrated is in any way even technically inaccurate).
Also, who cares? When I took up the study and practice of magic, I never once found myself caring whether or not I was taking part in a "Tradition", however old or radical. I wanted to understand the universe and myself better, I wanted experiences that would complete the circuit from behind the veils of Self and Other, and a language and tools to enable this, and mostly, I wanted to perform miracles in times of need. This is pretty typical, I believe. Nowadays, I have far more respect for "Tradition" in the abstract than I did when I started, smart-alec that I was, and still am in many ways, but this respect is not given to all Traditions, nor to all aspects of Tradition, nor is it absolute respect: it is conditional. To the extent that a Tradition enables me, as an individual, to satisfy these needs, it has relevance to me, and I to it.
Grant himself carried on the tradition(s) which he transmits to us all via his works, which are themselves the epitome of creative occultism that is far more than the many streams of tradition that inform it - yet, through his work, they live anew.
Crowley's own contributions to the "tradition" (which he really just shared in, but claimed to own, somehow, as if just publishing books proclaiming yourself the messiah, and your books infallible, and you head honcho, actually makes both things true... as if! ...the gods don't care what your book says, mate) - are immensely heretical from an anal-retentive GDer's point of view, and most Golden Dawners throughout modern times have disowned Crowley quite strongly. I only bring up the GD because that's where this colour scale business comes from, and you're talking about tradition. If breaking with tradition is such a taboo, Crowley's the last bloke I'd ask for help!
Yours in non-mobile becoming, N0t 2
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 26, 2017 14:06:49 GMT
Please note that this is not any sort of reply to previous posts but an intended re-activation of the thread. In the 'Tunnels of Set' section of Nightside of Eden, Kenneth Grant makes passing reference to two of the entities of the Lovecraftian Mythos. In the introduction he says that "Hod is under the aegis of Mercury and functions through the formula of Narcissus; hence the VIII* O.T.O. praxis. Its reverse formula is veiled by the image of Azathoth, the Idiot God featured in Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos." (page 147, Muller edn). In the Amprodias chapter he refers to "the awful deity beyond the rim of the 'universe'; he who sits at the Centre of All, the mad god celebrated by Lovecraft under the name of Nyarlathotep, the god surrounded by 'idiot flute players'." (page 158, Muller edn). There appears to be some confusion of the attributes of the two entities here, although Grant is clear that Nyarlathotep is the 'faceless' god, comparable to the 'headless' one of the Graeco-Egyptian texts, (footnote, p.158). In Outside the Circles of Time, Grant gives the attributions of "Hod-Mercury, Nyarlathotep" and "Tiphereth-Sol, Azathoth at the centre of creation" (p.206, Muller edn). In the Tree of Life diagram showing the Necronomicon Mythos attributions in Hecate's Fountain, Nyarlathotep remains attributed to Hod, while Azathoth is placed at Chokmah. In his book The Faceless God (Theion Publishing, Munich 2016), Tomas Vincente deals with the themes of 'Opening the Eye of Nyarlathotep' and 'Approaching the Throne of Azathoth' in a thorough and original mode of both scholarly and magical interpretation. For the background to the book visit - www.theionpublishing.com/books/the-faceless-god/He presents a very stimulating approach to working with Liber 231, focusing on the 26th path of Ayin: Then the Lord Khem arose, He who is holy among the highest, and set up his crowned staff for to redeem the universe. Vincente's interpretation of this is that "Crowley envisions the coming of the 'anti-christ' in the guise of an Egyptian pharaoh, suggestive of Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep." (pp. 76-77). In a Nightside Path-Working described as "The Vision of the Sun at Midnite" he works with the genius, or 'angel' of the path Oaoaaaoooa'a-ist, rather than the qliphotic sentinel A'ano'nin. The seal of Oaoaaaoooa'a-ist is used as a protective amulet and his name is vibrated as the mantra of invocation. The Thoth Tarot Atu, The Devil is used as the "symbolic doorway into the Eye of Da'at" with the focus placed on the Third Eye on the forehead of the Goat. The 26th path blends with the tunnel to progress from the sphere of Hod and Nyarlathotep to the vision of the sun at midnight in the power zone of Azathoth in Tiphereth. This is just an outline of the mode of working, but Vincente's entire approach is both challenging and stimulating.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Aug 20, 2017 0:11:54 GMT
Sounds like a interesting book stephen, this is the first I have heard of it. I like the approach to the Nightside Path-Working, and sounds like an interesting take on working with the Necronomicon gnosis. Have you been engaging with the material? I would be interested in hearing your experiences with the material
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Aug 21, 2017 2:04:31 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I am attracted and intrigued by the radical subjectivity and pluralism of the concepts involved, and to me, in this - context - lies some interesting ponderings.
Crowley (author of Liber 231) didn't think of the Qliphoth section of his book as describing tunnels, metaphorical or otherwise, but as "prisons" (Carcer, carcerorum), and oddly for him, he did nothing with them that we know of for sure.
[ Digression: We do know he had made "Talismans of the XXII to destroy G.'.D.'. as recorded in vellum notebook OS27 of the Warburg Institute, published for the only time apparently, in its entirity in 2010, by Marcus Katz as The Invocation of Hoor, subsequently copyright-trolled out of publication by the usual gang of serial litigants. It is recorded in a section of that manuscript which is not a "long and futile tarot divination" as Crowley bizarrely attempted to dismiss it in the Equinox of the Gods, but is actually a record of a negative sex magical working (yes, he was doing sex magic before he met Reuss) in which he conjures the negative influences of the XXII Atu against Mathers and the Golden Dawn. Whether he used the same terminology and sigils on that occasion as he printed in Liber 231 is another matter, but he was clearly accessing Qliphoth of the Atu for personal ends (social vendetta) long before he published 231. ]
As Moore notes, the choice of tunnels as an aesthetic concept to interpret and work with Liber 231's contents was original to Kenneth Grant, almost certainly charged and enabled by Kenneth's unfortgettable experiences of real tunnels of death during his brief stint in uniform when very young during the War - an experience that left indelible traces in the young man's soul, as it would anyone's. This is a level of access and "empowerment" in the mode of working (using tunnels as an astral access form) that only he (and others with similar formative experiences of tunnels of whatever kind) would have, or would be able to relate to on such a strong level. Of course, it's also just possibly a generic thing if qliphoth are construed as cthonic (underworld), but still, to him, it surely had added, and particular, relevance. Also, tunnels are what prisoners inevitably make.
What choice of form would he have written about if he hadn't been gassed in the tunnels?
Did Crowley choose the term "prison" for similar reasons, unconsciously or otherwise?
The original conceptual structure for the metaphysic at the root of this whole thing - the Tree of Life - was no doubt communicated in that form because, apart from its structural convenience, its original authors lived in a time and place when we were probably still living in, and on, trees, in a more immediate and numinous way than we do now.
Where I'm going with all this is, instead of necessarily following either lead, do we have our own subjective, working relevances to bring to this (or other) material? That freedom is why I love the example set by Grant's work.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 25, 2017 14:14:19 GMT
Sounds like a interesting book stephen, this is the first I have heard of it. I like the approach to the Nightside Path-Working, and sounds like an interesting take on working with the Necronomicon gnosis. Have you been engaging with the material? I would be interested in hearing your experiences with the material
It is a very interesting book, Gregory. I came across it because the author was good enough to send me a copy. When Tomas and I were both members of the Esoteric Order of Dagon, he was stimulated by my Gematria Profile of Nyarlathotep and took things from there. In Lovecraftian terms, I had always associated the 'Opening of the Eye' with the Eye of Cthulhu, but as a result of his own researches - including with gematria - he made this connection as being essential to the concept of Nyarlathotep. In our subsequent correspondence, I drew his attention to the 26th Tunnel of Ayin as having particular resonance with Nyarlathotep: I had in mind Lovecraft's Dark Pharaoh Nephren-Ka as being an avatar of Nyarlathotep, as well as a suitable candidate for the Lord Khem of Liber 231, although Tomas does not allude to him in his text. We are going back to 2010 and before here, but as we all know, truly worthwhile things take time to come to fruition.
Dipping into Lovecraft today, I checked his first reference to the mysterious pharaoh in "The Outsider" and found: "...the catacombs of Nephren-Ka in the sealed and unknown valley of Hadoth by the Nile" - what better an allusion to the Tunnels of Set could you get than that ?
As you will see when you have checked out the link to the book, it is far more stimulating than some mere pseudo-Necronomicon and explores some controversial areas. I have not engaged with the material as such, but I can recognise and identify with the experiences outlined in several of the ritual practices given in the book. It has been some time since my last practical working with Liber 231 - one of my future tasks might well be to pull my notes and records and analyses together.
|
|
|
Post by Nalyd Khezr Bey on Aug 30, 2017 15:34:59 GMT
Sounds like a interesting book stephen, this is the first I have heard of it. I like the approach to the Nightside Path-Working, and sounds like an interesting take on working with the Necronomicon gnosis. Have you been engaging with the material? I would be interested in hearing your experiences with the material I'll second this recommendation. Like with so many of my more recent book purchases (the Von Zos titles are good examples) I've not actually even read this book yet but do have a copy on my shelf for future explorations. Having glanced through it though I can tell it's top notch and original. It's probably right up your alley Gregory. Looking forward to getting into it properly when I finally get my head out of exploring and researching UFOs, psychedelics and anomalous phenomena in general. When I finally get a new computer in the coming months I plan on getting back into participation on the forums. Currently I'm limited to using my phone which is, well, pretty useless to get into any serious discussions. I do enjoy the occasional activity I see here when checking in though.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Sept 1, 2017 17:08:57 GMT
I wrote a semi long reply and then for some reason the forum said I did not have permission to post on this thread, and it was all lost Thank you Stephen and Nalyd, I'm going to buy a copy based on your recommendations and will post back on this thread when I have some impressions on it. Nalyd, to sidetrack things slightly (since you mentioned UFOs), I just got Jaques Vallee's 3 volumes of Forbidden Science and will tear into it soon. He recently gave a great interview (listen to it here skeptiko.com/jacques-vallee-diaries-reveal-what-scientists-deny-359/)
|
|
|
Post by Nalyd Khezr Bey on Sept 4, 2017 21:05:51 GMT
Gregory, thanks for the link. I'll give it a listen soon. I've had and still have a lot of free time lately recoverying from a surgery. Strangely I've not actually used any of this time to listen to any podcasts which is kind of a habit I have developed in the past year or so.
I had gotten Forbidden Science (the first and only volume of the diaries available for a long time) back in the 1990's and traded it for other reading material probably less than two years ago. I can't speak on the other two new volumes but I was never into the book I had. It had some interesting passages here and there and was cool to get some historical context and insight into how he was working back then but I found most of it to be a bit boring for reading* as it covers a lot of day-to-day business of the time it covered. I really don't like saying that about it because I can't say the same thing about anything else I've read by Vallee. Everything else I have by him is, in my opinion, some of the highest quality writings in the field and yet his work still tends to be ignored by most "ufologists". I'm curious to get your opinions on the three volumes together though. I'd consider giving them a new look if you think they're worth it.
* I'm not usually a fan of reading published diaries (or letters) in general for the same basic reason. Only occasionally have I read the odd diary that is actually attention grabbing. Crowley's various diaries for example are some of those exceptions. He seemed to have written his almost with the intention of them being read by others later. He probably did.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Sept 7, 2017 14:21:20 GMT
Hey Nalyd, that particular podcast episode is what inspired me to get the three volumes of Forbidden Science, so do check it out. I am enjoying the early insights to such things as Project Blue Book, Project Sign, early years with Hyneck. He was even one of the first to explore the Socorro sighting! This is probably all old news to many, but I'm finding it exciting to get these glimpses - I did not realize just how plugged in to the early scene Vallee was.
|
|