THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.consciousness.mysticism,talk.religion.misc
From: hara 
Subject: Re: Hermetic QBL Unsupportable? (was Parpola Discovered! ....)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:22:38 GMT

Joseph :
>but since this is neither a class nor a conversation 

perhaps I misunderstand. we are indeed engaged in a conversation.

> its probably acceptable to suggest that a "well respected scholar" may be 
> the most blind to any innovation or difference in the evolution of their 
> subject 

what innovation? what evolution? could you at least identify something
novel and noteworthy in Crowley's text that justifies the claim?
more importantly, could you point to some other authority which makes
your suggestion sound like more than sour-grapes racism-defense for 
cultural appropriation of the work of many Jewish mystics?

> or evan a completely different interpretation of it than standard 
> "respected" works would insist we accept as the last word.

such as? where is the uniqueness, the novelty, to be found? is it
justifiable to call whatever you're talking about "Kabbalah"?
don't get me wrong, I'm not a Kabbalist, I've read a bit of Crowley's
text, and I'd like to understand what you are contending is valuable
in comparison to authentic materials from Jewish mystics.

>especially when were talking religion or philosophy there tends to be a
>tendency for "true believers" to insist on their interpretation of the
>material and to dismiss any thing that veers too radically from the "well
>respected" traditions espoused by the "experts". this tendency is evan more
>pronounced with art and its appreciation.

you can cast aspersions all day, but you're not really dealing with the
material we're discussing. quote some Scholem which indicates this bias
other than in the case of Crowley, Papus, and Levi, for example.
 
>>> ...the Jewish QBL'ers especially are fighting a rear guard action to
>>> keep their formulas secret, too much has already been revealed, and
>>> with freud, Einstein, and darwin we can see these teachings stripped
>>> of their religious superstitions and used effectively by any one of
>>> any temperament, religious or not.
>> 
>> do you have some evidence for this, as compared to justifiable anger
>> at cultural appropriation and misrepresentation by charlatans?

>if we could sum up the "charlatans" in one list and neatly dismiss them it
>might be easier to represent those authors and their works we could agree upon
>to discuss. 

Levi (Alphonse Louis Constant), Papus (Gerard Encausse), Perdurabo (Edward
Alexander 'Aleister' Crowley). sufficient?

now the important authors to include would depend on what subject of study
you want to focus upon. if you want to understand Jewish mysticism and
the magicians within the sociocultural milieau called 'Kabbalah', then
we could probably check out Abulafia or even Luria. apparently the text
called 'The Sword of Moses' is popular amongst magicians. your initiative
here to focus on something more positive is quite welcome on my end. :>

> as it is i fear it would take a while just to compile the list

no, Scholem did it for you, and distinguished between the ill-dignified
list (above) and the well-dignified (by virtue of intent and attempt;
Waite's "The Holy Kabbalah" most importantly to Hermetic tradition).
his focus was Jewish mysticism predominantly (some Gnostic and 
Christians make their way into his considerations, however). we could
talk about those also, from whom modern writers may be drawing.

> ...are you familiar with oroborous institutes "mind magick 101" or 
> ram dass' compilation "seed"

no, is it pertinent?

>one of the "Qabbalistic" ideas that i have picked up over the last 30 years is
>that of a view of the universe as a whole rather than analytically, at any
>particular moment.  Thus it is held that an examination of any part of the
>universe at a particular time will reveal by analogy the forces pertaining to
>the whole, and so to other parts. whether this is strictly judaic i could not
>say, that it and ideas like it are classed as "qabbalistic" correctly or not,
>is common and obvious.

you're referring to Hermetic conventions. we're discussing whether these
conventions are worthy of opposition based on charlatanry and redefinition
of key terms in order to appropriate authority and attention from Jewish
mystics. I don't see how you are adding to this discussion one way or the
other, and honestly I've been on both sides of this discussion (at times
arguing with Jewish mystics in this newsgroup about what is a valuable
method of response to people who come looking for what *they* are calling
"qabala(h)".

>if we are to revise our nomenclature for the p.c. patrol to approve of 

defense of racism and bigotry in cultural appropriation is unjustifiable.
if you want to call antagonism to it "P.C. Patrol" I suppose we thereafter
know where you stand. there is no such patrol here. we're talking about
logical and genuine concepts associated with magic and from whence they
arise, where their sources are most likely to be found, who it may be that
is attempting to promote themselves without basis, etc.

where the subject of magic intersects that of religion and mysticism, there
is often the danger of our discussion becoming entirely a contention about
religious ideologies. I'd like to avoid that and send the discussion of
religion to other, related forums (talk.religion.misc, etc.).

>to those who are initiated in a demonstrable judaic lineage of qabbalistic
>rabbi's, which i have found  are very reluctant to evan talk about much less
>accept non-Jewish students of.

I haven't noticed this. perhaps you just didn't approach them perspicaciously.
check out Stan Tenan sometime for an interesting popular source. he's located
on the world-wide web.

>if i cant afford or get the "real" thing, i will settle for second best and in
>this case the bulk of writing claiming to be of a "qabalistic" nature evan if
>writ by non-Jewish non-rabbis.

you're being provided with references and are disputing them based on your
favour of charlatans. consider the source.
 
>>> plus if one is successful with this knowledge what one calls it or
>>> claims for it palls in comparison to how effective it makes you.
>> 
>> I find it interesting that Hermetic magicians seem to like to cast almost
>> everything into the category of "knowledge", from magic (e.g. Crowley's
>> definition of magick in his edition of the Goetia, which Tom likes: "Magic
>> is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of Natural
>> Philosophy....") to Kabbalah (as above).
>> 
>> when the axiom equating these things with a type of knowledge is removed
>> (substituting for cultist hogwash dogmatism) and in place of magic SKILL
>> or TECHNOS, or in place of Kabbalah TRADITIONAL ORAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
>> is installed, suddenly these speculations become both falsifiable and less
>> co-optable to the wiles of charlatans.
>
> does "charlatan" include the honest seeker after "knowledge" who dosnt 
> happen to qualify for the "traditional oral community participation"?

no, 'charlatan' as I am using it (in reflection of Scholem's usage) includes 
those who knowingly manipulate language so as to come off appearing to be an 
authority on subjects of which they have infinitesimal knowledge at best. 
associating ONESELF as a 'seeker' with charlatanry, especially when informed 
that it is so, may lead you to be correctly associated with DISHONESTY, and 
therefore your defense of those who may be charlatans without knowledge of 
their contextual and actual character may tarnish your reputation (some of
us don't care much about reputation, but so it goes :>).

you say nothing about the re-characterization of these subjects as "categories
of knowledge" for the facilitation of co-option, but I didn't expect you to.

>> I suggest that the selection of
>> "knowledge" for this category allows greater wiggle-room and deception and
>> that by and large those who are offering the deception understand this.

> probably but its still like saying only an expert or "well respected scholar"
> has any business evan mentioning the subject here.

absolutely not. one may mention a subject without claiming to be an authority.
one may claim to be an authority for the purpose of discussion and welcome
disputation of that claim. one may offer comparable or related teachings with
proper attribution and characterization once one comes to understand their
actual context. nobody is limiting the conversation here, we're contesting
the outlandish claims of Hermetic magicians and asking for substantiation of
them based on reliable resources. if you have other sources you consider
more reliable on the subject, bring them forth.

note that this contestation occurs on different fronts at different times.
perhaps 3 or 4 months ago the issue was whether natural magic should be
considered magic at all because of the conventions of Hermetic mysticism
to reformulate all of it in its own myopic (and deceptive) terms.

>> ...from what I can see, Crowley is rather completely out of consideration 
>> [re kabbalah] (because he was a charlatan who had no discernable connection 
>> with Jewish mysticism and hated Jews).

> you accept your interpretation of crowleys writings as something to be
> emulated by others? 

the fact that Crowley was racist has been adequately demonstrated in such
files as:
	http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/bigot.html

and sri catyananda and others have pointed out key places where this makes
itself most keenly felt (in "Magick Without Tears"'s "Monsters, Niggers,
and Jews" and in the unedited versions of Crowley's "777", for example).

I don't encourage emulation of me in any way (just try and follow me! ;>),
but I urge you to consider the substance behind my argument and how it
looks in comparison to the name-calling, shifty tactics, and obfuscation
practiced by a goodly number of Hermetic mages both in their books and in
this forum. I haven't even separated myself from the category of 'Hermetic
mage'. ;>

> or should they look at and read his writings and possibly learn something 
> for themselves by doing so?

that would depend on what they are attempting to learn. I've learned quite
a bit (especially about the 'Thelemic' community and Crowley's (c)OTO) by
reading his text. that doesn't mean I'd recommend it for students of the
Kabbalah. I might recommend Papus or Levi or even Crowley in spots for 
"Hermetic qabalah", though I might enclose a caveat that it is not what 
it claims. his expression isn't consistently clear and at times requires a
complete absorption of his changing vocabulary in order to fully understand. 
in part this is a testimony to his skills as a writer, and in part it is a
writer's trick to get people to take all or nothing of him. one might quite
valuably compare it with writers of fiction series who have little to offer
in the way of innovation or novelty, but whose text forms a massive (if
repetitive) whole.

>what bothers me most about this debate which calls the teachings of crowley,
>waite, levi et al, "deception" 

please attend to the material more closely. Waite is not smeared by this,
only Levi, Papus, and Perdurabo (Crowley).

>is that under the pretence of defending orthodoxy in peril, 

not demonstrated.

>it is possible publicly to condemn solemn documents meaningful to many - 
>but only if one happens to be a member of the right group. 

it is only the teachings on Kabbalah by these people which is being called
deceptive charlatanry, not their entire corpus. go right ahead and adhere
to whatever "solemn documents" you find meaningful. condemn whatever you
want to also, while you're at it. it would be helpful if you have some
kind of justification or substantiation for this condemnation. elsewise
you may not be taken seriously except by ringside slamfest fans. 

>if one is not a judaicallly trained and initiated "Qabalist" 

I'm not. as far as I know, nobody contributing to this thread is,
though a few have mentioned they had a class or two in the subject
(we're not being informed who taught the class in some cases, why
they ought to be considered an authority, etc.).

>how can one make an argument that another is or is not that very 
>thing 

by virtue of clearly delineating what 'that very thing' is, from whence
it derives, and what standards you may be using to assess this.

>evan and especially when they are not claiming to be such but merely 
>using "formulas" or "techniques" found effective by themselves and others.

characterizing what they are presenting in their writings as a product of
mystics with whom they are in contention seems to be a common feature
of Hermetic mystic-magicians. using formulas and seeking to be *identified*
with groups from whom they have gleaned these formulas are different acts.
the latter attempts an appropriation of authority which is arguably
unjustified and warranted of condemnation as charlatanry. my mind is rather
open on the subject, though I see a preponderance of evidence for the
position I am currently arguing in this debate. sometimes I take the more
popular stance, sometimes I take the less popular stance. we can get more
accomplished this way, I find, for education and archival.

>that a charlatan would take any teaching, be it judaic or any thing else and
>attempt to deceive with it is i trust indictable fraud, 

this is what we are talking about, yes, fraudulence, charlatanry.

>but to compare the earnest and eclectic student of philosophy a 
>charlatan is a mistake in judgement.

substantiate the characterization that any of these men were earnest and
eclectic students of philosophy as compared to Hermetic charlatans who
were writing entertainingly in order to receive attention. more importantly,
justify cultural appropriation by these supposed students. please realize
that I have been 'trying this case' (Jewish mysticism vs. Hermetic Qabalah)
for many years, and I haven't seen any substantiation for the claims made
by Hermetic magicians. I'm STILL LOOKING FOR IT, even from you.

>>> ...that "god" wants us to sing and dance and make wine and have sex is more
>>> understandable to me than the idea that "god" wants us to give up everything
>>> and sit in the desert reading a book.
>> 
>> perhaps that's merely due to your indiscipline. perhaps these exhortations
>> about what any deity wants is merely a reflection of the worshipper and
>> their own relation to the divine. in such a case, then what someone says
>> about what their God wants really only applies to *them*. perhaps your God
>> wants you to sing and dance, make wine and have sex. then again, you did
>> not say anything about whether you even have a relation with a divinity.
>> you've just classed them as "ideas". I can offer a goodly number of quite
>> important perspectives from which sitting in a desert (without a book)
>> might be quite valuable to a God.

> ...evan chapters 0 and 1 of theory and practice point out the need to 
> understand ones own temperament, 

quite valuable. "Know thyself, O Mage!".

> if that temperament is conducive to sitting in a desert than of course 
> that is what the student should do 

that depends on what the student may be trying to learn. discipline is
usually counter-temperamental (ascetic), I find. elsewise you're talking
about indulgence (a different kind of instruction).

> but my statement about the areopagite and the inclusion
> of these writing in the orthodoxy of the r.c. because of his assumed
> association with the apostle paul has led to a constant source of confusion
> with in the church, are they  supposed to be sitting in a desert meditating? 
> or dancing and making a joyful noise to the lord?

let the mystic decide, guided by the divine.

> by and large most people would dance sing, drink eat and read non orthodox
> books and question there elders and authority. 

I don't notice this in action, even when nobody is being forced.

> if ones intention is to suppress rebellion and to make sure no one 
> questions authority 

question it all you like. pretentions to authority, however, may draw
challenges to the claims being made. that is all I have brought in
response to the apparently extravagant claims by Hermetic mystics. I
have sometimes offered my own extravagant claims here and had them
roasted with skeptical considerations. that's what makes alt.magick fun. :>

> than the need to have as little distraction as possible becomes paramount.

this is also true for those who wish to focus upon a single object
for the purpose of meditation (a very important discipline which
yields enhanced attention available and increased willpower -- very
valuable skills in the practice of both magic and magicK).
 
peace be with you, blessed beast!

hara
 nagasiva@luckymojo.com