Kill all rational thought. Murder it with silence.

Or, Angels won't talk to you until you aren't here

Magickians have many purposes, some of which even a Christian might recognise and understand. Like getting a job. Or getting a girl. Or becoming wealthy. Or... or... or...

The litany of wants to which a Magickian might pander, on behalf of which he might he go before the face of the universe and make his demands, are as endless as the list of causes which sends a Christian to wheedle, plead, bribe and cajole his God in 'prayer'.

The great difference between the Magickian and the Christian is not in his wants but in how he goes about to satisfy them: the Magickian invokes and then commands, the Christian begs and weeps. But whatever the method the object is the same, to make reality conform to whatever is wanted, sought after, desired. And after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the Magickian and the Christian are alike in this also: that what is wanted, sought after, desired is, in general, shit.

The wonder of it, to me, is that both the Magickian and the Christian are not immediately stamped out of existence in the instant they present their various litanies of delusory desire before whatever they consider is capable of satisfying those desires (be that, in the case of the Chaote, the endless flux of possible events, or, in the case of the Thelemite, the Unborn, unintelligible, amoral Artist concerned only with an aesthetic project that exceeds any possibility of human comprehension). So far as I can see the former cannot care, and the latter does not care, for the wants of the hubristic insects that come before It to make their ludicrous demands.

Chaos Magick has never held any appeal for me. Its formlessness places too great a weight on the human imagination and the human will, a weight so great that will and imagination both are bent back upon themselves, resulting in either impotence or the confusion of the endless, meaningless, chatter of the lower self with the implacable, Imperial, True Will.

The Magickian who discovers his True Will and with knowledge and conviction sets it in motion in the world through Ritual will see reality run like water through his hands, will shape the world like soft clay to the shape of his inspiration.

Such a notion will sound to most of you like complete nonsense. But most of you are not Magickians.

David Blane is not a Magickian. Those fools who play with tigers and make airplanes disappear for money are not Magickians. They are at best masters of illusion and idolaters of the self. The true Magickian is necessarily alone and his work proceeds in darkness. If it's discovered at all it remains, as do the writings of visionaries such as Nostradamus, and the writings and works of the alchemist, unintelligible and incomprehensible. They are, in the truest and most absolute sense of the word, nonsense. The alchemists tried to turn the lead of the human soul into the gold of Divine Spirit. Nostradamus, Dee, Kelly, possessed by their inner vision, wrote as they were compelled to write. And whatever their secret will was, it was not communicated in what they left behind. Which is just as it should be.

Nostradamus left behind him a series of writings the meaning of which is still debated; debates which are meaningless. What his writings meant to Nostradamus cannot possibly be known, what they mean to others in the present is irrelevant to what first motivated him. Dee and Kelly left behind a series of invocations (the Enochian Calls, still used by present-day Magickians) and other cryptic writings. What they meant to Dee and Kelly can't be recovered. What they mean to others in the present is their own affair, dependant upon what the Calls are used for - but, it seems to me, what they are used for is no more than the satisfaction of those wants and needs that are common to us all, turning the gold of Divine Spirit into the lead of everyday concerns, alchemy in reverse, as foolish as asking why rain is wet.

The working of real Magick (as opposed to the entertaining illusions of magicians) requires that the Magickian comprehend and be intimately familiar with the True Will, which is no more than what he actually and really wants, seen as it is and not as he wishes it to be. You might wonder how a Magickian can confuse what he wills with what he wants - but the True Will does not derive from the consciousness which is only the latest and most recent evolutionary development of Man, but from the roots of the ancient and savage crocodile-brain of old. When Man first stood erect he was neither decent nor civilised and his wants were not sophisticated and refined appetites but crudely ferocious lusts; the will to conquer, to possess, to destroy; the unfettered satisfaction of a physicality that had no conscience and no remorse, that was devoid of pity and regret.

Do you imagine that lions grieve for the zebras they kill and eat? That wolves pity lambs? And the True Will is of that time and of that kind, since it is the fundamental orientation and commitment of a man's entire person, not what he has been taught to believe about himself and what he ought to be, but what he actually is.

What he is, is what drives him. What he wants, is determined by what he believes he ought to be - which is why a man may confuse what he wills with what he desires.

The True Will might also be called the Deep Will, or the Hidden Will. What hides it is the ceaseless chatter of the lower self, the self concerned with social necessity, with the demands of the everyday: the mortgage, the car payments, a sick child, an unsatisfactory marriage, the office secretary you're desperate to fuck but daren't speak to, envy of co-workers, lust for a neighbour's wife. An endless chain of febrile, fatuous wants that binds us from the moment we learn to identify ourselves as 'I' to the moment we disappear into death.

The infernal chattering of the lower self. Magickians are human too - and just as subject to this inner babel as anyone else. Which is why the Magickian who would work real Magick must find some way to annihilate his own inner voices, to still them utterly, and so become able to reach past what ought to be to what actually is, past convention and doubt and the civilising affect of self-disgust to a silence so deep that the impact of a falling leaf on the surface of water is loud enough to shatter worlds.

It is this silence that the Thelemic tradition of Ritual Magick refers to as the 'knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angels'. It's this silence that I've elsewhere referred to as 'an absence balanced upon a vacancy surrounded by utter emptiness', it's this silence that I wait for in my moments of solitude, that I invoke in my Ritual work, this silence that I have contemplated through the many months that have gone by in which Ritual work has appeared to play no further part in my life.

Ritual directed toward things, toward material goals, is often thwarted by the very hunger for results that originally motivated the Ritual act. Ritual that has no object but the Ritual itself becomes a form of spiritual masturbation. It produces nothing in the world and binds the will in ever decreasing circles around itself that result only in stagnant impotence.

Ritual succeeds when it is worked with conviction and conscious intent directed toward some specific end, and the less material that end the better. What could be less material, more irrational, less comprehensible in terms of a reason predicated upon means and ends in a world thought to be comprehensible, than the annihilation of the self that seeks to understand and control?

Kill all rational thought. Murder it with silence.
12,397 views 29 replies
Reply #2 Top
You have said so much that I'm a bit speechless because I'm trying to understand. It's like watching a movie and sitting at the edge of your seat not wanting to miss anything. Your world of Magickian (how's that pronouced?) is not known to me. But I do agree with some of your comparisons. I'll respond again when I have more time.
Reply #3 Top
Is it possible to rationalize what he is saying or even understand it?

Is there a reason to be rational?

This is an old soul speaking about life. I am not a magickian, but I knew one once. He still goes to church on Sundays, probably with his three children. He still lives this life.

There are still happy times that lay in wait. And even if others don't understand, the few that do aren't going to kill rational thought with silence. Integrity is still alive, it is still grinding us to be ever vigilant, to snap when necessary, and to stay the course.

Even if your pain leads your silence, it is your gut that erupts.

With loving kindness,
Foxjazz

Reply #4 Top
To Foxjazz:

Is it possible to rationalize what he is saying or even understand it?


If the 'he' addressed (even rhetorically and in the third person - which is neither a particularly clear nor a particularly polite form of address) is myself then yes, it's perfectly possible to understand what I said. It's neither irrational nor anti-rational since unlike Kant (and you, presumably) I don't make of reason the light of truth, but merely one more tool in the human kit-bag with which to make means achieve ends.

Is there a reason to be rational?


Certainly there is. The kind of reason that tells us that if we want to be warm we shouldn't sit up to our necks in ice-water. A practical, as opposed to moral or philosophical, reason.

There are still happy times that lay in wait. And even if others don't understand, the few that do aren't going to kill rational thought with silence.


I made no reference to happiness at all, simply because happiness and being happy are largely beyond our control. Peace is more easily attained than happiness, and once gained is less liable to be lost again. Happiness is largely dependent on circumstance whereas peace is a consequence of self-knowledge and self-acceptance. Probably there are happy times in store - but the more you want it the less likely you are to experience it.

As for others and what they do they are at liberty to do just as they wish. The piece isn't an exhortation to others but a clarification of my own thinking, my making it public more to do with the hope (however faint) of receiving back than any intention of giving to.

Integrity is still alive, it is still grinding us to be ever vigilant, to snap when necessary, and to stay the course.


I presume that 'grinding' is a typo and that you meant to write 'guiding'; otherwise the sentence makes very litte sense, as opposed to no sense at all. Integrity, like reason, is not a universal concept, not the same everywhere and at all times (if you wish to dispute this do so, but I see no reason to give examples now, being too indolent). To say that integrity is still alive is to suggest that it might at some time die. But since I believe the integrity of a man to be peculiar to each man then so long as even one example of Man is alive so is integrity, and your comment becomes a rhetorical redundancy of dubious meaning.

How is the integrity of a man (or, with Kant, Man) served by 'snapping'? What is it that snaps? The universal moral principle (which I don't believe in but will accept for a moment for the sake of the argument)? If it snaps in the sense of breaking it cannot be a universal moral principle since such things (according to Kant) are in their own realm the equivalents of physical laws. On one reading to suggest that integrity can die is like suggesting that gravity will one day stop working. I suppose such a thing is not impossible, but it is extremely unlikely, and if it did occur would demonstrate that gravity is not a universal constant at all but a purely local phenomenon.

How else might integrity 'snap'? Might it snap in the sense of 'snapping in anger at someone'? But anger has never been held to be a part of the integrity of a man, and insofar as it undermines his self-control, degrades his integrity; and staying the course, while it might be a sign of determination can just as readily be seen as stubborn obstinacy in the face of reality. The current situation in Iraq sufficiently illustrates the point.

President Bush has Integrity because he will not yield his intention of democratizing Iraq in the face of developing civil war, political impotence (in Iraq especially but also in the region as a whole) and wildly escalating costs for little or no return (100 million dollars lost without trace and unaccounted for so far in the reconstruction of Iraq - count them - 100 million). Equally, President Bush is merely bloody-minded in his obstinacy, knowing he cannot serve another term and wishing to complete the work his father began (See, Daddy? That's two things I did that you couldn't).

Of course, I'm not qualified to say which it is: integrity or obstinacy. In either case, whichever it is may eventually 'snap'. And when such a snap does occur (if it occurs) both will have proven to be unlike integrity which, in your words, enables us to 'stay the course'.

In either case (in any case) I'm forced to conclude, since you make universal principles of individual phenomena, that you are a Kantian of sorts. One not particularly clear in thought or expression, and one given to unnecessary rhetoric of dubious meaning, but a Kantian nonetheless.

Perhaps your friend could have told you that Magick is not philosophy. But perhaps, and especially if you were prone to addressing him rhetorically in the third person, he concluded that the game wasn't worth the candle and he would be better employed in attending church instead.

In all honesty, I can see why he might do that.
Reply #5 Top
(you do know that Emperor is my Husband, right?)


Yep...figured that out after one of your blogs and the one about your mum-in-law! heheh



Is it possible to rationalize what he is saying or even understand it?Is there a reason to be rational?


I believe it is foxjazz. Forgive me for saying this but you sound skeptical as if making light of what he's trying to say, which comes off as not too nice. Just a thought.


I probably won't sound too sane responding to you at the moment Emperor, so much going on with me personally....



"The great difference between the Magickian and the Christian is not in his wants but in how he goes about to satisfy them: the Magickian invokes and then commands, the Christian begs and weeps. But whatever the method the object is the same, to make reality conform to whatever is wanted, sought after, desired. And after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that the Magickian and the Christian are alike in this also: that what is wanted, sought after, desired is, in general, shit."


I agree with this comparison somewhat. I say somewhat because I’m not sure of the begging and weeping, although now that I’m thinking about it, you’re right. Because from my experience, some Christians do end up begging and weeping when they are praying and beseeching the Lord for his help or his blessings. Why is that I wonder. It’s like a feeling of such overwhelming desire comes over you and it’s like you’re not of this earth but one with Christ. I guess in a sense you transcend to another place, or a higher plane. Hehe, I bet other Christians would disagree with me on this point.


I so want to “dissect’ your writing and will give it the proper time it deserves tomorrow, when my mind is less cluttered with other stuff. So next time, as we say…meaning tomorrow.

Reply #6 Top
I was not trying to be particularly "clear" in what was written. And I thought that would be "painfully obvious". Kinda like a code of sorts.

I was simply trying to say that I respect what you have said, and yes I am somewhat Kantian, but I am also non Kantian. Not everything is universal is obvious. Thought is not universal. But some things are, like milk has protien that feeds our bodies.

I guess I am really and Infidel whatever the hell that is. And you may separate integrity from feeling all you want, but I will tell you that integrity and feeling in a man that is peaceful, self controlled, as much as he chooses is intertwined. Depending on what values that man happens to have.

Would you fight for peace, would you fight for integrity, would you fight for justice? It is degrees of this matter that makes us up and tests us as men and women. (appology for saying "he").

Would you snap if someone rubs you the wrong way, time and time and time and time again? Would you lose your temper, or do you have a temper to lose. Are you tested in that way. Is it the environment that we live in that dictates these values in human attributes?

Just because one can say he is at peace, doesn't mean he will be at peace continually. And what if the next day brings war instead of peace.

Do you value what our forefathers have done to gain us this place called America, and would you fight for the American way of life? Or whatever perverbial country you live in, do you respect it? Can we except the human cost that gives us this life of partial freedom? What our leaders do should be respected regardless if they are perfect or not. And we vote them in because we respect them. Even if it were 100 Billion dollars, the cost is not the "money", but the lives that are lost. It is that cost that we have to respect. And where does that cost go, if we just quit? We are going to be in Iraq for a very very very long time.

I am republican because I don't believe in the democrat's philosophy. Oh wait a minute. I believe in Thomsas Jefferson's philosophy, wasn't he a democrat? Where did it all go wrong?

Your turn,
Foxjazz
Reply #7 Top
"The Magickian who discovers his True Will and with knowledge and conviction sets it in motion in the world through Ritual will see reality run like water through his hands, will shape the world like soft clay to the shape of his inspiration."

Is this the Magickian's way of asking for what he wants then, his way of praying? What I got from this is he is doing the same thing a Christian would do but because he doesn't beleive in God, he's trying to invoke (might be wrong word here) his want himself?

Almost willing his needs into existence?


"Nostradamus left behind him a series of writings the meaning of which is still debated; debates which are meaningless. What his writings meant to Nostradamus cannot possibly be known, what they mean to others in the present is irrelevant to what first motivated him."


Although Nostradamus' writings have been translated and explained I too doubt that what he truly said is what is really known, what he really wanted to say. Because those who diciphered is writings had a hard time doing so and there seem to have been a lot of double meaning to what he wrote so who knows if what he is said to have "predicted" is true or not. I wonder why he made his writings so complicated? Did he truly want others to know what he was saying? Only he knows. And here's another thought....who knows if what he really wrote is what we're being told.




"Equally, President Bush is merely bloody-minded in his obstinacy, knowing he cannot serve another term and wishing to complete the work his father began (See, Daddy? That's two things I did that you couldn't)."

You know Simon, you're not the first who have uttered this thought. I've heard it said time and again. I wonder what Whip thinks about this, knowing she is a supporter of Bush? I dare say a few of his supporters at JU would disagree with you that he's "trying to complete the work his father began". I have to say I agree with you on this though.


So in essence, the Magickian is stronger than the “lay” man who doesn’t practice this art. He has the same wants, needs and feel the same things but is different in that he knows how to stop the voices within him that would question and doubt his self worth and that which he should have (whether he deserves to have it or not). He (the Magickian) knows who he is without question or doubt, not in a cocky kind of way, but because he’s in touch with his inner self, in tune with his inner way of being, so to speak. It’s like meditating able to close his mind to what’s going on around him and reach out and touch that which should be his. From chaos, peace.


Of course my analogy of what you're saying is probably wrong but that's what I get from it. Some of your writing is a bit confusing to my unlearned mind, but I get the gist of what you're saying.
Reply #8 Top
To Foxjazz:

I was not trying to be particularly "clear" in what was written. And I thought that would be "painfully obvious". Kinda like a code of sorts.


But I was, you see. I may not be explicit as to my purposes, but I try to make what I write clear as to my meaning. As I long ago told my wife _ I don't do hints and have no time (and less interest) to spare for decryption - though I'll occasionally indulge in deconstruction.

Thought is not universal. But some things are, like milk has protien that feeds our bodies.


It feeds these bodies, yes. But there may well be others which milk not only does not feed but actively poisons.

you may separate integrity from feeling all you want, but I will tell you that integrity and feeling in a man that is peaceful, self controlled, as much as he chooses is intertwined. Depending on what values that man happens to have.


Fiddlesticks. A man may be at peace with himself and be at war with everyone else. He may find his own integrity in the agon, the tension between these two states, or in being at peace, or in being at war: but there is no fundamental connection between the two states except via the man who experiences them, the man who constructs via will and comprehension that integrity. You universalise the particular at the same moment that you exhibit the particularity of your own mental/philosophical/spiritual universe. Which is why I described you as Kantian who does not think clearly.

Would you fight for peace, would you fight for integrity, would you fight for justice? It is degrees of this matter that makes us up and tests us as men and women.


Certainly I would fight. The Magickal project that engages me could be described as a war, a combat (though the actual term is agon) between myself and the world of Man. In terms of everyday living, would I fight for a patch of land? - yes, if it were my patch. Would I fight for a way of life? Yes if it were my way of life. As to justice, I've long since ceased to believe that such a thing exists - there is only adherence to law and due process, and for those things I would fight, were I to be be denied due process and were the law to be disregarded in some case that had effect in my life.

Would you snap if someone rubs you the wrong way, time and time and time and time again? Would you lose your temper, or do you have a temper to lose. Are you tested in that way. Is it the environment that we live in that dictates these values in human attributes?


Do I have a temper to lose? Oh my, yes:) Would I snap because someone rubs me the wrong way? Possibly, depending on whether such 'snapping' would adversely affect my long term goals. If it would, then no.

Is it the environment that we live in that dictates these values in human attributes?


Nature or nurture, such a protracted, intractable debate. Certainly nature exerts influence, as does nurture and life history. To what degree each is involved in my own life I have no idea, because I have no place to stand from which the necessary perspective, the necessary independence of judgment, could be maintained. And if I'm in no position to judge my own life in such terms then even less am I in a position to judge others.

Just because one can say he is at peace, doesn't mean he will be at peace continually. And what if the next day brings war instead of peace.


Again, fiddlesticks. You assume peace to be the cessation of conflict, and conflict to be the cessation of peace. We all of us challenge the law (if only by not obeying the speed limit when driving) at the same instant that we adhere to the law in other ways. The tension between the two states (obedience/rebellion) is what I mean by peace. Peace is not a state of mind. It is a state of tension between multiple states of mind, lived wilfully and coherently on the basis of self-knowledge and self-acceptance. I live according to the law to the degree that I must in order to secure the least degree of attention from Authority, and so maximise the number of pleasures I may experience, whether those pleasures are lawful or not. I can do this because I know myself intimately, accept myself as I am, and because I can perform a calculus of risk and consequence. To the degree that I can do this I am at peace whether or not tomorrow brings 'war' or 'peace'.

For the moment I must leave this. I'll adress your comments on politics later this evening.

Reply #9 Top
Your correct. I should not have encrypted. Why do you accuse me of being unclear of thought?
I am beggining to understand what you mean about peace (peace of mind, clear thought). You mean being in the threshold of that tension between two states, where one doesn't overpower the other.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments, and look forward to the rest of it.

Regards,
Fox
Reply #10 Top
To foreverserenity:

I agree with this comparison somewhat. I say somewhat because I’m not sure of the begging and weeping, although now that I’m thinking about it, you’re right. Because from my experience, some Christians do end up begging and weeping when they are praying and beseeching the Lord for his help or his blessings. Why is that I wonder.


Christians beg and weep because this is the only vocabulary they have with which to communicate with their God - simply because the god of the Christians allows them no other. Christians must start out from a place in which they are helpless. They depend in every way, for every thing they want, solely upon the action of their god. They cannot initiate, because to do so risks being outside God's will. They cannot require, because they have no merit of their own. They are, literally, the sheep of their god's fold. Like sheep they cannot be left to their own devices because they have no sense of their own to guide them. They must constantly be herded within the sheepfold to keep them safe. They must be constantly watched over, to keep them from straying. Without their god they are sinners, helplessly subject to the wiles of the Devil their enemy. With their god, they are redeemed sinners, helplessly subject to the suffocating love of their redeemer, constantly reminded at every turn of their impotence, their helplessness, their weakness. They are compelled into a permanent existential childhood in which they must wheedle, cajole, bribe, and beg for whatever it is they want to be dispensed as favors from the hands of the only adult in the universe. Christianity makes of its adherents surly slaves and frightened children - afraid of themselves, of their own passions and desires, constantly under the prurient eyes of a 'daddy in the sky' who, apparently, spends all his time worrying over who his 'children' might be fucking.

Is this the Magickian's way of asking for what he wants then, his way of praying? What I got from this is he is doing the same thing a Christian would do but because he doesn't beleive in God, he's trying to invoke (might be wrong word here) his want himself?


Magick is protean, but what all of us have in common is that we do not ask. Some forms of it are highly ritualised and directed towards Names, Powers, Dominions, Thrones. Others are not. Some forms, Chaos in particular, require no Name but that of the Magickian, and no ritual but what he or she creates for him or herself. My wife is a Chaote. Her ritual derives from the workings of her unconscious mind and is directed toward no god but herself and the universe that surrounds her.

I draw upon the traditions of Thelema (which looks back toward ancient Egypt) as well as working with unconscious impulses, my own mystical symbolism and its meanings. My Magick draws on the Powers of blood, sex, pain; these are the vehicles by which I ride out into the universe to confront it. Unlike Chaotes I have a god - but only because I will to have one, and I do so because there is within me a need for a focus to those energies with which I deal. The Unborn, Uncreated thing that I worship has no interest in prayer and would not answer if I directed any to It. It responds only to the passionate will, fuelled by desire, and Its judgments (so far as I can tell) are aesthetic rather than moral.

Magickians do not pray - they invoke. Some invoke in their own Name as does my wife. Others, like myself, invoke in the power of a Name not their own. I'm not sure which of us is braver, and which of us might have more to fear. But neither of us pray.

So in essence, the Magickian is stronger than the “lay” man who doesn’t practice this art. He has the same wants, needs and feel the same things but is different in that he knows how to stop the voices within him that would question and doubt his self worth and that which he should have (whether he deserves to have it or not).


Stronger? Not necessarily. But more honest in dealing with his desires? Yes. For instance, I remain strongly attracted to the Catholic Mass - because I'm aroused by it's imagery of tortured naked male flesh, blood, and cannibalism. My attraction to it has nothing whatever to do with its mystical significance and everything to do with my own perverse nature. I know myself to be a monster, and the ease with which I pass for a 'normal' man among my neighbours and co-workers affords me endless amusement. Do I suffer guilt because of my monstrous nature? No. The judgments I pass upon myself are aesthetic in nature (so it is as true of me as of any other man - that I have created my god, for whom I hunger in many ways, in my own image).

And there is no question of desert. What can the finite deserve of the infinite, except to be ignored by it or crushed out of hand for having the insolence to raise its insect-wants before the face of the divine? However, like the song says, 'I want what I want', to which I add - and I will have it.

Reply #11 Top
To Foxjazz:

once again I've left this too late and must ask you to wait for my comments on the rest of your posts. Also, I wished to answer foreverserenity before she lost all patience with me, since she also made interesting points. I will however say one thing before I go.

You mean being in the threshold of that tension between two states, where one doesn't overpower the other.


This, as my wife pointed out in conversation with me, is not tension but balance. I will answer at greater length tomorrow if I can. If not tomorrow then Saturday.

Reply #12 Top
GRRRRRR. If this weren't a free site I wouldn't tolerate it's wretched inconsistencies. I signed in as myself yet my reply posted under my wife's ID. GRRRRR.
Reply #13 Top
Christians beg and weep because this is the only vocabulary they have with which to communicate with their God - simply because the god of the Christians allows them no other. Christians must start out from a place in which they are helpless.


My God believes in being humble and so his "servants" should be also. I guess this is why we're helpless until we seek guidance from him.


They depend in every way, for every thing they want, solely upon the action of their god. They cannot initiate, because to do so risks being outside God's will. They cannot require, because they have no merit of their own. They are, literally, the sheep of their god's fold. Like sheep they cannot be left to their own devices because they have no sense of their own to guide them.


I'm trying to understand what you mean when you say, "They cannot initiate,..."? Initiate the blessing? their request? (although that last part is silly because the person praying would be asking (requesting) for something so they are doing the initiating).

The Bible passages often mentions Jesus referring to his followers/believers as sheep, he's like the shepherd who guides his fold. In a sense this is true. I don't like to think that christians are helpless and hopeless but in a sense we are like lost sheep in need of guidance. Some are in need of constant guidance because they are so lost they need to and have to be led.

Like sheep they cannot be left to their own devices because they have no sense of their own to guide them. They must constantly be herded within the sheepfold to keep them safe. They must be constantly watched over, to keep them from straying. Without their god they are sinners, helplessly subject to the wiles of the Devil their enemy. With their god, they are redeemed sinners, helplessly subject to the suffocating love of their redeemer, constantly reminded at every turn of their impotence, their helplessness, their weakness. They are compelled into a permanent existential childhood in which they must wheedle, cajole, bribe, and beg for whatever it is they want to be dispensed as favors from the hands of the only adult in the universe. Christianity makes of its adherents surly slaves and frightened children - afraid of themselves, of their own passions and desires, constantly under the prurient eyes of a 'daddy in the sky' who, apparently, spends all his time worrying over who his 'children' might be fucking.


I guess in a way this is true. Especially if you look at the past, how christians were then, remember Sodom and Gomorrah? That is used as an example of what Christians should not be like. However there are so many that are like that.

It is said that "to err is human" or should that be "it is human to err". This is why Christians do stumble in their faith. And this is not the Christian's fate alone, but all humans. I find that those Christians who are "afraid of themselves, of their own passions and desires, constantly under the prurient eyes of a 'daddy in the sky' " like this are the ones who are so "blind" to their faith they become blind to themselves.


"constantly under the prurient eyes of a 'daddy in the sky' who, apparently, spends all his time worrying over who his 'children' might be fucking."

I do like the idea and thought that God is always watching out for me, not so much as a parent watching a child to catch him doing something wrong or being guilty of doing something, but rather as looking out for me and catching me if I should fall kind of thing. Being there so that when I need him and call upon him, he's there to provide for me and give me reassurance. On the otherhand, yes, there are those who will be so "blind" that they will be "fucking" "Tom, Dick and Harry" in a sense, whoring themselves to feed their needs. (i.e., they wander, drifting through their lives alienating themselves from the norm, becoming extreme because of their perceived faith and in fact not doing God's will but rather feeding their own selfish and sometimes perversed needs. In this way they violate everything that being a Christian represents.)


Reply #14 Top
Magick is protean, but what all of us have in common is that we do not ask. Some forms of it are highly ritualised and directed towards Names, Powers, Dominions, Thrones. Others are not. Some forms, Chaos in particular, require no Name but that of the Magickian, and no ritual but what he or she creates for him or herself. My wife is a Chaote. Her ritual derives from the workings of her unconscious mind and is directed toward no god but herself and the universe that surrounds her.


Would you define both yours and Whip's practices as idoltery? Do you think other Christians would look on you as it being that way? I think the those who are extreme in their views would. However, from my point of view, and being one who is open-minded and fair, I look at what you both practise with curiosity. You are in a sense "whorshipping" in your own way, but not to "my" God. Chaos doesn't have a "God" you said, but your Magick does. You're not required to pray, but you do invoke and you do believe strongly in that which you do. In a sense is that not the same as me? In a sense do you not think that it is through God that makes what you do possible? Otherwise how else do you know, or would you know that you don't believe in him? I wrote an article some weeks ago about Athiests what it is in trying to understand them and their beliefs. I received some very enlightening responses and learned a lot from my fellow JUsers.

Having grown up in a Christian household and worship God, believing in Jesus, his son, and the Holy Spirits. My parents were never fanatics about their beliefs and taught us to be accepting of our faith and that as made us who we are today. We weren't "buttoned-down, straight laced Christians" who were afraid that we would be struck down by God because we didn't live they way some Christians do. But we did and I do have a healthy respect that he is God and can do anything. It is a respect born not of fear but of love knowing how powerful he is.

Reply #15 Top
My wife is a Chaote. Her ritual derives from the workings of her unconscious mind and is directed toward no god but herself and the universe that surrounds her.


This is facsinating to me because I'm wondering to myself, this is a practice that Whip has taught herself by seeking it out? It teaches her to do this? I would sit and meditate and do the same thing, but my mind would be directed to God and in a sense the universe. In essence is this not similar? How does she know that this practice is not directed to God? If as I asked before, and somehow believe, not to belittle your beliefs, but is it not because of God that you come to this realization. Perhaps I'm just too naive in my own beliefs to think this way. But it is the way that I have been taught to think so I guess it is a natural question.


with my own perverse nature. I know myself to be a monster, and the ease with which I pass for a 'normal' man among my neighbours and co-workers affords me endless amusement. Do I suffer guilt because of my monstrous nature? No. The judgments I pass upon myself are aesthetic in nature (so it is as true of me as of any other man - that I have created my god, for whom I hunger in many ways, in my own image).


Why do you consider yourself as a "monster" because you think and feel this way? I know you mentioned because it is not "normal', but who is to say what is normal? Many people experience different things that gives them pleasure, whether it is of the flesh or "aesthetic in nature" as you put it. Is that not normal? Is that not being human? Is that not God's way? You might not want me to ask if it is not God's way but whose way would it be? How else do we know?

It is not that you're a monster, but rather it is your way of being, that which makes you, you and who you are, different and perhaps not so different from others. Of course your intellect and your open-mindnedness and your obviously...I'm trying to find the right word here......."superior", may not be the right word, but if you get what I'm trying to say.....way of thinking sets you apart from the norm. A lot of people see themselves in that way. What's to say that I don't have some perverse form of pleasure that only I know about, would that make me a monster? What I'm trying to get at is that your ways might just be normal, just like everyone else who enjoys something different.

What can the finite deserve of the infinite, except to be ignored by it or crushed out of hand for having the insolence to raise its insect-wants before the face of the divine? However, like the song says, 'I want what I want', to which I add - and I will have iThere's a poem in there somewhere....


Hahaha, I agree with you Whip, somewhere in there is a poem....he does have a way with words.




Imagine yourself to be a pomegranate seed, or something equally slippery, crushed between two celestial fingers. The moment you are forced out from between the fingers and fly elsewhere (not the moment in which you arrive somewhere else, no matter how attractive somewhere else might be) is what I mean by peace: the moment in-between.


! I knew this was just too "sweet" and "flowery" to be Whip! Beautiful imagery!
Reply #16 Top
But no, I would not say I engage in idolatry of any kind. One must have an idol to do so,


This is true. Idolatry was perhaps not the best choice of word to use.


It takes a lot to get God's attention, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather he/she/it not notice me too much, lest i be driven mad by that attention.


Sounds like you have a healthy respect for him although you don't believe and this is good. I feel the same about your beliefs (and others too). I know they exist, others believe even if I don't and I respect that.


A Chaote's practice is concentrated towards results, period. I accept the meta-belief that belief is a tool to achieve those results, not an end in and of itself. The definition of Magick iteslf is "The ability to cause change, in accordance to one's will, using methods not currently understood by science."

If I try a ritual, any ritual, be that a Christian Mass, a Nordic blot to Loki, or a Wiccan 'spell' and get the results I seek, then I add it to my repertoir. I also listen to my own spirit, and make use of various PPO's, (Personal Power Objects) even if I have no idea where that power emanated from or how it works. (I do not need to know how a microwave or a telephone actually works in order to use it to accomplish my will, ie: heat some food or contact a friend) but use it I do.

For instance, I have some huge thorns from a rose bush put away for some future purpose that I have yet to determine. They spoke to me as PPO because the bush that this enormous cane sprang from had been weak and unhealthy all summer, not producing a single bud, and even its greenery was sparse and brown.

Long after the chilly nights of fall had sent the other bushes of its type into dormancy for the winter, this crazy bush sent up a single cane, straight as an arrow, as thick as a cigar, and when it reached a height of about 4 feet, a single, perfect, blood red blossom as big as a dinner plate adorned it. And even though the rest of the plant only produced sparse and tiny thorns, this cane had some amazing hookers on it, as big as my thumbnail and sharp as a razor.

This was not the type of bush that produced canes at all, mind you, it was more of the tea-rose variety, like a shrub. Yet here it was, saving the best for last, and the will, the desire it must have had within it to produce such a thing is something I can deeply respect, even though a plant has no intellect.

That's power.

I let it go to seed, and then cut the entire cane, saving both the seeds and the thorns. I will use them in ritual someday, and I know...I KNOW that whatever I choose to use them for will work. I think it will be some sort of resurrection ritual, not as in bringing back the dead or anything so foolish as that, but perhaps to resurrect a feeling, a love, a passion of some sort.


This is very informative and very interesting.

hope this gives you a little glimpse into how I approach these things, I'm generally loathe to speak on the topic, Simon enjoys it far more than I do and as I said, is more open and generous with the information He is willing to share.


I understand. Thanks for taking the time to explain. It's a lot clearer to me now.



But hey, I like you, and I don't think you ask these questions in order to pass judgement on me, but rather to understand. If there were more people like you in the world, I might be compelled to discuss these things more often.


Thank you Whip! And Ditto!
Reply #17 Top
Thanks for your comments.

Now I have a question about the Christian religion.

How do you know you worhship the Christian God?
I mean, do you point to it and call it God. Do you think about it and call it God. Is it an image in your head. A Name (and because of the Name you know it is)?
What differentiates one Christian God worhipper from Another? Are they truly the same God? Does the configuration of the billions of neurons in your brain agree with the configuration of the billion of neurons in another's (worshippers) brain the same? And if they are different, is that difference significant?

Is this a resolvable problem?

Regards,

Foxjazz
Reply #18 Top
Now I have a question about the Christian religion.


FoxJazz, I guess this is directed to me? So I'll respond as best as I can (I'm a bit out of it today...coming down with something).


How do you know you worhship the Christian God?

Because I don't worship anyone or anything else. It is what I've known all my life.


I mean, do you point to it and call it God. Do you think about it and call it God. Is it an image in your head. A Name (and because of the Name you know it is)?




Yes, although I don't refer to God or Jesus as "it", rather He or Him. He is an image in my head, not necessarily looking like what he's depicted to be by many, blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. And before it's looked on as anything, skin color is not a factor in this decision where is image is concerned.




What differentiates one Christian God worhipper from Another? Are they truly the same God? Does the configuration of the billions of neurons in your brain agree with the configuration of the billion of neurons in another's (worshippers) brain the same? And if they are different, is that difference significant?


I guess how we worship would differentiate one Christian from another. Some like clapping and singing, some do worship more quietly, some invoke the holy spirits and that can be a sight in itself! I do believe Christians worship the same God. He might be called Almighty, Jehova, etc., however, he's the same.

No two person think exactly alike. They may have similar thoughts but everyone has his or her own way of thinking. (I'm taking your way of phrasing that question about neurons in good fate and not as a joke.)


Is this a resolvable problem?


I don't see a problem, do you?
Reply #19 Top
Well, the problem I see is that at what point do "Christians" not worship the God they think they are worshipping. Are you saying that Mormon's worship the same Christian God as the Catholics, and the Catholics worship the same as the Prodestants, and the Prodestants the same as the Charasmatics because they all fall under the allegedly Historical Jesus? And what of Allah and the Jew, are they worshipping the same God?

It's termed good Faith (not fate)....

Yes this is all in good "Faith-confidence" to be clear.
Does David Koresh worship the same God as you did, when that cult leader caused the death of his clan?
Does the Catholic Church under Pope Urban II worship the same God as you, as he caused the death of:

Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6
1st Crusade: 300,000 Eur. k at Battle of Nice [Nicea].
Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems
1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.
50,000 Pilgrims died of disease.
1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred.
Siege of Tiberias: 30,000 Christians k.
Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks
Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.
1291: 100,000 Christians k after fall of Acre.
Fall of Christian Antioch: 17,000 massacred.
[TOTAL: 677,000 listed in these episodes here.]
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/]
Jaffa: 20,000 Christians massacred, 1197
Sorokin estimates that French, English & Imperial German Crusaders lost a total of 3,600 in battle.
1st C (1096-99): 400
2nd C (1147-49): 750
3rd C (1189-91): 930
4th C (1202-04): 120
5th C (1228-29): 600
7th C (1248-54): 700
James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992)
1099: Crusaders slaughter 40,000 inhabs of Jerusalem. Dis/starv reduced Crusaders from 300,000 to 60,000.
1147: 2nd Crusades begins with 500,000. "Most" lost to starv./disease/battle.
1190: 500 Jews massacred in York.
1192: 3rd Crusade reduced from 100,000 to 5,000 through famine, plagues and desertions in campaign vs Antioch.
1212: Children's Crusade loses some 50,000.
[TOTAL: Just in these incidents, it appears the Europeans lost around 650,000.]
TOTAL: When I take all the individual death tolls listed here, weed out the duplicates, fill in the blanks, apply Occam ("Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"), etc. I get a very rough total of 1½ M deaths in the Crusades.


That said, if your to say this isn't the same God, how do you know? How is your God different than the Catholic's? Is your God newer than this, or just different.
You say everyone has a different Image of God, if that is true then what makes you think you worship the same God as the ones that worship with you?
Certainly the followers of Koresh, thought the same.
Is there a rational for this specific problem. And yes this is a very serious problem, just because you don't yet understand the problem, shouldn't give you cause to deny that this problem exists.

Regards,
Fox
Reply #20 Top
Little, you can find the facts here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/renoopeningst.html

It was David Koresh who did not surrender, it was his clan, his mistake, his fault. His religion, his mistake his fault.

David was the one that caused the vieolence:

Six hours went by, six hours, and still no one came out. The rest you know. The Branch Davidians were recorded while they spread the fuels used to ignite the fire that resulted in the deaths of all but nine. FBI agents risked their lives to rescue several of them. Others emerged through holes the tanks had made in the walls after it was learned that other exits had been blocked from the inside.

You can't blame the Government for this action, its easy to blame the government for a lot, but if someone were to take responsiblity for this, his name is David Koresh.
Believer in Christ (whatever that means).

So get your facts strait before blaming the government for lack of being prepared for this type of incident. Don't blame the person that caused the incident, sound like liberalism to me.

Regards,
Foxjazz
Reply #21 Top
Is there a rational for this specific problem. And yes this is a very serious problem, just because you don't yet understand the problem, shouldn't give you cause to deny that this problem exists.


Is there a rational for what you're writing here? Do you see this as leading somewhere? Is this really in good faith? (and I stand corrected - thx).

Is there a meaning to all this? Pointing out all these deaths....has some significance?


I cannot speak for the Jews or people who worship "allah" as I don't practice their faith. I also cannot speak for everyone else who claim to be of the same faith as me, I speak only for myself.
Reply #22 Top
Exactly, and speaking only for yourself, what makes you believe you are correct? And if there is a possiblity that you are not correct, is it right or wrong to recruit others to your way of believing(thinking)?

Speaking for yourself I assume you mean that you worship Christ (the right Christ).

Yes pointing out the deaths has the significance of pointing out evil, and corruption of "true believers". How can they be believers at the same time they do evil? They must not believe in the same way that better believers do. I don't see the Presby church killing the unfaithful, just because they are different.

Faith is a dirty word, how about calling it "belief with no evidence system" or "confidence from realworld experience".
Faith has several meanings in the English language, which cause all sorts of debate problems.

I personally try to avoid faith, because I would wrather be real to myself than fake. (not saying that faith makes you unreal to yourself), it is how I acquire knowledge that is important to me. Integrity is important to me.

Believing something without evidence is not integrity, the two can't co-exist.
Integrity in my world is using knowledge that is acquired through emperical evidence to act on other knowledge or other real things.

Your world view is quite different. Frankly I couldn't deal with it. It would have required lying to myself, and placing myself in continual conflict with the real world. And my brain doesn't work that way. Faith is not something to just be accepted, and that's that. If it doesn't fit within rational thought (like the title of this artical states), then it can't fit in my brain. Faith is not rational. It is a useful and "fun or easy" way of saying "I believe in this, cause others do, or because of this sytem of beliefs that I learned from some book".

I have no confidence in religion, and have as little time for it. I don't believe it does the world good to expend good energy on religion. I believe it is more harmful, than benign (and am glad it has proven to be more benign than harmful in this country). However other countries will continue to suffer the consequences of religion in general.

Is this really in good faith (the partitioning of Jesus). Yes it is an interesting question, and I posted it on another forum to find out what others may say about it.

So kill my rational thought if you will. It is my rational thought that has kept me healthy most my life. And when I die, my rational thought will be silenced.

Regards with ever so loving kindess,

Foxjazz
Reply #23 Top
Exactly, and speaking only for yourself, what makes you believe you are correct? And if there is a possiblity that you are not correct, is it right or wrong to recruit others to your way of believing(thinking)?


Of course I'm right in my thinking and what I say about me and my beliefs! Where did I say I was recruiting anyone?


Speaking for yourself I assume you mean that you worship Christ (the right Christ).


Jesus Christ, the one and only!



Yes pointing out the deaths has the significance of pointing out evil, and corruption of "true believers". How can they be believers at the same time they do evil? They must not believe in the same way that better believers do.


There is a saying in the bible (I don't remember which book or verse) where Jesus said that many shall come in his name and say they are of him but they are not. There are people out there who will claim to be Christians and followers of Christ but they are not. They usually do things to suit their own needs not the needs of others. Unfortunately there are a lot of people like this out in the world and too many times innocents are lost because of them. The innocent doesn't have to be someone of the same faith, believer or non-believer, anyone who comes in contact with someone who doesn't have good intentions will somehow get hurt. It doesn't have to be physical hurt, it could be anything.


Faith is a dirty word, how about calling it "belief with no evidence system" or "confidence from realworld experience". Faith has several meanings in the English language, which cause all sorts of debate problems.I personally try to avoid faith, because I would wrather be real to myself than fake. (not saying that faith makes you unreal to yourself), it is how I acquire knowledge that is important to me. Integrity is important to me.Believing something without evidence is not integrity, the two can't co-exist.Integrity in my world is using knowledge that is acquired through emperical evidence to act on other knowledge or other real things.


It might be a dirty word to you but it's not to me. Having faith does not mean that you are not real or that you're lying to yourself. Your beliefs are yours and I respect that. My beliefs are mine and I do have integrity. I don't have to lie to myself and pretend to be someone I'm not.



Your world view is quite different. Frankly I couldn't deal with it. It would have required lying to myself, and placing myself in continual conflict with the real world. And my brain doesn't work that way. Faith is not something to just be accepted, and that's that. If it doesn't fit within rational thought (like the title of this artical states), then it can't fit in my brain. Faith is not rational. It is a useful and "fun or easy" way of saying "I believe in this, cause others do, or because of this sytem of beliefs that I learned from some book".I have no confidence in religion, and have as little time for it. I don't believe it does the world good to expend good energy on religion. I believe it is more harmful, than benign (and am glad it has proven to be more benign than harmful in this country). However other countries will continue to suffer the consequences of religion in general.



I guess I sometimes come off as being too good or too nice...and perhaps you don’t have people who are like me around you…..sorry to disappoint you but that's just who I am. I could give you a dozen names who will verify that I am what I am. However, I don't have to tell you and you don't have to believe me either. I do wonder if you've probably been through a lot and that's not my justification for your sounding trite and abrasive, even though you might not mean to come off as such. (at least I hope not)

I can only speak from what I’ve experienced in the 40 years I’ve been on this earth. Does this mean I know it all? Nope. Do I speak for everyone who is a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ? Nope. I’m no different from you or anyone else. I like to talk, oh yes, from my own point of views, telling only what I know, life as I know it. (Pun intended!)

You might not believe in religion but I do hope you believe in something. Everyone needs something they can hold on to, something that will give them the help they need to handle what comes at them when living in this world gets to be too much, and they cannot cope. We all like to think we’re strong and almost invincible, but we’re only humans and there will be a point when our realities can be a bit too much for us to handle.




Is this really in good faith (the partitioning of Jesus). Yes it is an interesting question, and I posted it on another forum to find out what others may say about it.


I will seek your blog to read what you have to say on this.


So kill my rational thought if you will. It is my rational thought that has kept me healthy most my life. And when I die, my rational thought will be silenced.


There's no need for me to do that, nor would I want to.
Reply #24 Top
Is this really in good faith (the partitioning of Jesus). Yes it is an interesting question, and I posted it on another forum to find out what others may say about it.


Where did you post this question? It's not on your blog.
Reply #25 Top
I went to "walk away" aimoo site to post it. It is a site for Christians who have walked away from the Faith.

My wife was Married to a priest, before she married me.

That last sentence wasn't for you(foreverserenety), it was just for the blog.

My blog is at "foxjazz.blogspot. com"
I have a few things on their related to religion, and such.
On the point of "Faith" and Religion, we will have to continue to disagree.
I have a "vision" of Jesus, and actually used to be Christian (charasmaticish/non-denominational). I enjoyed it, and felt it had meaning. But then I learned the theology, and I learned to think and reason. That is why I had to leave. The two world views don't fit. I chose to believe as Thomas Paine does. Sorta.

Even so, I do have some respect and identify with believers whom haven't taken the paths I have taken.

I am thankful that I am free of the bondage it held for me. And I am free, so coping with the world is certainly much easier.

Regards,

Foxjazz