Discussion:
Were you Aleister Crowley in a past life? Over the years, I've met several...
(too old to reply)
muldoon
2005-07-05 12:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.

This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
Tom
2005-07-05 14:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
I do not believe, yet I speak.

Outside the illusion of self, the whole question of reincarnation is absurd.
Aiwass
2005-07-05 16:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
I do not believe, yet I speak.
Outside the illusion of self, the whole question of reincarnation is absurd.
evidence?

A
Tom
2005-07-05 17:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
I do not believe, yet I speak.
Outside the illusion of self, the whole question of reincarnation is absurd.
evidence?
Logic. If self is illusion, then the reincarnation of self is also
illusion.
Aiwass
2005-07-05 17:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
I do not believe, yet I speak.
Outside the illusion of self, the whole question of reincarnation is absurd.
evidence?
Logic. If self is illusion, then the reincarnation of self is also
illusion.
Your evidence that self is illusion?

Try to build on firmer foundations, it is more scientific. I know you piked
out before your thesis and your scientific credentials are a bit iffy,
having an 'emphasis on sociology' and all, but try not to prove one silly
assumption by quoting another silly assumption. In fact, try harder all
round.

A
Tom
2005-07-06 02:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
evidence?
Logic. If self is illusion, then the reincarnation of self is also
illusion.
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by demanding
evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you are unable to
provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However, it's pretty much a
sure bet that you don't really want to know what the evidence is because
you've already made up your mind based on your half-remembered reading and
what the people whose asses you kiss have told you to believe.

As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative. The notion
that a permanent self inhabits your body, survives its death, and then
serially inhabits other bodies is completely unsupported by any credible
evidence, therefore it is not logical or reasonable to draw the conclusion
that it does.

If you disagree and assert that such credible evidence *does* exist, you're
out of luck because the very *last* thing you'll ever do is provide any such
evidence to me.
Aiwass
2005-07-06 15:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
evidence?
Logic. If self is illusion, then the reincarnation of self is also
illusion.
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by demanding
evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you are unable to
provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However, it's pretty much a
sure bet that you don't really want to know what the evidence is because
you've already made up your mind based on your half-remembered reading and
what the people whose asses you kiss have told you to believe.
I take it this means you dont have any?
Post by Tom
As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative.
No such thing as evidence of a negative Tom, I would have thought that as a
self-proclaimed scientist, you would have known that.
Post by Tom
The notion that a permanent self inhabits your body, survives its death,
and then serially inhabits other bodies is completely unsupported by any
credible evidence, therefore it is not logical or reasonable to draw the
conclusion that it does.
Not at all. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again, a
scientific principle that you should have been aware of. Unless of course
you are a fraud.
Post by Tom
If you disagree and assert that such credible evidence *does* exist,
you're out of luck because the very *last* thing you'll ever do is provide
any such evidence to me.
Evidence from me isnt the point since it was you that made the silly and
unsupported assertions.

A
Tom
2005-07-07 00:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by demanding
evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you are unable
to provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However, it's pretty
much a sure bet that you don't really want to know what the evidence is
because you've already made up your mind based on your half-remembered
reading and what the people whose asses you kiss have told you to
believe.
I take it this means you dont have any?
Like I said, you're not serious. If you were, you'd be considering what I
said rather than trying to score some kind of points in your silly
self-created competition with me.

So, as a result, you got nothing from it at all.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative.
No such thing as evidence of a negative Tom,
Oh, right. If you claim there is a big elephant behind a particular
curtain, it's not evidence when I look behind that curtain and see that no
elephant is there. It's no wonder you're an occultist. You can't think
worth a shit.
Aiwass
2005-07-07 14:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by demanding
evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you are unable
to provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However, it's pretty
much a sure bet that you don't really want to know what the evidence is
because you've already made up your mind based on your half-remembered
reading and what the people whose asses you kiss have told you to
believe.
I take it this means you dont have any?
Like I said, you're not serious. If you were, you'd be considering what I
said rather than trying to score some kind of points in your silly
self-created competition with me.
So, as a result, you got nothing from it at all.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative.
No such thing as evidence of a negative Tom,
Oh, right. If you claim there is a big elephant behind a particular
curtain, it's not evidence when I look behind that curtain and see that no
elephant is there. It's no wonder you're an occultist. You can't think
worth a shit.
Just saying what real scientists have known for ages. Keep trying to manage
the anger and frustration. Remember that depression is anger tirned inwards.
On no account let the anger turn inwards Tom...

A
Tom
2005-07-07 18:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by
demanding evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you
are unable to provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However,
it's pretty much a sure bet that you don't really want to know what the
evidence is because you've already made up your mind based on your
half-remembered reading and what the people whose asses you kiss have
told you to believe.
I take it this means you dont have any?
Like I said, you're not serious. If you were, you'd be considering what
I said rather than trying to score some kind of points in your silly
self-created competition with me.
So, as a result, you got nothing from it at all.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative.
No such thing as evidence of a negative Tom,
Oh, right. If you claim there is a big elephant behind a particular
curtain, it's not evidence when I look behind that curtain and see that
no elephant is there. It's no wonder you're an occultist. You can't
think worth a shit.
Just saying what real scientists have known for ages.
Heh.

"It seems to me that men do not rightly understand either their store or
their strength, but overrate the one and underrate the other. Hence it
follows that either from an extravagant estimate of the value of the arts
which they possess they seek no further, or else from too mean an estimate
of their own powers they spend their strength in small matters and never put
it fairly to the trial in those which go to the main. These are as the
pillars of fate set in the path of knowledge, for men have neither desire
nor hope to encourage them to penetrate further. And since opinion of store
is one of the chief causes of want, and satisfaction with the present
induces neglect of provision for the future, it becomes a thing not only
useful, but absolutely necessary, that the excess of honor and admiration
with which our existing stock of inventions is regarded be in the very
entrance and threshold of the work, and that frankly and without
circumlocution stripped off, and men be duly warned not to exaggerate or
make too much of them. For let a man look carefully into all that variety of
books with which the arts and sciences abound, he will find everywhere
endless repetitions of the same thing, varying in the method of treatment,
but not new in substance, insomuch that the whole stock, numerous as it
appears at first view, proves on examination to be but scanty. And for its
value and utility it must be plainly avowed that that wisdom which we have
derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge,
and has the characteristic property of boys: it can talk, but it cannot
generate, for it is fruitful of controversies but barren of works." --
Francis Bacon, "The Great Instauration"

You keep insisting an elephant is behind the curtain, despite the fact that
when we look behind the curtain, no elephant is there. That's how you
overvalue your store and undervalue your strength.
Aiwass
2005-07-08 14:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Your evidence that self is illusion?
If you were actually serious, rather than trying to bait me by
demanding evidence for my statements because I've pointed out that you
are unable to provide any for yours, I'd work a bit harder. However,
it's pretty much a sure bet that you don't really want to know what
the evidence is because you've already made up your mind based on your
half-remembered reading and what the people whose asses you kiss have
told you to believe.
I take it this means you dont have any?
Like I said, you're not serious. If you were, you'd be considering what
I said rather than trying to score some kind of points in your silly
self-created competition with me.
So, as a result, you got nothing from it at all.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
As it is, I'll simpy tell you that the evidence is negative.
No such thing as evidence of a negative Tom,
Oh, right. If you claim there is a big elephant behind a particular
curtain, it's not evidence when I look behind that curtain and see that
no elephant is there. It's no wonder you're an occultist. You can't
think worth a shit.
Just saying what real scientists have known for ages.
Heh.
"It seems to me that men do not rightly understand either their store or
their strength, but overrate the one and underrate the other. Hence it
follows that either from an extravagant estimate of the value of the arts
which they possess they seek no further, or else from too mean an estimate
of their own powers they spend their strength in small matters and never
put it fairly to the trial in those which go to the main. These are as the
pillars of fate set in the path of knowledge, for men have neither desire
nor hope to encourage them to penetrate further. And since opinion of
store is one of the chief causes of want, and satisfaction with the
present induces neglect of provision for the future, it becomes a thing
not only useful, but absolutely necessary, that the excess of honor and
admiration with which our existing stock of inventions is regarded be in
the very entrance and threshold of the work, and that frankly and without
circumlocution stripped off, and men be duly warned not to exaggerate or
make too much of them. For let a man look carefully into all that variety
of books with which the arts and sciences abound, he will find everywhere
endless repetitions of the same thing, varying in the method of treatment,
but not new in substance, insomuch that the whole stock, numerous as it
appears at first view, proves on examination to be but scanty. And for its
value and utility it must be plainly avowed that that wisdom which we have
derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge,
and has the characteristic property of boys: it can talk, but it cannot
generate, for it is fruitful of controversies but barren of works." --
Francis Bacon, "The Great Instauration"
You keep insisting an elephant is behind the curtain, despite the fact
that when we look behind the curtain, no elephant is there. That's how
you overvalue your store and undervalue your strength.
Another great copy and paste job Tom, wow, that Google finger is really
twitching.

As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.

And here you are doing what you abused me for doing.

Did I get that right? Yes, I thought so. I suppose I shouldnt really call
you a hypocrite but you make it so tempting. Prick.

A
Tom
2005-07-10 07:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Just saying what real scientists have known for ages.
Heh.
"It seems to me that men do not rightly understand either their store or
their strength, but overrate the one and underrate the other. Hence it
follows that either from an extravagant estimate of the value of the arts
which they possess they seek no further, or else from too mean an estimate
of their own powers they spend their strength in small matters and never
put it fairly to the trial in those which go to the main. These are as the
pillars of fate set in the path of knowledge, for men have neither desire
nor hope to encourage them to penetrate further. And since opinion of
store is one of the chief causes of want, and satisfaction with the
present induces neglect of provision for the future, it becomes a thing
not only useful, but absolutely necessary, that the excess of honor and
admiration with which our existing stock of inventions is regarded be in
the very entrance and threshold of the work, and that frankly and without
circumlocution stripped off, and men be duly warned not to exaggerate or
make too much of them. For let a man look carefully into all that variety
of books with which the arts and sciences abound, he will find everywhere
endless repetitions of the same thing, varying in the method of treatment,
but not new in substance, insomuch that the whole stock, numerous as it
appears at first view, proves on examination to be but scanty. And for its
value and utility it must be plainly avowed that that wisdom which we have
derived principally from the Greeks is but like the boyhood of knowledge,
and has the characteristic property of boys: it can talk, but it cannot
generate, for it is fruitful of controversies but barren of works." --
Francis Bacon, "The Great Instauration"
You keep insisting an elephant is behind the curtain, despite the fact
that when we look behind the curtain, no elephant is there. That's how
you overvalue your store and undervalue your strength.
Another great copy and paste job Tom, wow, that Google finger is really
twitching.
There you go, hallooing off after your straw man again. I quoted Francis
Bacon's comments on the notion that how much reliance we should put on
"scientists through the ages" rather than on our own ability to cogently
test hypotheses and assertions for ourselves.

His view was that the people of his time ordinarily placed too much reliance
on cited scholars of the past and not nearly enough on their capacity for
reasoning and experiment. He's saying that what "scientists of past ages
knew" was highly overrated.

What he saw as a flaw in the thinking of his contemporaries I see as a flaw
in you. There are some differences, of course. Bacon's friends were a lot
more scholarly than you and actually were able to cite those authorities
accurately rather than merely wave vaguely in their direction and misstate
their conclusions, as you do. They were wrong, but you are wronger.
Post by Aiwass
As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.
You never even attempted to quote any of those people. You have never
provided a single citation from the people you mention, or anyone else, for
that matter, for anything you've claimed. And that's something for which I
have repeatedly chided you.
Post by Aiwass
Did I get that right?
No. You got it wrong again.
Aiwass
2005-07-10 11:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.
You never even attempted to quote any of those people. You have never
provided a single citation from the people you mention, or anyone
else, for that matter, for anything you've claimed. And that's
something for which I have repeatedly chided you.
Wrong again. As I recall I posted a direct citation from Israel Regardie,
probably the best respected occultist since Mathers. Predictably you
denigrated the man without commenting on the article. Probably because you
couldnt understand it.
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Did I get that right?
No. You got it wrong again.
No, you got it wrong again. If you cannot remember what you posted then go
and have a look, kook.
--
Gratuitous unpleasantness is what stupid people use to conceal a lack
of confidence/competence.

A
Tom
2005-07-10 20:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.
You never even attempted to quote any of those people. You have never
provided a single citation from the people you mention, or anyone
else, for that matter, for anything you've claimed. And that's
something for which I have repeatedly chided you.
Wrong again. As I recall I posted a direct citation from Israel Regardie,
probably the best respected occultist since Mathers.
Did you really cite him, or did you merely allude vaguely to him? I don't
recall seeing you post any quotation or specific citation that wasn't
incorrect in one way or another. Perhaps I missed it. Feel free to direct
me to the specific post in which you cited Regardie specifically and
accurately. And then tell me when you specifically cited any work of Freud,
Jung, Newton, or Einstein, as you just implied that you have. A scholarly
citation is not just a mention of someone's name, you know.

Further, can you direct me to the post in which I abused you for quoting
anybody who lived prior to 1900, as you claimed I have? As I recall, I
have chided you for your consistent inability to quote anyone at all
accurately.
Aiwass
2005-07-11 15:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.
You never even attempted to quote any of those people. You have
never provided a single citation from the people you mention, or
anyone else, for that matter, for anything you've claimed. And
that's something for which I have repeatedly chided you.
Wrong again. As I recall I posted a direct citation from Israel
Regardie, probably the best respected occultist since Mathers.
Did you really cite him, or did you merely allude vaguely to him? I
don't recall seeing you post any quotation or specific citation that
wasn't incorrect in one way or another. Perhaps I missed it. Feel
free to direct me to the specific post in which you cited Regardie
specifically and accurately. And then tell me when you specifically
cited any work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or Einstein, as you just
implied that you have. A scholarly citation is not just a mention of
someone's name, you know.
Dont lecture me on scientific practice. I did indeed accurately cite, a post
which was ignored by all who were vociferous in their demands for 'evidence'
For your information I attach the citation.
Post by Tom
Further, can you direct me to the post in which I abused you for
quoting anybody who lived prior to 1900, as you claimed I have? As
I recall, I have chided you for your consistent inability to quote
anyone at all accurately.
You abused me among other things for quoting Mathers as a source, though I
did not post a citation from him Maybe you have been abusing people for so
long you have forgotten what constitutes abuse. Also you abused Mathers,
which in my view suggests you dont have a very good understanding of who he
was and what he achieved. Just because you dont like the GD system doesnt
mean you can abuse people who do, and it certainly doesnt qualify you to
pass an opinion on probably the best occultist for hundreds of years,
despite his obvious human frailty and flaws.

Here is that citation from Regardie:

"Over and above all these methods, or, more accurately, combining these
techniques, is a final phase of Magic which I propose only to touch upon in
brief - Initiation. The necessity and rationale of this process depends upon
the postulated ability of a trained initiate to impart something of his own
illumination and spiritual power to a candidate by means of a ceremony. Such
a magnetic transmission of power is conceived to stir up the inner faculties
of the candidate - faculties dormant and obscured for many a sorry year. As
Psellus, another Neoplatonist once remarked of Magic, "Its function is to
initiate or perfect the human soul by the power of materials here on earth,
for the supreme faculty of the soul cannot by its own guidance aspire to the
sublimest intuitions, and to the comprehension of Divinity." [Israel
Regardie]

Oh and by the way, you did see it because I recall you answering the post.

A
Tom
2005-07-12 14:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Wrong again. As I recall I posted a direct citation from Israel
Regardie, probably the best respected occultist since Mathers.
Did you really cite him, or did you merely allude vaguely to him? I
don't recall seeing you post any quotation or specific citation that
wasn't incorrect in one way or another. Perhaps I missed it. Feel
free to direct me to the specific post in which you cited Regardie
specifically and accurately. And then tell me when you specifically
cited any work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or Einstein, as you just
implied that you have. A scholarly citation is not just a mention of
someone's name, you know.
Dont lecture me on scientific practice.
I realize that makes you very nervous, but I wasn't lecturing you on
scientific practice. You don't practice science at all, so such a lecture
would be irrelevant, even if you managed to understand what was being said.
Post by Aiwass
I did indeed accurately cite, a post
which was ignored by all who were vociferous in their demands for 'evidence'
For your information I attach the citation.
"Over and above all these methods, or, more accurately, combining these
techniques, is a final phase of Magic which I propose only to touch upon in
brief - Initiation. The necessity and rationale of this process depends upon
the postulated ability of a trained initiate to impart something of his own
illumination and spiritual power to a candidate by means of a ceremony. Such
a magnetic transmission of power is conceived to stir up the inner faculties
of the candidate - faculties dormant and obscured for many a sorry year. As
Psellus, another Neoplatonist once remarked of Magic, "Its function is to
initiate or perfect the human soul by the power of materials here on earth,
for the supreme faculty of the soul cannot by its own guidance aspire to the
sublimest intuitions, and to the comprehension of Divinity." [Israel
Regardie]
Ah yes, I must have missed that in the huge amount of chaff that you've been
posting lately. Now, if you will tell me which book you are quoting, I can
check to see if you have indeed quoted him accurately.

I'm particularly amused by the phrase "a magnetic transmission of power".
The electrodynamic theory or magick! "Currents" and "magnetic
transmissions". Heh.

Now, where did you cite any specific work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or
Einstein as you indicated that you had?
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Further, can you direct me to the post in which I abused you for
quoting anybody who lived prior to 1900, as you claimed I have? As
I recall, I have chided you for your consistent inability to quote
anyone at all accurately.
You abused me among other things for quoting Mathers as a source, though I
did not post a citation from him
What was the "abuse" part? I consider the testimony of a self-confessed
accessory to forgery to be an unreliable source. That hardly translates
into "abuse". And just how does this comment on your citation of a single
individual translate in your mind to an accusation that I abused you for for
quoting anybody that lived prior to 1900?
Post by Aiwass
Maybe you have been abusing people for so
long you have forgotten what constitutes abuse.
Or maybe you have a very exaggerated idea of what constitutes "abuse".
Post by Aiwass
Also you abused Mathers,
Poor fellow. Perhaps he shouldn't have lied to all those people about the
validity of his credentials to lead them.
Jason
2005-07-12 19:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
I'm particularly amused by the phrase "a magnetic transmission of power".
The electrodynamic theory or magick! "Currents" and "magnetic
transmissions". Heh.
Did I mention I faired another hurricane?

This discussion of yours and Aiwass' bears semblemence of ocean floor plate
manipulation by magnetohydrodynamic generators (MHD) (40 ton magnets) that
override, black out and interfere with Earth's own natural magnetic field in
geo-physical warfare.

Ever hear of Gordon James Fraser Macdonald, President Johnson's Science
Advisor?

Learn more: http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~westerli/pdffiles/gmacdonald.pdf

You're like a serial killers begging to be caught.
Aiwass
2005-07-13 15:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
Wrong again. As I recall I posted a direct citation from Israel
Regardie, probably the best respected occultist since Mathers.
Did you really cite him, or did you merely allude vaguely to him? I
don't recall seeing you post any quotation or specific citation that
wasn't incorrect in one way or another. Perhaps I missed it. Feel
free to direct me to the specific post in which you cited Regardie
specifically and accurately. And then tell me when you specifically
cited any work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or Einstein, as you just
implied that you have. A scholarly citation is not just a mention of
someone's name, you know.
Dont lecture me on scientific practice.
I realize that makes you very nervous, but I wasn't lecturing you on
scientific practice. You don't practice science at all, so such a lecture
would be irrelevant, even if you managed to understand what was being said.
It doesnt make me nervous, it makes me irritated because you are not
qualified to do so. If there is anything worse than being lectured on
something it is being pontificated at by a numbskull.
Post by Tom
Post by Aiwass
I did indeed accurately cite, a post
which was ignored by all who were vociferous in their demands for 'evidence'
For your information I attach the citation.
I'm particularly amused by the phrase "a magnetic transmission of power".
The electrodynamic theory or magick! "Currents" and "magnetic
transmissions". Heh.
Original point that I did not post what I obviously posted neatly
sidestepped. Subject changed, attention diverted. Transparent Tom, too
transparent you need more sublety.
Post by Tom
Now, where did you cite any specific work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or
Einstein as you indicated that you had?
I did not say that. Please see my last comment.

<sundry waffle snipped> yes yes...

End of conversation, interpret that how you wish.

A
Tom
2005-07-14 05:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
I realize that makes you very nervous, but I wasn't lecturing you on
scientific practice. You don't practice science at all, so such a lecture
would be irrelevant, even if you managed to understand what was being said.
It doesnt make me nervous,
Really? You act nervous. Maybe you're just a nervous person.
Post by Aiwass
it makes me irritated because you are not
qualified to do so.
So it makes you irritated when you believe I'm lecturing you on scientific
method.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
I'm particularly amused by the phrase "a magnetic transmission of power".
The electrodynamic theory or magick! "Currents" and "magnetic
transmissions". Heh.
Original point that I did not post what I obviously posted neatly
sidestepped.
Neatly snipped out by you, that is.
Post by Aiwass
Post by Tom
Now, where did you cite any specific work of Freud, Jung, Newton, or
Einstein as you indicated that you had?
I did not say that.
Ah. Well, let's see...
Post by Aiwass
As I recall, you roundly abused me for quoting or relying upon the testimony
of people who lived before 1900. Like Freud, Jung, Einstein, Newton etc etc.
Perhaps you were just being unclear and were not actually implying that you
had quoted these people. Perhaps you mentioned these names only to cite
examples of people you might have quoted had you ever decided to quote
someone who lived before 1900. Let's clear that up. Are you now stating
unequivocally that you have never quoted Freud, Jung, Newton, or Einstein in
any post to alt.magick?

And, as long as we're clearing things up, could you please post any article
in which I "abused" you for "quoting or relying upon the testimony of people
who lived before 1900?" I think maybe you are being unclear here as well.
Or maybe your recall is not very reliable.
a***@gmail.com
2013-11-03 11:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life. There's almost too many to even explain. Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about. I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Bassos
2013-11-03 17:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life.
Oh wow, i haven't seen a 'aiwass AC' in years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There's almost too many to even explain.
Almost, eh ?

Fine, tell us all about those.

You where also brought up in a restrictive christian family, with loads
of money, free time, and mountains to climb ?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about.
Not worth bragging, while bragging, nice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Ah.

What specific 'ills' where committed in AC's life and how have you
suffered from having done those in a 'past' life ?
James Cameron
2013-11-05 20:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life.
Oh wow, i haven't seen a 'aiwass AC' in years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There's almost too many to even explain.
Almost, eh ?
Fine, tell us all about those.
You where also brought up in a restrictive christian family, with loads
of money, free time, and mountains to climb ?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about.
Not worth bragging, while bragging, nice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Ah.
What specific 'ills' where committed in AC's life and how have you
suffered from having done those in a 'past' life ?
I am interested in that reply, as I would like to hear the stenographer of the universe rattle off Crowley's Akashic records and the same for all modern folk who claim to be Aliester. And mine while he/she is at it. Not that I think that I am good ol A.C,, J.C., Einstein, Lincoln or whomever except lil ol me.

I recently saw on FB someone claiming to be a reincarnation of AC. Thats fine, but I would imagine he would have late night dream sessions with the chosen super-mega-therion to impart all his past knowledge.

But .. question .. if 'do as thou wilt is the whole of the law' (or something along those lines), wouldn't AC feel exempted from karma and tell the cosmic akashic stenographer to piss off?

Thanks
Bassos
2013-11-06 17:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Cameron
Post by Bassos
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life.
Oh wow, i haven't seen a 'aiwass AC' in years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There's almost too many to even explain.
Almost, eh ?
Fine, tell us all about those.
You where also brought up in a restrictive christian family, with loads
of money, free time, and mountains to climb ?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about.
Not worth bragging, while bragging, nice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Ah.
What specific 'ills' where committed in AC's life and how have you
suffered from having done those in a 'past' life ?
I am interested in that reply,
Heh, me too, yet perhaps from diverging viewpoints.
Post by James Cameron
as I would like to hear the stenographer of the universe rattle off Crowley's Akashic records
Nah nah, ya gotta have an audience with the court at Sirius first.
Post by James Cameron
and the same for all modern folk who claim to be Aliester.
Al-ie, Star ?

Such worship.

Seems anti-somesuch-thingymajig.
Post by James Cameron
And mine while he/she is at it.
Yours ?

Quote the Tom; Of course past lives are real, they are just not *your*
past lives.
Post by James Cameron
Not that I think that I am good ol A.C,, J.C., Einstein, Lincoln or whomever except lil ol me.
Well, the point being everywhere the circumference is not, seems that ;


Seein' stars wherever she looks.
Post by James Cameron
I recently saw on FB someone claiming to be a reincarnation of AC.
Such insults; as if AC then apparantly was not done with living as a
human being and thus not actually worth claiming to be a reincarnation
off, erm, nub claims what ?
Post by James Cameron
Thats fine, but I would imagine he would have late night dream sessions with the chosen super-mega-therion to impart all his past knowledge.
I read quite alot of HIS works, and well, his work is quite interesting,
yet far from as mindblowing as Ben Rowe's work.

Mr Norton's work was of a different sort.

Less explanation, more doing, and conceptualizing.

Come along if you can, if not, there will be a next boat soon.

All depending on how soon you make your own boat.
Post by James Cameron
But .. question .. if 'do as thou wilt is the whole of the law' (or something along those lines),
If you prefer:

Do ass you please.
Feel the reverberant influence of the movement of the universe and dance
along to the unseen tunes of destruction.

Be excellent to each other, and; party on dudes!

From the experience of the essential unity of all matter in our
universe, you move in a way that feeeelz like it would let us come together;
To fight those other universes that we are not even in!!!

Joy.
Post by James Cameron
wouldn't AC feel exempted from karma and tell the cosmic akashic stenographer to piss off?
Why not.
w***@gmail.com
2015-12-22 01:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bassos
Post by James Cameron
Post by Bassos
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life.
Oh wow, i haven't seen a 'aiwass AC' in years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There's almost too many to even explain.
Almost, eh ?
Fine, tell us all about those.
You where also brought up in a restrictive christian family, with loads
of money, free time, and mountains to climb ?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about.
Not worth bragging, while bragging, nice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Ah.
What specific 'ills' where committed in AC's life and how have you
suffered from having done those in a 'past' life ?
I am interested in that reply,
Heh, me too, yet perhaps from diverging viewpoints.
Post by James Cameron
as I would like to hear the stenographer of the universe rattle off Crowley's Akashic records
Nah nah, ya gotta have an audience with the court at Sirius first.
Post by James Cameron
and the same for all modern folk who claim to be Aliester.
Al-ie, Star ?
Such worship.
Seems anti-somesuch-thingymajig.
Post by James Cameron
And mine while he/she is at it.
Yours ?
Quote the Tom; Of course past lives are real, they are just not *your*
past lives.
Post by James Cameron
Not that I think that I am good ol A.C,, J.C., Einstein, Lincoln or whomever except lil ol me.
Well, the point being everywhere the circumference is not, seems that ;
http://youtu.be/gpevZ0-wUYQ
Seein' stars wherever she looks.
Post by James Cameron
I recently saw on FB someone claiming to be a reincarnation of AC.
Such insults; as if AC then apparantly was not done with living as a
human being and thus not actually worth claiming to be a reincarnation
off, erm, nub claims what ?
Post by James Cameron
Thats fine, but I would imagine he would have late night dream sessions with the chosen super-mega-therion to impart all his past knowledge.
I read quite alot of HIS works, and well, his work is quite interesting,
yet far from as mindblowing as Ben Rowe's work.
Mr Norton's work was of a different sort.
Less explanation, more doing, and conceptualizing.
Come along if you can, if not, there will be a next boat soon.
All depending on how soon you make your own boat.
Post by James Cameron
But .. question .. if 'do as thou wilt is the whole of the law' (or something along those lines),
Do ass you please.
Feel the reverberant influence of the movement of the universe and dance
along to the unseen tunes of destruction.
Be excellent to each other, and; party on dudes!
From the experience of the essential unity of all matter in our
universe, you move in a way that feeeelz like it would let us come together;
To fight those other universes that we are not even in!!!
Joy.
Post by James Cameron
wouldn't AC feel exempted from karma and tell the cosmic akashic stenographer to piss off?
Why not.
He was clear he was going to be a woman and there is only one crowley incarnation and that is me. but because he was a great wizzard, many have his aspects.
Bassos
2015-12-26 21:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
2 year necro thread, fine by me.

I actually like what i wrote, again ;)
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Bassos
Post by James Cameron
Post by Bassos
Post by a***@gmail.com
I have tons of evidence and truly bizarre parallels between his life and my own that proves without a doubt that I was him in my past life.
Oh wow, i haven't seen a 'aiwass AC' in years.
Post by a***@gmail.com
There's almost too many to even explain.
Almost, eh ?
Fine, tell us all about those.
You where also brought up in a restrictive christian family, with loads
of money, free time, and mountains to climb ?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Am I happy about it? Ehhh, it is what it is. It's not that glamorous or worth even bragging about.
Not worth bragging, while bragging, nice.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I feel like i have paid tremendously for all the ills he had committed in his life and I have suffered a huge deal in this life thanks to him.
Ah.
What specific 'ills' where committed in AC's life and how have you
suffered from having done those in a 'past' life ?
I am interested in that reply,
Heh, me too, yet perhaps from diverging viewpoints.
Post by James Cameron
as I would like to hear the stenographer of the universe rattle off Crowley's Akashic records
Nah nah, ya gotta have an audience with the court at Sirius first.
Post by James Cameron
and the same for all modern folk who claim to be Aliester.
Al-ie, Star ?
Such worship.
Seems anti-somesuch-thingymajig.
Post by James Cameron
And mine while he/she is at it.
Yours ?
Quote the Tom; Of course past lives are real, they are just not *your*
past lives.
Post by James Cameron
Not that I think that I am good ol A.C,, J.C., Einstein, Lincoln or whomever except lil ol me.
Well, the point being everywhere the circumference is not, seems that ;
http://youtu.be/gpevZ0-wUYQ
Seein' stars wherever she looks.
Post by James Cameron
I recently saw on FB someone claiming to be a reincarnation of AC.
Such insults; as if AC then apparantly was not done with living as a
human being and thus not actually worth claiming to be a reincarnation
off, erm, nub claims what ?
Post by James Cameron
Thats fine, but I would imagine he would have late night dream sessions with the chosen super-mega-therion to impart all his past knowledge.
I read quite alot of HIS works, and well, his work is quite interesting,
yet far from as mindblowing as Ben Rowe's work.
Mr Norton's work was of a different sort.
Less explanation, more doing, and conceptualizing.
Come along if you can, if not, there will be a next boat soon.
All depending on how soon you make your own boat.
Post by James Cameron
But .. question .. if 'do as thou wilt is the whole of the law' (or something along those lines),
Do ass you please.
Feel the reverberant influence of the movement of the universe and dance
along to the unseen tunes of destruction.
Be excellent to each other, and; party on dudes!
From the experience of the essential unity of all matter in our
universe, you move in a way that feeeelz like it would let us come together;
To fight those other universes that we are not even in!!!
Joy.
Post by James Cameron
wouldn't AC feel exempted from karma and tell the cosmic akashic stenographer to piss off?
Why not.
He was clear he was going to be a woman
He was ?
Post by w***@gmail.com
and there is only one crowley incarnation and that is me.
You poor sod.
Still don't know the answer to the question in liber al ?
Post by w***@gmail.com
but because he was a great wizzard, many have his aspects.
I still like how 'meta' is an international thingy now.

Was not such a case when i used metajoke in the nineties. (in dutch of
course, so not actually metajoke but 'de meta grap'; de grap voorbij de
grap.)
A metajoke is really close to magick.

You say something that most people think means some thing, while you
yourself, and one or two others realize that it means quite something else.

A good metagrap is funny both ways.
A bit funny in the direct interpretation, but really really funny from
the meta viewpoints.

So you; being the reincanration of crowley, and while crowley was
somewhat of a wordsmith hirself, do tell us a joke.
whyzard
2005-07-05 18:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
the crowley collective consists of 92 adepts all in pleromatic-uroboric
fusion as a metaself called "Al". They await the incarnation of the
93rd adept who will complete the thelemic metabody. Then all the pieces
of the old crowley will be in once again in material reality. Then
through mystic samadhi, the old crowley will be put back to together
again in pnuematikos space. They learned this magick at las vegas,
where all the elvis presley fragments have already created a
superarchon Elvis Presley, getting fat off collected royalties from old
songs. Since i am mentioning these supermen, i should also mention that
there are the three bruce lees, the 1,000,000 Jesus Christs, the
members of the superorganization called "CIA",



these are secrets of the 10,022nd degree of the OTO
Blazin' Tommy D.
2005-07-05 20:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by muldoon
That is, several people who firmly believed themselves to have been
Aleister Crowley. All born after 1947. One in New York, and at least
two in San Francisco. I know there are more. This is the perfect medium
to find out. Hail! Master Therion! If you are out there, have you
nothing to say? In this incarnation have you been given the brain of an
idiot? What has been your fate? Speak to us, no matter your
impairments! Let us know that you are still with us.
This is not meant as a joke. If you do not believe, speak not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTD: Yeah and I was a real schmuck. I'm trying to forget about the whole
thing and start all over; so piss off okay:)
j***@gmail.com
2016-01-01 23:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
day break it be dusk dawn it has
2***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 16:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I was Aleister Crowley. Born 1.6.66, I am Asiel, see reverse of my name? I am of English decent and I am again a writer and a Spiritual Mystic.
My son's names are Alexzander and Arian. I am considered Insane and this I shall remain... Asiel
2***@gmail.com
2017-10-07 16:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am Asiel ...
I forgot to mention that I was required to study off of the Thigh deck and I have recreated the major arcana of Crowley.
Believe me, I am not proud of this past life of mine and I am not fractured into 92 separate beings. I am the one and only reincarnation of Aleister Crowley... I remain Asiel.
Bassos
2017-10-15 20:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by 2***@gmail.com
I am Asiel ...
Oh mighty azazi-al.
(gotta stay on brand)

Why so many 31 in every name ?

Loading...