Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Re: Crowley's Failure as a Magician/Mystic (was something else) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 192 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8m7p1a$f66@bolt.sonic.net> References: <3966B081.4F88@sympatico.ca> <8knmpj$la6@bolt.sonic.net> <39714C26.25DB@sympatico.ca> <8lqngf$t89@bolt.sonic.net> <39850CA4.40A@sympatico.ca> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:11:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 965175075 208.201.224.36 (Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:11:15 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:11:15 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:24715 alt.magick:206376 alt.pagan.magick:24011 50000801 Vom regarding accumulating data on "Masters" to see if they conform to the standard character descriptions of the tradition with which they are associating themselves (and in the particular case of Crowley, how he failed as a magician by the standards he himself set out). richard sprigg : >>>>> This is a normative approach no different than that which currently >>>>> exists: the only difference is that to date no judges have been >>>>> appointed. richard sprigg : >>> ...It is based upon some constructed rules of >>> conduct/ethics/behaviour. This is Normative. richard sprigg : > A constructed set of behaviours, based upon third party > observation and hearsay. perhaps additionally bolstered by any experience which I have that supports the accuracy of this set of descriptions. > Unless or until there is an objective measure, all attempts to measure > attainment will, of necessity be normative. The problem is the > construction of a suitable norm, and the qualification of the judges to > perceive whether that norm has been reached. given that someone describes themself as having attained within the system, they imply that they are in agreement with any norms which may be described in association with the office names they are using. otherwise their claim is rather meaningless. a personal assessment does not require judges of any sort other than oneself. > *Any* value judgement that cannot be supported by empirically > defensible evidence is normative. the type of evidence to which I was referring were the implications of the traces people leave behind them (where sharing time with them and coming to know them personally is not possible). one may make observations about an individual or their diaries, biographies, etc., and compare this with that with which the *individual themself* is associating. it is the rough equivalent of comparing and contrasting what one says about themselves and what they do or have been reputed to do, except that they are saying it about some condition with which they are associating themselves (and thus it may manifest in their personality or character). > It would be easier for you to argue that even empirically defensible > evidence is normative, which is a tenable position, than the reverse, > which is not. I think we became distracted by the type of evidence involved and am attempting to clarify myself somewhat in this response. >>>> only those who had experience and success the with mystical system >>>> in question would probably be able to recognize the signs. perhaps >>>> one or two who were intimately familiar would be able to also. >>> >>> Again, I must ask, what does system matter? >> >> different systems apparently yield different characters of >> spiritual development. > > Perhaps only certain types of individual are *recognized* by certain > schools of thought. that's a different statement. I don't think the two are related, nor is this necessarily true. occasionally entire lineages recognize one another's authority. > This argues that all attempts to ascertain the > enlightenment of another are inherently flawed. I don't follow the logic of this. familiarity with the system of behaviour and response to it would be important in an assessment of whether someone had been a participant. this seems rather plain regardless of any assessments of psychospiritual condition. >>> Surely an individual who has risen to the level of understanding is >>> beyond such trivia? >> >> the side-effects and particular traps and illusions generated by >> any particular system would be better known to those who had a >> good deal of experience with it and the expected results. > > Yet all "traps and flaws" surely would dissapear if the individual > attains to understanding. the category of "understanding" is more complex and graduated in most systems than this allows. some illusions might be retained while others are seen through. if you are merely talking about the most exalted attainments, then I agree that this is much more difficult to assess. however, if there is evidence from periods prior to this highest attainment, then it may be possible to observe whether the individual experienced the intermediate phases. > Certainly such an individual should be beyond the veil of illusion, > though their ability to demonstrate this is questionable: who, after > all, could tell? I'm not sure to what "such an individual" pertains, exactly, but an evaluation of someone's diaries and/or personal behaviours, interviews with people who know or knew them intimately, and a review of anecdotes concerning them from other parties can be of assistance in the assessment. anyone with a fairly logical mind and investigative penchant should be able to make one. the value of the assessment will vary with the acuteness of perception, deduction, and evaluation, as well as the quantity and quality of reflection on the individual being assessed. > If the union with the creator is beyond the veil of duality, > then that union should be constant no matter the path. unless 'the Creator' is different for each person; unless there is no such thing as 'the Creator' and this is strictly metaphor; unless the way that union is reached creates a kind of character within which the condition manifests. there are many possibilities which do not require a constant. > The illusions, beliefs, and prejudices of the observers, > however, may cause them to see the result in different ways. agreed, the assessment is only as good as the person who makes it and the resources they have available to them. re: attainment of 'bodhisattva' >> others claim that one must >> have attained to some unusual state of consciousness whose >> character traits may provide evidence for said attainment. >I can accept that, with a heavy emphasis on the "may". >I can also accept that for such an individual(?) the acceptance of >others would hardly be a concern. agreed. I think what it comes down to is that should someone's behaviours match up in every way with that which is traditionally described (and especially what the individual *themself* describes) as what should be associated with their condition, then while there may be good reason to keep an eye on them to make sure they stay on track, there may be no real reason to presume them to be faking until one finds evidence of it. on the other hand, where obvious differences exist between said descriptions and evidence from what the person who makes the assessment considers to be reliable sources, there are very many good reasons for someone to reject the other's claim. when a disagreement about that person's claim arises, then the evidence described above can and should be compared pro and con to discern some resolution to the dispute if the participants care enough to follow this out. when I make the claim that Crowley failed a magician and provide in response to you and others the epistemological backing to support the character of my assessment, the proper response if you are really of a different mind and willing to discuss the matter would be to present the qualitative codes by which such an assessment would be made and some data which supports the rejection of my claim. I notice that no one has yet presented either of these, and I suspect that is because in some cases these offices of Rosicrucian attainment aren't very well understood (I don't presume this of you), and in others the background and character of the subject in contention make it difficult to come up with contrary evidence (in Crowley's case this does appear the case, as his notoriety is usually emphasized over his compassionate character, if he had one). whether any one person rejects another's claim about spirituality is, as you have pointed out and I agree, impossible to negotiate within objective parameters (i.e. those outside personal evaluations). the nature of the qualities being observed and interpreted necessitate a personal interpretation to be at all meaningful. however, that does not stop us from offering up real evidence in support or contrary to the claims the individual made in the form of quotations from autobiographical, biographical, or implicative artistic works by the individual. I think that I have offered very good reason to dismiss Crowley as a successful mystic (and thus as a successful magician, given that his magicK is mystical in character). I don't hear anyone coming to his defense here, just questioning my motivations and methods. nagasiva -- FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired