Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cyclone.bc.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!attla2!ip.att.net!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc03.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E582D32.AFB46C5D@slip.net> From: "Fr. A.o.C." Organization: Temple of the Quintupal Triplicity X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.order,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.thelema,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Re: Objectively Studying the GD References: <3E412F6D.6020707@cox.net> <3E53E68C.15C31A6E@slip.net> <3E579DF8.2020205@cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 93 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.233.48.58 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc03 1045966130 12.233.48.58 (Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:08:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:08:50 GMT Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:08:50 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick:338293 alt.magick.order:7247 alt.magick.tyagi:37225 alt.pagan.magick:36287 aethyr augoeides wrote: > 333 wrote: > > 50030222 VII > > > > RE: > > > >>>>>>It makes PERFECT sense. It's just not the G.D. > >>>>> > > > > aethyr augoeides : > > > >>>>>Who gets to decide this? > >>>> > > > > do as you please. > > > > > >>>>>You? Why? > >>>> > > > > he apparently pleases. > > > > > >>>>>How do you know? > >>>> > > > > he's explained at length. > > he talked at length, he didn't explain anything. > > > > > Re O'Stat : > > > >>>>Anyone who OBJECTIVELY studies the GD would know. > >>> > > Joshua Geller: > > > >>>Please explain how this is done. Be terse. > >> I think what Josh is pointing out here is the difficulty in OBJECTIVELY studying anything which is as subjective as an esoteric system. That's how I took it anyway. > > astral and physical initiation into proper lineages > > utilizing the criteria solidifying identification > > supported by extensive studies of systems beyond this. That still doesn't really say anything, not without a common set of definitions. This has been the problem all along. Define "proper lineage". What (or whose) "criteria"? What determines "identification" (i.e. what are the identifying aspects?) There's a terrific amount of 'gray area' and applying different criteria are going to give different answers. One could argue that there is absolutely no Golden Dawn today at all, because its leader dissolved the group 100 years ago, and all the direct lines of 'apostolic succession' died out by 1970. Or one could argue that there are many, many thousands, for anyone can attain to genuine self-initiation into the system. All magical initiations are within the self anyway, and so they are every bit as valid and effective as any kind of initiation. Applying different criteria gives radically different answers, in this case. What Re doesn't do is say much about his criteria. If he did, he could argue the criteria: "I think that the redaction of Westcott and Mathers is the canonical Golden Dawn system because...", and proceed to describe the line of reasoning (or intuition) that brought him to that conclusion. That might be a useful discussion. Though I fear he would end the sentence, "...because it IS." "That's not an argument!" "Yes it is!" "No it's not, you're just contradicting me!" "No I'm not!" ...etc. Myself, I rotate the extreme viewpoints on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, throw dice to determine a random intermediate belief-state on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and reserve Saturdays for pure materialistic determinism and hard drinking. - Fr. A.o.C. "Our gods are dead. Klingon warriors slew them, millennia ago. They were more trouble than they were worth." -- Worf, son of Mogg