Principia Discordia

here is a refinement of the diagrams from yesterday

included are a attempt at making a connection between 'physical universe' and LMNO's proposal of 'shared input source'
---> and then a attempt at trying to connect that observation to what 'occult' is, where it is derived from, and what it can be used for


also included are 000's observations about possible 'reality' / input situations
- from where i am sitting right now, i see all 3 as being possible, the third being the least likely, and im a little bit torn between the first 2 right now

they both seem pretty reasonable

either way - pull up a barstool and throw some feedback

and
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u21/LHX012/charts/interaction-cell_combine2.jpg)


original diagrams:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11620.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11627.0

:mittens:

On the matter of "occult" knowledge:

It would seem to me that this would merely be another way to shape your cell, but it's one that takes a long time to do (yoga, q'bala), or views society in a radically different way that the majority of society (thelemites, et al)*.


I'd say that these ideas are not automatically translatable between each other.  Just because you're able to see the universe a bit differently than other people doesn't mean you've revealed truth, or can see the universe "more clearly".








*Please note I'm referring to those who get deeply, truly into it, not the fakers/posers.

hmmm

the same tool can be used to spring a jailbreak - or re-enforce the walls...?

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 04:20:17 PM
hmmm

the same tool can be used to spring a jailbreak - or re-enforce the walls...?

Exactly.

Look at any system of occult knowledge.  You have a small handful of people who get into it heavy, and figure out a few things that not too many people know.

Then you have a large amount of people that isn't really affected by what they learned at all.

Finally, you have a handful of people who constrict themselves tightly with the knowledge, and trap themselves even further.


Bell curve, ftw.

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 04:24:49 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 04:20:17 PM
hmmm

the same tool can be used to spring a jailbreak - or re-enforce the walls...?

Exactly.

Look at any system of occult knowledge.  You have a small handful of people who get into it heavy, and figure out a few things that not too many people know.

Then you have a large amount of people that isn't really affected by what they learned at all.

Finally, you have a handful of people who constrict themselves tightly with the knowledge, and trap themselves even further.


Bell curve, ftw.

beautiful

your words blossom into images in my head



refinement refinement refinement


(and 000 just happened to mention a online-graphing program the other day, didnt he?)




back to the drawing board

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 04:16:45 PM
On the matter of "occult" knowledge:

It would seem to me that this would merely be another way to shape your cell, but it's one that takes a long time to do (yoga, q'bala), or views society in a radically different way that the majority of society (thelemites, et al)*.


*Please note I'm referring to those who get deeply, truly into it, not the fakers/posers.

Wrong.

It may only take a few weeks or a few months to set it all off.

You don't have to pause and acclimatize every time you get to another level, but it does make things more comfortable and less risky.

Netaungrot,
faker/poser

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 04:07:29 PM
here is a refinement of the diagrams from yesterday

included are a attempt at making a connection between 'physical universe' and LMNO's proposal of 'shared input source'
---> and then a attempt at trying to connect that observation to what 'occult' is, where it is derived from, and what it can be used for


also included are 000's observations about possible 'reality' / input situations
- from where i am sitting right now, i see all 3 as being possible, the third being the least likely, and im a little bit torn between the first 2 right now

they both seem pretty reasonable

either way - pull up a barstool and throw some feedback

and
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u21/LHX012/interaction-cell_combine2.jpg)


original diagrams:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11620.0
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11627.0

:mittens:

Now what to do with these models?  What can they help facilitate?

Quote from: Netaungrot on February 15, 2007, 05:54:27 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 04:16:45 PM
On the matter of "occult" knowledge:

It would seem to me that this would merely be another way to shape your cell, but it's one that takes a long time to do (yoga, q'bala), or views society in a radically different way that the majority of society (thelemites, et al)*.


*Please note I'm referring to those who get deeply, truly into it, not the fakers/posers.

Wrong.

It may only take a few weeks or a few months to set it all off.

You don't have to pause and acclimatize every time you get to another level, but it does make things more comfortable and less risky.

Netaungrot,
faker/poser

You're saying that if you practice yoga, all it takes is a few stretches, maybe some breathing excercizes, and bam! in a week you attain satori?


I call bullshit.

However more unlikely than the timeframe I suggested, that's all it might take for someone to make profound connections.

Trying to proclaim otherwise assumes knowledge you cannot have.

Fine.  I concede that somewhere, somewhen, there is (are) an adept that doesn't need the discipline and concentration that the rest of humanity seems to need to experience some sort of experience that is approximated by the word "enlightenment".



It still sounds like a guy who claims he reached Nirvana after reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

Of course yoga and q'bala are the only avenues available for developing discipline and concentration.

:roll:

By doing much more unacceptable things in your eyes LMNO, people have attained "ooglyboogly."

Dude, that was an example.


You're reading too much into my posts.


There are plenty of types of occult knowledge.

However, what did you have in mind as a "short-form" way to enlightenment?  Because that would come in very handy.

(side note: Hui Neng, the 6th patriarch of Zen Buddhism was an illiterate woodcutter who apparently attained enlightenment when he heard a monk teach from the Diamond Sutra.

However, if the story is even true, it represents the thin end of the wedge.)

And then there's always Paul, on the road to Damascus.


However, I think it would be much safer to say that this is really hard work, and not to assume that one might be .00001% of the world's population.

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 06:32:51 PM
And then there's always Paul, on the road to Damascus.

So that's 2.


(3 if you count Tom Cruise  :lulz:)

Tom had to pay good money to get so enlightened, dammit!

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 06:23:51 PM
Dude, that was an example.


You're reading too much into my posts.


There are plenty of types of occult knowledge.

However, what did you have in mind as a "short-form" way to enlightenment?  Because that would come in very handy.

Maybe I am.


Tantra is the most popular "short-form," assuming "enlightenment" is more than just another way for organizations to fleece you out of your money and time.

I was going to say that Tantric methods sprang to mind...

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 06:32:51 PM
And then there's always Paul, on the road to Damascus.


However, I think it would be much safer to say that this is really hard work, and not to assume that one might be .00001% of the world's population.

Sure.

Or you might have just locked yourself into doing the same ass shit for years and years, over and over again thinking you're getting closer to attaining "ooglyboogly".

Quote from: Netaungrot on February 15, 2007, 06:40:11 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 06:32:51 PM
And then there's always Paul, on the road to Damascus.


However, I think it would be much safer to say that this is really hard work, and not to assume that one might be .00001% of the world's population.

Sure.

Or you might have just locked yourself into doing the same ass shit for years and years, over and over again thinking you're getting closer to attaining "ooglyboogly".

True enough.  Part of my original comment indicated that you might choose a bit of occult knowledge that was complete bullshit.

Also, Tantra?  Hugh is more of an expert on this stuff, but as far as I recall, that one of those really hard work things, as well.  I think he wrote a rant on it.  I'll see if I can find it.

Real Tantra is really hard work, but I think it's considered 'faster' than other methods on the premise that 'desperate times calls for desperate measures' and that the risks of the method are justified by the speed of the results.

Apparently stems from the belief the the Kali Yuga is either very close or is currently in effect and thus, there isn't much time left for peole to attain enlightenment.

Or something like that. It's been a while since I read up on real tantra as opposed to new age sex-positive practises that pretend they're tantric.

I'd also like to make a distinction between "mini-satoris" that don't last, and real, hard-core oogly-booglyness.

For example, many people, post-LSD trip, feel "changed" somehow, but that usually wears off within a week.  Or you could have a fantastic orgasm, and feel your heart chakra open up, but in no time you're a miserable bastard again.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here,ÄîI'm not saying hard work isn't an essential element to getting to the next level.

Moreso that hard work and enjoying oneself are not mutually exclusive. 

Absolutely.  Hard work can be fun as hell.

Speaking of which, I've gotta go make a poster.


Sorry for the hijack, X.

I'm thinking the one thing those diagrams could use is some integration between the 3.

LHX

Would a list of features common to occult systems (that we're knowledgeable of) be appropriate? Perhaps we can distill things a bit?

Quote from: Netaungrot on February 15, 2007, 07:01:34 PM
Just to make sure we're on the same page here,ÄîI'm not saying hard work isn't an essential element to getting to the next level.¬†

Define "work". There are those (such as myself) that "work" is the antithesis of moving on spiritually, and immersing yourself in "work" is going to cause more problems then it solves. I place "work" in quotations because my idea of work is energy expended that isn't of your volition, which is seperate from being productive. Many people, when hearing "hard work", don't translate it as (and as I'm sure you all do) "being very productive and expending a lot of energy".

Oh, come on.  Isn't it plainly obvious that we aren't talking about cubicle, 9-5 desk-jockey stuff?


It's like going to the gym.  If you want rock-hard abs, you have to work out.  You're doing all those situps voluntarily, but it hurts, it makes you sore, but if you want those washboard abs, you do it anyway.

Quote from: Netaungrot on February 15, 2007, 07:11:20 PM
Speaking of which, I've gotta go make a poster.


Sorry for the hijack, X.

I'm thinking the one thing those diagrams could use is some integration between the 3.

dont sweat the jack

this is all good

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 07:14:37 PM
LHX

Would a list of features common to occult systems (that we're knowledgeable of) be appropriate? Perhaps we can distill things a bit?

yes

trends
synonyms
correspondences

even invent new ones by applying the law of fives to a old one

Quote from: Netaungrot on February 15, 2007, 07:11:20 PM

:mittens:

Now what to do with these models?  What can they help facilitate?

a map

a map that can be used to for reference or to tap into creative inspiration

a wiki map

a way to orient self

along the lines of Mang's thread today about 'how do you remind yourself...'

ok...occult synthesis begins.

first up: divination

having a 'heads up' of some kind appears to be a very human need. as such, the need was filled with a myriad of methods.

cartomancy, bibliomancy, chiromancy, geomancy, necromancy, auguries, i-ching, runes, astrology, sid & nancy etc etc.

or cards, books, palms, figures traced in the dirt, speaking with the dead, omens of bird flight etc.

people seek divinations (of whatever variety) in the belief that they can either obtain information about the future, or at least, gain an alternate view of present circumstances.

why would they do this? in the case of stereotypical 'fortune telling' it is to learn about the future, probably driven by either curiosity of fear. because the future is unknown to us, the idea that certain tools can penetrate that veil is attractive.

and...uhh...oh....crap. i should've thought about this more before i started typing.

grr.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:12:33 PM
ok...occult synthesis begins.

first up: divination

having a 'heads up' of some kind appears to be a very human need. as such, the need was filled with a myriad of methods.

cartomancy, bibliomancy, chiromancy, geomancy, necromancy, auguries, i-ching, runes, astrology, sid & nancy etc etc.

or cards, books, palms, figures traced in the dirt, speaking with the dead, omens of bird flight etc.

people seek divinations (of whatever variety) in the belief that they can either obtain information about the future, or at least, gain an alternate view of present circumstances.

why would they do this? in the case of stereotypical 'fortune telling' it is to learn about the future, probably driven by either curiosity of fear. because the future is unknown to us, the idea that certain tools can penetrate that veil is attractive.

and...uhh...oh....crap. i should've thought about this more before i started typing.

grr.

would it be fair to say that occult/symbol systems lend themselves to being used for divination?

(divination being one of multiple possible uses)

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:19:11 PM

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:12:33 PM
ok...occult synthesis begins.

first up: divination

having a 'heads up' of some kind appears to be a very human need. as such, the need was filled with a myriad of methods.

cartomancy, bibliomancy, chiromancy, geomancy, necromancy, auguries, i-ching, runes, astrology, sid & nancy etc etc.

or cards, books, palms, figures traced in the dirt, speaking with the dead, omens of bird flight etc.

people seek divinations (of whatever variety) in the belief that they can either obtain information about the future, or at least, gain an alternate view of present circumstances.

why would they do this? in the case of stereotypical 'fortune telling' it is to learn about the future, probably driven by either curiosity of fear. because the future is unknown to us, the idea that certain tools can penetrate that veil is attractive.

and...uhh...oh....crap. i should've thought about this more before i started typing.

grr.

would it be fair to say that occult/symbol systems lend themselves to being used for divination?

(divination being one of multiple possible uses)

As in real live prognostication?

Please tell me nobody really believes in that shit.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 09:20:41 PM
As in real live prognostication?

Please tell me nobody really believes in that shit.

some people believe in it

i dont think anybody here does

but
i guess it all depends on what you mean by prognostication


if you mean you can find out who is gonna win the world series?
no

but if you mean that the release of the apple iPhone is going to have some predictable re-percussions
yes

i'm trying to find a succinct way to sum up as many divinatory systems as possible.

"a collection of arbitrary symbols overlaid upon a theoretical structure & employed for purposes of interpretation with regards to the future or for gaining alternative perspective/insight in connection with a present situation."

does that fit them all?

Tantra is hardcore, but shorter.  However, you have a greater chance of burnout.

99.9% of occult truths are bullshit, or pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to work these out.  There is more enlightenment in a passage from Machiavelli or Nietzsche than certain self-proclaimed gurus of today and years gone by.  I hardly call Paul of Tarsus an enlightened being, for example.

Cain: The Mythmaker - Paul and the invention of Christianity.

Very interesting take on Paul, from a Jewish persepective. Don't agree with all of the author's conclusions, but his insight into Pharisees, Saducees etc is very compelling.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:25:36 PM
i'm trying to find a succinct way to sum up as many divinatory systems as possible.

"a collection of arbitrary symbols overlaid upon a theoretical structure & employed for purposes of interpretation with regards to the future or for gaining alternative perspective/insight in connection with a present situation."

does that fit them all?

holy fuck

thats actually some fine craftsmanship right there

I liked the section in The Will to Power on Paul myself. Nietzsche drew some very shrewd conclusions, which seem to be quite well accepted among academia currently.

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:22:46 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 09:20:41 PM
As in real live prognostication?

Please tell me nobody really believes in that shit.

some people believe in it

i dont think anybody here does

but
i guess it all depends on what you mean by prognostication


if you mean you can find out who is gonna win the world series?
no

but if you mean that the release of the apple iPhone is going to have some predictable re-percussions
yes

Well, that is a relief.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:25:36 PM
i'm trying to find a succinct way to sum up as many divinatory systems as possible.

"a collection of arbitrary symbols overlaid upon a theoretical structure & employed for purposes of interpretation with regards to the future or for gaining alternative perspective/insight in connection with a present situation."

does that fit them all?

here is some refinement:

we might be able to take out arbitrary:


a divination system:

- a collection of symbols overlaid on a theoretical structure

- used for purposes of interpreting the future
or
for gaining a alternate perspective on a present situation

thanks LHX.

i mean, so many cultures invented some form of divinatory practise, some of them simple, some of they mind boggling complex, but (IMO) all born from the same impulse.

at the most basic level it's this:

think of something
juggle some symbols
interpret according to the theory
re-think

are not the choice of symbols arbitrary?

I'm now totally lost.

Is there a glossary for noobs? 

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:36:16 PM
thanks LHX.

i mean, so many cultures invented some form of divinatory practise, some of them simple, some of they mind boggling complex, but (IMO) all born from the same impulse.

at the most basic level it's this:

think of something
juggle some symbols
interpret according to the theory
re-think

agreed

the structure of divinatory systems seems virtually identical in all cases
(from what i know of at least)


same animal in different clothes

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:39:12 PM
are not the choice of symbols arbitrary?

i think the choice of symbols CAN BE arbitrary
but the choice of symbols can also be based on a symbol system that is already in place (like the i ching)

Being lost is a frequent occurence.  Best bet is to ask people to clarify their terms.

Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2007, 09:43:18 PM
Being lost is a frequent occurence.  Best bet is to ask people to clarify their terms.

Sounds reasonable.  But I am assuming you guys aren't very evangelical.

Yup.

We explain things until our fingers bleed, however.

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 09:48:52 PM
Yup.

We explain things until our fingers bleed, however.

Yup you are, or yup you aren't?

doc,

don't know if you've been following the thread from the beginning or not.

some time ago, LHX (and others) were contemplating the idea that underpinning various occult systems, there was a lot of commonality and areas of overlap.

what we were thinking of was, removing all the various cultural and historical crud that had built up, find an essential 'skeleton' and then see whether any of the basic tennets contained anything that would be useful to us in the 21st century.

now that LHX has discovered gliffy, he's experiencing much joy in producing pics, diagrams and charts that illustrate this line of thinking.

i decided that in order to dissect occultism, to start with 'divination' and see what, in essence, it was all about. that is, trying to find a bottom line definition that would encompass all methods of divination we could think of.

(that of course, is separate from the discussion whether one believes in fortune telling or not. what we're most concerned here is with symbol systems and their manipulation)

hope that helps

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 09:42:55 PM

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:36:16 PM
thanks LHX.

i mean, so many cultures invented some form of divinatory practise, some of them simple, some of they mind boggling complex, but (IMO) all born from the same impulse.

at the most basic level it's this:

think of something
juggle some symbols
interpret according to the theory
re-think

agreed

the structure of divinatory systems seems virtually identical in all cases
(from what i know of at least)


same animal in different clothes

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:39:12 PM
are not the choice of symbols arbitrary?

i think the choice of symbols CAN BE arbitrary
but the choice of symbols can also be based on a symbol system that is already in place (like the i ching)

bumped in case Mang missed it at the bottom of last page

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 09:48:52 PM
Yup.

We explain things until our fingers bleed, however.

Yup you are, or yup you aren't?

Yup, we're usually not.  We kind of would like to be, sort of, sometimes, but we don't really stand on street corners shouting on about Eris.

Some do, though.  They tend to be dicks.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:51:47 PM
doc,

don't know if you've been following the thread from the beginning or not.

some time ago, LHX (and others) were contemplating the idea that underpinning various occult systems, there was a lot of commonality and areas of overlap.

what we were thinking of was, removing all the various cultural and historical crud that had built up, find an essential 'skeleton' and then see whether any of the basic tennets contained anything that would be useful to us in the 21st century.

now that LHX has discovered gliffy, he's experiencing much joy in producing pics, diagrams and charts that illustrate this line of thinking.

i decided that in order to dissect occultism, to start with 'divination' and see what, in essence, it was all about. that is, trying to find a bottom line definition that would encompass all methods of divination we could think of.

(that of course, is separate from the discussion whether one believes in fortune telling or not. what we're most concerned here is with symbol systems and their manipulation)

hope that helps

It does help.  Thank you very much.

However, I can answer the question about underpinning commonalities for you.  They all have one thing in common:  They are based entirely on what we doctors call "made up bullshit", and they ARE useful in the modern world, mostly for separating fools and their money.

LHX - sorry, man. i did see your point only i got distracted.  :D

ok, i see what you're getting at in terms of the i-ching. (though i could be a total pain in the ass and argue why a straight line is yang, a broken line is yin and why a stack of 3 lines of varying states of completeness or brokeness should indicate a mountain or thunder or whatever...)

however, i think that's just muddying for its own sake!

i think a more important question is, now that we've found a reasonable working definition, what motivates the creation of these symbol systems?

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 09:54:39 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2007, 09:48:52 PM
Yup.

We explain things until our fingers bleed, however.

Yup you are, or yup you aren't?

Yup, we're usually not.  We kind of would like to be, sort of, sometimes, but we don't really stand on street corners shouting on about Eris.

Some do, though.  They tend to be dicks.

I see.

Isn't choosing to use tarot over I Ching also an arbitrary choice of symbols?  You just choose to use a prepackaged set rather than assembling your own, for whatever reason?

(Oh dear god, I just made myself ill thinking of a "Discordian" tarot deck that gracelessly grabs symbols from a couple dozen different other means of divination and slaps them all on pieces of cardboard.  Hmm, I got Hexagram 28, the Tower, and three sticks lying together in S formation...)

ALSO, just to possibly jack this in another direction, I would consider a choice like this another one of those choices to reshape a wall of your Prison Cell.  I am deliberately choosing to limit the possible insights available to me by choosing tarot over sticks or dice, and it's assumed I have some reason for this.  Mine would be familiarity with the medium - it's easier for me to get to the actual insight-having because the symbols already speak to me.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:59:00 PM
LHX - sorry, man. i did see your point only i got distracted.  :D

ok, i see what you're getting at in terms of the i-ching. (though i could be a total pain in the ass and argue why a straight line is yang, a broken line is yin and why a stack of 3 lines of varying states of completeness or brokeness should indicate a mountain or thunder or whatever...)

however, i think that's just muddying for its own sake!

actually - you bring up a good point

it does kind of make sense to call it arbitrary

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 09:59:00 PM
i think a more important question is, now that we've found a reasonable working definition, what motivates the creation of these symbol systems?

this almost seems new-thread-worthy...

Quote from: DJRubberducky on February 15, 2007, 10:10:38 PM
Isn't choosing to use tarot over I Ching also an arbitrary choice of symbols?  You just choose to use a prepackaged set rather than assembling your own, for whatever reason?

(Oh dear god, I just made myself ill thinking of a "Discordian" tarot deck that gracelessly grabs symbols from a couple dozen different other means of divination and slaps them all on pieces of cardboard.  Hmm, I got Hexagram 28, the Tower, and three sticks lying together in S formation...)

You may as well choose an arbitrary set of symbols, because there is no underlying logic.  This weird quest for a grand unified theory of occult mechanics is  nothing more than mental masturbation.  Amusing, I guess, but ultimately useless, because the only possible application for this shit doesn't require any of this bullshit.  It simply requires charisma and snake oil.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:14:12 PM
You may as well choose an arbitrary set of symbols, because there is no underlying logic.  This weird quest for a grand unified theory of occult mechanics is  nothing more than mental masturbation.  Amusing, I guess, but ultimately useless, because the only possible application for this shit doesn't require any of this bullshit.  It simply requires charisma and snake oil.

if the goal was a grand unified theory of occult mechanics, then it would be pretty lame

in reality, thats just a bump on the road


they already are all related

and the underlying logic is pretty blatant



some lofty claims youre making doc

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:18:26 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:14:12 PM
You may as well choose an arbitrary set of symbols, because there is no underlying logic.  This weird quest for a grand unified theory of occult mechanics is  nothing more than mental masturbation.  Amusing, I guess, but ultimately useless, because the only possible application for this shit doesn't require any of this bullshit.  It simply requires charisma and snake oil.

if the goal was a grand unified theory of occult mechanics, then it would be pretty lame

in reality, thats just a bump on the road


they already are all related

and the underlying logic is pretty blatant



some lofty claims youre making doc

Okay.  In layman's terms, what underlying logic is there?

And the only claim I make is that the occult is unalloyed bullshit.

the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

i think perhaps the doc might be thinking we're being all madjiqkual and have  :hosrie: in our stables. but that's not the case (and if that's what people want, then that's what mysticwicks is for...)

this part of the forum (that is the BIP subforum) sprang from a collaborative pamphlet called 'black iron prison'. what has arisen from the pamphlet have been discussions about belief systems. i think that's what this is about more than anything.

if i created the impression that we were attempting to invent a GUT of the occult, then i might not have been as clear as i could.

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:22:23 PM
the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

What kind of process?  What "work"?

Please be more specific....because unless you consider bullshit to be a process, I fail to see any process in ANY kind of occult "activity".  Just a bunch of monkeys following a more clever monkey that has found a way to live off of their labor.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 10:24:07 PM


if i created the impression that we were attempting to invent a GUT of the occult, then i might not have been as clear as i could.

Well, yeah, that's what I was asking.

Because that's what it looked like.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:25:25 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:22:23 PM
the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

What kind of process?  What "work"?

Please be more specific....because unless you consider bullshit to be a process, I fail to see any process in ANY kind of occult "activity".  Just a bunch of monkeys following a more clever monkey that has found a way to live off of their labor.

trying to figure out why that happens is part of the discussion. you may be more in agreement with people here than you realize.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 10:28:13 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:25:25 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:22:23 PM
the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

What kind of process?  What "work"?

Please be more specific....because unless you consider bullshit to be a process, I fail to see any process in ANY kind of occult "activity".  Just a bunch of monkeys following a more clever monkey that has found a way to live off of their labor.

trying to figure out why that happens is part of the discussion. you may be more in agreement with people here than you realize.

Probably.  I am just having trouble understanding what people are trying to say.  I'm an idiot, you see.

But I can tell you why people fall for thsi sort of shit.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:30:05 PM

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 10:28:13 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:25:25 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:22:23 PM
the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

What kind of process?  What "work"?

Please be more specific....because unless you consider bullshit to be a process, I fail to see any process in ANY kind of occult "activity".  Just a bunch of monkeys following a more clever monkey that has found a way to live off of their labor.

trying to figure out why that happens is part of the discussion. you may be more in agreement with people here than you realize.

Probably.  I am just having trouble understanding what people are trying to say.  I'm an idiot, you see.

But I can tell you why people fall for thsi sort of shit.

it sells

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:32:32 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:30:05 PM

Quote from: Mangrove on February 15, 2007, 10:28:13 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:25:25 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:22:23 PM
the underlying logic is that there is some sort of process at work here

What kind of process?  What "work"?

Please be more specific....because unless you consider bullshit to be a process, I fail to see any process in ANY kind of occult "activity".  Just a bunch of monkeys following a more clever monkey that has found a way to live off of their labor.

trying to figure out why that happens is part of the discussion. you may be more in agreement with people here than you realize.

Probably.  I am just having trouble understanding what people are trying to say.  I'm an idiot, you see.

But I can tell you why people fall for thsi sort of shit.

it sells

For a price that would make your head spin.

This is why I fail to understand what all the chatter is about.  It's actually quite simple.  You just figure out what the monkeys worship, and find the next "edgier" thing.  It is nothing more than being able to predict trends.  Five years ago it was angels.  Now it's reikki.  Next year, who knows?  Space brothers, or some similar bullshit.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:36:26 PM
For a price that would make your head spin.

This is why I fail to understand what all the chatter is about.  It's actually quite simple.  You just figure out what the monkeys worship, and find the next "edgier" thing.  It is nothing more than being able to predict trends.  Five years ago it was angels.  Now it's reikki.  Next year, who knows?  Space brothers, or some similar bullshit.

man

i think youre talking about what its become
not what its based on

werent you the one talking about history in that other thread?

good fruit turns rotten if you arent careful

there is a lot of rotten shit around right now

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:39:46 PM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:36:26 PM
For a price that would make your head spin.

This is why I fail to understand what all the chatter is about.  It's actually quite simple.  You just figure out what the monkeys worship, and find the next "edgier" thing.  It is nothing more than being able to predict trends.  Five years ago it was angels.  Now it's reikki.  Next year, who knows?  Space brothers, or some similar bullshit.

man

i think youre talking about what its become
not what its based on

werent you the one talking about history in that other thread?

good fruit turns rotten if you arent careful

there is a lot of rotten shit around right now

Become since when?  The last ice age?  It's ALWAYS been bullshit.  It is rotten, and it has always been that way, there for the clever to feed off of the masses. 

lmfao

nothing originates as a rotten tool



a hammer wasnt designed to beat people over the head wiff

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:45:04 PM
lmfao

nothing originates as a rotten tool



a hammer wasnt designed to beat people over the head wiff

Betcha it was.

ill bet my nutsack and my Wu-Tang Forever CD

and my construction boots


and whatever else i got

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:49:27 PM
ill bet my nutsack and my Wu-Tang Forever CD

and my construction boots


and whatever else i got

Okay.  Which is older:  The first known stone axe (weapon), or the first known stone adze (tool)?

when i fix the flux capacitor on my delorean, ill go back in time and ask around

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:53:41 PM
when i fix the flux capacitor on my delorean, ill go back in time and ask around

It's okay if you run.

This wouldn't be the first time a threatened primate threw feces, to paraphase some dead guy.

are you gonna expect me to believe a historical claim that you type on teh intranet?

i wont throw anything

im also not gonna pretend like a obscure historical fact has validity



at least not in 2007

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 11:03:32 PM
are you gonna expect me to believe a historical claim that you type on teh intranet?

i wont throw anything

im also not gonna pretend like a obscure historical fact has validity



at least not in 2007

Easy.  Hit google, and look for yourself.  Weapons were our first real tools.

And you can pretend anything you like...such as the fact that burying your head in the sand will make inconvenient facts go away.

the inconvenient fact is that there is no point of reference


where does google get his information from?

people?
experts?


there is a lot of 'convenient' websites that can provide a lot of 'convenient' facts


some people think dinosaurs didnt happen
and google has websites to prove it


EDIT:
WITH expert testimony

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:51:55 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:49:27 PM
ill bet my nutsack and my Wu-Tang Forever CD

and my construction boots


and whatever else i got

Okay.  Which is older:  The first known stone axe (weapon), or the first known stone adze (tool)?

Adze, axe, scraper, knife, atlatl point. Whatever. Those people had to survive and they used them for that purpose: survival. A tool is a tool. Someone will likely find a different purpose for them later, but history shows their origins out of utility for survival.

Now, I'll agree with you that divination in use to predict the future is complete bullshit. Through and through. And if thats all there was to it, then we might as well throw it away. However, theres a second use (which was already stated): to open our minds to new connections and possibilities. It took years of proding by Mang, LHX, LMNO and all to realize that.

Also, tools on their own are neither bad nor good. They have no teleos, therefore they have no moral alignment (no mater what D&D has taught you).

What use a tool is, thats up to the weilder.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:19:25 AM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:51:55 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:49:27 PM
ill bet my nutsack and my Wu-Tang Forever CD

and my construction boots


and whatever else i got

Okay.  Which is older:  The first known stone axe (weapon), or the first known stone adze (tool)?

Adze, axe, scraper, knife, atlatl point. Whatever. Those people had to survive and they used them for that purpose: survival. A tool is a tool. Someone will likely find a different purpose for them later, but history shows their origins out of utility for survival.

Now, I'll agree with you that divination in use to predict the future is complete bullshit. Through and through. And if thats all there was to it, then we might as well throw it away. However, theres a second use (which was already stated): to open our minds to new connections and possibilities. It took years of proding by Mang, LHX, LMNO and all to realize that.

Also, tools on their own are neither bad nor good. They have no teleos, therefore they have no moral alignment (no mater what D&D has taught you).

What use a tool is, thats up to the weilder.

Never mind.  Apparently, I have stumbled across a nest of those who believe that science is no different than "any other religion".  I see no reason to advance my point.  Instead, I shall allow you all to continue your search for the perfect occult theory.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 01:42:26 AM

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:19:25 AM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 10:51:55 PM

Quote from: LHX on February 15, 2007, 10:49:27 PM
ill bet my nutsack and my Wu-Tang Forever CD

and my construction boots


and whatever else i got

Okay.  Which is older:  The first known stone axe (weapon), or the first known stone adze (tool)?

Adze, axe, scraper, knife, atlatl point. Whatever. Those people had to survive and they used them for that purpose: survival. A tool is a tool. Someone will likely find a different purpose for them later, but history shows their origins out of utility for survival.

Now, I'll agree with you that divination in use to predict the future is complete bullshit. Through and through. And if thats all there was to it, then we might as well throw it away. However, theres a second use (which was already stated): to open our minds to new connections and possibilities. It took years of proding by Mang, LHX, LMNO and all to realize that.

Also, tools on their own are neither bad nor good. They have no teleos, therefore they have no moral alignment (no mater what D&D has taught you).

What use a tool is, thats up to the weilder.

Never mind.  Apparently, I have stumbled across a nest of those who believe that science is no different than "any other religion".  I see no reason to advance my point.  Instead, I shall allow you all to continue your search for the perfect occult theory.

WTF?

Did you just suggest that I see my own life work as nothing more than religion?

X, did he really say that?

Im finding I like this person less and less.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:48:44 AM

WTF?

Did you just suggest that I see my own life work as nothing more than religion?

X, did he really say that?

Im finding I like this person less and less.

Well, LHX was busy telling me how science was not an adequate way of looking at the world, and you came along to support his argument.

And I honestly don't give a fuck if you like me.  I prefer to hang out with rational people, not primitives who go looking for auspices in I-Ching sets or bulls' entrails...or feel the need to indulge in cheap shit like the D&D comment above.  Sorry about that.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:06:28 PM

Easy.  Hit google, and look for yourself.  Weapons were our first real tools.

heard that quite a bit too
but I cant remember what from
we're not really good at defending ourselves without tools
and before the end of the ice age the world was a pretty dangerious place

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on February 16, 2007, 01:57:10 AM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:06:28 PM

Easy.  Hit google, and look for yourself.  Weapons were our first real tools.

heard that quite a bit too
but I cant remember what from
we're not really good at defending ourselves without tools
and before the end of the ice age the world was a pretty dangerious place

Apparently, we were making adzes first, and we never used weapions as weapons.  Monkeys are just that way, I guess. *snicker*

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 01:51:41 AM

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 01:48:44 AM

WTF?

Did you just suggest that I see my own life work as nothing more than religion?

X, did he really say that?

Im finding I like this person less and less.

Well, LHX was busy telling me how science was not an adequate way of looking at the world, and you came along to support his argument.

And I honestly don't give a fuck if you like me.  I prefer to hang out with rational people, not primitives who go looking for auspices in I-Ching sets or bulls' entrails...or feel the need to indulge in cheap shit like the D&D comment above.  Sorry about that.

No, he was telling you that science doesn't have all the answers. And it doesn't.

Seriously, if you used science for morality, it would be NAZI Germany all over again. The idea of Eugenics is a scientifically sound one, yet morally its about as out there as you can get.

On the other hand, if you take the above sarcastic D&D comment as seriously as I think you do, you prolly wouldn't fit in here anyway.

And about the I-Ching and entrail divination. LHX a half a year back actually debunked astrology by showing the process by which these "mystics" go about calculating it (unfortunatly lost it when the Discordian Network went down) I personally have written an essay on how totally full of shit intelligent design creationism is, which is layed out in a logical and cohesive manner. As for the SSKOOON stuff, its partially a satire, and partially a mind excercise.l

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
No, he was telling you that science doesn't have all the answers. And it doesn't.

Yeah, that's why we have healing crystals.  Right?

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
Seriously, if you used science for morality, it would be NAZI Germany all over again. The idea of Eugenics is a scientifically sound one, yet morally its about as out there as you can get.

Actually, from a biological point of view, it's a TERRIBLE idea. 

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
On the other hand, if you take the above sarcastic D&D comment as seriously as I think you do, you prolly wouldn't fit in here anyway.

Who cares?  You're stuck with me until I hear from Roger.  He's the only reason I'm here.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
And about the I-Ching and entrail divination. LHX a half a year back actually debunked astrology by showing the process by which these "mystics" go about calculating it (unfortunatly lost it when the Discordian Network went down) I personally have written an essay on how totally full of shit intelligent design creationism is, which is layed out in a logical and cohesive manner. As for the SSKOOON stuff, its partially a satire, and partially a mind excercise.l

Sure.  And this is why we are looking, apparently, for the "underlying theory" of divination.  And getting reallty irate about how "modern science", as he put it, is too full of "gee-whiz progressions".

Sorry, man.  I really wish I could get in the cave with you and beat on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away, but it's just not my bag, ya know?

:lol:

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:17:07 AM

Sorry, man.  I really wish I could get in the cave with you and beat on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away, but it's just not my bag, ya know?

:lol:

wouldn't you say there's a difference between "beating on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away" and  using "a collection of arbitrary symbols overlaid upon a theoretical structure & employed for purposes of interpretation with regards to the future or for gaining alternative perspective/insight in connection with a present situation" ?  no madjuickalness required there.

Quote from: Slarti on February 16, 2007, 02:23:11 AM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:17:07 AM

Sorry, man.  I really wish I could get in the cave with you and beat on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away, but it's just not my bag, ya know?

:lol:

wouldn't you say there's a difference between "beating on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away" and  using "a collection of arbitrary symbols overlaid upon a theoretical structure & employed for purposes of interpretation with regards to the future or for gaining alternative perspective/insight in connection with a present situation" ?  no madjuickalness required there.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:17:07 AM

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
No, he was telling you that science doesn't have all the answers. And it doesn't.

Yeah, that's why we have healing crystals.  Right?

Healing crystals....is that more of that MysticWicks shit like "Holding up the astral pillars" that we always joke about?

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
Seriously, if you used science for morality, it would be NAZI Germany all over again. The idea of Eugenics is a scientifically sound one, yet morally its about as out there as you can get.

Actually, from a biological point of view, it's a TERRIBLE idea.

Quote

I didn't say it was a GOOD idea, I said it was a SOUND idea. By removing those individuals from the population that have certain genetic makeup, you can force evolutionary processes in a certain direction. That is basic premise of the eugenics idea, without all the extra baggage. And, having gone to a couple genetic classes, its pretty damn sound.

Now, if we used what was scientifically sound as a basis for moral decisions, then we would have stuff like eugenics going on.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
On the other hand, if you take the above sarcastic D&D comment as seriously as I think you do, you prolly wouldn't fit in here anyway.

Who cares?  You're stuck with me until I hear from Roger.  He's the only reason I'm here.

Quote

I think hes out in the desert right now.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:10:42 AM
And about the I-Ching and entrail divination. LHX a half a year back actually debunked astrology by showing the process by which these "mystics" go about calculating it (unfortunatly lost it when the Discordian Network went down) I personally have written an essay on how totally full of shit intelligent design creationism is, which is layed out in a logical and cohesive manner. As for the SSKOOON stuff, its partially a satire, and partially a mind excercise.l

Sure.  And this is why we are looking, apparently, for the "underlying theory" of divination.  And getting reallty irate about how "modern science", as he put it, is too full of "gee-whiz progressions".

Sorry, man.  I really wish I could get in the cave with you and beat on a hollow log to keep the evil spirits away, but it's just not my bag, ya know?

:lol:

Quote

Wait...stop there. I want quotes, because those are outrageous claims. And if they were true, I would totally bring him to terms with them, because that is opposite of what we have talked about before.


As for evil spirits, I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:26:44 AM
I didn't say it was a GOOD idea, I said it was a SOUND idea. By removing those individuals from the population that have certain genetic makeup, you can force evolutionary processes in a certain direction. That is basic premise of the eugenics idea, without all the extra baggage. And, having gone to a couple genetic classes, its pretty damn sound.

I suppose it is sound if you have unscientific goals such as racism, etc.  From a species-survival/perfectionist point of view, it is unsound as hell, as you are removing trait diversity (and hence survival traits) from the population (sickle-cell anemia would be a good example).

Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 16, 2007, 02:26:44 AM
Wait...stop there. I want quotes, because those are outrageous claims.

You mean you didn't even follow the thread?  You just jumped on my head for the fun of it?  Is that what you're saying?  I mean, no skin off my ass if you were, I just want to know the ground rules here.  I have nothing against totally senseless flame wars, so long as I know what's going on.

I guess I should have guessed when you made that ignorant D&D comment.

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 16, 2007, 02:03:15 AM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on February 16, 2007, 01:57:10 AM

Quote from: Doc Howl on February 15, 2007, 11:06:28 PM

Easy.  Hit google, and look for yourself.  Weapons were our first real tools.

heard that quite a bit too
but I cant remember what from
we're not really good at defending ourselves without tools
and before the end of the ice age the world was a pretty dangerious place

Apparently, we were making adzes first, and we never used weapions as weapons.  Monkeys are just that way, I guess. *snicker*

actually we were probably using rocks, monkeys will throw rocks and sticks if they feel threatened
its hard to say what our primate ancestors were making when they were using objects to make other objects - in other words tools
I dont think we will ever know, but we could probably make assumptions that they would have continued to make weapons for protection from the outside world
its hard to say what the societies were like

Mang - on the subject of divination.

Tarot cards = pictographic representation of metaphysical paradigm (QBLh) I'm sure I don't need to tell most people this.

QBLh gives insight into "stuff". Insight into "stuff" empowers the insightful with a clearer picture of "what's going on".

Understanding this clearer picture would potentially furnish one with an ability to make reliable predictions.

My best theory is that a layman asked a kabbalist "how did you know the sun would rise this morning?" and the Kabbalist said "I used these cards"

"Gotta get me some of those cards" said the layman.

The Kabbalist never felt the need to explain further - he just pocketed the cash and handed the cards over.

Quote from: SillyCybin on February 16, 2007, 08:33:32 AM
Mang - on the subject of divination.

Tarot cards = pictographic representation of metaphysical paradigm (QBLh) I'm sure I don't need to tell most people this.

QBLh gives insight into "stuff". Insight into "stuff" empowers the insightful with a clearer picture of "what's going on".

Understanding this clearer picture would potentially furnish one with an ability to make reliable predictions.

My best theory is that a layman asked a kabbalist "how did you know the sun would rise this morning?" and the Kabbalist said "I used these cards"

"Gotta get me some of those cards" said the layman.

The Kabbalist never felt the need to explain further - he just pocketed the cash and handed the cards over.

It was probably something remarkably close to that.

Doesn't detract from the fact that the cards originally did serve a purpose to kabbalist - think psychological mind map system that's been constantly developed for thousands of years. All the elements of your psyche in pictogram format with an overall structure which can be shuffled around to test different paradigms.

Most monkeys don't get this but many seem intrinsically predisposed to being interested in madgjiquel forces and will buy any mumbo jumbo bullshit you care to sell them. You're never going to get the point across and there's plenty lulz to be had, fucking with their heads.

Nowadays we're playing with memes, nlp, placebo subliminal paranoia. Some of us know kaballa too. We don't talk about it much cos most people were described in the preceding paragraph. Not to say ignorance automatically assumes you're one of teh stoopids but most round here, for obvious reasons, have never looked too deeply into it and when you weigh up the madonnas and tom cruises it's perfectly reasonable to assume a lot of people would just dismis it out of hand.

Can kaballa and other esoteric shit allow you to make a fluffy vermin/pet appear from nowhere? Get real, but does it provide a template to assist navigating the realms of the human mind? Fuck yeah. For some reason recently it's come up. Prolly cos there's a few of us actually know something about it. F'rinstance I am a grand wizard of the holy rota tradition and I can turn you into a newt just by seeing a photograph of you.

To take tarot cards as an example, surely they are outdated for the purposes of symbolism and psychology?

Now, I've looked through a fair few occult and hermetic texts.  The proper ones, with big dribbly candles, chalk on the floor, summoning demons etc etc (I was looking for fictional inspiration, if you must know).  The thing that always stood out is how...psychological it is.  Imbue the person with the importance and meaning of the symbols, then work them up into a hysterical mental state where....[something I haven't figured out as a mental mechanism, not yet] happens and the person can observe changes in how they perceive things and behaviour in general.

But thats really not gonna work today, because the symbols are irrelevant for this era and culture.  Also, symbology has become far more homogenized with the advent of mass media. Kaballah works off the Torah, Tarot works off both popular playing cards in Medieval times as well as newly discovered hermetic and philosophical texts, meaning they were both in keeping with their times.

Actually tarot comes directly from qblh the major arcana applying to each of the 22 paths on the tree. Alchemy also contains a lot of kabbalistic symbolism. It's a kinda medieval synthesis of a lot of systems that were flying around at the time. Lota shit in there that the masons seem to have ended up adopting too. Fact is the psychological model was of use back then and it's still pretty usable now, especially considering the amount of development that has gone on over the centuries.

The main reason science doesn't like it would because, although the results of application of kabbalistic formulae are replicable, they are only so subjectively. So it's passed off as psychosomatic. Of course it fucking is. That's the whole point, your going into your own psychological wiring system and applying a psychosomatic manipulation. Fucking your own mind, if you will. The reason you use a system is because if you just go charging in there you're potentially pressing small delicate buttons with a sledgehammer. - true story

I disagree that the model is applicable.  Most "Christians" are going to believe its evil Satanic shit, and everyone else will find it a snore-fest because of its Christian roots.

But I'm tired, so I refuse to build on my point without sleep.

I'm not trying to sell, just explaining what it is. You're right most people will have fuck all to do with it. Good luck to them, they don't need it. It's not a religion so we don't go door to door. It's something you can potentially fuck your own head right in with. Dangerous in the straightjacket and padded cell sense. Most abuse is harmless tho. Wearing chrystals and coming up with some bullshit affirmation chant. It's doing it properly that carries the mental health warning. 

Quote from: SillyCybin on February 16, 2007, 08:33:32 AM
Mang - on the subject of divination.

Tarot cards = pictographic representation of metaphysical paradigm (QBLh) I'm sure I don't need to tell most people this.

QBLh gives insight into "stuff". Insight into "stuff" empowers the insightful with a clearer picture of "what's going on".

Understanding this clearer picture would potentially furnish one with an ability to make reliable predictions.

My best theory is that a layman asked a kabbalist "how did you know the sun would rise this morning?" and the Kabbalist said "I used these cards"

"Gotta get me some of those cards" said the layman.

The Kabbalist never felt the need to explain further - he just pocketed the cash and handed the cards over.

interesting idea...and convenient too but i don't think historically feasible.

from what i can gather, the qabalah and tarot developed independently from each other. there are lots of theories about how the tarot came about, many of them complete occult mythological bollocks. the more sensible scholars are of the mind that the tarot was probably two card games or systems that became merged, which accounts for the combination of the major & minor arcana.

the current 'standard' of tarot containg 78 cards wasn't always the case. medieval decks seemed to contain other major arcana cards, often depicting biblical allegories. it would seem that occultists, probably in the 18th century (and probably french) back projected their kabbalistic understanding upon the tarot decks that were available.

that's not to say that what they did was stupid, or made up or artificial. they happened to notice that the classic 78 card tarot and the qabalah went together rather nicely. it seemed that putting the two together aided in the use of each other. appreciating qabbalistic doctrines is easier when you have a nice set of colorful symbols to play around with and tarot is easier to use when you have a grasp of the underlying tree of life structure. otherwise you're trying to remember 78 different cards, each with it's own set of info, rather than being able to work out the info from it's relation to the tree of life.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 19, 2007, 08:26:35 PM
they happened to notice that the classic 78 card tarot and the qabalah went together rather nicely. it seemed that putting the two together aided in the use of each other. appreciating qabbalistic doctrines is easier when you have a nice set of colorful symbols to play around with and tarot is easier to use when you have a grasp of the underlying tree of life structure. otherwise you're trying to remember 78 different cards, each with it's own set of info, rather than being able to work out the info from it's relation to the tree of life.

this is the correct surfboard

Quote from: Cain on February 17, 2007, 01:02:47 AM
To take tarot cards as an example, surely they are outdated for the purposes of symbolism and psychology?

A lot of the superficial stuff is probably outdated, but a deck like Crowly's Thoth deck tried to insert a lot of Archetype symbols & other stuff that seems to run a bit deeper.  For the most part however, the symbology isn't made for a layperson off the street to recognize.  As with anything, the more you study it and make connections, more symbolic triggers will be set off.  Its Law of Fives again, but just because the brain wants to make connections between random stuff doesn't mean it can't be helpful sometimes.

it can be helpful


just like a hammer isnt helpful when you arent using it

this might be helpful: (reposted frmo eb&g)

So I can plug 'Tarot and the Journey Of The Hero' by Hajo Banzhaf (Weiser).

Mrs Mang' got me this for the Dec 25th Mithras festival.

Anyways, this book takes the Major Arcana of the tarot and ties it all in with classical mythology and the work of  Jung. If you want a work on tarot minus magick & divination, then this is the place for you.

It's like Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces, only short, to the point and with lots of really pretty pictures (no really, the art included to illustrate events from classical mythology are worth the price of the book alone).

What is especially nice, is that at the end of every chapter, there is a summary of each card that points out the Archetype, Task, Feeling, Goal & Risk of each card. These end of chapter summaries are extremely helpful.

It's one of those books that will remind you of many episodes in your own life when you read about how you passed/failed the events symbolized by each card. The book comes with a handy chart that portrays the Hero's journey as a solar cycle complete with journey into the underworld.

You don't need a tarot deck to read this - it's purely a psychological treatise but in clear, concise terms. Giving a damn about magic, qabalah etc is entirely optional.

The only minus I would give it, is that the book was written in German first and then translated into English. On the whole, it's an easy read but there's an occasional lumpiness and lack of grace in the text that doesn't scan that well. But that's a very minor thing and certainly not sufficient to put anyone off (unless you're terminally lazy).

SSOOKN approved text

http://www.borndigital.com/tree/

This is one of my favourite sites of all time. More correspondences than you can swing a correspondent at.

Some of it is verging on wiccan gong banging but don't let that put you off - there's a wealth of good info here

Quote from: Mangrove on February 19, 2007, 08:26:35 PMthat's not to say that what they did was stupid, or made up or artificial. they happened to notice that the classic 78 card tarot and the qabalah went together rather nicely. it seemed that putting the two together aided in the use of each other. appreciating qabbalistic doctrines is easier when you have a nice set of colorful symbols to play around with and tarot is easier to use when you have a grasp of the underlying tree of life structure. otherwise you're trying to remember 78 different cards, each with it's own set of info, rather than being able to work out the info from it's relation to the tree of life.

you know these things rather well, eh Mang?

because, as i mentioned a few times before i'm still trying to wrestle myself through that book that--i think it was--Daniel linked on EB&G ages ago, a PDF called "The Mystical Qabalah".
at the end of each chapter where they describe one of the sephirot they also give a short explanation of the four suits of Tarot cards that correspond to that particular number/Sephirot.
so this was when i would get out my (rider-waites*) deck of cards, and i would look at the pictures and try to remember what other sources told me about the meaning of the cards, and try to sort of sort it all out and see how it corresponds.

well that was all nice and interesting, and they all--sort of--corresponded to what the Sephirot was about, on the different aspects of the suits, UNTIL i got to the sixes (http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/learn/meanings/sixes.shtml), Tiphereth. that was just plain off:

- the six of swords (http://www.learntarot.com/s6.htm), called in the PDF "Lord of Earned Success", success achieved after struggle (probably referring to the resurrection element in tiphareth?). but that is not what the picture says, nor what these websites told me. these people in the boat are not travelling home after having earned their success through struggle. they are sad, they are in the middle of their struggle, perhaps listless, and they are *maybe* heading towards something better, and leaving the bad struggle stuff behind.
- the six of pentacles (http://www.learntarot.com/p6.htm), called in the PDF "Lord of Material Success" or power in equilibrium (again, this makes sense from the Tiphareth point of view), but this one is even further from the depiction on the card, or the meanings i've read about so far from other sources. the card is about a man deciding who gets what. somehow the man with the scales gets to decide, is that not much closer to the justice-aspect of geburah? ok, i admit, the standing man with the scales is obviously the lord of the material coins he's handing out. but the card (seems to me) is not about the material success this man has, having acquired all this wealth, but that he is the one deciding where it goes and where it doesn't (hence the scales)

ok, now that i wrote it down the correspondences seem a littlebit less far off than when the first time i read them, but still .. i'm a littlebit disappointed actually, i thought the qabalah and tree of life would be a useful map for the tarot cards, and vice-versa of course, but, well, as soon as it stops corresponding, the whole idea kind of falls apart and they become two systems, that are perhaps related but, not-quite really.

maybe you could shed some light on this, Mang?

also, while you're at it, something they're not entirely clear upon in this book (or maybe it comes later, i'm only at page 146/203), how do the court-cards (page knight queen king) fit in with the tree of life?

oooh...nice work there 000.

i think i can answer this in two ways.

firstly, the short way which is: the pattern of the tree of life when used in conjunction of the tarot is a pretty good fit (in the main) but there are a few kinks as it were.

secondly, the long answer - will have to do some thinking/reading and get back to you, so that might take a little bit longer. i haven't looked at my waite deck in a long time as i've pretty much been using the thoth exclusively. just off the top of my head though, i know that crowley's 'six of swords' imagery is far more consonant with the qabalah framework than waite's.

back soon(ish)

mang'

nice work? you mean, because i read the qabalah and think critically about it? ;-)

also, yes i thought it might have been a thoth/waite discrepancy, but since "the mystical qabalah" keeps referring to mr waite all the time, i thought this might not be so ..

otoh, i don't own a thoth deck .. i'll probably buy one some day, but at the moment i don't have the moneys for it.

i should check, however, a while ago i saw a book about tarot written by mr waite in a second hand bookshop .. i forgot if it was the "pictorial key to the tarot", but i think so, price seems to be only slightly less than what is offered on amazon, you think i should get it? (is it any good)

Quote from: triple zero on February 20, 2007, 03:46:10 PM
nice work? you mean, because i read the qabalah and think critically about it? ;-)

also, yes i thought it might have been a thoth/waite discrepancy, but since "the mystical qabalah" keeps referring to mr waite all the time, i thought this might not be so ..

otoh, i don't own a thoth deck .. i'll probably buy one some day, but at the moment i don't have the moneys for it.

i should check, however, a while ago i saw a book about tarot written by mr waite in a second hand bookshop .. i forgot if it was the "pictorial key to the tarot", but i think so, price seems to be only slightly less than what is offered on amazon, you think i should get it? (is it any good)

waite was a golden dawner as was dion fortune, so it's not a surprise that she references his deck a lot. to her credit though, she didn't take the usual snobby attitude of the GD ie: hate crowley simply because he was a big meanie.

waite's deck (as manifested by pamela coleman-smith) was innovative in that it was the first deck to give all the minor arcana complete pictures, rather than just the typical numbers/pips you find in a conventional deck of playing cards.

for some reason, waite took it upon himself to relocate the 'justice' card, something that crowley didn't agree with, so he moved it back. i think the problem with some attributions is owing to the fact that various authors (notably eliphas levi) kept talking about occult blinds and the needs to protect the 'true' order of attributions. complete silliness in why anyone would think that the hebrew alphabet was some deep mystical secret.

with waite, on one hand he's saying: here's how the tarot should be but on the other he's saying: ahh, but i am an adept of a occult order and thus i can't violate my oaths by telling you the secrets.  :argh!:

i've got waite's pictoral key to the tarot, and like 99% of his writing, it is ponderous, verbose and exceedingly pretentious. the saving grace is that it's a short book. you can usually pick this book up cheaply, so if you don't mind spending the $$s, it won't hurt to pick it up, but i didn't really get much out of it. much rather read either case or crowley in tarot matters.

one occultist i read about said that with regard to waite, if you apply the rule that you should ignore everything he praises and take interest in everything he dismisses or berates, then you're on the right track on how to read his books  :lol:

by all accounts, waite was a fairly good scholar but probably the worst communicator. it's not like occult books are full of clarity as it is, and his tortuous writing style doesn't help.

(incidentally, www.mondazzi.com  - cheap thoth decks if you're inclined and they can work out cheap international shipping.)

i'll get back to you on your other points from earlier. probably in PM so we don't completely bore everyone to death... :mrgreen:

Hey! 

Some people are eavesdropping, here.

Quote from: LMNO on February 20, 2007, 06:39:33 PM
Hey! 

Some people are eavesdropping, here.

eavesdropping?? :tinfoilhat:

joking aside, i was worried that the diversion into tarot specifics and why a e waite was a doofus might be a distraction from the purpose of the OP.

You can always ask Cain to spit it into a different forum.

yeah - either that or CC me on your PM too.

enough of my ramble.

refine those diagrams!!!  :D

Quote from: Mangrove on February 20, 2007, 06:37:09 PMwaite was a golden dawner as was dion fortune, so it's not a surprise that she references his deck a lot. to her credit though, she didn't take the usual snobby attitude of the GD ie: hate crowley simply because he was a big meanie.

well, she mentions crowley a few times in the introduction, but then goes on with using the waite deck for a tarot reference.

and dion fortune = the person who wrote "the mystical qabalah"? because i think any authorship and/or copyright date have been "left out" from that PDF..

i know cause i wanted to check on when it had been written ..
it started right out with some, well, semi-racist comments that made me frown a bit (would have been better if she talked about cultural background instead of genetic makeup), then a while later, talking how you should not repress sexuality as it is an important part of the tree of life/religious experience/etc, only to point out a few sentences later that, just to be clear, homosexuality is an "abomination" and has nothing to do with balanced sexuality ...  :eek:
aaaaanyway, i'm real good at ignoring such stuff, and make the best of the other bits in this book, which is chockfull of mystical correspondences goodness, which are always nice to read.
those few missteps, i'll just explain them to "different times", or some such.

Quotefor some reason, waite took it upon himself to relocate the 'justice' card, something that crowley didn't agree with, so he moved it back. i think the problem with some attributions is owing to the fact that various authors (notably eliphas levi) kept talking about occult blinds and the needs to protect the 'true' order of attributions. complete silliness in why anyone would think that the hebrew alphabet was some deep mystical secret.

so how do we know the crowley order is the "correct" one and waite misplaced Justice on purpose?

Quotei've got waite's pictoral key to the tarot, and like 99% of his writing, it is ponderous, verbose and exceedingly pretentious. the saving grace is that it's a short book. you can usually pick this book up cheaply, so if you don't mind spending the $$s, it won't hurt to pick it up, but i didn't really get much out of it. much rather read either case or crowley in tarot matters.

nah in that case i'll leave it. might be nice to own one day, i thought if it was not all too common i should pick it up before somebody else does, but seeing it goes for almost the same price at amazon, i think i can spend my euros better these days :)

Quotei'll get back to you on your other points from earlier. probably in PM so we don't completely bore everyone to death... :mrgreen:

well you heard the others ... they like lurking ;-)

i think there's a good time for the mystical tarot qabalah stuff once in a while


(just as long as no one finds it necessary to come along and ask things "wtf you really believe that stuff" and then continues to jack pull the thread in a complete derailment of the original subject ...  :roll: car engines anybody?  :lol: )

Quoteso how do we know the crowley order is the "correct" one and waite misplaced Justice on purpose?

Read their interpretations, think about which sephiroth are being connected, see which one makes more sense, use the system you're more comfortable with.

I'm gonna rattle some beads and toss a little sand.

That will fix everything.

Anyone got an extra chicken's foot?

Goddammit.  I hate you all.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2007, 08:08:52 PM
I'm gonna rattle some beads and toss a little sand.

That will fix everything.

Anyone got an extra chicken's foot?

Goddammit.  I hate you all.

Careful there non-believer. I could turn you into a newt using only essential oils and a incense stick.

Quote from: SillyCybin on February 20, 2007, 08:18:46 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2007, 08:08:52 PM
I'm gonna rattle some beads and toss a little sand.

That will fix everything.

Anyone got an extra chicken's foot?

Goddammit.  I hate you all.

Careful there non-believer. I could turn you into a newt using only essential oils and a incense stick.

Naw.  Then you'd have to worry about - what do they call it - the "threefold law".

TGRR,
Isn't afraid of Pagans.  Because they're sissies.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2007, 08:20:31 PM
TGRR,
Isn't afraid of Pagans.  Because they're sissies.

Least we're agreed on one thing.

You know what'd be really big magic?

The grit to actually confront people.

We were having a discussion about flowcharting how you think but the slow readers started throwing toys out the pram. So we stopped.

Censorship FTW!

Confrontational enough?

Internet?

you know, if you're uncomfortable with us discussing some old occult stuff (which i just happen to find interesting, not beliebe in it  :? )

if you're uncomfortable with that, i would rather have you try to pull the discussion back to its original topic before it got too occult and spooky for you than to start making fun of it and jack it even further off-topic.

because, as far as i understand you, your point is that we could use our brains better than discussing old, untrue, not-working, fantastical theories (that we happen to find interesting, nonetheless) right?
well, i'm not sure that laughing and slapping our thighs at these oh so funny chickenfoot jokes is really more constructive.
why? not because i don't enjoy your jokes really, i do enjoy them, especially when they're at other people's expense (because, we all know, that's when jokes are at its funniest!)
but because that way you get people to try and defend stuff they wouldn't normally in their right mind even think of trying to defend. why do they do that? you know that, because you pushed their buttons. they talk about something they don't really believe in, you make fun of them, and suddenly they feel like they should defend that something they didn't really believe in in the first place. so they don't do it very well, and you can make fun of them again. and thus the cycle continues.
that's all very nice, but it doesn't do much except provide some cheap lulz and waste just about everybody's time here.
now the question is, are you doing this because you want to waste everybody's time, or are you doing this because you think we should be discussing something more sensible?

(i'm trying to work with you here)

Alright, I actually spent some time in the religion and occult section of the library this morning (I got sacked, I'll tell the story in a bit, its good).

Now, as far as I can see, occultism, despite it not having any concrete physical benefits, can be useful if put into the social context of literature and art creation.  I was reading a rather interesting book about the occult in Soviet culture, but it spent a fair period of the book detailing the influence of Hermeticism on the Symbolists (Rimbaud etc) and their work.

Would that be a better area for study, do you think?  I feel it has the potential for far more fruitful and interesting lines of enquiry.

Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2007, 01:22:16 PM
Alright, I actually spent some time in the religion and occult section of the library this morning (I got sacked, I'll tell the story in a bit, its good).

Now, as far as I can see, occultism, despite it not having any concrete physical benefits, can be useful if put into the social context of literature and art creation.  I was reading a rather interesting book about the occult in Soviet culture, but it spent a fair period of the book detailing the influence of Hermeticism on the Symbolists (Rimbaud etc) and their work.

Would that be a better area for study, do you think?  I feel it has the potential for far more fruitful and interesting lines of enquiry.

isnt that whats going on here?

Quote from: Felix Mackay on February 21, 2007, 06:42:00 AM
You know what'd be really big magic?

The grit to actually confront people.

funny

when the topic of martyrdom came up a few months ago, everybody said it was a bad thing

Nope.  As far as I can see, whats going on here is an interdisciplinary occult circle jerk which holds minimal interest for me.  I have not seen references to the arts in this discussion at all, certainly not along the lines of the connection between society and art and how imagery/ideas taken from occult sources may affect that.

i guess some things get lost in translation

production is the motivation behind all of this (i guess i cant speak for anybody else)


my hate for occult provoked me to look into it

if the consensus is that mnemonics are not useful then i will be exposed as a chump in due time


the law of fives is in the PD from what i can remember

im speaking in first person because it seems like all my shit about diagrams and charts got singled out in particular

if anybody goes and looks at them, they will see NO occult terms



X - owns approximately 0 pieces of occult literature unless you count The Illuminatus Trilogy or The Book of the Subgenius


i took a astrology book out of the library once

Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2007, 01:27:12 PMNope.  As far as I can see, whats going on here is an interdisciplinary occult circle jerk which holds minimal interest for me.

imo, the entire BIP forum consists of nothing but interdisciplinary circle jerks ..

(and so this happens to be an occult one)

also, apologies for if my specific questions about qabalah to Mang were too far off-topic from the BIP. i just thought, when the subject popped up, i might slide in a quick question, but it was a bit larger question, and indeed the specifics not particularly relevant to the BIP. might have been more in its place on the lit. board perhaps.

QuoteI have not seen references to the arts in this discussion at all, certainly not along the lines of the connection between society and art and how imagery/ideas taken from occult sources may affect that.

ok, sounds interesting enough.

only thing i can think of, the art that has the biggest impact on society seems to be advertisement.
in general obvious imagery from occult sources are shied away from in advertisement, because they tend to cause an allergic reaction to the (christian) public in general?

in general, if there's any occult sources being used in advertisements, they try hard to hide it.

one thing that might be interesting are these "inspirational brainstorm cards", you know the very expensive ones with thought provoking/evoking images on it like lightbulbs, knots, beaches, a brick house in a desert, whatever.
my brother, who studies Industrial Design (designing what your next citrus-press will look like) sometimes has to use these cards in brainstorming sessions. which is also used for inspiration in advertising slogans/campaigns/whatnot.
this process is almost the very same as what i use tarot cards for (usually to get inspiration to draw cartoons). the only difference being that these inspiration-cards carry their meaning almost directly (with pictures), while with tarot there is a translation-step in between causing you to have to study them (a littlebit, at least) before you can put them to use in the same way.



um

i really have the feeling that this was not really what you were aiming at with the society/arts/occult angle, sorry :-)

Quote from: Cain on February 21, 2007, 01:27:12 PM
I have not seen references to the arts in this discussion at all, certainly not along the lines of the connection between society and art and how imagery/ideas taken from occult sources may affect that.

The problem her is that, for me, they are related in a parallel/intangible way.  The contradictions and pattern/making in qblh/et al, combined with the linear scientific method-thinking I was brought up with seem to force my brain into comparing new and disparate things, almost out of a force of habit.  That is to say, the process that I feel that is the basis of my creativity (synthesizing previously uncombined ideas) is the by-product of all this occult bullshit.

It's like saying that talking about your workout process in the gym isn't really related to carrying your groceries up the 5-floor walkup.  But without the former, the latter is much harder to do.

Quote from: triple zero on February 21, 2007, 10:18:20 AM
you know, if you're uncomfortable with us discussing some old occult stuff (which i just happen to find interesting, not beliebe in it  :? )

Uncomfortable?  Shut the fuck up.  It's funny as hell.

Now, any other motives you'd care to shove into our mouths, asstard?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2007, 02:21:21 PMNow, any other motives you'd care to shove into our mouths, asstard?

:lol:

says you?

who keeps shoving "divinations", "chakras", "banging drums", "spirits" and all that into our mouths?

Quote from: triple zero on February 21, 2007, 02:49:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2007, 02:21:21 PMNow, any other motives you'd care to shove into our mouths, asstard?

:lol:

says you?

who keeps shoving "divinations", "chakras", "banging drums", "spirits" and all that into our mouths?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo burn

Quote from: triple zero on February 21, 2007, 02:49:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2007, 02:21:21 PMNow, any other motives you'd care to shove into our mouths, asstard?

:lol:

says you?

who keeps shoving "divinations", "chakras", "banging drums", "spirits" and all that into our mouths?

The guy jabbering about his Thoth tarot cards, IIRC.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2007, 03:03:04 PM

Quote from: triple zero on February 21, 2007, 02:49:50 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2007, 02:21:21 PMNow, any other motives you'd care to shove into our mouths, asstard?

:lol:

says you?

who keeps shoving "divinations", "chakras", "banging drums", "spirits" and all that into our mouths?

The guy jabbering about his Thoth tarot cards, IIRC.

i think that was Cybin

no, i think he was referring to Mang and me.



aanyway, i think everything has already been said in the other thread by you and LMNO and Silly's last remark.

LHX - where did your diagrams in the first post of this thread go??

Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 12:55:30 PM
LHX - where did your diagrams in the first post of this thread go??

found it

the link was broke


dam man - that was a intense week

the chart is off the fuckin wall

EDIT - there is spelling mistakes in there - in the top right its supposed to say 'confining' instead of 'coning'

i think

what, last week, or when this thread happened?

i was just doing some thread archeology cause i needed to pique the interest of some potential dutch recruits.. just found a forum invitation in one of my old throwaway email boxes, they seemed interesting at first, but now their forum looks like they only talk about WoW  :| .. we'll see what comes of it.

Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 01:24:24 PM
what, last week, or when this thread happened?

i was just doing some thread archeology cause i needed to pique the interest of some potential dutch recruits.. just found a forum invitation in one of my old throwaway email boxes, they seemed interesting at first, but now their forum looks like they only talk about WoW   :| .. we'll see what comes of it.

kill them! kill them all!!!!   :evil:

Quote from: Mangrove on March 06, 2007, 03:21:02 PM

Quote from: triple zero on March 06, 2007, 01:24:24 PM
what, last week, or when this thread happened?

i was just doing some thread archeology cause i needed to pique the interest of some potential dutch recruits.. just found a forum invitation in one of my old throwaway email boxes, they seemed interesting at first, but now their forum looks like they only talk about WoW   :| .. we'll see what comes of it.

kill them! kill them all!!!!   :evil:

hey! hey! ssssh they're probably reading the forum right now  :)

they're not even in the 50-post stage yet ;-)

probably going straight after this occult stuff as well, since when i first got there, they were trying to get some sort of chaosmagic thingy together. as i said, no idea what they're up to now..

i just posted a whole bunch of my favourite links and writings from this forum, i figured these would serve as a good quick introduction to our current projects, and because it's linked on this forum as well, work as an incentive to perhaps sign up and start discussing if their interest is piqued.
one of those guys said "this kind of sounds like fight club .. and i mean that in a positive way".

for your interest, these are the links i crossposted:

Quote- The Black Iron Prison - Discordia Revisited (http://poee.co.uk/doc_files/bip-a4.pdf) (ja de paginas staan wat door elkaar, sorry, iets met dubbelzijdig printen, knip en plak plezier apology about how all the pages are scrambled)
- The Barstool Experiment (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.msg323880#msg323880) (en nogmaals HST-style (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.msg324297#msg324297), RWHN-style (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10125.msg324811#msg324811))
- What is the Black Iron Prison about? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11449.0)
- The Golden Sphere of Possibility (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11632.0) (de Black Iron Prison vanuit de andere kant bekeken)
- Suburban Book of the Dead - Rough Guide to Freedom (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11275.0)
- Suburban Book of the Dead - Good Boy! aka Things You Don't Need To Hear (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11268.0)
- Suburban Book of the Dead - The Long Haul (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11291.0)
- What Is The Machine? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10409.msg330300#msg330300)
- The Discordian Network - The Highlights (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11053.0)
- The Good Reverend Roger - What Can We Do To Help You Stop Screaming? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=10782.0)

these are just a few things i got from some quick thread archeology, if anyone thinks it could be more concise, or i missed some obvious post, i'd like to hear about it.
one thing i couldn't find was an actual forum-post/thread about The Black Iron Prison, does it only exist in pamphlet-forum?
another thing i'd like to point out is that i put the barstool-experiment as second on the list, because, seeing as these guys might be chaos hippies, i'd give them a pre-emptive barstool hit (actually, i would have given them a pre-emptive barstool hit anyway, no matter who they are)

apologies to WoW playing lurkers.  :oops:

Quote from: Mangrove on March 06, 2007, 03:43:05 PM
apologies to WoW playing lurkers. :oops:

WHY?

Fuck wow.