The Eremitic Life of a Religious Studies Student

2009-05-08T08:22:00.001-05:00

Man has the right ... Step 1: Ideation

2008-08-19T07:01:00.001-05:00

I'm tired, induced euphoria
to help me move along
I wanna meet my maker in peace, i want to feel alive again
So put that smile back on my face and mix it strong my friend

’Cause I can't feel my face
I won't struggle on
In a world so cold
In a world so wrong

I'm not running away, been fighting this so long
Such a price that we pay, we gotta be so strong
And I take my life tonight ’cause I have the right to die how I wanna
and leave how I arrived, so alive

I believe my sins have been forgiven
and I believe my choice will save me from this life
please don't question why
my sins have been forgotten
I believe I'll find peace in afterlife
please don't question why
I left this way

—Avenged Sevenfold | Brompton Cocktail

A Note on Metaphysics

2008-08-18T09:14:00.001-05:00

I think it is important to reiterate just how impermanent a metaphysics can be so that there is no misunderstanding as to the nature of our metaphysics in this discussion. It is important. This is true. But it needs to be recognized that metaphysics are, first, a dime a dozen. This may seem to cheapen them, but without at least some coherent metaphysics underlying one's hierology the rest falls away unfounded.

I believe that Whitehead, in Process and Reality, actually puts this into perspective best. So I will allow him to make this point much more succinctly than myself.

Metaphysics is nothing but the description of the generalities which apply to all the details of practice.

Is the question of god important? Yes. But it is still little more than a generality that must be assumed in order to examine the details of a praxis coherently. Whitehead continues on, saying:

At the best such a [metaphysical] system will remain only an approximation to the general truths which are sought. In particular, there are no precisely stated axiomatic certainties from which to start. There is no even the language in which to frame them. The only possible procedure is to start from verbal expression which, when taken by themselves with the current meaning of their words, are ill-defined and ambiguous. These are premises to be immediately reasoned from apart from elucidation by further discussion; they are endeavours to state general principles which will be exemplified in the subsequent description of the facts of experience. This subsequent elaboration should elucidate the meanings to be assigned to the words and phrases employed. Such meanings are incapable of accurate apprehension apart from a correspondingly accurate apprehension of the metaphysical background which the universe provides for them. But no language can be anything but elliptical, requiring a leap of the imagination to understand its meaning in its relevance to immediate experience. The position of metaphysics in the development of culture cannot be understood without remembering that no verbal statement is the adequate expression of a proposition. (13, bold emphasis mine)

I'd like to stress Whitehead's final sentence in which he states that we must keep in mind "that no verbal statement"—and the written word, such as in this blog, is merely verbal statements in print, so to speak—"is the adequate expression of a proposition." We know that any metaphysics is going to be inadequate but yet a coherent metaphysics is necessary for our systematic approach to hierology. I've said this in the past, but I'll reiterate it here again: just because language is inadequate to express certain concepts is no reason to not express certain concepts in the most adequate way possible. Assuming an unfathomable expression of god is no reason to suggest that fathomable expressions of god are improper. So long as the inadequacies are acknowledged, many different hurdles are laid to rest as stumbling blocks to discussion and progress.

The Babel of Thelema

2008-08-17T23:30:00.000-05:00

Responding to something I wrote about the Tower of Babel effect within the general thelemic community, Joe Larabell wrote

The trouble I see, however, is that our very principles preclude us from saying that any one view of Thelema is any more "right" than any other view. I think that apparent conundrum has been part of the reason for the Tower of Babel effect. Everyone wants something different and here we are trying to postulate a society wherein that's a good thing.

To which I responded ...

This is where I differ from many, I think. I don't believe that every definition of Thelema can be "right." I don't even think that is inherent in the system. It comes back to that Eco quote: "I accept the statement that a text can have many senses. I refuse the statement that a text can every sense." If Thelema can mean anything—meaning that it has the potential to mean everything—then it is not truly a symbol set for communication. It becomes worthless since no common center of language can be determined. This does not mean that the individual symbols cannot have a great amount of depth that translates into various interpretations. But if the core language is out of whack with the culture of the individual (e.g., Esperanto) or too specialized for general use (e.g., Klingon), then failure is certain. Sure, some people may latch on to it, but it will be a very small, geeky few. But we know, contrary to that kind of isolation, that the Law is for all. The symbol set of Thelema, the language of Thelema is capable of a great deal of depth that extends from a basic mystical experience within us to a complex scientific understanding of the universe around us. Maybe we need to back away from some of Crowley's exegetic interpretation to make it more accessible, but the core symbols cannot and should not be changed (which is not to suggest they cannot be expanded or expounded upon to be more coherent and stable).

This could lead into all kinds of discussions that plague me. Why is there no iconographic art depicting the symbols of Thelema? A little red book isn't enough to change the world. The concepts within it might, but without the cultural catch—the hook, line, and sinker—it cannot be more than words on paper. Why are there not more plays written utilizing thelemic concepts rather than merely Crowley's Rites of Eleusis? Why is there not more books written about the practical application of the Law? Why is there not more (any?) fiction written using thelemic cultural themes? After reading Our Gods Wear Spandex, where are our artists who are designing comic books along thelemic lines? (If Jack Chick can blast the Catholics through comic books and make a living ...) Those are just a few of the questions I consider when looking at Thelema as a whole. Yes, I'm aware of the radical individualists, but even the individual has to fit within the context of his culture at some point.

Thelemic Dictionary Volunteer Needed

2008-08-17T17:00:00.001-05:00

I need a volunteer or two to work with me on the Thelemic Dictionary blog (Word of the Day). I finished up a first run through the alphabet as much as possible using the STL's A Study of Names. I'll probably make a second run through it again starting on Monday, but I also need to expand out from purely names. That's both a challenge and a difficulty. But I need someone (or two) that can also help with this endeavor. I think there is probably a ton of words that are properly defined out there that aren't controversial (that can come later) and flesh out even more this little side project. The widget is actually being installed in tons of places so it's getting some exposure.

Anyway ... it's not like it's a tough job or anything. It's merely a small form to fill out on the blog and takes no more than five-ten minutes at most to do.

Anyone?

Prolegomena: Metaphysical Presupposition

2008-08-17T16:10:00.001-05:00

The metaphysical presupposition is probably one of the most difficult aspects of a thelemic worldview. There are those who we know are all too willing to accept some half-baked tales about inspired or dictated religious texts but are not willing to accept the existence of god who did the inspiring or the dictating or need to devise elaborate psychological excuses to ease their faith. They mix and match their own metaphysical assumptions on top of a foundation that cannot hold water, metaphysical or otherwise. The end result is a lack of consistency or comprehension over the subject matter at all.

This assumes, of course, that we can ever come to an agreement on the existence and nature of god in the first place. But this is a vital piece of a thelemic worldview. It is a vicious but self-referential cycle the importance of which cannot be underestimated. For if we accept the veracity and validity of the Book of the Law, then we must assume some form of god in existence. If we accept some form of god in existence, then there is no obvert reason to dismiss the Book of the Law as a product of something intimately related to that god.

We should examine some terminology. I make absolutely no claims that this particular study is complete by any means. Should I take this further at a later point, I would add several more layers of discussion not only for the main bullet points but also for any direct conclusion I offered.

Theism and Deism

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Deism, on the other hand, is the belief—based solely on reason—in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. I don't think that a lot of deists see the "abandoned" part very much or take it too seriously. It's more of an agnostic approach than a formal denial. Or at least such has been my minimal experience with professed deists thus far.

There isn't a whole lot of difference between theism and deism. For the most part, theism is more faith based whereas deism is more reason based. I don't think this necessarily holds out in practice very well, but I can at least accept the academic differences on paper. The end result is a difference in whether God takes a personal interest in the universe or just doesn't bother with the personal touch.

The Law of Thelema would lean more toward a theistic approach over deism—assuming a strict definition. The revelation of the Book of the Law would lend a sense of a more than less personal interest of some form of divinity into the progress and development of mankind. It may not be quite to the extent of a personal relationship as some religions have with their god—e.g., Christianity with Christ—but it is an interest nonetheless that may be just enough to separate a pure deist perspective from a more moderate theist one.

Most pagans, like most Christians, proclaim a theistic devotion while practicing a deistic worldview. That is to say, God is great so long as God stays in his own playground and comes out only when called. The only substantial difference between pagans and Christians is the prefix poly- added to the former's particular -ism or -ic of choice.

Atheism

It is not really any surprise that atheism—disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods—is specifically dismissed by the Law of Thelema. This does not take into consideration Crowley's word play with the term atheist in his essay Gematria. I generally agree with his use there, but it does not make for consistency in thought. The only academic usefulness it possesses is the third type: "The philosophical adept, who, knowing God, says 'There is No God,' meaning 'God is Zero,' as qabalistically He is." In this, it is not atheism by definition but atheism by acknowledgement of the incomprehensible. This kind of theism/atheism is beyond the scope of this investigation while still being acknowledged as a more specialized and enlightened perspective of divinity.

Pantheism

I have to immediately discard pantheism as intrinsic to a thelemic worldview for the simple reason that our Trinitarian (Hexatarian—Dual Trinitarian?) theogony is made up of interlaced forms and functions rather than independent gods and goddess. As simply as possible, though without any suggestion of completeness, Nuit is the infinitely infinite; Hadit is the infinitely finite; Ra-Hoor-Khuit is the intersection of those two extremes. This is, as I mentioned, extremely simplistic.

All through the Book of the Law there is both specific communication as well as general metaphysical constructions that indicate that these relationships between our "gods" are symbiotic and symbolic.

Panentheism

Does the universe take form and communicate? Probably. We have a multitude of evidence that would suggest this is true. However, we should separate how we approach divinity in the sense of the "All" and in the sense of our personal perceptions of the "All." If we see the singular Nuit as the embodiment of this "All" then we are then defining her as fully transcendent and transrational while fully immanent and observable. This is as close to the proper definition of panentheism as it gets.

When approaching this perspective there is a type of dialectical monism that comes into play. I don't want to compare it directly to panentheism, but certainly there is a common playground between them. I'm not convinced, personally speaking, that there is enough examination into this particular theory to draw conclusions quite yet. But I do think that it is worth the time to explore.

Conclusion

In the end, and at least online, I am not going to take a specific stand on this issue with any definitive notions. I will suggest that I think the Law of Thelema presents a panentheistic, a henotheistic, or even, by extension, a kathenotheistic worldview as most probable for its metaphysical presupposition. In each case there is a cognizant divinity that is capable of being expressed or manifested in different, individual ways while being transcendent and above reason itself.

The presupposition that will be used here is that the divine, by whatever name one wishes to label it, is both inherent (a bit deeper than merely "immanent") and transcendent and, at the same time, embodies both the manifest and occult (ambiguous, concealed, hidden, obscure) reality by whatever perception one has of those concepts. Language may be (and it is) inadequate to describe the nature of god in either positive or negative terms to any proper satisfaction, but that should not inhibit us from communicating our observations either way. We cannot say that god is a certain way but we can say that we perceive god is or is not a certain way or to have or to not have certain traits.

This stance may be labeled by some as panentheistic. There are those who are familiar with such theology who would disagree. But if we need a term immediately to satisfy our legalistic need for definitions, panentheistic might as well be as good as any other for the moment.

Teilhard's Mass: Fire In the Earth

2008-08-17T14:42:00.001-05:00

continued ...

It is done.

Once again the Fire has penetrated the earth.

Not with sudden crash of thunderbolt, riving the mountain-tops: does the Master break down doors to enter his own home? Without earthquake, or thunderclap: the flame has lit up the whole world from within. All things individually and collectively are penetrated and flooded by it, from the inmost core of the tiniest atom to the mighty sweep of the most universal laws of being: so naturally has it flooded every element, every energy, every connecting-link in the unity of our cosmos; that one might suppose the cosmos to have bust spontaneously into flame.

In the new humanity which is begotten today the Word prolongs the unending act of his own birth; and by virtue of his immersion in the world's womb the great waters of the kingdom of matter have, without even a ripple, been endued with life. No visible tremor marks this inexpressible transformation; and yet, mysteriously and in every truth, at the touch of the supersubstantial Word the immense host which is the universe is made flesh. Through your own incarnation, my God, all matter is henceforth incarnate.

Through our thoughts and our human experiences, we long ago became aware of the strange properties which make the universe so like our flesh: like the flesh it attracts us by the charm which lies in the mystery of its curves and folds and in the depths of its eyes; like the flesh it disintegrates and eludes us when submitted to our analyses or to our fallings away and in the process of its own perdurance; as with flesh, it can only be embraced in the endless reaching out to attain what lies beyond the confines of what has been given to us.

All of us, Lord, from the moment we are born feel within us this disturbing mixture of remoteness and nearness; and in our heritage of sorrow and hope, passed down to us through the ages, there is no earning more desolate than that which makes us weep with vexation and desire as we stand in the midst of the Presence which hovers about us nameless and impalpable and is indwelling in all things. Si forte attrectent eum.

Now, Lord, through the consecration of the world the luminosity and fragrance which suffuse the universe take on for me the lineaments of a body and a face—in you. What my mind glimpsed through its hesitant explorations, what my heart craved with so little expectation of fulfilment, you now magnificently unfold for me: the fact that your creatures are not merely so linked together in solidarity that none can exist unless all the rest surround it, but that all are so dependent on a single central reality that a true life, borne in common by them all, gives them ultimately their consistence and their unity.

Shatter, my God, through the daring of your revelation the childishly timid outlook that can conceive of nothing greater or more vital in the world than the pitiable perfection of our human organism. On the road to a bolder comprehension of the universe the children of this world day by day outdistance the masters of Israel; but do you, Lord Jesus, "in whom all things subsist," show yourself to those who love you as the higher Soul and the physical centre of your creation? Are you not well aware that for us this is a question of life or death? As for me, if I could not believe that your real presence animates and makes tractable and enkindles even the very least of the energies which invade me or brush past me, would I not die of cold?

I thank you, my God, for having in a thousand different ways led my eyes to discover the immense simplicity of things. Little by little, through the irresistible development of those yearnings you implanted in my as a child, through the influence of gifted friends who entered my life at certain moment to bring light and strength to my mind, and through the awakenings of spirit I owe to successive initiations, gentle and terrible, which you caused me to undergo: through all these I have been brought to the point where I can no longer see anything, nor any longer breathe, outside that milieu in which all is made one.

At this moment when your life has just poured with superabundant vigour into the sacrament of the world, I shall savour with heightened consciousness the intense yet tranquil rapture of a vision whose coherence and harmonies I can never exhaust.

What I experience as I stand in face of—and in the very depths of—this world which your flesh has assimilated, this world which has become your flesh, my God, is not the absorption of the monist who yearns to be dissolved into the unity of things, nor the emotion felt by the pagan as he lies prostrate before a tangible divinity, nor yet the passive self-abandonment of the quietist tossed hither and thither at the mercy of mythical impulsions. From each of these modes of thought I take something of their motive force while avoiding their pitfalls: the approach determined for me by your omnipresence is a wonderful synthesis wherein three of the most formidable passions that can unlock the human heart rectify each other as they mingle: like the monist I plunge into the all-inclusive One; but the One is so perfect that as it receives me and I lose myself in it I can find in it the ultimate perfection of my own individuality; like the pagan I worship a God who can be touched; and I do indeed touch him—this God—over the whole surface and in the depths of that world of matter which confines me: but to take hold of him as I would wish (simple in order not to stop touching him), I must go always on and on through and beyond each undertaking, unable to rest in anything, borne onwards at each moment by creatures and at each moment going beyond them, in a continuing welcoming of them and a continuing detachment from them; like the quietist I allow myself with delight to be cradled in the divine fantasy: but at the same time I know that the divine will, will only be revealed to me at each moment if I exert myself to the utmost: I shall only touch God in the world of matter, when, like Jacob, I have been vanquished by him.

Thus, because the ultimate objective, the totality to which my nature is attuned has been made manifest to me, the powers of my being begin spontaneously to vibrate in accord with a single note of incredible richness wherein I can distinguish the most discordant tendencies effortlessly resolved: the excitement of action and the delight of passivity: the joy of possessing and the thrill of reaching out beyond what one possesses; the pride in growing and the happiness of being lost in what is greater than oneself.

Rich with the sap of the world, I rise up towards the Spirit whose vesture is the magnificence of the material universe but who smiles at me from far beyond all victories; and, lost in the mystery of the flesh of God, I cannot tell which is the more radiant bliss: to have found the Word and so be able to achieve the mastery of matter, or to have mastered matter and so be able to attain and submit to the light of God.

Grant, Lord, that your descent into the universal Species may not be for me just something loved and cherished, like the fruit of some philosophical speculation, but may becomes for me truly a real Presence. Whether we like it or not by power and by right you are incarnate in the world and we are all of us dependent upon you. But in fact you are far, and how far, from being equally close to us all. We are all of us together carried in the one world-womb; yet each of us is our own little microcosm in which the Incarnation is wrought independently with degrees of intensity, and shades that are incommunicable. And that is why, in our prayer at this altar, we ask that the consecration may be brought about for us: Ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat...If I firmly believe that everything around me is the body and blood of the Word, then for me (and in one sense for me alone) is brought about that marvelous "diaphany" which causes the luminous warmth of a single life to be objectively discernible in and to shine forth from the depths of every event, every element: whereas if, unhappily, my faith should flag, at once the light is quenched and everything becomes darkened, everything disintegrates.

You have come down, Lord, into this day which is now beginning. But alas, how infinitely different in degree is your presence for one and another of us in the events which are now preparing and which all of us together will experience! In the very same circumstances which are soon to surround me and my fellowmen you may be present in small measure, more and more or not at all.

Therefore, Lord, that no poison may harm me this day, no death destroy me, no wine befuddle me, that in every creature I may discover and sense you, I beg you: give me faith.

NOTICE: NEW BLOG SITE OPEN

2008-08-16T16:29:00.001-05:00

Everything has progressed a bit faster than anticipated. That's the good news.

I've moved all comments from this blog to the new blog. They are appropriately attributed and date/time stamped as if original. The only difference is that on my admin side they all have the same IP Address (mine!) but that's no big deal. I copied word for word and entered the exact name, email address and (if any) web page for each comment. I didn't change any text at all and only changed some minor formatting in places where obvious paragraphs ran together by adding an extra carriage return.

Comments are now open on the new site as well. I still have about 1900 entries to add, but it's going to take a bit of time. They are all pre-2006, so I'm not exactly cruising through them with any rapidity. But for the sake of some earlier thelemic material, I'm making some decent progress. Not having to work through the comments on all those posts does make it easier. All the 2007 posts had their comments remain in place (with some exceptions).

Generally speaking, from today forward, if you're aiming anything at this blog, you need to be aiming it at the new blog site.

www.eremiticlife.com is the new game. Click on the little RSS balloon for many different options on grabbing the feed. I'll have the new LiveJournal feed up by Monday morning for those of you over there. This journal will be mirrored here for the rest of August if you are a bit behind.

Enjoy!

I'll Only Say This Once

2008-08-15T17:08:00.001-05:00

There is no evolutionary advantage to having a dick. Women, men, and small farm animals do not go out of their way to buy you a drink just because you're swinging for the home team down there.

Women, on the other hand, merely have to smile, whisper something provocative, and walk straight out the door alone at the end of the night and stupid people (aka M.E.N.) are drooling all over each other on their way to the bar to see who's going to be buying the first of many, many rounds before the Sun even sets over the horizon.

(For the record, this is a post-it note entry. I'm merely blowing off steam—no pun intended.)

Earthseed 2025.3

2008-08-15T14:17:00.001-05:00

Belief
Initiates and guides action—
Or it does nothing.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

Teilhard's Mass: Fire Over the Earth (2)

2008-08-15T11:58:00.001-05:00

continued ...

Radiant Word, blazing Power, you who mould the multiple so as to breathe your life into it; I pray you, lay on us those your hands—powerful, considerate, omnipresent, those hands which do not (like your human hands) touch now here, now there, but which plunge into the depths and the totality, present and past, of things so as to reach us simultaneously through all that is most immense and most inward within us and around us.

May the might of those invincible hands direct and transfigure for the great world you have in mind that earthly travail which I have gathered into my heart and now offer you in its entirety. Remould it, rectify it, recast it down to the depths from whence it springs. You know how your creatures can come into being only, like shoot from stem, as part of an endlessly renewed process of evolution.

Do you now therefore, speaking through my lips, pronounce over this earthly travail your twofold efficacious word: the word without which all that our wisdom and our experience have built up must totter and crumble—the word through which all our most far-reaching speculations and our encounter with the universe are come together into a unity. Over every living thing which is to spring up, to grow, to flower, to ripen during this day say again the words: This is my Body. And over ever death-force which waits in readiness to corrode, to wither, to cut down, speak again you commanding words which express the supreme mystery of faith: This is my Blood.

This Week

2008-08-14T18:53:00.001-05:00

I know I'm being fairly quiet overall.

I'm working on moving the rest of 2007 over to the new blog site. I have about 300-ish entries to review, re-tag, and post. It's a really slow process.

I have finally received a (interlibrary loan) copy of Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology. I finally and directly get to read his approach to the nature of god. I know from other sources that it presents god as the "ground of being," but I could never find anyone that quoted enough of his work or explained it well enough to make any sense. I grok it from a philosophical angle, but I really wanted to see his own words on the matter. Now I get that chance.

I'm still posting elements of Earthseed and Teilhard's Mass on the World. I hope some of you are enjoying one or the other or both. I am still so amazed at the symbolism and depth of Teilhard in this thing. To think that this was a Catholic with such insights no matter how his particular religious bent put it in Christian language. He far surpasses any specific religious sect in tone and fervor. Yeah. Just totally blown away.

I've begun reading The Eight but I've just not had a lot of time. I hope to spend a lot of time this weekend just reading.

And sleeping. That's another thing. I've been feeling exhausted this week for really no apparent reason that I can find. I know that I've been having some really intense dreams of late, but normally I find those refreshing rather than draining.

And, generally, I'm gearing up for school in a week-and-a-half. It's going to be a busy semester. But it's all good. Really.

So, there's your update. I'm not dead or gone ... just quiet for a bit.

For the most part, I'm mirroring everything here over at the new site too. Except for some of these little post-it note entries. Heh.

Teilhard's Mass: Fire Over the Earth (1)

2008-08-14T15:45:00.001-05:00

continued ...

Fire, the source of being: we cling so tenaciously to the illusion that fire comes forth from the depths of the earth and that its flames grow progressively brighter as it pours along the radiant furrows of life's tillage. Lord, in your mercy you gave me to see that this idea is false, and that I must overthrow it if I were ever to have sight of you.

In the beginning was Power, intelligent, loving, energizing. In the beginning was the Word, supremely capable of mastering and moulding whatever might come into being in the world of matter. In the beginning there were not coldness and darkness: there was the Fire. This is the truth.

So far from light emerging gradually out of the womb of our darkness, it is the Light, existing before all else was made which, patiently, surely, eliminates our darkness. As for us creatures, of ourselves we are but emptiness and obscurity. But you, my God, are the inmost depths, the stability of that eternal milieu, without duration or space, in which our cosmos emerges gradually into being and grows gradually to its final completeness, as it loses those boundaries which to our eyes seem so immense. Everything is being; everywhere there is being and nothing but being, save in the fragmentation of creatures and the clash of their atoms.

Blazing Spirit, Fire, personal, supersubstantial, the consummation of a union so immeasurably more lovely and more desirable than that destructive fusion of which all the pantheists dream: be pleased yet once again to come down and breathe a soul into the newly formed, fragile film of matter with which this day the world is to be freshly clothed.

I know we cannot forestall, still less dictate to you, even the smallest of your actions; from you alone comes all initiative—and this applies in the first place to my prayer.

Earthseed 2025.2

2008-08-14T10:13:00.001-05:00

A victim of God may,
Through learning adaption,
Become a partner of God.
A victim of God may,
Through forethought and planning,
Become a shaper of God.
Or a victim of God may,
Through shortsightedness and fear,
Remain God's victim,
God's plaything,
God's prey.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

Yup. That Did It.

2008-08-13T19:42:00.001-05:00

I pride myself on having a relatively high tolerance for various views and positions across a large spectrum. I don't even mind if people heatedly disagree with me (so long as they are polite and stay out of the troll tracks). I try my best to remain civil in my wanderings so that I can interact with a wide range of differences among people. I think this can only help me later in a classroom setting.

But I finally reached a limit today. It's one of the Christian blogs I visit quite often. It is attached to a theological program that, at one time, I was quite interested in attending but, alas, I don't really have that kind of disposable income for those prices. It's not as expensive as college classes, but I need to be getting credits for these things if I'm shelling out that kind of money. Also, it's an evangelical perspective, and that's really okay with me too.

But there comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand. I've done that now. It's not that I'm any "better" or "worse" in this regard, but I've been working on my approach to divisive subjects and, while I continue to fail in some areas, I'm making progress. After watching two blatant attacks on people's character for having walked away from Christianity (and by attacks I mean that "What would you say to someone like this who left the faith; look how pathetic their excuses are..." kind of patronizing bullshit), I decided that I no longer could hang with that kind of attitude.

So I said my piece and split. I'm not even going to promote the site here like I have been in the past—even if that was only a passive promotion. I don't like to sites I don't read. Every one of those links is a blog or site that I read daily. And there are about 20 more that aren't listed that I read on top of that. So my time is limited and if I'm going to read Christians, I'd rather read those who are actually doing their own thing rather than pissing on someone else's tree for having figured out that Christianity doesn't work in the big picture.

Teilhard's Mass: The Offering (3)

2008-08-13T11:24:00.001-05:00

continued ...

Receive, O Lord, this all-embracing host which your whole creation, moved by your magnetism, offers you at this dawn of a new day.

This bread, our toil, is of itself, I know, but an immense frag-mentation; this wine, our pain, is no more, I know, than a draught that dissolves. Yet in the very depths of this formless mass you have implanted—and this I am sure of, for I sense it—a desire, irresistible, hallowing, which make us cry out, believer and unbeliever alike: "Lord, make us one."

Because, my God, though I lack the soul-zeal and the sublime integrity of your saints, I yet have received from you an overwhelming sympathy for all that stirs within the dark mass of matter; because I know myself to be irremediably less a child of heaven than a son of earth; therefore I will this morning climb up in spirit to the high places, bearing with me the hopes and the miseries of my mother; and there—empowered by that priesthood which you alone (as I firmly believe) have bestowed on me—upon all that in the world of human flesh is now about to be born or to die beneath the rising sun I will call down the Fire.

The Future is Now

2008-08-13T06:34:00.001-05:00

I saw one of the most disturbing things on the way to work this morning. It's not the first time I've seen this, but that time I really thought maybe I had misinterpreted what I saw. I'll digress a moment.

A while back I went to lunch with Dart and Daniel. On the way up into Plano, I noticed a car had been pulled over. The "police vehicle" was completely unmarked. It had the strobe lights—like you see on those construction trucks in various places—and those were red and blue, but otherwise the car itself was unremarkable and most definitely just another "family car" on the side of the road. The officer was in uniform but I noticed that he was wearing what looked more like SWAT gear than just a regular uniform.

I mentioned it to Jenn but really didn't may much attention to it. I'm not really a paranoid person as a general course.

This morning on the way to work, I'm head toward the freeway and I suddenly notice those strobe lights again as a white van, dark truck and a dark car (another little sedan) begin to turn the corner. Then I noticed that the strobes were red and blue. The van pulled over. The truck pulled in behind it and the car pulled toward the middle of the road but still on the right side. A guy from each jumped out. The one in the car to motion the guy in front of me and me around the scene. The one from the truck pulled out a flashlight and was basically already at the van's driver side door.

That's when I noticed that he too was wearing more of a SWAT uniform. The uniform almost looked like one of those from the cop shows on television.

I had an immediate urge to pull over and take a picture. I didn't. The moment I had that urge I had a similar feeling that I really didn't need to stick around. My first instinct was "what the hell is our city doing?" My second instinct was that this might not have been real cops and I really didn't need to be in the middle of this kind of thing. My third instinct was that I was truly paranoid out of the blue and for little more reason than unmarked, "unpolice"-type vehicles pulling people over in the dark.

Teilhard's Mass: The Offering (2)

2008-08-12T14:21:00.001-05:00

continued ...

One by one, Lord, I see and I love all those whom you have given me to sustain and charm my life. One by one also I number all those who make up that other beloved family which has gradually surrounded me, its unity fashioned out of the most disparate elements, with affinities of the heart, of scientific research and of thought. And again one by one—more vaguely it is true, yet all-inclusively—I call before me the whole vast anonymous army of living humanity; those who surround me and support me though I do not know them; those who come, and those who go; above all, those who in office, laboratory and factory, through their vision of truth or despite their error, truly believe in the progress of earthly reality and who today will take up again their impassioned pursuit of the light.

This restless multitude, confused or orderly, the immensity of which terrifies us; this ocean of humanity whose slow, monotonous wave-flows trouble the hearts even of those whose faith is most firm: it is to this deep that I thus desire all the fibres of my being should respond. All the things in the world to which this day will be increase; all those that will diminish; all those too that will die: all of them, Lord, I try to gather into my arms, so as to hold them out to you in offering. This is the material of my sacrifice; the only material you desire.

Once upon a time men took into your temple the first fruits of their harvests, the flower of their flocks. But the offering you really want, the offering you mysteriously need every day to appease your hunger, to slake your thirst is nothing less than the growth of the world borne ever onwards in the stream of universal becoming.

Continuing to Move

2008-08-12T13:29:00.001-05:00

I've moved over the first six months of 2007 at this point. It's a bit faster than I thought it would be but it is still very slow going. I'm being selective, to be sure, but not so selective as to give a false impression that life is something it's not. Many of the private posts from LiveJournal are not being included in the pull. That's on purpose and most especially for a couple different periods of time that just don't need to be aired again—in public or private.

But I'm going to stop for now. I have other things I need to do.

Oh. Wow.

2008-08-11T20:41:00.001-05:00

I've just found the entries for my journal all the way back to 2003. Some of those are really hard to read without getting a bit mushy inside. So, I've made a decision on these imports—which some may be seeing already hit the new site. I will be uploading thelemic only materials (with some minor exceptions) and no comments on posts prior to 2006. There will be limited comment uploads on posts from 2006 onward if they were on LiveJournal. Those comments left on Blogger will move over entirely once the ability becomes available.

When I say WOW, I mean it. Some of those posts are really tough to read. They won't be missing from the private local archive for those who require that I keep every scrap of paper (*cough*Dart*cough*), but at least the "good stuff" will move over to the new site and some of it—I promise—hasn't been seen in three/four years.

More Moving Data

2008-08-11T18:04:00.001-05:00

1677 LiveJournal Posts. Yes. That is how many are out there in limbo that I've decided to wade through. I'm not pulling all of them over, but I thought it might be neat to grab some of the earlier material since I can do that now. So I'm going to spend the next two weeks working through these posts on a month by month basis.

I got a response from the "new company" that bought Haloscan. Apparently, it's going to be a couple months before they finish up the sync process. So, that means that eventually all the comments from this blog will make it to the new one, but it might be a bit o'time. We'll manage. But at least they aren't going to be lost even if they don't move over immediately. And I promise that no comments will not be lost. Some of you have great thoughts that I want to ensure stick around.

I'm working through the Codex Pontifex materials now (I'm loving the new technology over there!!) and the new LiveJournal posts. I may actually be ready to move before the 1st, but we'll see. I may just start mirroring the blogs from the time I'm ready until the end of September.

Things are a'moving ... it's all good!

Teilhard's Mass: The Offering (1)

2008-08-11T15:45:00.001-05:00

The Offering

Since once again, Lord—though this time not in the forests of the Aisne but in the steppes of Asia—I have neither bread, nor wine, nor altar, I will raise myself beyond these symbols, up to the pure majesty of the real itself; I, your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labours and sufferings of the world.

Over there, on the horizon, the sun has just touched with light the outermost fringe of the eastern sky. Once again, beneath this moving sheet of fire, the living surface of the earth awakes and trembles, and once again begins its fearful travail. I will place on my paten, O God, the harvest to be won by this renewal of labour. Into my chalice I shall pour all the sap which is to be pressed out this day from the earth's fruits.

My paten and my chalice are the depths of a soul laid widely open to all the forces which in a moment will rise up from every corner of the earth and converge upon the Spirit. Grant me the remembrance and the mystic presence of all those whom the light is now awakening to the new day.

Thelemic Shema

2008-08-11T14:57:00.001-05:00

At one time, T Polyphilus had begun a series of examination into the Five Pillars of Islam and their corresponding thelemic notions. I've done similar, and while I have some affinity for a few of the Islamic practices, they don't pull to me the way Jewish practices do. That said, however, there are huge similarities in the praxis which stands between these two great religions. Quite frankly, it's a shame that Christianity took a hike out into the cold and never came home. The resultant liturgy of Christianity is dry and stale—some Orthodox and Gnostic exceptions do exist, of course.

Maybe it's because I really like liturgy. I'm drawn to it like a butterfly to a flame. All the philosophy in the world is nifty and I'll agree with a dozen different ideas before a Saturday breakfast. But it is liturgy that draws my soul out into the open and betrays my adoration for she who is "Infinite Space, and the Infinite Stars thereof" (AL 1.22).

And so there are certain complementary practices that go along with such ideals. T Polyphilus begins his examination with the first pillar—the shahadah—and makes some excellent points. But for me this has a direct relation to the Jewish Shema. They have identical purposes in fact. Both are professions of faith that are so simple a child can learn them easily enough. Compare these to any number of Christian creeds (or even the O.T.O. Creed from their "Gnostic Mass") and the obvious simplicity becomes clear.

In Islam, the shahadah is "lā ilāha illā-llāh, wa muħammadan rasūlu-llāh. (There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.)" In Judaism, the Shema is "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. (Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.)" The Shema goes on into the basics and was boiled down by Christ when he said, "The most important [commandment] is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these" (Mar 12.29-31). But in both cases, these are a profession of faith within that religion. It is the boiling down of the entire spiritual foundation into a simple, understandable sentence or two.

I have been accused in the past of minimizing the importance of a primary tenet of Thelema by suggesting that it is not the important to the foundation of thelemic doctrine. While not entirely accurate portrayal of my position on the subject, I do think it is a very important subject. So I think that my correction of this perception is in taking up a particular stance in regards to a thelemic Shema.

T Polyphilus suggests that the first pillar of Islam is synonymous with the traditional summary of the Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." Given the identical intent behind the shahadah and the Shema, then, by extension, I agree.

But it must be made clear that while we use the term "profession of faith," this is really something more specific. In both Islam and Judaism, the shahadah and Shema are considered to be testimony and witness, respectively, of their adherents. For Thelemites, I would probably call it an oath. At least for today. I may change my mind tomorrow or whenever someone else comes up with a better term. Heh.

Teilhard's Mass: Intro

2008-08-11T13:52:00.003-05:00

This is a bit different translation than the one from The Divine Milieu. But I actually like this one better. It flows nicer. And, well, it's complete too. I'm not going to be posting it all at once, but I will be posting the whole thing. I'll be tagging it: mass on the world.

Gerald? Seriously. Read these quotes. Read them aloud even. The details and language are sitting there in amazing glory. And keep in mind when you read these quotes that it was written in its final form in 1923.

Questioning the Identity of God

2008-08-11T12:01:00.001-05:00

There are two ways to approach the identity of god.

Kataphatic theology is the approach of discussing what god is.

Apophatic theology is discussing what god is not.

Yup. It's Monday!

2008-08-11T11:38:00.003-05:00

And I haven't gotten a %!&$# thing done today. It's not that work has been all that busy. It hasn't. But the day is already half over and I don't think I've accomplished anything at all.

Maybe this afternoon will provide more opportunity.

People, Projects, and Plans! Oh My!

2008-08-10T20:22:00.001-05:00

Needless to say, I got very little done over the weekend. I mean, I had a ton of fun. That's gotta count for something. But generally all the best laid plans of mice and monsters ... or something like that.

I will be working on the next installment of the systematic hierology project this week (the metaphysical presupposition is still on the plate), posting more from the Earthseed selections, and the getting up some more pieces of Teilhard's Mass on the World for Gerald (and anyone else interested).

I didn't get started on The Eight either. But I really need to get busy so that I can read The Fire for the review I owe. I just didn't really want to read a sequel until I'd read the original. I may do a couple chapters tonight. Despite the nice wind blowing, it's still be 100+ degrees outside. It's 99 degrees right now at just after 8PM. And the heat makes me physically tired. (And I have this really weird chest pain that is almost like that feeling of a knuckle just before you snap, crackle, pop it. I just can't get it to bust loose.)

That's it. Still working on getting the new site ready for a 01 Sept launch. The RSS feeds will be a bit different and I'm still not quite sure about the comments moving with us, but it's definitely a green light on the move.

I ♥ Technology 2

2008-08-10T14:54:00.002-05:00

I mentioned once before that I was moving all of my digital materials to iPaper. As I've been preparing the new blog site, I've been playing with even more technology. I have introduced a small static area for written materials. But I really don't like static pages. It was one reason why I created my last primary site from Wikipedia technology. But now there is even more cool stuff to play with.

Check this out. No need to click on the link if you don't want to. Just hover over it.

A picture of the boys together.

Just one of my academic papers, in this case, The Monomyth of Mirrormask.

Now ... ~~I have no idea if these work when reading through an RSS feed, but I know~~ they work if you're reading from the site directly.

Family Day & The Inevitable

2008-08-09T20:46:00.005-05:00

Yes. It was a family day today. And we did what ~~any good family~~ our family normally does on such days like this.

We bought books.

So it breaks down like this. Given that the one book that hits the big library from Jinx is a book that I bought for us both, I've merely included it in my list. The rest of his Pokemon books were not of the normal quality that his dinosaur dictionaries are so, despite his objections, they do not make it to "the list."

For those Christians readers of my blog who wonder how I stay prepared, you'll see a few things scattered in here that provide a bit of an inside look to my weapons rack.

These are listed in alphabetical order by title, not author, even there are several in here part of single series. The H.G. Wells stuff was a boxed set that was put out the same year I was born. I was blown away to find it on a clearance shelf for $1. And many of mine were from the same shelves in various bookshelves and most were between $1 and $5. The most expensive was the Analytical Concordance that is a $60 book that I picked up for $9.

And, yes, I'm aware that sometimes I pick up weird, off the wall books merely to have around as idea-fodder when I'm writing (e.g., D&D books since I don't actually play the game itself). That goes with the territory around here.

My list looks like this—

Adulthood Rites (Book 2 of the Xenogenesis Series)—Octavia Butler
The Analytical Concordance to the New Revised Standard Version of the New Testament—Richard E. Whitaker
Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar—William D. Mounce
The Book of the Courtier—Baldesar Castilgione
The Celtic Oracle: Exploring the Inner Worlds—John Matthews
The Da Vinci Kit: Mysteries of the Renaissance Decoded—Andrew Langley
Dawn (Book 1 of the Xenogenesis Series)—Octavia Butler
Deadly Doses: A Writer's Guide to Poisons (Howdunit Series)—Serita Deborah Stevens
Decameron—Giovanni Boccaccio
The Dosadi Experiment—Frank Herbert
Effective Church Leadership: Building on the Twelve Keys—Kennon L. Callahan
Encyclopedia Magica (Advanced Dungeons and Dragons), Vol.1
Fantasy Encyclopedia—Judy Allen
The First Men in the Moon—H.G. Wells
Fledgling—Octavia Butler
The Food of the Gods—H.G. Wells
The Hobbit (Illustrated Edition)—J.R.R. Tolkien
The Holy Grail: Its Origins, Secrets & Meaning Revealed—Malcolm Godwin
Imago (Book 3 of the Xenogenesis Series)—Octavia Butler
In the Days of the Comet—H.G. Wells
The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q—Dale C. Allison, Jr.
The Invisible Man—H.G. Wells
The Island of Dr. Moreau—H.G. Wells
The Jewish Primer: Questions and Answers on Jewish Faith and Culture—Shmuel Himelstein
Judaism and Modern Man: An Interpretation of Jewish Religion (Jewish Lights Classic Reprint)—Will Herberg
Just the Facts, Ma'Am: A Writer's Guide to Investigators and Investigation Techniques (Howdunit Series)—Greg Fallis
Lectures in Systematic Theology—Henry Clarence Thiessen
The Memoirs of Elizabeth Frankenstein—Theodore Roszak
The Mists of Avalon—Marion Zimmer Bradley
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict—Josh McDowell
The Norse Myths (Pantheon Fairy Tale and Folklore Library)—Kevin Crossley-Holland
Odyssey—Homer
Out of the Silent Planet—C.S. Lewis
Perelandra—C.S. Lewis
Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions—Charles Panati
Seed to Harvest—Octavia Butler
That Hideous Strength—C.S. Lewis
The Time Machine—H.G. Wells
War of the Worlds—H.G. Wells

I also having coming from Half.com—

An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical & Contemporary Perspectives—Veli-Matti Karkkainen
The Divine Invasion—Philip K. Dick
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?—Philip K. Dick
Necronomicon: The Weird Tales of H. P. Lovecraft (Special Anniversary Edition Anthology)
Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine—Wayne Grudem
The Transmigration of Timothy Archer—Philip K. Dick

Jenn's list (Vampire Smut™ and all) looks like this—

A Spell For Chameleon (The Magic of Xanth, Volume One)—Piers Anthony
Broken (Women of the Otherworld, Book 6)—Kelley Armstrong
Castle Roogna (The Magic of Xanth, Volume 3)—Piers Anthony
Dangerous Games (Riley Jensen, Guardian, Book 4)—Keri Arthur
Dark Side of the Moon (Dark-Hunter, Book 10)—Sherrilyn Kenyon
The Darkest Kiss (Riley Jensen, Guardian, Book 6)—Keri Arthur
The Darkest Night (Lords of the Underworld, Book 1)—Gena Showalter
Embraced By Darkness (Riley Jensen, Guardian, Book 5)—Keri Arthur
Full Moon Rising (Riley Jensen, Guardian, Book 1)—Keri Arthur
Gale Force (Weather Warden, Book 7)—Rachel Caine
Knight of Darkness (Lords of Avalon, Book 2)—Kinley Macgregor
Ogre, Ogre—Piers Anthony
One Foot in the Grave (Night Huntress, Book 2)—Jeaniene Frost
Source of Magic—Piers Anthony
The Warrior (Brotherhood of the Sword, Book 3)—Kinley Macgregor

All in all we had a very good day. Even went to have Greek food for a late lunch which was thoroughly enjoyable.

Relationships

2008-08-09T09:44:00.001-05:00

I would assume that there is a third option. But I would be lying if I said that I truly understood what it was this late in the game. This whole fight or fuck routine with people is very flat and one-sided. I'm not particularly interested in either one right now.

Earthseed 2025.1

2008-08-09T02:37:00.002-05:00

Intelligence is ongoing, individual
adaptability.
Adaptations that an intelligent
species may make
in a single generation, other species
make over
many generations of selective
breeding and
selective dying. Yet intelligence is
demanding.
If it is misdirected by accident or by
intent, it can
foster its own orgies of breeding and
dying.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

Late Friday News

2008-08-08T20:13:00.001-05:00

The new Eremitic Life site is almost ready. I hope people like the new look. Heh. I still have some techie stuff to do in order to ensure that everything transfers over nicely. The comments don't appear like they are going to move over easily. That bums me out a bit, but I'll live. I'm not really losing them (since they're stored) but I don't know if they will come with us or not. If not, then I'll have them stored somehow and if I can figure out a way (even if my hook or crook) to get them linked back in to the original posts, I will. I will also have to change the RSS feed for those of you grabbing this through some other means.

I received Teilhard's Mass today. I haven't started it since I have three other books on the queue after Parable of the Sower. (I plan on finishing Parable and The Eight this weekend.) But I read through the Appendix that holds the text for the actual Mass and I was totally blown away! I'll be posting some of it in pieces over the weekend to share with Gerald. If there is proof of life both outside of Liber XV and within the Roman Catholic Church (in its more esoteric form, to be sure) that hits the same basic semiotic texture, then this is it!

I found a cool "General Definition" of theology today. I want to share it. [bold emphasis mine]

The term theology comes from the combination of theos (Greek for god) and logos (Greek for word or dialogue). Theology is most broadly understood as a "discussion regarding God" (It is often said that theology may be defined as a "discussion of God" which intends the same meaning, though this is all too often misunderstood to mean "discussion by God") Thus any religion involving a god worthy of dialogue will require some form of theology.

I would suggest that any god—however broadly defined—that deems it worthy enough to have a book dictated to mankind is probably just worthy enough to "require some form of theology." Heh.

TCIF!

2008-08-08T14:49:00.001-05:00

I forgot it was even Friday when I got up this morning. I had to rush to get the trash out since I'd forgotten about it.

Today is dragging along (now that it's after 1PM).

I started on the next section of my systematic hierology posts (the metaphysical presupposition), but it's going to have to be rewritten later. It's become unwieldy in its present form. I'll probably have all night for that, of course. Don't seem to really get out anymore on the weekends. Even if I did want to, there's always a book that is so much more enticing to buy than to be spending money at some club or bar or something.

Books good.
Bars not so much.

Psych: It's Official

2008-08-08T08:17:00.001-05:00

Class is over (really as of yesterday) and I passed with an A. It was a mid-range A, but if I hadn't screwed that one assignment up it would have been a high A. I'm not complaining. Just sayin' ...

Now. Two weeks off. Then Fall semester begins.

It's almost over. It's almost over. It's almost over.

Still Mulling WordPress & Imprint Publishers

2008-08-08T07:52:00.001-05:00

I'm still mulling over WordPress. I have it installed on two sites at the moment and I'm playing around in the Admin. I can move all entries from here to there. I cannot move the comments (so far). That's a downside since I think that the comments are what make up some of the soul of this place. I use Haloscan for comments and I really like the service. It's just enough without being too much like some of the other services I've checked out. But, if I had to, I could live without carrying the comments over.

There is some concern on my part about actually moving blogs. As mentioned previously, when I moved from LiveJournal to Blogger, my readership went up by 2300% (give or take a 100 depending on the month—and, no, that's not a typo).

I don't believe in the "build it and they will come" approach. That's been tried and done out the kazoo. In every example I can find, the end result was Thelemites publishing for Thelemites. It's not that I have a problem with that. But it's lopsided. It's all full of ridiculous jargon and assumptions on concepts that merely reinforce bad study and even worse conclusions.

In any case, I'm converting two of my project sites into WordPress. Given that I haven't really done anything with them, the platform does provide a good start there.

Publishing Efforts & Other Thoughts

Insofar as the STL, I have been really bad at working with that concept this year. It's been a busy year already. What I would really like to see—if I lived in an ideal world—is for a small publishing house to take it and create a quasi-autonomous imprint with it. Very specific publishing qualifications and a very narrow market. It's a shame that no one has been able to truly create something like that in the past. I think we need a publisher not afraid to take chances. And I think we need one that isn't Weiser. Maybe that's what I'll do the rest of the year is see if I can't market the imprint idea over the actual project idea itself. I just don't have the time right now to develop it beyond the conceptual stage anyway. It need a really good non-fiction editor at the helm who knows what they're doing.

Earthseed 2024.5

2008-08-07T19:44:00.001-05:00

God is Power—
Infinite,
Irresistible,
Inexorable,
Indifferent.
And yet, God is Pliable—
Trickster,
Teacher,
Chaos,
Clay.
God exists to be shaped.
God is Change.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

Work & Trying Too Hard

2008-08-07T15:35:00.003-05:00

I was very resentful when they came through with this whole "you have to do X amount of work per day" attitude. My particular functions really do fluctuate that much between one day and the next that I can't tell you how much work I will (or won't) do in a day.

But I've discovered something today in looking back over records and also examining today.

When I "try" to get enough work done to "make the grade," so to speak, I never hit the mark. Usually it's less than 50% of the "target" workload. But if I just sit back and take my day as it comes, I end up doing half over or twice the amount of "target" workload for the day with half the stress.

Why do people manage people like that? It's a threat. It's based on fear. "If you don't get X amount of work done, then what the hell are you doing all day? What do we pay you to do around here?"

Garbage. Why couldn't they just leave us alone instead of screwing with us all the time?

Of course, the most amusing thing to me right now is watching two or three people go through and do what I had already designed last year and they have huge holes, inefficient processes, and general disorder. That's what happens when your CIO is a con man and your boss thinks that committees are the wave of the future.

If you wanted it done right, you'd have done it for half the cost (or at least much reduced cost) and completed by now. Instead, they waste a lot of money and hire people to fill up payroll while stiffing us on our promised raises.

Great corporate ethics there, Jack. Jeff. John. Eric. Dan. Whatever your names are. No one really cares.

Pro-Lifers At Work

2008-08-07T10:00:00.001-05:00

I've said for years that the Pro-Life agenda isn't about life, but about institutionalized child abuse. (This is aside my quite solid case that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely political terms and not ethical positions in the first place.) Pro-Lifers don't think about the consequences of their actions. They only see their moral stench and think that it entitles them to impose their vile ethics on others.

Then we read things like this (obvious satire, but the point is made quite well.)

Breast-Feeding Kills: The pro-life case against birth control, nursing, and exercise.

And then Christian Pro-Life groups wonder why so many see them as a merely joke?

There is a very good reason why religion should stay the hell away from politics.

Third Precondition: Prolegomena

2008-08-07T08:54:00.001-05:00

The Prolegomena is the actual beginning of the preconditions that we need to set out in discussing a thelemic worldview. It is here that we determine several different pylons on which we will build up our worldview from scratch. These range from the metaphysical to the revelational to the hermeneutical to the methodological and on to other presuppositions that need to be addressed and understood for any thelemic worldview to be comprehensive and, ultimately, to be comprehendible.

So here we go—

The Law of Thelema presupposes* that there is a spiritual holarchy to which individuals relate in a variety of individual perspectives (metaphysical presupposition) and from which intervention is possible that may be perceived by some as miraculous (preternatural presupposition) and also from which the revelation of the nature of the universe is found in a general and special revelation (revelational presupposition); this revelation has a relationship with reason while being capable of transrational experiences (rational-experiential presupposition), contains objective and meaningful statements (semantical presupposition) which are true on several different levels (epistemological presupposition) and can be understood through analogous language (semantical presupposition) which then may be systematized through a comprehensive hierological method (methodological presupposition).

That's the basics. Or at least my working draft of the basics. I haven't worked out each one precisely yet, but I'm getting there. I may also end up changing at least one but also adding two more. I haven't finished those studies yet so I'm not sure if they particularly hold water as necessary for a systematic approach. Being challenged to explain a thelemic worldview can be a daunting task but it is an incredible adventure. Some of my terms and conclusions may change a bit as I work through each of these. But that's okay. That is one reason why we do studies like this.

*Those who are familiar with Norman Geisler's incredible four volume Systematic Theology will certainly recognize the outline of presuppositions. While not a precise one-to-one match, but giving credit where credit is due, my own approach is heavily influenced by his work due to its clear and concise manner of writing and outlining the key topics and points needed to support his approach. I believe we have a lot to learn from those religions around us and should be mindful of both the approaches that work and those that don't. "Test all things—hold on to that which is good no matter its origin."

Earthseed 2024.4

2008-08-06T20:48:00.001-05:00

We do not worship God.
We perceive and attend God.
We learn from God.
With forethought and work,
We shape God.
In the end, we yield to God.
We adapt and endure,
For we are Earthseed,
And God is Change.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

Second Precondition: Solid Hermeneutics

2008-08-06T13:07:00.001-05:00

The second precondition is really more of a sideline. This is not to say it is unimportant, but it really isn't a precondition as much as it is a scaffolding that is necessary to form the parameters in which good exegesis and study can occur. I probably should have started out the last precondition and this one with a label of pre-precondition since they really undergird this whole discussion. But, alas, what is is what is. This is a blog, not a graduate thesis. Get over it already.

All of life is a hermeneutic process. Every time you see a red light and stop your car while waiting for it to turn green is a process that involves hermeneutics. Reading Dostoevsky or Tolstoy or Rand or Crowley or Dr. Suess is all about hermeneutics. The manner in which we approach the interpretation of various things with which we interact is what hermeneutics is all about. We would not read Green Eggs & Ham with the same perspective or approach as we that with which we would read Paradise Lost. It would be silly at best. But the point here is that we cannot escape "doing" hermeneutics or going through a process of hermeneutics. So it comes down to what is the best approach.

Spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten, there are rules by which one tackles a given subject. When it comes to things like textual criticism or theology, many times those rules are understood to keep us within a certain frame of mind as well as open up doors that might otherwise be overlooked by too narrow of an approach.

One of the first things I wrote for the Society for Thelemic Literature was the (Proposed) Rule Concerning Thelemic Hermeneutics. It ran something like this:

Rule One: Each Scripture must be understood within, though not limited to, a grammatical, historical, mythological, prophetic, qaballistic, religious, and social context.

Rule Two: Personal integrity, intellectual honesty, common sense and a quality of rational inspiration are required in order to analyze and discriminate between a principle of truth and a dogma of convenience.

Rule Three: The principle underlying each Scripture or statement of counsel or instruction must be recognized in order to understand its relevance for those in different times or places including our contemporary era.

Rule Four: Two Scriptures that seem to contradict each other by appearances must wait until a third Scripture arrives and resolves their apparent contradiction.

Rule Five: Spiritual application must overcome historical accuracy as interpretation may involve multiple layers of meaning and must take into account mystical and qaballistic modes inherent in the text.

Rule Six: Careful consideration must be given to the production of an exegesis that it does not devolve into a personal verse-by-verse commentary that is presented as a matter of truth.

Rule Seven: Though the potential for contradicting themselves exists in the written word, we must allow for the maturing experience of authors and exegetes—even prophets—in that truth is unfolded to them only as fast as they are able to understand it.

Rule Eight: Recognize progressive revelation through spiritual maturity, appreciate that all truth is revealed over time and meditation, and understand that any process of hermeneutics will necessarily be as incomplete as it is personal

The Rule is flexible and, of course, merely a proposal. It is not meant to limit discussion but to ensure a complete and yet functional set of parameters by which exegesis can occur. It also prohibits merely random free-for-alls that have little meaning in the first place. Serious study is the goal rather than merely an accident. This Rule also recognizes the importance of the personal and individual nature of the Law of Thelema while ensuring the door remains wide open for more social interpretations.

Also, I will be the first to admit that the Rule was written in response to the "anything goes" crowd who believe that Thelema can mean anything at all no matter how silly or how obviously erroneous a conclusion may be. Unlike some who believe that Thelema means something different for every single individual, I side with Umberto Eco on this when he wrote, "I accept the statement that a text can have many senses. I refuse the statement that a text can have every sense." Dog can mean many different things. It can mean a Labrador Retriever, a Pug, a Border Collie, a German Shepherd, ad nauseam. But dog cannot mean cat. And it is for this simple reason that the Rule was designed. It is the buffer to maintain a sense of responsible exegesis against those who feel the need to insist that dogs are cats and Cthulhu really does, physically, slumber in the depths of the Pacific.

School, Car, Headaches, Moving On

2008-08-06T10:04:00.002-05:00

School

Summer II ends tomorrow. Then I only have two weeks (until 25 Aug) before the Fall semester begins. It's going to be a very busy time with the classes I'm taking. But, quite frankly, this is almost over. I need to spend this next semester also trying to figure out what I'm going to do after the Spring semester is over. I will graduate this first part of the Evul Master Plan and need to be determined where to go from here for the second part of the Plan. I'm no longer convinced that I must stay here (this physical location, I mean) to accomplish this. Too many other things lately have convinced me that it might be time to move on. My only concern there is ensuring Jinx gets placed in a good school no matter where we go.

However, I'm very aware that I stress myself out over school even though I have nothing to be stressed about. I make great grades, I haven't had a single professor that has said anything other than amazing comments and complements about my work, and I love what I'm doing and where I'm going with all this. I already have two faculty recommendations that, unsolicited, have been offered to me should I ever need them. Part of my fear of failure is that no matter how well I do, it's not good enough even when the proof is sitting there in front of me that I'm fine.

(Can you tell the current course in school is Psych? LOL!)

Car

The insurance is going to total my car over the hail damage. There is actually nothing at all wrong with my car. However, the damage costs throws it over a certain limit and it's a "total economic loss." Whatever. It's just fine. However, depending on the status of my title after the fact is going to be the determining factor. It would appear so far that my title will stay clear and I'll walk away with a bit of cash. I don't know that yet for sure, but that seems to be the way it's headed.

Headaches

I'm having headaches again and I think it has to do with the amount of stress lately. I'm supposed to be—in theory—in this partnership that is both mutually beneficial and domestically healthy. Of course, I seem to be the only one for whom is it neither beneficial nor healthy.

Moving On

Over the next six months to a year I'll be examining options for single fathers and school. It's very difficult as is to work as much as I do, go to school full time, and need the additional support to assist my son. I need an environment for us both that is not about spite or distrust or anxiety (mine especially). I'm aware that I have a major issue, psychologically speaking, that taints all my adult relationships. But that's the breaks and I'm dealing with it. But it doesn't mean that I'm a pushover or a doormat—even if that is the primary position I've found myself in throughout every relationship since 1991. Since I've figured out the source of the problem, I'm working to eliminate that defect in my mental inventory. I'm just finding it a bit more difficult than I originally thought it would be. I'm human. I'm dealing. Moving on now.

Thus ends my personal psych evaluation. Heh.

Remembering Gorilla Thelema

2008-08-06T06:58:00.001-05:00

For those who may remember, there was an idea that popped up called Gorilla Thelema. We had a LiveJournal group for a while.

But our first mission was to run out and plaster light poles (and other locations) with little flyers of a sort. It was a christening, one might say. This was late December 2006/early January 2007. They were just little cheep pieces of paper and eco-friendly, homemade glue. We worked a particular stretch of the freeway, hitting each intersection as we went and glued all four corners.

Over time, I've noticed that many of those little flyers have been removed or disappeared for any number of reasons. But there is one right next to my work that remains. It was the very first one posted.

I'm quite proud of this little trooper. It's lasted through a dozen storms, ice, snow, sleet, blistering heat, and more.

Earthseed 2024.3

2008-08-05T20:43:00.001-05:00

A gift of God
May sear unready fingers.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

WordPress: Thoughts and Considerations

2008-08-05T20:01:00.001-05:00

I've thought about moving my blog to WordPress. Not WordPress.org or anything like that, but just to their software and on my server. Given all the extras they have now from just the blogging areas to the static pages, I could probably get away with designing my whole site around it. I'm not sure though. It would also mean that I needed to figure out what to do with this site.

Anyone have good or bad things to say about WordPress?

Earthseed 2024.2

2008-08-05T09:34:00.001-05:00

All that you touch
You Change.

All that you Change
Changes you.

The only lasting truth
Is Change.

God
Is Change.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

First Precondition: Book of the Law

2008-08-05T07:52:00.003-05:00

As previously mentioned—and let me be equally as clear again here—I find this to be a most ridiculous place to start a discussion on the makeup of a thelemic worldview, but the nature of the beast—no pun intended—seems to suggest that we must start out here in order to eliminate the most obvious issues and objections first.

Therefore ...

The first precondition of a thelemic worldview is that it must, without any exceptions or qualifications, accept the veracity and validity of Liber AL vel Legis, the Book of the Law.

Nothing else added to that statement. It is my opinion that the rest falls into place once that precondition is affirmed, but there is nothing that must be added to that foundation in order for it to be a necessary cornerstone for a proper and balanced thelemic worldview.

The Book of the Law is self-referential. When asked by the Prophet and Scribe "write unto us the law" (AL 1.33), the immediate response was given: "the Law is for all" (AL 1.34). And then, finally, the clear identification of the Law itself. "This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law" (AL 1.35). The Book of the Law stands as the centerpiece of the Law of Thelema.

If there is one nice thing about Liber AL it is that we have the actual manuscript itself. I realize the other challenges that go with that but those are not the subject here. An extended review of this entire subject would be necessary and if I was going to do that, I'd write a book on the topic. (Wait. I am writing a book on the topic. My bad.) But since we do have the manuscript and it is in English, we don't really have a whole lot to worry about. Right? Right!? Okay. Admittedly there are other issues to worry about, but translation from one language to another and to another and back again is just not one of those worries. It could be worse. It could be all sigils like Liber Arcanorvm των Atu του Tahuti Quas Vidit Asar in Amennti. Good luck to you there.

There are other holy books included in the thelemic protocanon. All but one are penned by the Prophet himself. They range from oddly prophetic to instructional to inspirational in nature.

What does this precondition mean by no exceptions or qualifications? I'm not a fan of O.T.O. doctrines, but I do believe that they provide a very minimal and workable perspective on this subject allowing for the widest possible interpretation without eliminating any rational basis for moving past it. In order to join the Order, one must agree to accept the Book of the Law without changes. There is no actual qualification of what "accept ... without changes" means outside the affirmation that one accepts the Book of the Law without the need to add or subtract to the text itself. This is a very literal approach, but I see nothing that would prohibit such a notion from being a very minimal ideal. It make no claims as to how one accepts without change. That could be a very broad agnosticism or, just as easily, a fanatical blind adherence.

But further than this, there is the injunction within the Book of the Law itself that demands no changes. Twice it ensures its own textual integrity: "[The scribe] shall not in one letter change this book" (AL 1.36) and "The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!" (AL 2.54).

Having made it this far, I think that the objections based on history and language are sufficient to afford a pause to examine them here even if only briefly.

One of the objections to the Book of the Law is that Thelema (or Θελημα, to be proper) predates the text itself. And so it does.

The Ghost of Rabelais

Some will suggest that this is the same as Rabelais' "Abbey of Theleme" from Gargantua and Pantagruel that mirrors a phrase that has been variously interpreted as "Do what thou wilt" and "Do what you want." There is certainly no dispute that there is a direct link between Rabelais and the central tenet of the Law of Thelema. But to suggest that it is relevant is about as helpful as indicating DaVinci drew sketches of airplane-like objects centuries before the invention of the airplane and should be, somehow, ultimately credited with our ability to fly from New York to Beijing. However, that said, we should fully admit that Rabelais was probably tapping into some emerging sense of Thelema even then.

But was it the Law of Thelema? No.

Backing it Back to Augustine

Augustine provided us with the protothelemic understanding of "Love and do what you will." I sincerely doubt that anyone would mistake Augustine for a Thelemite. We should fully admit that Augustine was probably tapping into some emerging sense of Thelema even then.

But was it the Law of Thelema? No.

I think it is important to dive into a small tangent here if only to make Gerald a happy man.

Augustine, a couple of hundred years after the death of Christ, was not merely tapping into some kind of protothelemic ideal. It is my opinion that he was tapping into a particular "golden thread," so to speak, that exists unchanging but reframed throughout each of the Aeons. Call it the actual source of the covenantal aspects of the Law and the Aeons that I've been hinting around.

With the Law of Thelema it is the doctrine of "Love is the law, love under will" (AL 1.57). It is from here that we take our first steps out of the old Aeon and into the new. So, for us, Thelema has reframed Christianity's "for God so loved the world" (Joh 3.16 ESV) as much as Christianity reframed Judaism's "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (cf. Deu 6.5, Lev 19.18).

And Speaking of the Devil

Jesus' speeches and prayers were some of the first recorded uses of the Greek Θελημα in the New Testament. Probably the most famous and quoted is Christ's Model Prayer in which he says, "ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι της γης"—"Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Mat 6.10 ESV). The word Θελημα is used sixty times in the New Testament. And in every case it is used within a very narrow parameter of meaning.

But does mere word use make it the Law of Thelema? No.

Allow me to clarify a little something based on the perceptions of the Prophet: Crowley believed that the teachings of Christ was Thelema, but ended up in a twisted state by the disciples of Christ and packaged as Christianity instead. Personally, I'm not buying that, but I do understand why he would make such a claim. I just don't think it holds water very well. Whatever Crowley may have assumed about the teachings of Christ, they do not properly fall within the realm of thelemic doctrine. His teachings undergirds the Law of Thelema just fine and as much as the law of Moses (still) undergirds Christian doctrine. I find no contradiction or problem with this at all. It is just not a very popular opinion in those circles where open rebellion against Christianity (or any form of organized religion) is practiced. The desire to be seen as juvenile antinomians over balanced spiritual seekers displaces reason and the pragmatic pursuit of truth with untenable subjectivism and arrogance. My response to such people is: get over it already.

So, to recap here:

The first precondition of a thelemic worldview is that it must, without any exceptions or qualifications, accept the veracity and validity of Liber AL vel Legis, the Book of the Law.

Without the Book of the Law, there is no Thelema. There are many, many things that Thelema currently enjoys that could be eliminated without destroying the baseline of what defines Thelema, but the Book of the Law is not one of those things. It is a vital part of the foundation of Thelema itself. The Prophet wrote, "Accept the Law, and everything is lawful. Refuse the Law, you put yourself beyond its pale" (Liber ABA, Part IV, Chapter VIII).

This is, of course, the barest of examinations. It does no justice to the topic at hand nor to the subject of the Book of the Law itself. But for an online review, it should suffice for the moment as a baseline for further conversation and study.

Earthseed 2024.1

2008-08-04T20:34:00.001-05:00

Prodigy is, at its essence,
adaptability and persistent,
positive obsession. Without
persistence, what remains is an
enthusiasm of the moment. Without
adaptability, what remains may
be channeled into destructive
fanaticism. Without positive
obsession, there is nothing at all.

—Earthseed: The Books of the Living

To Continue ...

2008-08-04T18:41:00.001-05:00

Now that I've been able to clear my ~~vile~~ bile ducts, shall we continue where we left off previously?

I'm feeling a bit less stressful now.

Twisted Fairy Tale, Part III

2008-08-04T15:12:00.005-05:00

Continued from here ... which continued originally from here...

The thing about Little Red Riding Hood is that she had progressed from her treehumping to working with technology. It was real work and typically made more money than chasing after wolf's gold. Granted, it was still working with fools, but at least it was more dignified for the lady she was becoming.

~~And so Little Red Riding Hood and the prince who wasn't a prince but really a book-lovin' worm lived happily ever after with their spawn.~~

Right. Fat chance of that happening in this fairy tale ...

One day, as Little Red Riding Hood was staring off into a not-so magic mirror, she came to a sudden realization that she was missing out on life ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy had once showed her. It was the livin' la viva loco-weedo that allowed her to do all kinds of crazy things without a single ounce of personal responsibility. But the magic weed was just not really "kosher" anymore for a respectable princess like herself.

So she opened the evil djinn in a bottle and became a Raging Bitch™.

So as deer and antelope licked and frolicked, Raging Bitch™ decided that being like her real mommy was really okay. Of course, she would never admit that to herself. She just transformed in front of everyone's eyes to this ogre and violent lush. A lush is kind of like a lark except that they aren't pretty, can't sing worth a damn, can't flit around anywhere because they're too drunk to get out from under the last guy to give them a drink, and generally don't have wings anyway. So they really aren't much like a lark after all.

What Raging Bitch™ never seemed to realize—and the prince who wasn't a prince couldn't seem to get anyone to admit—was that her original spawn was watching all this and taking very careful notes. And what no one would understand is just how detailed and intricate those notes would be so that she too could go and do exactly the same thing to the very last detail in perfect reproduction of what she witnessed. Tragedy upon tragedy in this sad and sordid story.

So right under the nose of Raging Bitch™ her own spawn attempted to spawn again. But instead of actually spawning, she produced really bad, amateur pr0n. Really bad. Really amateur. Really illegal. Really very much like the Raging Bitch™ and ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy would have approved in the first place but would have been disappointed for having not thought of the opportunity first.

In the middle of all this, the prince who wasn't a prince and the second, littlest spawn of them all seemed to get pushed aside and forgotten. So they went their own way without actually leaving to go anywhere hoping that maybe their presence would be a beacon of hope and love. They even wore tie-dye shirts every once in a while in hopes that it would trigger some kind of good flashback.

Right. Fat chance of that happening in this fairy tale ... haven't you been reading?

Raging Bitch™ attempted to capture some of the Little Red Riding Hood that she was before but was so caught up in the glamour of the djinn and the new wolf pack she'd discovered that she continued to come back with soiled knees and sticky lips. After much heartache and toil, the world cracked in two and the fairy tale land separated from the real world. The spell over the bookworm was broken but his love for Little Red Riding Hood was so deep that he could not bear to leave her in the darkness of the Forest of Lackadaisical Efforts.

But, finally after enough was finally enough, the prince who wasn't a prince rediscovered his fire, packed up his own spawn, headed back to the university at the center of the world, and lived happily fucking ever outside of the fairy tale land that only produced pain and trouble. He left the Raging Bitch™, her pr0n spawn, and her real mommy to all stare at each other through their bong-colored crack pipes.

The End.

Epilogue: There was still room in the ivory tower for the beautiful, amazing, wonderful, and totally cool Little Red Riding Hood, but she demanded that her evil djinn in a bottle was to be allowed to cohabitate but that particular bottle of mixed spirits and the massive library of the university at the center of the world just don't mix very well. Too bad. So sad. Chopsticks.

The Epilogue's End.

Twisted Fairy Tale, Part II

2008-08-04T13:24:00.001-05:00

Continued from here...

Obligatory Flashback Without The Use Of LSD:

Hood-winked sat in the weed closet with ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy when something came over the woman like a bong hit from the gods or the channeling of a bad Jabba the Vader imitation.

She said to Hood-winked, "Hood-winked. I am your real mommy."

Hood-winked nodded and set some more of the weed on fire.

"No," the woman said again. "I am your real mommy. Join with me on the dark side of the forest." This time she got real close to Hood-winked's face when she said it and drew a picture in the smoke that looked almost but not quite like a white rabbit with a pocket watch.

Hood-winked finally got the message and that was that.

Skipping back to our story with a game of hopscotch before lunch:

Hood-wicked found the prince who wasn't a prince intriguing. He brought fire from outside the forest which made even the trees a bit less secure in their bark—and especially since they had no bite to speak of in the first place.

So she took off her clothes and blinded him with science. It was a match made in Purgatory. Or at least Limbo.

So Hood-winked took him to meet ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy and see if they couldn't pull off some kind of mesmerism on the prince who wasn't a prince. And it worked. The prince suddenly thought he was a prince instead of keeping in mind that he wasn't.

The prince who wasn't a prince was really a bookworm. Though he actually thought of himself as more of a worm who liked books. But once he got a hold of Hood-winked's extras, he was instantly hooked.

And the story goes downhill from there. We'll skip the sorted details. They were bad. They were horrible. They were worse than you can imagine. And then even more horribler and worser than that. It even defies all proper spelling. Yes. It was that bad.

Years go by and Hood-winked and ~~Stupid~~ the prince who wasn't a prince suddenly realized that they too had spawned and that the strange woman had somehow moved them from the oven into the frying pan that seemed more like garbage heap instead.

And that's when Hood-winked decided that enough was enough.

A True Miracle happened (and it wasn't a horse in a crazy Mel Brooks movie!) A princess stood up from the garbage pile and said, "We just ain't fuckin' doin' this anymore."

The bookworm agreed.

And life suddenly became brighter when they walked hand in hand in hand (they had spawned, one must remember) out of the forest and into the castle beyond the stars to leave the strange woman behind.

But behind every silver cloud there is a lead dagger and another forest full of wolves (and the strange woman that never really goes away—much like Darth Vader in a Star Wars movie). Hood-winked, though no longer hoodwinked, was still just another Little Red Riding Hood in a concrete jungle way too big for her common sense.

... to be continued ...

Twisted Fairy Tale, Part I

2008-08-04T10:55:00.002-05:00

Once Upon A Time ... Little Red Riding Hood was a beautiful little girl living with a King and Queen in an enchanted forest. She had everything a little princess could want. Except a real mommy.

One day a strange woman came out of the Forest of Lackadaisical Efforts and offered Little Red Riding Hood a weed. She claimed that it would do wonders for her attitude if she just set the weed on fire and sat in a closet with it for just a little while. The strange woman was right. Her attitude about life, the universe, and everything was completely different. She even felt like this strange woman might love her like a real mommy.

So the next day, Little Red Riding Hood (hereafter, to be call Hood-winked) set off following the breadcrumbs that the strange women left behind when she went back into the dark Forest of Lackadaisical Efforts. She eventually came to the strange woman's house which was strangely shaped like a large oven. And there she stayed until one day, quite unexpectedly, she spawned.

"Don't worry," ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy told her. "There is enough room here in ~~the oven~~ our shack for everyone."

Hood-winked had already dropped out of the royal academy because her real mommy had told her it was a waste of time.

"Why do all that work for a life you'll never have when you can sit around here and do nothing but sit in the weed closet all day? Isn't that much more fun than science or history or all those other things that you actually love to learn about?"

Hood-winked agreed that even though she truly loved history and science and learning about the wonders of the universe (like through her old telescope the King had bought her), the weed closet did hold a bit of a charming dullness to it. She laughed a lot more. And she was definitely a lot more hungry for brownies too. But she didn't care about things around her. They just didn't matter too much anymore.

The years passed by and Hood-winked found a new hobby. She figured out that if she took off her clothes, all the wolves in the forest would whistle and throw gold coins at her and that made ~~the strange woman~~ her real mommy very happy. The wolves also brought her lots of other things from the dark forest besides the weed that her real mommy had given her. Those didn't make her feel slow or dull but really fast and furious like she could ride any random wolf she chose all night long without getting tired. So Hood-winked continued to dance around the forest and ride as many wolves as would throw more coins at her. Since her real mommy spent her time relieving ~~the dwarves~~ anyone from their coin by trick or by treat, then Hood-winked figured that everyone was like that so she was okay to be like that too.

One day, a strange shadow of a man crossed her path. It was almost a prince but not quite. Instead of gold, however, he brought fire.

Hood-winked was intrigued.

... to be continued ...

Psych: Hammered

2008-08-04T08:33:00.001-05:00

Yup. She hammered me. That's okay. I still think I have the grades to make an A in the class. And there is, again, that extra credit which provides a potential of making up half what I just lost. Three days of class this week and it's over.

Ironically, my discussion board topic is over stress. Go figure.

Cracked

2008-08-03T17:01:00.001-05:00

I may have actually reached that place where my soul is cracked. My heart finally given over to silence. I don't know yet. It's a numbing feeling.

But I can laugh. An acquaintance wrote something in his blog that made me literally laugh out loud:

Had dreams about the end of time/the universe last night...but unlike most descriptions of the end it was Dark, Hot, Sticky, and over crowded.

Seems to be almost exactly like the last few days.

But at least I can still laugh.

Parable of the Sower

2008-08-03T13:47:00.002-05:00

Inspired by a blog post elsewhere, I've decided that I'm going to stop reading everything that I'm currently reading and read this little book again. I loved it the first time I read it and I've reread it several times over the years.

I have finished The Divine Milieu and it was truly incredible. I highly recommend it for anyone once they have made it through The Phenomenon of Man. I'm going to continue to work on my worldview posts, but I need a quick fiction break here before the Fall semester starts.

Also, I haven't received The Fire yet and I completely forgot about going out to find The Eight. I may do that later today once the wandering woman (who obviously has no qualms about the whole rolling over for breakfast or leaving a toothbrush around) finds her way back home with my car.

Mass on the Altar of the World

2008-08-03T11:58:00.001-05:00

Since once more, my Lord ... I have neither bread, nor wine, nor altar, I shall rise beyond symbols to the pure majesty of the real, and I shall offer you, I your priest, on the altar of the whole earth, the toil and the sorrow of the world.
—Teilhard de Chardin

Psych: Almost Over & Lesson Learned

2008-08-03T11:38:00.002-05:00

I took my final two exams this morning. Perfect scores on both. My professor still has not posted the grades for the previous discussion board topic, so I don't know if I've got my miracle or not. All things considered, I believe even if I do get slapped down on that grade that the rest of my grades are enough to maintain an A in this class.

The lesson learned here is that no matter how minor or short or how much I think it is insignificant, ensuring that all my deadlines (including the time of day) are noted in my calendar will prevent this particular issue from coming back up again. I've done that for both the previous semesters and never missed a deadline at all. So, yes, lesson learned.

So, one final discussion board topic due by Tuesday and it's all over. Then I get to gear up for Fall.

Preconditions of a Thelemic Worldview

2008-08-02T18:51:00.001-05:00

While I personally think this is a horrible way to start a study, it is an unfortunate necessity when it comes to any serious thelemic topic of discussion.

Christians usually start out their discussions on theology by debating the existence of their God. If their God exists then everything else in their religion falls into place nicely. The bible is valid because their God inspired it. Therefore if the bible is valid and inspired by their God then everything in it must be truthful. That's the abbreviated version, but it hits the highlights fairly if reductively and from there it merely rolls downhill gathering speed and moss.

I find it to be an interesting study by its own right that any religion necessitates discussing the validity of its sacred text before any discussion of its core beliefs. For if a god or set of gods or merely an intelligence higher than humanity is capable of communicating with man, then it seems that should be one of the first assumptions of a religion. When it comes to Thelema, however, it is my assertion that we approach our hierology very, very badly.

Personally speaking, I think that most Thelemites are backwards in their approach to religion and spirituality more than just about any other religion on the planet. But because there are so many that are caught up in the necroguruism of the last six decades, sometimes it takes a backwards approach to open the doors of the mind and soul to a different way of looking at Thelema.

The question was submitted to me by an outsider: what constitutes a thelemic worldview? I shall begin to endeavor to answer that question with as much direct evidence as I can.

Dietary Habits

2008-08-02T12:44:00.001-05:00

I'm a bit icky today again. I realize that I've been sickly (as opposed to outright sick) for a couple of weeks, but I've attributed that to maybe a small bug that hasn't been full-blown and just kind of sitting around waiting for the right conditions. But, in any case, I'm finally nailing down the whole "I eat, I get incredibly sick" parameters.

As much as I hate the thought of this, I think that I'm going to have to migrate away from most "muscle meats." It's mainly beef and pork. But not all of the varieties in those categories. I'm okay with bacon and sausage, but pork chops bring on the "effect." Steaks are out, but ground beef is in. Roasts are a bit of a dice roll at the moment. I'm not sure on those what the trigger is with that. Chicken doesn't seem to be a problem much. Seafood is still okay. And I can't find any connection to the way things are cooked. Medium (my preference) makes no difference in the end results from well-done.

I'm far from being a vegetarian and I'm not buying into the majority of those arguments about being vegetarian either. But I'm finding out that my body is adjusting again and I really need to keep up with it.

Aiming for As

2008-08-01T15:49:00.002-05:00

With the exception of my first math class (and that didn't really count since it was my prereq and not a "real" class), I've made straight As this time around in school. I'm quite proud of that fact even when there were a couple of times I wasn't sure I would make that grade.

However, in a short form class (like Summer II or the fast track classes) it doesn't take a whole lot to drop a letter grade. In this Psych class, it is a mere drop of 51 points from a perfect A to a B. Given that one exam is 30 points and a discussion board is 20 points for my response and another 20 points for my response to others' responses, it really only takes two major screw-ups and it's over on the straight A course.

Unless there is just a miracle from god in the next day or so, I've just cost myself a full 20 points (in one of those aforementioned discussion posts) through a stupid, stupid, stupid mistake. Up to that point I was only 6 points down from a perfect score. And, should this miracle pan out, I have the potential of closing that gap given the "extra credit" this professor throws at us (uh, name your favorite band for 5 extra credit points? hello?). But this was just a stupid mistake on my part. I still have the potential for an A, but I'm going to have to do wonders on the final discussion and last three exams. 14 points is a lot of mistakes that I just don't make, but I never say never. I can be just as dense as the next guy.

This class is over next Wednesday. I almost don't feel like I've been in class at all. But at least it's nearly done. Getting a B won't kill me, but I'll always know it was because I couldn't read a clock and not because I couldn't do the work.

Random Thought(s)

2008-07-31T15:29:00.004-05:00

Thelema is theistic. To what degree it is theistic is a very different subject. I think it is safe to suggest that Thelema falls into a mix of a panentheistic and henotheistic worldview with strains of agnostic theism or even agnostic open theism. Whatever it may end up being labeled and to what degree, it is nonetheless theistic at its core.

Thelema provides an avenue for the concepts and benefits of spiritual authority. It denies the theories of political and religious democracy while affirming a spiritual equalitarian approach on nearly every social and communal level. One of the major underlying problems, however, is the issue of authority that paradoxically runs contrary to the necroguruism instilled in most Thelemites by the writings and personality of Crowley himself.

Thelema does not hold to any dispensational worldview. There is no literal or scriptural basis for the view of the Aeons as given in the works of Crowley. This is not to suggest the Aeons are not valid, but they are not dispensational in nature.

Thelema currently enjoys a protocanonical corpus which remains open. It is not my task or intention to create or add to the Class A texts as provided through Crowley. However, it is obvious from even the inclusions and recommendations of certain non-Crowleyan texts that the Prophet did not believe his own writings formed the totality of a thelemic corpus. This particular canonical openness has its strengths and weakness which should be critically explored and utilized.

Thelema revolutionizes "philosophy, religion, ethics [and] the whole nature of Man." If we believe this—and I do—then our intellectual and philosophical activities should reflect this belief.

For those who, again, are a bit soft in the head, these are random thoughts. They may or may not be "true" or "accurate" in an hour, in the morning, or any day next week.
But it's got to be better than stringing together some Crowley quotes and calling it original, groundbreaking, or, in any way, some kind of creative thought.

Yuck

2008-07-31T08:02:00.001-05:00

I am very, very sick.

Bouncing Balls

2008-07-30T11:54:00.002-05:00

I understand your conviction [of the person being addressed, that is, not mine] regarding homosexualities ...

But do you understand that the Sun no longer revolves around the Earth? I need to understand that even just a few Christians have progressed this far in their scientific knowledge. Once we can get Christians to this little misunderstood concept, then we might eventually get them caught up with other scientific marvels and discoveries that have happened since the 1600s.

But, if like [the person being addressed in the original comment], someone can't grasp the concept of a heliocentric solar system (including that there are, actually, more than seven planets and the moon really isn't one of them), then trying to explain genetics to them is not going to be helpful. I've tried. Really, I have. But when you bounce a ball on the ground and simultaneously try to explain quantum singularities to a cave man, the bouncing ball will win out every time.

It's a rhetorical statement. I'll never understand some of these people. No sense of logic and solely based on straight (no pun intended) lack of any common sense.

Fall Semester (Updated)

2008-07-30T08:11:00.002-05:00

I'm headed to campus after work today to work with an advisor on filing my degree plan (finally). I'm still kicking myself for dropping a class last Spring and for not working through the Summer I session. I would be finished by Christmas if I hadn't done that. But it is what it is. It's definitely humbling.

For the Fall semester, it would appear that I'm going to have to take four classes. It also appears that my "computer course" that (allegedly) transferred in previously is no longer going to be honored. So I have to take another one. Big deal. However, that makes next semester look like this:

Anthropology 2346: Cultural Anthropology
Biology 1408: Biology for Non-Science Majors
Computer Science 1300: Introduction to Computers*
Cultural Studies 2370: Intercultural Competence*

Two of these classes are fast track* courses. One at the beginning of the semester and one at the end that starts three days after the first one is over. That gives me two full semester courses and really only three courses at any one time to minimize the load overall. Given that I am going to royally suck at Biology, it will definitely help to not be overloaded ~~while trying to find my penis from my femur~~. (That was crude. Sorry. I really do know where my femur is...)

That leaves a mere three classes for the Spring—Speech (again), Advanced Humanities, and Physics—and I'll be done with this first stage of the Evul Master Plan ~~to Take Over the World~~.

Trolls & Truth: Or, The Truth About Trolls

2008-07-29T21:52:00.004-05:00

I've been called a lot of things in my life. Insincere has never been one of those things.

That said, I tend to think outside the box and outside my head quite a bit. And quite often in my blog. This is my blog, right? I realize that there are some who believe that if you read it on the entar-web-thing that it must be true. I'm here to tell you that just because you read it here does not mean I believe it. Unless, of course, I say words of something along the lines of "Here is what I believe about ..." And even then it probably won't last a week. We can even put money on that one.

But an example is in order for the weak-minded: the sky is deep scarlet yellow.

For those boys and girls who can't tell truth from a religion stuck up their ass, that would not be a true statement. You do not need to believe it yourself or warn me that I might be barking up a strange tree.

Most likely I've posted such a ridiculous notion on purpose. Call it my need to touch base with my Xaos Magick roots. *sigh*

Random Thought

2008-07-29T13:06:00.004-05:00

Thesis: If Christianity is proved false or invalid in any way, then Thelema falls on its face as equally invalid. The Law of Thelema and, in fact, all thelemic doctrine requires a historically valid Christianity in order to produce the particular nuance of change it introduces through the revelation of the Book of the Law.

[long, quiet pause inserted here for dramatic purposes only]

Now, go think on that a while so as I can ponder the meaning of this strange heresy in peace.

Edit: Close but no cigar even though, around here, a cigar is never merely a cigar.

A Small Study Updated

2008-07-29T10:48:00.001-05:00

For those not keeping count for this word study, I have discovered this morning that I missed forty (40!!!) references to the word θελημα in the bible.

Here is an updated list. You can look them up if you want. Not all of them are translated "will" but at least one is actually given as "pleasure" (e.g., Rev 4.11) in the King James Version. The English Standard has a completely different translation and meaning in that verse. Odd.

Anyway ... the list:

Mat 6.10, 7.21, 12.50, 18.14, 21.31, 26.42
Mar 3.35
Luk 12.47, 22.42, 23.25
Joh 1.13, 4.34, 5.30, 6.38, 6.39, 6.40, 7.17, 9.31
Act 13.22, 21.14, 22.14
Rom 1.10, 2.18, 12.2, 15.32
1Co 1.1, 7.37, 16.12
2Co 1.1, 8.5
Gal 1.4
Eph 1.1, 1.5, 1.9, 1.11, 2.3, 5.17, 6.6
Col 1.1, 1.9, 4.12
1Th 4.3, 5.18
2Ti 1.1, 2.26
Heb 10.7, 10.9, 10.10, 10.36, 13.21
1Pe 2.15, 3.17, 4.2, 4.19
2Pe 1.21
1Jn 2.17
Rev 4.11

This isn't just a little connection. This is huge. Some are welcome to use Rabelais' particular usage of the word, but I think that it's a bit shortsighted and, more to the point, using the novel to define the standard to slide around the direct meaning of the word itself.

Psych: Huh?

2008-07-28T14:54:00.002-05:00

So this week's discussion topic is Do you think that Internet Addiction Disorder should be added in the next revision to the DSM...

Um. Internet Addiction Disorder? Huh?

I already don't think that most disorders are disorders. Pathological gambling disorder? Can we say "consequence avoidance"?

Maybe I'm more old fashioned than I thought, but there was a time in this world that if you spent all your money gambling and couldn't pay your bills, there were consequences. A 12-Step Program was not one of those consequences!

But now we live in a society that even banks don't have to face the consequences of their own actions. Why should the regular person?

I realize that I spend 28 hours of my 24 hour day on the computer. I got it. But that's what I do: work, play, relaxation, research, school. I don't think that makes it a disorder.

But maybe I'm just in denial ... who knows!?!

Drinking the Christian Kool-Aid

2008-07-28T10:44:00.006-05:00

I so wanted to post this ... But I'm trying to be a good boy. Really. I am.

I'm so glad that you didn't drink the Copernican kool-aid about our planet revolving around the Sun. I mean, how silly is that, right? All that scripture about the truth of geocentricity the Church had to suddenly reinterpret as "the author's perspective" just made God look like a fool and a liar and really hurt the Church's credibility as the bastion of infallible capital-T-Truth in all areas of life. I'm really glad that people like you and these guys are out there proclaiming the literal word of God to all people. Those silly homosexuals thinking those condemnations were all just culturally bound prejudices of the early Church. Man, what a crock! Praise God for people like you proclaiming the truth even against the geneticists and those fake gay-by-birth people. The ungodly evidence of science and those fake astronauts on their sound stage can't be far behind. I'll bet at this rate those satanic evolutionists will cave in to the IDers any day now.

Monday Steamroller

2008-07-28T08:50:00.001-05:00

I shouldn't even be here this morning.

More Peter's Pepper Picking

2008-07-27T11:05:00.001-05:00

So, continuing on with my exegesis project, the next two verses seemed to go a bit easier. They are shorter, but I found that there is a difficulty in grasping tense. I wrack this up, again, to my ignorance of translation. But overall, I don't think I did that bad. My own work is very close in wording to the other two exemplars I've chosen for comparison even when the syntax is clearly incorrect.

1 Peter 1.14

(Westcott-Hort)— ως τεκνα υπακοης μη συσχηματιζομενοι ταις προτερον εν τη αγνοια υμων επιθυμιαις

(bishop literal)— Even as [a] child [of] obedience [do] not conform to the past in the ignorance you desire,

(bishop reformed)— Even as a child of obedience do not conform to the past which in ignorance you desire,

(King James Version)— As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:

(English Standard Version)— As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,

The semantics on v.14 seem pretty close. The KJV used lusts and the ESV used passions. I used desire but also seem to have a bit different stress than the other two. The focus of the other two seem to be not conforming to the former lusts in ignorance. Mine seems to be not conforming to the past which is still desired (or lusted after) out of ignorance. Quite frankly there may not be a whole lot of difference in the two renderings other than what I sense in my head.

1 Peter 1.15

(Westcott-Hort)— αλλα κατα τον καλεσαντα υμας αγιον και αυτοι αγιοι εν παση αναστροφη γενηθητε

(bishop literal)— Nevertheless (indeed, therefore) through the bidding (calling forth) your sacred (holy, blameless, pure) also (then) you (yourself) sacred (holy, blameless, pure) among (in, through) all behavior (conversation) become

(bishop reformed)— Nevertheless, through the bidding (calling forth) of your holiness, then you should become holy in all your behavior.

(King James Version)— But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;

(English Standard Version)— but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,

With v.15, I couldn't really figure out how they got the first "he" in there. I see that it makes sense, but I cannot determine which word in the Greek actually provided that particular nuance. Clearly, my translation is erroneous at best. I think I hit the main points, but it falls short on too many levels to be considered functional or even correct.

So, I'm off to have lunch with my Dart and then back to start this week's school work. I might have time to do the next two verses later tonight.

So, St. Peter Says Phooey!

2008-07-26T22:50:00.002-05:00

This is mirrored from the Theological site post tonight ...

I started my exegesis project today. It's more than that, of course. I'm actually working through the Greek and seeing if I can create a sentence from the Greek (without looking at the English first) that will approximate the English at least close enough to see that I'm on the right track.

I assure you this is no easy task. And the first sentence is enough to make me wonder if I'm even studying for the right change of career in life. The problem is, of course, that I don't have the first clue about what I'm doing. However, I have good tools. So, the first verse is 1 Pet 1.13. Keep in mind, of course, that it is a straight translation without comparing it to the surrounding text for contextual clues or hints as to how this might properly read.

(Westcott-Hort)— διο αναζωσαμενοι τας οσφυας της διανοιας υμων νηφοντες τελειως ελπισατε επι την φερομενην υμιν χαριν εν αποκαλυψει ιησου χριστου

(bishop literal)— Therefore gird your hips [and] your imagination discreetly completely (without wavering) hoping (expecting) soon to bear your joy to (at) [the] manifestation [of] Jesus Christ.

(bishop reformed)— Therefore secure your body and your mind, discreetly and without wavering, expecting soon to bear your joy to/at the manifestation of Jesus Christ.

(King James Version)— Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

(English Standard Version)— Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I can see why grace was used there, all things considered. I don't see that as a major change. It could have been any number of words: benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy, liberality, pleasure. I picked joy but I could have just as easily picked pleasure.

The word φερομενην must have some additional meaning to it that I'm not seeing. Both the KJV and the ESV translated that as to be brought or that will be brought. I just don't see that in the definition. The word means to bear, to carry, and to endure. I would say that it's obvious my translation of this word is incorrect. I'm not sweating it right now. This is a project, not a final exam.

There is that word again that I love—αποκαλυψει—apocalypse. It means to unveil but it can also mean manifestation. I went with manifestation due to context rather than personal preference.

I left the to and the at in there. I never really could make up my mind as to which I thought was better. I see the other translations now, but I think that either one could have worked.

The novel expression to gird one's hips is nifty but archaic. But I find that I'm not understanding why the others translate that section as the loins of your mind (KJV) or minds (ESV). The section is τας οσφυας της διανοιας and is literally your loins your imagination. Maybe there is a silent of in there that my inexperience with this kind of thing just doesn't know to add. It would seem to me that and works just as well and provides a much more robust translation of body and mind. However, I fully admit this is my error of ignorance.

In the big picture, I don't think I really came up with a different translation in my attempt. It doesn't read as nicely, but it's functional with the same intent in meaning as the other two. Or I think it does at least. I'm not using my translations for the exegesis project. This is just so that I can work the verses themselves at a more granular level.

So ... I'm off to a start. I can see this is going to take a while, but this little bit has certainly inspired me to continue forward. I will do a translation and comparison on each verse within the chosen pericope first. Then I will back up again and use my notes to compare some various commentaries with my initial thoughts. And then I will begin the formal exegesis and see where that takes me.

But I think St. Peter is leaning over the edge of heaven going, "Phooey! Jesus, dat'fool doesn't have the first clue what's he doing. Why don't you send someone to help that idiot out?" I think Jesus is just laughing at me.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

2008-07-26T19:24:00.001-05:00

My mother died the day after Christmas last year (2007). I still have mixed feelings about the whole thing. But I was genuinely grateful to those who came up to me at the funeral and afterwards and said that our family was in their prayers and thoughts. People from all kinds of backgrounds and ways of life offered my family comfort from the bottom of their hearts and beliefs.

Not all of them, I know, held my parents religious beliefs.

Most didn't hold mine, to be sure.

But I didn't question their sincerity or beliefs in relation to mine or even in relation to my parent's. It was just something I knew that they would do. There is a comfort to that.

There is something that I think Christians miss a whole lot when it comes to interacting with other religions. While I'm certainly no angel or even role model in this regard, I do think that we tend to do better at it.

In the true religion there is no sect, therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God; for if thou do this thing in Jupiter thou wilt blaspheme יהוה and in Osiris יהשׁוה. Ask and ye shall have! Seek, and ye shall find! Knock, and it shall be opened unto you!

God Talks

2008-07-26T15:38:00.001-05:00

My unposted reply. My posted reply was much shorter.

While I totally disagree with you on so many things (ie. Trinity), even this, I have to say that was a really solid post which brought out an interesting concept that I have never heard anyone contemplate.

If we all agreed on everything, wouldn't that be a really boring world in which to live? Besides, it seems that there is a handful of people here that actually ask all the cool questions. It's too easy to scripturally debate the Trinity. Either the evidence is there or it isn't. But to explore the real world, past and present and future, through the revelation of God in both its special and natural revelations, is something that takes a lifetime and more than a single perspective.

Just to be sure I understand you, you are saying that the method God uses for inspiration changes as God further reveals himself through time?

Premise 1: God communicates to humans. True.

From here it gets touchy, but let's exist within a fairly orthodox bubble to sustain civil discussion.

Premise 2: The bible—as it is understood today in its canonical form—is the Word of God as he intended it to be read, studied, and applied. True.

The issue is not with God's Word but with you. Assuming the second premise, then God has already provided all the special revelation he's going to provide (i.e., the bible). This does not exclude the general revelation from God (i.e., Nature) which must also be taken into account. However, you are not a static creature. I don't believe that God designed humans beings to be static creatures. You grow in body, mind, and spirit over time.

Does God's Word change over time? That depends on which revelation we're examining. If we accept the second premise, then no. The Word of God does not change over time. But we, as humans, do. Therefore our understanding, knowledge, and application of God's Word can and will change over time. Does this mean that God's Word can be applied differently throughout time based on individual maturity, developing culture, and spiritual need? Absolutely.

If I use the word 'baptism' in a sentence, that could mean any number of things in both theory and practice. Context, as someone said, is king. A full study of baptism may provide us with a great cultural understanding of baptism in the first century, but how does that apply—hypothetically, of course—on a desert planet such as Arrakis (and assuming the underground sietches are unknown)? Whole application changes in the manner in which baptism is practically applied to a group of individuals can occur without a single change to the semiotic connection with its purpose. In short, does the variance in application of baptism change the meaning of baptism itself? No.

In fact, as a mental challenge, examine exactly what would change, if anything at all, in the meaning of baptism from its apparent semiotic purpose in the New Testament if the physical component of baptism was sand instead of water.

And then ask yourself one question: Did the Word of God actually change or did I find a new application of that same Word of God which provides meaning, stability, and application to my current circumstances through a variance in perspective?

Premise 3: God never changes. True or False.

There's the key to the whole mess. Does your god ever change? I would argue that he does. Some would find that to be heresy. But I find that if a principle in nature cannot be applied to the creator of that nature then it is a false principle. Since nature changes, God changes. If God changes then his revelation through time might be capable of changing too. If the revelation is capable of changing, then we find ourselves in a religious paradox for which orthodox Christianity has yet to find a solution (of which I am aware, at least).

And then we see where bishop jumped off the orthodox Christian bandwagon. To stay with our Dune theme here, "a fixed solution, by definition, is a dead solution." If something does not grow, change, mutate over time, then it is not alive. I believe in a living god. Orthodox Christianity, despite all its arrogant posturing to the contrary, only offers a dead one. And then most will quote dead words written on dead tress to support their dead ideas.

How does it practically work itself out?

For me, it works out on a practical level of understanding that I don't understand it all and probably never will. The vastness of God is not something that can be contained in two inches of paper and leather covers. But it's a start. It's a manual of ideas and concepts to explore. They say the devil is in the details. I disagree. I think it's God in the details. The minute I get to a place where I believe that I have learned everything there is to learn, or grow in every way it is possible to grow, I might as well blow my head off. That kind of stagnation would not be living but merely another form of being dead.

Saturday

2008-07-26T14:36:00.001-05:00

I'm sick. I just got up too a bit ago. But I'm miserable. I think it's something I ate, but I'm not sure what since no-one else around here is sick. It could be just the way something settled rather than the food itself.

I also have to take my last Psych test today. I have until tomorrow, but I really want to get it out of the way and start on next week's readings.

I'm probably going to start on my translation phase of my exegesis later in the afternoon/early evening depending on how I feel. I just think it'll be fun and will be a great "stickin' my toe in the water" for this project to get off the ground.

Just for Fun

2008-07-26T00:10:00.002-05:00

I think I might write a post entitled, "Jesus: The Wickedest Man In The World ..." based solely on the evidence in the Gospels.

I wonder what kind of response that would garner?

I wonder how many Christians would actually get it? I wonder how many Christians would understand the context ...? I wonder how many Thelemites would actually grok the connection?

Maybe I will ...

The Fire

2008-07-25T23:26:00.001-05:00

As many know, I'm on LibraryThing. I'm also one of the those Early Bird people that aims for books each month. I've done two so far that were total bombs. And I mean total bombs. But this time I aimed at fiction rather than my usual esoteric faire and I struck gold—I think.

I'll leave this with the publisher's info here, but it would appear that merely because of this introduction, I'm going to have to run find the first book (twenty years old already and just now a sequel?) to read it first. So it would look like I need to find The Eight before my copy of The Fire gets here.

Katherine Neville's groundbreaking novel, The Eight, dazzled audiences more than twenty years ago and set the literary stage for the epic thriller. A quest for a mystical chess service that once belonged to Charlemagne, it spans two centuries and three continents, and intertwines historic and modern plots, archaeological treasure hunts, esoteric riddles, and puzzles encrypted with clues from the ancient past. Now the electrifying global adventure continues, in Neville's long anticipated sequel: The Fire.

2003, Colorado: Alexandra Solarin is summoned home to her family's ancestral Rocky Mountain hideaway for her mother's birthday. Thirty years ago, her parents, Cat Velis and Alexander Solarin, believed that they had scattered the pieces of the Montglane Service around the world, burying with them the secrets of the power that comes with possessing it. But Alexandra arrives to find that her mother is missing and that a series of strategically placed clues, followed swiftly by the unexpected arrival of a mysterious assortment of houseguests, indicates that something sinister is afoot.

When she inadvertently discovers from her aunt, the chess grandmaster Lily Rad, that the most powerful piece of Charlemagne's service has suddenly resurfaced and the Game has begun again, Alexandra is swept into a journey that takes her from Colorado to the Russian wilderness and at last into the heart of her own hometown: Washington D.C.

1822, Albania: Thirty years after the French Revolution, when the chess service was unearthed, all of Europe hovers on the brink of the War of Greek Independence. Ali Pasha, the most powerful ruler in the Ottoman Empire, has angered the sultan and is about to be attacked by Turkish forces. Now he sends the only person he can rely upon–his young daughter, Haidee–on a dangerous mission to smuggle a valuable relic out of Albania, through the mountains and over the sea, to the hands of the one man who might be able to save it.

Haidee's journey from Albania to Morocco to Rome to Greece, and into the very heart of the Game, will result in revelations about the powerful chess set and its history that will lead at last to the spot where the service was first created more than one thousand years before: Baghdad.

Blending exquisite prose and captivating history with nonstop suspense, Neville again weaves an unforgettable story of peril, action, and intrigue.

Chess. Intrigue. Mysticism. Oh Hell Yeah!

How Was Your Day?

2008-07-25T16:27:00.001-05:00

Mine went like this (and the graphic link is thanks to my buddy, Rasputen):

I know there is a God because there are Fridays in every week!

The Problem with Fundamentalists

2008-07-25T10:03:00.002-05:00

Let's be clear about something. By Fundamentalist, here, I do not mean "those who hold to the fundamentals." I mean the derisive term that goes with religious fanatics of any flavor of any religion.

Good. That's out of the way now.

The jackass has left the building. Yeah. That one. The one that couldn't figure out how fast to burn gays in hell without opening his bible to find that Christ said love your neighbor not start a bonfire of the vanities. He packed up his ball and went home (apparently). I know. I've almost done the same thing a couple of times and I get shamed (and I don't mean that in a bad way) into staying and I have stayed because, first, I know I'm learning something and, second, I like many of these people and I've started to grow particularly fond of some that I'd like to get to know better.

But the problem with Fundamentalists is that once they've picked their position of battle there is nowhere left to go. It's like being stuck in a well without a rope. The minute someone throws a hand grenade in the well it's all over. Of course, Fundamentalist don't believe in hand grenades so they never see them coming. They are unprepared.

This doesn't mean that I don't believe there are fundamentals in any religion. Even our religion has fundamentals. I realize that there has been no agreement by anyone on what those are, but we're babies in a big world of religion that has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. Even the Christians have more practice at religion than we do. I just think we've gone about this all wrong in the first place.

Having unity in the fundamentals does not mean that we have to have uniformity in the application or even in the approach to those fundamentals. But it also requires that we might just have to give up some of our own personal pet favorites as essentials to what is considered fundamental. This doesn't make them any less important to you or the half-dozen others who share your views, but it does mean that not everyone needs to believe like you in order to still be part of the team. This is one reason why I am working on becoming more familiar with the tiered approach to doctrine, issues, and themes. I think it is important to properly define what unities us, what divides us, and what makes for great dinner conversation but isn't particularly important either way.

The problem I have with Crowley's approach (and the subsequent approach of those who find "worshiping" the messenger as something much more important than pursuing the message) is that it does not take into consideration the proper level of essentials. His position assumes that everyone will come to some kind of similar thought on the matter of interpretation (or just not interpret anything at all—a perfectly naive and ridiculous view, in my opinion) and we will all get along with great sex, great food and wine, great drugs, and a little bit of foam sword sparing in the background.

Hello? Can we pull our collective asses out of the fantasy realm for just one cotton-pickin' minute?

I am in the process of developing my idea for The Secret College. It is only "Secret" because the name sounds cool. It's only a "College" because we will do something fairly academic thinking. And the 'The" is in there because it just didn't sound right to say "A" secret college when it is really not a secret or a college. I'm going to recruit eleven (hopefully diverse) people to enter into a conversation, into a new game. This is a first stage step into something larger. I'm going to ask them to leave their preconceived notions and preformed doctrines at the door. I'm going to ask them to enter into a conversation where the old rules are no longer on the table and the new rules are uncomfortable.

And then I'm going to ask them to reason together.

Wanna take a ride?

Small Miracle

2008-07-24T17:26:00.001-05:00

There is no small miracle that the Book of the Law was revealed in English. I mean, that doesn't make exegesis any easier, but can you imagine if we had to wade through two to four different languages before we got to the English?

I have at least a little sympathy for the Christians who wade through this stuff. It's tough. It's not really hard once you start working through it. So much has already been laid down and is good material, but the research—for someone who might not want that kind of digging—is tremendous.

Someone wrote in another blog I read today that he thought every Christian should memorize a scripture (or was it more than one, I forget now) in the original languages. It would change their perspective on things.

I agree. It's changed mine. I am struggling to find someone to help me with Greek. I need someone who is either fluent in New Testament Greek or wants to learn as bad as I do. :(

But ... anyway ... there are small miracles in this universe!

Psych: Biological Intent?

2008-07-24T13:18:00.002-05:00

Removing this tumor would mean that Mr. X personally didn't intend to kill his wife or be abusive they were actions projected through him by this effects his tumor had to his amygdala.

I think you've slipped into a bit different area here, but I also think it is worth examining at least briefly.

"Removing this tumor would mean that Mr. X personally didn't intend to kill his wife or be abusive" is a very interesting perspective. I'm not sure that removing the tumor itself would be any indication as to his intent. It would seem that he actually did intend to kill his wife. There may be several contributing factors, but I think the fact that he did kill his wife shows intent. The evidence provided does not suggest that he accidentally bumped into a ladder on which she stood and she fell to her death. Did the tumor contribute to his dismissal of certain emotional factors that may have prohibited him from killing his wife? Maybe. There are some cultures that would suggest that a man has the right to kill his wife for any number of irrational (to us) reasons. But I would doubt that every man who kills his wife has a biological agent affecting his capacity for murder or mercy. We can attest that there are certainly some factors of the biological agent that has a contributive affect, but I'm not sure we can blame the tumor entirely for the intent or the final outcome.

Responding to Sara Buttine

Psych: ADHD and Responsibility

2008-07-24T13:02:00.001-05:00

My friend is ADHD, and gets in trouble all the time. He says the he can't help it, he didn't take his medicine. That was his excuse for everything. Should he get treated differently from the rest of us even though he breaks the rules? No. Should he get excused from causing a scene in class because he forgot his medicine? No.

I think this is an excellent example. Both my son and I are ADHD. I no longer require medication (and haven't since my teens) while he has finally stabilized on his meds. Observing my son on or off his meds is like watching the difference in night and day. However, that said, one of the things that I consistently remind him (and his teachers) is that a lack of meds is no excuse for bad behavior. His ADHD impairs his ability to focus. It does not remove his ability to focus. Put him down in front of a good movie, or a video game, or something else mentally engaging and that focus issue is "suddenly" under control again. So does his biology affect him? Yes. Does it mean that he's not responsible for his action both on and off his meds? No. His meds only assist him in that control over his behavior; they do not provide the control itself.

I think you've made a great observation here.

Responding to Lance Wiley

Psych: Biology, Morality, and Mr. X.

2008-07-24T12:10:00.002-05:00

Topic: Imagine the case of Mr. X: an ill-tempered, abusive husband, prone to impulsive anger. One day, in a fit of rage, he takes a hammer and bludgeons his wife to death. He is convicted, and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Once in prison, a brain scan reveals a large tumor in his amygdala. Doctors operate and successfully remove the tumor. After the operation, Mr. X's behavior changes dramatically. He is no longer hostile or aggressive, and becomes a model prisoner. All who work with him agree that he has become a "new man."
Suppose that the doctors working with Mr. X determined that, the tumor did influence his behavior. Is the "new" Mr. X responsible for his earlier behavior? Why or why not?
Should biology be considered when determining if someone is guilty of a crime? If so, under what circumstances?
What should be done with him now and why?

Response: This is such a controversial topic that becomes highly polarized between religion and science. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde comes to mind. At what point does biology end and morality begin? What do we consider when we know there are genetic and biological predispositions we can trace (science) but run counter to moral assumptions based on any number of external factors (religion)?

In this strange case of Mr. X, and using only the facts as presented, we have a man who verifiably committed murder. The legal implications are clear. Commit the crime, do the time. And I would be more than willing, personally speaking, to stop there. But that's neither a good indication of the underlying factors nor does it actually confront the issue of responsibility. Was Mr. X responsible for his actions even knowing, after the event, that a tumor impaired his judgment? I think the key is in the impairment not the overriding of his judgment. Did the tumor make him more prone to aggression and eventual homicide? Yes. But is he ultimately responsible for his actions? Yes. Therefore Mr. X should stay in jail.

There are many different things which affect or impair our judgment on a daily basis. Whether anyone likes the implications or not, coffee alone affects judgment. I know, for me, I can drink enough to be bouncing off the walls and completely out of my mind. This moves into the Twinkie Defense, but I'm not convinced personally that being impaired in judgment is the same as lacking the ability to judge or exert self-control. I usually fall on the side of "Did you violate someone's right to life that cannot be claimed as self-defense or unavoidably accidental? Yes? Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."

One of the problems with this line of biological excuse for actions is that we can take it one step further. If a tumor, and not the man, is responsible for the homicide then we just remove the tumor and we can remove responsibility. How much more difficult is it to go from removing biological matter to manipulating genes and creating a monster problem in either direction: that is, we can remove a person's genetic disposition toward violence, alcoholism, homosexuality, politics or we can add dispositions for passivity, martial obedience, workhorse class (slavery). At what point do we decide that everything is biology instead of choice?

I don't think there is a fast and easy answer to this. I think it is a combination of things that have to be taken into consideration. But I don't think we can escape the consequences of our behavior on merely biological grounds or dismiss biological factors as completely subservient to behavioral control. Either extreme is a dangerous position to hold.

Why?

2008-07-24T10:57:00.002-05:00

I think I'm still a bit on the mood swing from yesterday. I truly want to cry. I hate my job with such a passion but I can't get another one that allows for the flexibility that I have for school. Starting at the bottom of a food chain in another company would destroy my chances of finishing school on any acceptable schedule. But this job continues to go from bad to worse on a near weekly basis. Now they've added another worthless hour, unpaid, to my day. It's already an hour lost in each day that I have to drive into the office. Given that this deal I have now won't last past August, that's five days a week back in the office since they lied, again, about implementing the work-at-home deal for us as we had last year. But now I have to "take a lunch" at some kind of preordained time of the day.

First, I don't do lunch time. It's a waste of my time. I don't leave the building. It's not worth it. Gas is too expensive. And money is really tight. If you can't eat lunch on a business day in 30 minutes or less, you're either a glutton or an idiot.

Second, I'm not getting paid to stare at walls so that you feel better about holding down the rules. Give me a lunch break at the end of my shift and I can just go home and save myself an hour of wasted time. Studying for school at work is like trying to listen to Mozart on your MP3 Player while on the front row of a Metallica concert.

Third, I'm the only employee with this "problem" therefore this sudden implementation isn't a departmental issue. It's a "how can we make bishop any more fucking miserable than we have already" implementation. Ever since my "warning" it has become more and more apparent that my boss sits around thinking about this shit. That and the emails yesterday reaming me about the number of calls I closed. It's been a slow week overall. And? It happens. Our business goes in cycles. What's so hard about understanding that? Some days I get 20-25 calls to deal with. Other days I get 4. So what? That's normal. Why act like it's not unless you have an axe to grind?

Take for instance this morning. I've been staring at the queue for thirty minutes. The same two calls have been sitting there the entire time. No additional calls at all added. And somehow I'm supposed to materialize calls out of my ass? This kind of approach is going to make people start creating fake calls or stealing closed calls from others like one dude did yesterday. Great morale booster. But given the goosesteppers that I work with, I'm sure this comment will get back to them like the last one did. I no longer care. I just can't wait to get all this school done.

So tell me again why there are no patrons of the arts and sciences in society anymore?

A Diversion of Sorts

2008-07-23T20:50:00.005-05:00

Here. Play with this if you want. It's what I will be translating as well next weekend.

Διο ἀναζωσάμενοι τας ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν, νήφοντες, τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπι την φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς μη συσχηματιζόμενοι ταῖς πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ ὑμῶν ἐπιθυμίαις, ἀλλα κατα τον καλέσαντα ὑμᾶς ἅγιον και αὐτοι ἅγιοι ἐν πάσῃ ἀναστροφῇ γενήθητε· διότι γέγραπται· ἅγιοι γένεσθε, ὅτι ἐγω ἅγιος εἰμι. Και εἰ πατέρα ἐπικαλεῖσθε τον ἀπροσωπολήμπτως κρίνοντα κατα το ἑκάστου ἔργον, ἐν φόβῳ τον τῆς παροικίας ὑμῶν χρόνον ἀναστράφητε, εἰδότες ὅτι οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου, ἀλλα τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου και ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ, προεγνωσμένου μεν προ καταβολῆς κόσμου, φανερωθέντος δε ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν χρόνων δι ὑμᾶς τους δι αὐτοῦ πιστους εἰς Θεον τον ἐγείραντα αὐτον ἐκ νεκρῶν και δόξαν αὐτῷ δόντα, ὥστε την πίστιν ὑμῶν και ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς Θεόν.

~~Have fun!~~

Scratch that ... everytime I paste the text, it changes in different places. It won't just straight paste. Sorry!

Wednesday

2008-07-23T09:26:00.001-05:00

I have nothing to write other than irritations here at work. I don't want to write about those. So I won't. It's really slow, so that whole "gotta close X-number of calls a day" just doesn't float. I'll never understand companies that think they can set a minimum and then don't plan for the inevitable "it doesn't work that way in real life" events.

I'm full of doubt today. It's an emotional swing. It'll pass. I know this. It just never feels that way in the middle of it.

There's nothing wrong. There's nothing out of place. There's nothing that is bad. There is nothing broken. There is nothing to fix.

There is nothing.

And that feels empty sometimes. Other times it's a good thing.

Just not today.

Pandemonium

2008-07-22T20:12:00.005-05:00

Speaking of Pandemonium, I finished the Second Sketch Edition (Red Letter Version) earlier today. Of course, I uploaded it—you can find the link to the copy on the right hand bar—and just looked at it to realize that I forgot to put the headers/footers back in with all the pages numbers and stuff.

Sometimes I really am an idiot.

~~I'll fix it tomorrow.~~ I'm going to bed. I think.

~~(Edit: Actually, I see a couple of things that should have been fixed before replacing version 1 out there. Oh well. Tomorrow.)~~

(All better now.)

Transcending Beauty

2008-07-22T15:59:00.001-05:00

I was reading this afternoon ...

It was not the absence of light that disturbed him. It was the comfort of the darkness. Someone once said, "Be careful when you hunt monsters that you do not become one yourself." The story of Beauty and the Beast was not one of a woman redeeming a man, but of a single individual finding that the beauty can see through the facade of the demonic and unite the two in a union that transcends both 'beauty' and 'beast.'
—Pandemonium: A Myth of Obsession and Insanity

I think I was naive to think it would be a graphic novel or illustrated manuscript by now. It's my own fault ... as is all failed projects. I have no one to blame but the face in the mirror.

WTF?

2008-07-22T11:53:00.001-05:00

How does she do that?

I think it's because she has red hair. That's got to be it!

Remind me never to get on her bad side ...

(And for those who don't "get it," don't worry about it. The person I'm referring to know exactly what I'm talking about.)

Feast Day of the Scarlet Woman

2008-07-22T10:46:00.001-05:00

It's my term for it, admittedly.

It's actually the (real) Feast Day of Mary Magdalene.

When I was working on the ecclesiastical calendar last year, I was trying to place all the Saints on the calendar. But I also was trying to figure out a more robust system of liturgical cycles that would fit the traditional orthodox liturgy but with our semiotic bent to many of days and feasts. This one was perfect on so many different levels.

So .. Happy Holyday!!

Hail Babalon, filled with joy!
Ra-hoor-khu is with thee.

Blessed and cursed art thou in thy glory,
And glorious the Beast on whom thou ridest.

Scarlet Woman, Mother of Abominations,
Gather our blood in the golden cup of thy fornication.

—Ave Babalon by T Polyphilus

That Was It....

2008-07-21T20:32:00.001-05:00

The next time this subject comes up, I'm going on attack mode in full force. I just want to see if these panty-wastes of Christians will actually do their homework and call this bald-faced LIAR out of the darkness of his hatred before I verbally (textually?) slaughter him myself ...

This was my response, but I'm going to wait and see if anyone "thanks him for warning them" or if they call him out on the verifiable lies.

re: Employment Anti-Discrimination Act of 2007

I love Christian propaganda. I also love what the bible says about LIARS in regards to where you end up. Remember that every time you spread LIES about a person or any group of people.

I am truly sick of this &#$ from you people. No-one uses a single brain cell before spewing hatred all over the place. God forgive you for how you teach your children to hate.

So, now the TRUTH:

HR 2015. Sec. 6: This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.

So that eliminates the whole "There would be no protection for church staff beyond pastors or priests. Homosexuals could apply for other church positions, and if rejected due to "perceived" bias, the federal government would, in effect, become their lawyer to punish your church with an expensive court battle." and "Church schools could be forced to hire homosexuals for teaching positions. Curriculum could also be open to inspection for "hurtful" material."

That is a total fabrication and fear mongering. It's a flat-out LIE since those institutions are specifically protected by the law.

It also doesn't apply to the military.

And there is nothing in the bill itself (or any variation thereof since it was introduced originally in 1996) that would provide for "keeping a Bible on your desk at work or displaying scriptures [as] grounds for a federal sexual harassment complaint." It's ludicrous and asinine. It's a LIE.

As with most Christian propaganda, this particular "email" is worse than the real thing and shows that Christians are not interested in TRUTH but their own agenda through lies and hatred. I keep telling you people that you need to stick to the facts and stop spreading lies that are capable of being falsified through the TRUTH in less than 60 seconds on the internet.

Jesus, protect your people from themselves. No-one else can. They will be their own undoing when they do not practice your Word. It would seem that they cannot keep the simplest of your commandments: "Love your neighbor" and all that goes with it—including not bearing false witness as this man is doing right now.

And then they wonder why Christians are losing the war for men's souls ... I don't. I never have.

Total Amusement: A Quiz!

2008-07-21T19:06:00.001-05:00

I don't do weird things on this blog like memes and quizzes. But I ran into this one while checking out an escort. No. Gods, NO! Not for me. (Besides, it's a girl. Hello?) Anyway, it's just that she has a blog. And I found it through another blog I read—which did not mention anything about her occupation and I'm so glad I didn't open this at work!! And, it was ... weird. Moving right along now. She did this quiz and I thought: I love chess. I'll try it.

Two of the questions really struck me as cool but pointed that I had to stop and copy them down.

Would you prefer that people:
A. just get along.
B. dig for the truth.

Do you make decisions:
A. from the heart with people in mind?
B. from the head with truth in mind?

I'll let you decide which answer I picked for these.

Anyway. After it was all over, I was even more amused by the results. So I am going to share them here because of the completely dead-on description — not to mention the selection it picked for me. I have, as a matter of course, stripped it of it's "cute" fonts.

As if there was any doubt ...

Your result for Which Chess Piece are You test?

The King's Bishop

Congrats! Only 3-4% of the population score this!

To others, the King’s Bishop projects confidence. This can be mistaken for arrogance; but its source is easy to find. From an early age most of the King’s Bishops are specialized in their knowledge. When it comes to an area of expertise the King’s Bishop has several. They can know immediately if they can help you and how. They know what they know, but more importantly they know their limits.

This Bishop is a perfectionist. They will always attempt to improve upon anything of interest. They have an unusual independence of mind which frees them from authority, convention or sentiment. Anyone who is slacking will lose respect – and be made aware of this. The King’s Bishop can be secretive when making critical decisions. However they are even-handed and will recognize contributions others give.

This Bishop is highly ideal with their goals. They attempt to pursue high degree of quality in solutions and can be critical of ideas that compromise this quality. Because of their unwillingness to accept ‘good enough’ they can be unrealistic. They are at their best when they have time to think through a problem, at which point they may have a plan to solve the dilemma. The King's Bishop is an individual with a very analytical attitude. They are like the Queen's Rook, in that they prefer the ascetic quality of solitude. They are not as sociable as others, but are quite prepared to lead if they deem the current leadership as weak. They are thankfully pragmatic and logical individuals. They have very low tolerance for emotional rampaging or the spinning of 'truths'.

Intellectual Hebetude

2008-07-21T18:39:00.001-05:00

Isn't that the coolest little phrase? Intellectual hebetude. LOL!

Anyway, I was going to post this "over there" but decided against it. I'm going to go do homework now. I need to take a break from this. My theofriend was right: I'm starting to become engaged with this and care way too much.

This place never ceases to amaze me. Every single time I get ready to cruise out of here, someone take the wind right out of my sails. I won't name names. There are a handful who will know who they are immediately. I call them my theocircle. It's a little word I made up the other day because I got tired of saying "a couple of really awesome individuals over on this Christian theology site where I blog a little."

No. No. I admit. There are some crazies here that shouldn't be let out of the back of a church van in the middle of a Texas summer. They couldn't hold an original thought if Christ personally beat them in the forehead with it. Their penchant for rote quotations is remarkable but sad. They are working on truly destroying any positive meaning I might be able to find in the words 'theology,' 'apologetics,' or 'Christian' ever held for me. Though, admittedly, I've not really held a positive meaning to 'Christian' in nearly three decades. I was just starting to come back around to some kind of pity for these backward people who malign their own god with an apostle's tyranny. Then I got here and realized that Christianity really hasn't changed much in that same amount of time.

You see? Apologetics is not the repetitive quotation of scripture (and other singularly minded sources). Yes, it is the use of scripture to defend the Faith—that's a capital-F-Faith there—but it takes more than faith—that's a small-f-faith—and some fancy wishing to do that. In my preparation for my exegesis challenge, I read all the way through the Letter to the Hebrews. The polite side of me suggests that the early Church Fathers added that book to the canon as a lesson on how not to defend the Faith and create doctrine. But, more than likely, it's really an acculturation attempt that is as clear as day to anyone with the background to understand how cultures are dominated and absorbed by destructive and vicious religious memes—of which Christianity has been in the forefront of doing the majority of its 2,000 years on this planet. It is fortunate that Judaism, as a whole, has been able to withstand that challenge to its sovereignty as a beautiful and life affirming religion—something else Christianity hasn't been able to do very well. It's all about the life "hereafter" so who gives a $#!† about life here. Or, that is, until the eschatological nightmare sets in and Christians start to realize that the hereafter may not be so close after all and change their mind on how to read scripture to best suit their current crisis of faith in the face of reason. (cf. The Apologetics Bible AKA The Most Academically Dishonest Bible Edition Ever Published—though, kind of like Darth Vader, that does not mean there isn't some good in it. It's just difficult to find when you have to get a magnifying glass to read the admissions of their ineptitude between the lines of their arrogance.)

Someone suggested that Christians are frustrating to me. That's not completely correct. It is more accurate to suggest that bland stupidity irritates me. Ignorance can be overcome by education. Stupidity is a chosen route of intellectual hebetude. It is the intractable judgment against any fact whether it be natural or logical. But what really gets under my skin is when stupidity is labeled acceptable in apologetics and theology. Look through your discussions. Anywhere you find someone who repeats themselves using the same scripture over and over again to beat their opponent and suggest that any logical or reasonable discussion over differences in interpretation is heretical, there you will find intellectual discombobulation in the underlying personality. Such individuals are spiritually monotonous and ethically reprehensible on any level you wish to measure.

I quit there when I realized I wasn't going to finish my thoughts. And I pretty much got my frustration out and done with. See? A quick little tirade and I feel all better now.

Wow. I need to work out some aggression I think. Or just get laid.

Monday

2008-07-21T08:35:00.002-05:00

I am exhausted (tired) and in pain. I don't know if the pressure outside is doing this or if it is because Jinx slept in my bed last night. It's probably the latter, but it feels more like pressure. I know that I kept waking up. 2am. 3:30am. 5am. But I feel like a tiny baseball bat has been used on my mid-spine area. Actually, it feel like a really huge baseball bat, but anyway ...

And as I mentioned to a friend this morning, this week in Psych is the whole "man kills wife, man goes to prison, doctors find tumor, doctors remove tumor, man is verifiably a different man, how do we respond to his action if it is verifiably and directly liked to the presence of the tumor" study. I hate this thing. It's a loaded gun and blows off whole heads rather than merely a couple of toes here or there. I tend not to have a true side in the nature/nurture debates since I believe there is no way around both. I try not to be a black & white kind of thinker, but I really do end up siding with the whole "Did you violate someone's right to life that cannot be claimed as self-defense or unavoidably accidental? Yes? Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200." But it's never really cut and dry like that. I don't believe it's because there is some kind of moral relativity at play here. I just don't think we can blame freak accidents of biology for every heinous act. But if we ignore biology then the moral absolutists win and we already know that they set up a straw man to sound all self-righteous by denying biology in the most obvious of examples. So I end up running myself in circles. Did I mention I really hate this topic?

Why can't we have patrons like the middle ages without the social stratification injustices of the middle ages? I want a patron so that I can just go to school, read books, and write papers. Right. And argue with people over cool ideas. Why? Why is modernity so sterile?

God-Provided Wisdom + A Thelemic Challenge

2008-07-20T19:09:00.002-05:00

God-provided wisdom has prevailed over me. Imagine that. Is that what they're calling 'faith' these days?

I believe Ecclesiastes says something about pride, doesn't it? I have homework tonight or I'd pull my sword back out on that challenge.

Actually, in the Trinity debate, one of my favorite "theocircle" ladies pulled the faith card on me. I can't argue that. I won't argue that. Um, with Christians, I mean. She wins hands down. And I don't hold any animosity in this and I don't mean to imply that there is any kind of hard feelings or something. It is a perfectly valid argument from their standpoint. Just not from mine—and I'm not interested in deriding their faith when it is already phantasmal as is.

Faith, as defined within Christianity by Paul, is the antithesis to reason. Once a Christian pulls that rabbit out of their magic hat, the conversation is over. Faith will be the final card pulled on both sides of that debate while the label 'heretic' thrown across sacred borders. It's sad. But the solution for sane dialogue was so very easy. But since no one believes they can think like a New Testament saint, then no one will figure out how to find the truth like a New Testament saint. (I mean, how hard was it to play "We All Live In The First Century"—with apologies to The Beatles—and go from there?) Therefore, faith not truth is all anyone will accept for their own validity. "Paul said it, I believe it, and that settles it."—pretty standard Christian epistemology. It doesn't fly in the real world, but if it's good enough for the few, the arrogant, and the short-sighted, they will try to enforce it on the rest of the world.

Now, that said: one of the things I respect about the people in my little "theocircle" (and none of them is the source of the afore-mentioned "God-provided wisdom" derision) is that they have more than merely a brain cell or two rubbing together upstairs. They actually know what they are talking about. The irony is that there really are times when my arguments are intentionally flawed because I know they have the ability to present a side of the debate that shines like gold. They just need the right, um, stimulus.

However, believe it or not, I actually had my "faith" in the Trinity shaken by this debate. I grew up in a Trinitarian home. My father is still a Trinitarian. But as I researched for this debate, I started to see a pattern of scriptural influx that was truly credulous in both nature and substance. The complete lack of literary context and valid connection is astounding. And I don't mean as some really deep doctrinal thing. This is basic literary stuff a high school freshman could figure out with a little common sense. I think I've figured out that these proofs of the Trinity have been repeated so often that they are merely accepted as fact. But not one single Trinitarian has taken up the challenge as properly framed. And I'm quite sure they won't because it shatters Trinitarian doctrine.

Now ... for those Thelemites out there ... here's your challenge for the week ... if "all true gods are attributed to this Trinity [of the Unity, the Word, and the Mother and furthermore] is essentially unity, in a manner transcending reason," then where does that leave the Christians if they no longer have a Trinity at all? Or, more to the point, how does our unified theory of the universe (cf. Liber ABA, Chapter 0) actually prove their Trinity as an exemplar to the epitaph of "true gods"? Fascinating little study. Took me about four hours. Try it. I promise it's worth the time. Oh. One last thing. You are only allowed to use the "New Testament" as your workbook.

Psych: Habitual Humans

2008-07-20T16:14:00.003-05:00

Human nature, in general, is very repetitve

I believe you just nailed it and it's one of the keys, I think, to understanding the Milgram experiment. The nature of the experiment itself falls into this particular repetitive cycle. Ask a question, get a response, check the answer, push a button, rinse, repeat. Even the setup of the experiment provided an element of the habitual and normal by placing the switches in a very bland row. It is easy to just run down them as each wrong answer was given. Likewise, the conductor's responses were repetitive.

Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.

Over and over again, these "teachers" heard these phrases. If you examine this list carefully, what you see is a reinforcement of the habitual. You must continue. You must go on. You must do what you are doing. You must do what you are already doing. Just continue on with the experiment. It's like listening to a metronome.

Responding to Pearly George

Battin' 1000

2008-07-20T16:10:00.003-05:00

We're sitting at lunch on the way back from picking up the bookshelves and lamp and we're observing another family with a baby. I'm practically deaf but Jenn says something about the sounds of babies and how people think they're all cute. She's glad that she's done with that. There are two types of sex and she has had one of each.

I pipe up and quietly mention under my breath that she's right—on her back and on her knees.

I know that I almost got kicked under the table for that one. She said something about not speaking to me for the rest of my life. But then said something about time and I commented about our thirteen years. Jenn said that we're coming up on fourteen years. She's right. But Jinx pipes up and blurts out, "Why?" Jenn didn't even miss a beat. "I've been asking myself that same question for nearly fourteen years." We had a good laugh and I pretended to be hurt.

So we get home and are moving things around, cleaning up, and generally doing busy work. Jinx is playing on the computer and listening to us just kind of banter back and forth about my sweeping habits. I'm not really sure what set it off, but he asked if Caspian could sleep in his room tonight. Jenn didn't really answer and I said maybe. She popped off with something about "Yeah, maybe."

So I responded, sincerely, with, "No promises."

And a pause later I continued with, "No demands."

I saw the look on Jenn's face out of the corner of my eye.

"Son," I yelled to the other room. "Love is a battlefield."

I heard her groan. "That was bad. Really bad," she said. And that's when she really did hit me.

I'm sure I deserved it.

Psych: The Science of Evil

2008-07-20T12:22:00.002-05:00

I find this subject interesting as the Milgram experiment came up in my Sociology class last fall. The online ABC Primetime news segment, "The Science of Evil," was incomplete at best. While it certainly showed one aspect of the Milgram experiment, it left out others that have equal if not more revealing importance. The study for the ABC presentation replicated the original experiment to a point: that is, the victim was visibly isolated from the subject of the test. According to Milgram's book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, in variations on the study the closer the proximity of the victim the less cooperative the subject to inflict pain. Instructions given over a phone were also less likely to be followed precisely to their intended end than those given from an instructor in the same room. I think that any presentation should show the variations in order to put the depravity of results in better perspective.

What I find interesting about the Milgram study, according to Thomas Blass in a Psychology Today article, is that over repeated experiments the percentage of people who would inflict high amounts of pain through the system remained consistently around the 63% range, give or take one or two percentage points. Part of Milgram's study was to determine explicitly if he could replicate the mind-numbing obedience of regular German citizens during World War II. It is this aspect of groupthink that I believe is important to understand. By becoming a part of the anonymous crowd, there are some individuals who seem to behave in a manner that would appear different than if they were acting alone. I'm sure that many conclusions could be and have been drawn over the results of Milgram's experiments where most people inflicted the highest shocks available, but I'm not convinced that it says much about individuals outside their desire to find an acceptance of their actions external to themselves. But that also may be the point: as human beings we seek out acceptance, validation, and inclusion through external means sometimes to the point of deconstructing our own personalities and habits to fit in with the larger expectations of the group.

In the ABC study there is an interesting twist on the experiment that makes me wonder if it was intentional. The primary subject of the interview was an electrician by trade. The technical aspects of the manner of punishment, i.e., the shocks, was something that was quite familiar to him. But while we observed him continuing to give the shocks, continuing to grimace and turn toward the instructor, we also observed him continuing on with the experiment to the vocal outcry of the victim. His explanation later? He did not know why he continued to listen to the instructor. He knew that he should have stopped earlier. He then blamed the victim for not removing the superficial devices that delivered the shocks. But the point is that he continued despite knowing what electricity could do to someone (he would have to know to be an electrician) and despite his reservations to continuing the experiment. I think there are several reasons that explain the behavior of those who follow through with the continued shocks.

First, there is the legitimization of authority that comes into play: that is, the assumption that leadership is exercised by someone either with the correct knowledge or the proper motives even if it is not immediately apparent. Second, there is the idea of groupthink. A group is any collection of individuals more than one. The continued assurance or direction by the instructor provided a plausible bubble of acceptability to the actions of the subject that stepped outside of his own moral parameters to deflect both responsibility for his actions and the blame for the results of his actions. The transference of authority to the instructor and the blame to the victim—and therefore liability from the subject—is seen even in the short clip we watched and appeared to evidence this bubble of acceptability even though he found himself embarrassed by it during his post-study interview.

Realistically, I'm not really sure where I would fit on the spectrum of the experiment. I tend to be a nonconformist in many ways though I do find myself having to adjust certain actions and attitudes to ensure cooperation and success in my workplace. Sometimes it is only after weeks of stubbornly holding my own position that I have to give in to the "greater opinion" on a subject in order to assure that a project is actually completed whether or not I agree with the methods or end results. For this specific experiment, I don't find myself in line with the conformity of inducing pain after a certain point. For me, it would necessarily be situationally determined based on the responses of the other party. I don't necessarily find myself agreeing with authority figures merely due to their position or title.

The evidence of groupthink and legitimization of authority extends to nearly every circumstance of life. Insofar as "horrible" as an inadequate adjective and outside any "eye of the beholder" arguments, I would suggest that evidence of these kinds of behaviors are found in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur, the "witchcraft" murders in Kenya and India, the skinhead uprisings in Russia and France, and the humiliation and torture of gays in Uganda and Nigeria—to merely name a few. These are certainly horrible, but I think that it misses the point. This kind of groupthink happens in the little things all around us. If we are capable of participating in the least of these behaviors, then we are certainly capable of participating in the worst of these behaviors.

Note: This was actually written last Thursday for class, but I'm just now getting around to posting it here. Depending on what I find later among my classmates I will probably post my individual responses to those as well.

It's Sunday. Let's Talk Bible.

2008-07-20T10:25:00.001-05:00

I gave myself a challenge and was taken up on it by one of lovely ladies in my "theocircle" (Heh. I just made that up. Cute, eh?). I started reading the letter of Hebrews yesterday and finished it up this morning. I also read 1 Peter. Here are the two pericopes that have been suggested:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb 10:19-31 ESV)

... or ...

Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1Pe 1:13-21 ESV)

Now, ironically, there is a discussion over the doctrine of the Trinity which reached into Hebrews and I didn't really put two-and-two together until about 1:00AM this morning. My argument is that the author takes a particular Psalm out of context. Now, my argument is also that this makes absolutely no difference to the book of Hebrews itself but is still a fact that cannot be denied. I'm a minority in this view as one might imagine.

However, after finishing the book this morning, my conclusion is that the whole text is a huge prooftext (a big no-no in modern theological circles). I don't recall having this much to think about in reading Hebrews in the past. But reading it now with a completely different foundation in both exegesis and critical thought, I'm certainly glad that I wasn't on the canonicalization team for this one. I'd have tossed it out with the trash. This letter is just full of utter trash from beginning to end. It is a huge guilt trip based on eschatological fantasies and one-up-manship of "our god is better than their god" material. This is a letter full of Jewish myth wrapped around Pauline doctrine. I'm aware that there is no evidence that supports a Pauline authorship but the doctrines are clearly there. And in every case of quoting Old Testament scripture, it is so out of context as to be unbelievable. I find it difficult to understand how the early church fathers thought this was important other than the possibility of using it to acculturate Jewish myth into Christian doctrine and then declare their doctrines artificially extant prior to the birth of Christ.

I cannot in good conscience work with Hebrews on this round. So it looks like I'm going to tackle the pericope from 1 Peter. There are some really incredible themes in there: sober-minded, passions of former ignorance, holy in conduct, ransom from the past, etc. Stepping back out of my current perspective of Christianity as a slave religion that binds individuals to an active pathological core may be a bit difficult, but I'm going to make every attempt to approach this honestly and properly from the inside of Christian doctrine. I think that is the only fair way to do this and remain honest in the process over the results. If I have preconceptions about the result I want to gain, then I skew the process. And I want to apply the objective process to see where I end up here.

I will probably start this midweek or next weekend. This week is a heavy school week with three chapters to cover in one week. I've heard this will be the most difficult week of Summer II, so I need to keep my focus where it belongs. I still have to do two discussion responses by 9PM tonight.

Jinx and Me

2008-07-19T22:32:00.006-05:00

We went to dinner. He wanted to "go to the mall." So we did. Then to the bookstore. I know. We weren't supposed to, but I couldn't resist. It's my temptation and I fail every time.

I was under the impression that I already had Mere Christianity (888, ironic, eh?), but I didn't. So I picked that up with a replacement copy of The Screwtape Letters (889).

Oh. And I got the updated version of The Omen on the clearance shelf. LOL!