THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: Thelema93-L and Usenet
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (Hsi Wang Mu)
Subject: Re: A.'.A.'. (inner/outer)
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 12:26:37 -0500

49950508

Do as you please, for that is my Law.


KEN WARD 
|>| Why can't outer representatives of the A.'.A.'. advertise?  A.C. did!

I think it more accurate to say that they don't *tend* to or that those who
do tend to are more often unreliable connections.  The best connection may
well be nonphysical.


robin@winternet.com:
|>In the grade papers for A.'.A.'. (Liber 185?) Crowley says that one should
|>speak freely and openly about the work, 

Sounds reasonable to me.  I have no memory of this liber.


|>...I get the impression that speaking openly about working a system of 
|>A.'.A.'. these days is sort of considered in poor taste, (or worse) and 
|>that the work should be done totally in secret.  

The tendency is to associate it with 'spoiling the stew to taste before
it is ready for review'.  I.e. one's egotism and the harsh light of
social consciousness can sometimes become more an obstacle than an aid.

Some of course resort (or constrain themselves) to the old line about
oaths of secrecy.  These are the Black which shall be purged before the
Prophet.  Oyez oyez.


|>Yet one could definitey get the impression that Crowley wanted to throw
|>the whole process into the open and have a similar kind of discourse about
|>experiments and results that the scientific community shares.  

That has always been my attitude and I still think it would be of benefit
to those what took the chances.  Let them who dwell in the occulted mire
of hiding and fear alone to their dissolution.  We may become the Bastions
of Scientia, properly working upon the aim of Religio.


|>I'm not sure how AC reconciled his ideas that people should speak freely, 
|>with the idea that one would only know thier introducing memeber, and 
|>those they themselves introduced.  It seems contradictory. 

I would not attempt to represent Crowley, being poorly studied of his pen, 
but I prefer to think that it is less a PROSCRIPTION regarding the meeting 
of members of the AA, but a DESCRIPTION, allowing one to feel more secure 
in identifying AA membership and the work of which it partakes.

Speak freely.  If you have contrary evidence regarding the GWB which AC
did not cover in his AA Exposition, then display it before the World, Nuit's
little sister.


|>...One Star in Sight A.'.A.'., ...seems to contain a fatal flaw that is 
|>probably why the whole A.'.A.'. "Scene" is a bit scandalous, and uncertain.

|>...the chain system depends upon actaul attainment for everyone along the 
|>chain in order to truly initiate along the chain.  

Any weak link destroys the whole, eh?  I think you are correct inasmuch as
any one chain would be weakened.  There are many chains, and often these,
especially when they are informed beyond the desperate egotism of various 
Schools, shall originate in the astral realm.  The Secret Chiefs are
without compare in their density of understanding.  There are many who
would mimic and market their wares, however.


|>What I mean, in other words, lets say I meet a 1=10 who gives me the 0=0. 

You shall never know a '1=10'.  Oh yes, to be sure you'll run aground people
who claim this and they may even have achieved such rank within their
precious societal chain.  However, there is no Final Identity to be found
in this onion, let alone a Final Attainment.


|>...a kind of bottle neck that results in people "putting on" about thier 
|>grade.  

I figure anyone who claims their rank is probably mistaken and more likely
of lower understanding (myself included here).  I also figure that anyone
who claims to be a member of the AA (or the GWB or its variations through
time) is likely mistaken as to their relationship or that to which they
are related (including myself here too, though I don't claim to know I'm
such a member).

I don't think that any of the foregoing paragraph is necessarily true,
however, and I may well have met exceptions to these prejudices.


|>High bullshit factor creeps in fouling the whole mess. 

I don't think that it is bullshit.  It is human nature.  Well, perhaps
they are identical. ;>  These people really believe in their exaltedness.
That is their first error, but it can also be of tremendous assistance in
Vaulting That Old Abyss when and if they ever get to that life-point.

I treat bullshit on all planes alike.  I won't eat it, but it may be quite
helpful for fuel or vitalizing the soil such that life-springs may grow up.

These people who claim AA status or even 'in service to AA' are quite
important examples of those who would like to attain to the Deepest or
Highest (however you'd prefer to metaphorize it).  Upon attainment,
however, there is usually no need to advertize this fact, and this is
the most potent argument against it in relation to the implication of
connections to the Celestial Masters (Secret Chiefs).

The Abyss engages bibliomancy and spews forth the quotation from an
hagiography perverse (p. 526; Symonds/Grant):

 "I was thus formally received among the Secret Chiefs of the Third
  Order on the astral plane.  It was the natural sequel to the
  passage of the Abyss.  I was careful not to presume on a mere
  vision.  Superb as the experience was, I would not allow it to
  turn my head.  I am almost morbidly sensitive about my responsi-
  bility in such matters.  No more fatal mistake can be made than
  to grasp after a grade.  Attainment is an appalling danger if
  one is not perfectly fitted for it at every point.  One must
  search oneself unsparingly for weak spots; the smallest scratch
  suffices to admit a germ of disease and one may perish altogether
  through a moment's carelessness.  It is unpardonably foolhardy
  to take a chance in matters of such serious import."


|>I met a guy a couple years ago who wanted to give me "probationer in the
|>A.'.A.'."  He said it was from Motta's line and I thought what the hell,
|>I'd never met anyone who'd made such a claim before. 

Not only is it unimportant what he claimed, because our ability to become
initiated within the AA is not contingent upon conscious identifications
or activities so much as a configuration of event-points that imply ripe-
ness, but it is quite possible to utilize low-level initiations for one's
upper level progress.  These upper/lower divisions are only fragmented
visions of that Horrid Unity superior to the Great Veil, after all.

An example: the initiation of Birth (some trads include this at I') can
be utilized metaphorically as a passage across the Abyss should one be
desirous of inflaming this Prayer.  Of course the participants may, in
their blindered ignorance, consider that a I' initiation is solely that
and nothing more, and yet those who know the QBL know that all spheres
contain the rest and all stages are worked out simultaneously, if but
in emphasis.  


|>...Still my friend goes around giving people probationer....

I think serious skepticism should be levelled upon the very concept of
'giving people (the) Probationer (degree)'.  I won't go into the various
arguments surrounding such exchanges (they are argued in alt.magick every
so often) except in response to direct inquiry.


|>...He seems to think that every time he gives someone the probationer 
|>it's some kind of feather in his cap, 

It is widely known that those who convert will move on to talketh overmuch
and thereafter become Centres of Pestilence.  It is this which is warned
of in the Book of Evil Sayings.


|>or that if they spread the junk around it will somehow boost him up the 
|>ladder.  

A very common view of religious proselytization.  Pyramid schemes engender
these types of sweepstakes.


"Robert McFerran" 
|...crowley intended the A.A to absolutely be opend with others about their 
|work! 

You must be speaking about this Outer AA again.  I'd love to hear your
reference to texts supporting your contentions about 'what AC intended'.


|I still can't understand what this secrecy about the A.A is! 

Let it become a focus of your contemplation and imagine possible responses
which you may be given.  Alternatively, ask the question directly within
any public forum ('What is the value of secrecy?') and you'll be able to
hear many many different possibilities (if there are not a roomful of 
groans).  I've been compiling a Kreeping FAQ for alt.magick on this query 
and may eventually formalize it and add it to the 14-file heap.


|because the other person just might not care, or totaly misunderstand the 
|individiual. ...risk being a bore! 

These are conventional practicalities subserviant to appearance and effective
use of time, yes.  How we can determine when it is appropriate to mention the
gods or their workings or the workings of their minions, I would not care to
define precisely.  Sometimes spewing forth the Truth unto the masses who will
not care seeds the clouds for future rain.


|But if your stranger is a felllow scientist , pursuing the knowledge you are 

Such knowledge cannot reasonably come third-hand.  It then becomes data, a
mire of reflected factoids, rather than something one has born unto hirself
via the pertinatude of cognate and direct experience. :>


|or perrhaps just an individual who is knowledegable of the paradigm yourr 
|expounding there is no reason for secrecy!

There are several good ones (this from the Advocate of Perfect Secretlessness).
As I said, it is a rather Frequently Discussed Issue.


|...crowley belived  magic was a science: It is a quantifieable phenomena
|...that could be practiced, because it existed.

Huh?  I refer you to the Book of the ABAoids.  Crowley appears to have
posited that Magick is the Science *and* Art of causing Change in
conformity with Will.  I don't see that this relegates it to a mere
science nor that it is a quantifiable phenomena so much as mechanism
or principle by which such a mechanism (engineering) may be utilized.

Magick underlies, in many respects, ALL arts and sciences.  It is the
formula of Creation and the action Making.


|...He set up the system of the A.A as a group of individiuals who would
|systematicaly create a science of Magic. 

That is a very interesting expression of motivation regarding the Outer
Order of the AA.  In this I have my own interest, going so far as to
specifically state how Magick is Science and what these terms may mean
in relation to one another (see _Liber Scire_).  Usually people presume 
overmuch about what Science *is* and how this factors into everyday 
experience, preventing a comprehensive understanding.  


|...in order for this to work , these scientist would have to share 
|information among each other to createsuch a body of knowledge.

So?  This might still lead to secrecy inasmuch as one need not discuss the
matters with those who were not 'One of Us'.  I think a potent argument
can be put forward on the analogy of a University Science staff which will
not divulge the work of hir number unto the Competitors.

Sure, they are also Scientists, but they are Not One of Us and there may
be dangers in displaying too much too soon, including the danger of
displaying one's faulty tentative conclusions or one's own ignorance!


|...this doesn't explain why the rule about the student only knowing the 
|teacher

Ok, I'm annoyed about this now.  Please someone quote this supposed 'rule'
so that I will understand why you people would like there to be one.  I
assert that Crowley never said it was a 'rule' per se and didn't intent
it to be a limitation so much a description of his experience with the
Secret Chiefs (even if he did want to set up something social that was
to mimic his conception of the Great White Brotherhood).


Free love, right now!

Hsi Wang Mu
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com