Re: "Brainwashed" - was Re: Who cares about Janet Jack$on's saggy tit...

[ryanm]

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
>
> I dunno. I think it's symantic hair splitting whether a
> chemical is intrinsically "evil" or not. My belief,
> supported by not only my own experience but that of many
> others I know, is that methamphetamine, for example, is
> evil. It is sufficiently benign, effective, and seductive
> in its early, tonic, phase to utterly fool one into thinking
> it is entirely beneficial and that thinking remains
> undaunted as caution, responsibility, compassion and the
> very sense of right and wrong are gradually extinguished
> without any internal alarms going off that something might
> be wrong.
>
To call any chemical "evil" is to anthropomorphize it in a way that
isn't justified. It displaces responsibility. I might call *that* "evil",
though (displacing responsibility). That people are too stupid to find out
what a chemical does before ingesting it may show the inherent "evil" in man
(laziness), but the chemical itself can't be evil. It's just a chemical. In
my opinion, "good" and "evil" describe intent, of which drugs are incapable.
Except for rum, which is the root of all evil. ; )

ryanm

[ryanm]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> I spoke of the spiritual leaders of basically every major world
religion
> Ryan, and asked why you thought any of them might be interested in
> "enlightening" you. And your only rationale is that drugs create a
chemical
> reaction in the body. Well here's a clue Brother, relationships are a two
way
> street, and it _ain't all about you_.
>
And now your illusion is displayed for all to see. Of *course* it is all
about you. What on earth would you want spiritual enlightenment for, except
for your own gratification. It has nothing to do with the people around you.
If you want to help them, skip the enlightenment and go help people.

> And why would you limit your own search to a Teacher who advises
you to
> use drugs? What if the Shaman took a look at you and said right off,
"Stop
> using drugs if you want me to teach you", then what would you do? ****,
many a
> spiritual teacher requires much much more of than that! If you cannot say
> you'd stop using drugs, you are more attached to drug use than the truth.
And
> that would put the lie to your contention that your use of drugs is
anything
> more than recreational.
>
First, I never even said that I use drugs (although I have, and
occasionally still do). I certainly never said anything even approaching
that I was looking for a teacher who would advise me to use drugs. Second, I
don't require a Shaman. I teach and have been taught. I counsel and have
been counseled. I am. That is all I require.

You just have the voice of a man going under for the last time, so I
thought I would try to help. But you are obviously not ready to be helped,
so I concede. As it harm none, do what thou wilt.

ryanm

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"ryanm" > wrote in message
...
> >
> To call any chemical "evil" is to anthropomorphize it in a way that
> isn't justified. It displaces responsibility. I might call *that* "evil"

I hear people misquote the bible a lot by saying, "Money is the root of all
evil". What it says is, "The LOVE of money is a root of all kinds of evil".
Money, like movies, or drugs, or anything else isn't good or bad. It just
is. People don't like to admit the evil that dwells within us all. It's
easier to demonize and blame something else than to take responsibility for
your own actions. Well, I take that back. It's easier to accept
responsibility (versus living in denial) once you do it. But taking that
first "step" is what terrifies most people. But like anything else, it's
hardly ever as bad as you imagine and actually opens up your life.

[WillStG]

<< >>
<< To call any chemical "evil" is to anthropomorphize it in a way that
isn't justified. It displaces responsibility. >>

For the record Ryan, I never called drugs evil. What I did say was when I
went to a Shaman he suggested that learning about the spiritual power/potential
that lives within us would serve me better than exploring the "powers of
plants". The spiritual "Powers of Man" are much greater than the spiritual
"Power of Plants".

And it's not like I know where to find psychotropics in the wild because
of my love of reading. Sure, I've read Huxley, Carlos Casteneda, I know
Leary's "better living through chemistry" ideas. But beyond maybe helping a
few realize there is more to life than the physical universe, they have really
done little to actually help anybody or to make this world a better place. And
a lot of people _have_ been hurt, and that is reality and worthy of serious
consideration.

So I have been challenging your advocacy of spiritual growth through
Psychotropics Ryan, your claim that it's a valid religious alternative that
Shaman's advocate for spiritual growth on the basis of having more experience
on the subject than you, not based on dogma. The stories you have been
repeating on this matter are at best secondhand, would you reccommend audio
gear based on such little experience, based on the myths of storytellers and
marketing hype? I think you can, do better than that...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Bob Cain]

ryanm wrote:


>
> To call any chemical "evil" is to anthropomorphize it in a way that
> isn't justified. It displaces responsibility.

Gotta admit that you can be fun to split hairs with. My
point is that in, at least this case, it is the chemical
itself which displaces responsibility (among other things)
and that even the wary can be seduced too easily into not
believing that and then finding that belief impossible.

> I might call *that* "evil",
> though (displacing responsibility). That people are too stupid to find out
> what a chemical does before ingesting it may show the inherent "evil" in man
> (laziness), but the chemical itself can't be evil. It's just a chemical. In
> my opinion, "good" and "evil" describe intent, of which drugs are incapable.
> Except for rum, which is the root of all evil. ; )

:-) Other than that, again we must agree to disagree.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Louie Lino]

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=linosound

[WillStG]

>... do what thou wilt.

"....shall be the whole of the law..." ? Now you want to bring Aleister
Crowley and The Golden Dawn into this?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[ryanm]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> For the record Ryan, I never called drugs evil.
>
This particular exchange was between myself and Bob Cain. I never said
you said that.

> So I have been challenging your advocacy of spiritual growth through
> Psychotropics
>
I advocate no means of spiritual growth, drugs or otherwise. However, I
also oppose no means of spiritual growth. I am not a religion, I don't care
how you choose to find god.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> "....shall be the whole of the law..." ? Now you want to bring
Aleister
> Crowley and The Golden Dawn into this?
>
No, actually, it's much older than Crowley. Several thousand years
older, in fact. Crowley removed the "As it harm none" (the Wiccans kept that
part, though), and added the "shall be the whole of the law" to demonstrate
the difference in ideology (as long as you don't hurt anyone else vs.
regardless of whether you hurt others), but he never took credit for the
phrase. He knew it predated Christ. It is the origin of all law, ethics, and
religion, and was probably originally coined in an ancient language that
hasn't been spoken on Earth in thousands of years.

ryanm

[WillStG]

<< >>
<< No, actually, it's much older than Crowley. Several thousand years
older, in fact. Crowley removed the "As it harm none" (the Wiccans kept that
part, though), and added the "shall be the whole of the law" to demonstrate
the difference in ideology (as long as you don't hurt anyone else vs.
regardless of whether you hurt others), but he never took credit for the
phrase. >>

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is as you say,
Crowley's *******ized version of the much older saying. But as the OT topic
was drugs and Shamanism, it certainly seemed like you were refering to Crowley,
and he is a very bad example even by way of passing reference. I can't think
of a worse possible combination than drug addiction and ceremonial Magick
(Crowley's confessions are called "Diary of a Drug Fiend"). And the "Sacred
Magick Of Abra-Melin The Mage" ritual he failed at where his circle was
compromised almost killed a friend of mine, it dangerous enough to try to tame
angels and demons sober let alone addicted to heroin and cocaine like Crowley
was. But he was half decent writer when he was young and wasn't spouting
racist crap (he was _extremely_ racist, especially for a man who worshipped
Egyptian Gods.) "Moonchild" is a very interesting novel describing Magickal
warfare.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Paul Hume]

> << No, actually, it's much older than Crowley. Several thousand years
> older, in fact. Crowley removed the "As it harm none" (the Wiccans kept that
> part, though), and added the "shall be the whole of the law" to demonstrate
> the difference in ideology (as long as you don't hurt anyone else vs.
> regardless of whether you hurt others), but he never took credit for the
> phrase. >>

This seems untrue.

Crowley claimed to have copied the statement down in dictation from a
spirit named Aiwass, in 1904 when he wrote (or received) the Book of
the Law. There is no documentation for the Wiccan Rede until half a
century later, from Gardner. Earlier forms of the statement exist in
Pantagruel, by Rabelais and a line from a commentary on the New
Testament by St. Augustine.

>
> "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is as you say,
> Crowley's *******ized version of the much older saying.

See above.

> But as the OT topic
> was drugs and Shamanism, it certainly seemed like you were refering to Crowley,
> and he is a very bad example even by way of passing reference. I can't think
> of a worse possible combination than drug addiction and ceremonial Magick
> (Crowley's confessions are called "Diary of a Drug Fiend").

Leaving aside the moralizing, you seem to be conflating "Diary of a
Drug Fiend" which is a novel, with "Confessions of Aleister Crowley,"
which is his autobiography.

> And the "Sacred
> Magick Of Abra-Melin The Mage" ritual he failed at where his circle was
> compromised almost killed a friend of mine, it dangerous enough to try to tame
> angels and demons sober let alone addicted to heroin and cocaine like Crowley
> was.

You are assuming he was addicted to heroin or cocaine when he did the
Abramelin working. Whereas the heroin was prescribed for asthma
(possibly developed as a result of lung damage doing Himalayan ascents
without oxygen) after the Abramelin work. Not sure when he first used
cocaine.

Abramelin can be dangerous - Crowley suggested to one correspondent
that just owning the bookwas unwise unless actually embarked on the
operation.

> But he was half decent writer when he was young and wasn't spouting
> racist crap (he was _extremely_ racist, especially for a man who worshipped
> Egyptian Gods.) "Moonchild" is a very interesting novel describing Magickal
> warfare.
>

The pharaonic Egyptians had a good turn of racist language themselves,
at least looking at one Egyptologist's renderings of military
dispatches and proclamations against "asiatic" incursions from the
Middle East.

Moonchild was written well into the period where you seem to feel
Crowley was a hardcore druggie.

I mean, like him or dislike him, but for Horus' sake, get your facts
straight and shoot for at least a little consistency.

Paul

[Will Miho]

(Paul Hume) wrote
> Leaving aside the moralizing, you seem to be conflating "Diary of a
> Drug Fiend" which is a novel, with "Confessions of Aleister Crowley,"
> which is his autobiography.

Ahh. I read 5 or 6 of Crowley's works as a Neophyte, but that
was 30 years ago. My mistake, although IIRC most consider "Diary" at
least semi-autobiographical. But as for "moralizing", I said drug
use and Ceremonial Magick is about the worse combination I can think
in the same way I might discourage a friend from driving drunk. It's
no condition to be doing dangerous work, or trying to tame a wild
horse (a good paradigm perhaps), because the consequences of a mistake
(which are easy to make) could be pretty serious.

> You are assuming he was addicted to heroin or cocaine when he did the Abramelin working. Whereas the heroin was prescribed for asthma
(possibly developed as a result of lung damage doing Himalayan
ascents without oxygen) after the Abramelin work. Not sure when he
first used cocaine. Abramelin can be dangerous - Crowley suggested
to one correspondent that just owning the bookwas unwise unless
actually embarked on the operation.>

I didn't actually say that, but why be an apologist for his
addictions? He pluged into drug use with much fervor, he loved it, he
advocated it. And anyone familiar with his life knows Crowley
combined the use of tremendous amounts of narcotics with ritual and
Ceremonial Magic. I am quite aware that the Melin magick you seem to
wish to defend is supposedly that of father of Faith Abraham's, and
that he was supposedly a Magician. But it worthy of note that after
Crowley failed at that ritual, he also failed for the first time in a
major climbing expedition ( he was a famous climber), and according to
news reports he let all his companions in that expedition die. After
that his life spiraled downhill into his drug use and magic rituals
and drama, abandoning children and wives, many close to him commited
suicide, he pathetically attempted to trade his notariety for cash.
Whether his addiction came first or after, well that isn't the point
really. He's not the poster boy for anything successful, let alone a
"spiritual path" which was the context of the drugs discussion.

> The pharaonic Egyptians had a good turn of racist language themselves, at least looking at one Egyptologist's renderings of military
dispatches and proclamations against "asiatic" incursions from the
Middle East.>

Crowley's racism was directed at blacks and Jews, and from what
I have read was beyond the pale even by the standards of the day.
Somewhat ironic given that Egyptian Gods have black features.

> Moonchild was written well into the period where you seem to feel
> Crowley was a hardcore druggie.
> I mean, like him or dislike him, but for Horus' sake, get your facts
> straight and shoot for at least a little consistency.

As I said I have read number of Crowley's works, but I don't
think I actually addressed the influence of drugs on his writings.

[Louie Lino]

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=linosound

[ryanm]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> But as the OT topic was drugs and Shamanism, it certainly seemed like you
> were refering to Crowley, and he is a very bad example even by way of
> passing reference.
>
I was not referring to Crowley, just for the record.

ryanm