> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] > Art[ist] wrote: > > I am not claiming to be 'observant'. > The direct mode of perception I speak of is not > 'being observant'. > > 'Being observant' is a characteristic of 'clever monkeys'– > and their fixation on the eyes and brains. > > Got any more meaningless cardboard cutouts in your head?
So when you told Max you were not "considering" but instead were "observing" you in fact were being a "clever monkey"
Welcome to club monkey.
– Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> So when you told Max you were not "considering" but instead were "observing" > you in fact were being a "clever monkey"
No. I meant the word observation in a direct perception sort of way. Words are not flat in their meaning–and until you learn to read INTENT you'll remain illiterate. Until then, your verbal 'gymnastics' are nothing but lexical shifting.
> Welcome to club monkey.
Not really. i am not you, I am not like you, and the possibility of my being so passed long ago.
Attempting to put people in 'clubs' is debasing them. Human beings are 'individuals' though Ido not mean that in the ego-being-myself way. They are not a herd-mass.
Go back to your cage, monkey, and talk to me when you grow up, and learn to manage your attention properly–and give individual attention–and as appropriate–to each human.
> During the Spiritualist movement, the practitioners within various 'sects' > (Spiritualist Society, Golden Dawn, Theosophy, some of the Enochian Lodges) > were 1: often almost interchangeable at times, depending on your point in > history, 2: very interested in Orientalism, sometimes looking at Zen, but > more likely the more Indian flavors of Buddhism. > > In fact, The Golden Dawn does have influences from Zen. > However, I find the new Order of the Tehelemic Golden Dawn as being fostered > by the Crowley Society as peculiar. That's a historical matter that's > getting further afield than we already are.
Pat–I am all familiar with that. More than you know–but that's another story. The Golden Dawn was not influenced by Zen–they were influenced by kitschy Orientalism–and not one or two 'zen' masters have been peddling their goods to the 'west'.
Crowley himself abused many fashionable pseudo-religious tendencies of the time–including Zen. He himself had absolutely no familiarity with ACTUAL Zen practices– as do not most westerners today–still.
This would be confirmed by anyone who has direct contact with those practices–and any legitimate Eastern teachers of the sort.
Crowley himself was not all that dumb–and was aware of what was going on (gradual removal of actual spiritual lines). He certainly was aware of the immaturity of the psycho-sexual impulse in humans–and took advantage of it, with Zen as well as many othjer things.
To say that the Golden Dawn had influence from Zen is to admit little but kitsch familiarity with Zen. They were no more 'Zen' then Jehova's Witnesses are actually Christian.
To make matters even worse–Crowley himself was one of many failed–and hybristic 'magicians'–ie, the kind who do drain energy from the collective mass after their death.
So were many of the nazi. To perpetuate this hapless public interest in them is to allow_ them 'feeding gates' into people's psyche. And yet the current tendency of nazi object collection, idiotic knee-jerk 'artistic commentaries'–etc etc.
Similarly as the Gdawn were 'kitsch' Zen, so were the Nazi 'kitsch' Buddhism. There is no (uncriminal) necessity for these matters to be hoisted again and again and again over people's heads. Most are neither qualified nor strong enough to deal with these.
Ie, back to the issue of esoteric vs esoteric kitsch– the latter being rampant in current society, including the idiot Dalai Lama–even though passing familiarity with any esoteric knowledge would indicate that the spiritual line of the lamas has been broken–so he's no 'reincarnation' of anything, and psychotic posing of the sort of Eryk Salvaggio, Max G2K, and Joseph mcElroy.
Why the latter is problematic: a lot of spiritual teaching of the esoteric sort was brought out because as 'dictated' by evolution, humans are to assimilate this on a 'mass scale' if they want to survive.
Ie, the knowledge was made available–because 'old'-style leaders and 'saviors' are no longer necessary. Instead, now you have every Joe Schmoe who hasn't done one ounce of actual work on itself–claiming to have it 'figured out'–and elitism is wide spread every-bloody-where. To make matters even worse–crippling egotistical bullies pose as 'teachers' left and right in a dictatorial manner–and specifically art circles are FULL of ideological opportunism of the sort. It reeks. And I don't intend to be 'pleasant' about this. I am not going to sit and waste my time with euphemisms for shit.
The only 'duty' of all human beings to anyone is to deal with their egos. And considering the way humanityis 'plummeting' avoiding the issue is not an option–it's criminal.
One easy way to determine if a teacher is a 'fraud'– ask oneself if this person is making one see for yourself the problem– and allowing you to deal with it–or if one is offering to 'kill' somebody's ego for him/her. The latter is a murderer, because nobody can destroy another's ego.
And last but not least: the destruction of the ego is mpstly__ a private affair. The current tendency in modern western art to do it 'in public'–aka G2K is posing.
It simply does not 'work' that way.
So anyone who's peddling killing two rabbits with one stone– killed my ego AND got an art career out of it is a moron. If__ those ppl get anywhere (and most don't) they only end up as hybristic 'vampiric' energetic fields.
What does 'thelemic golden dawn' have to do with Zen, dear? Go tell that to your friend Max–Mr. Yeats was quite heavily involved with them–and he quotes it left and right.
That would be true–as the Golden dawn applies to Max, and his british poets–not Zen. A quick look over reality would indicate a fascination for Western poets with the 'orient' turn-of-the century. Maybe you being so 'clever' could tell us all why it was all going on–and I mean the real reasons, not historical glossing over.
While you're at ait–open your eyes and see those influences of which you are a 'victim' too all over any art and design after 1930s.
You can't even flame for shit. Not to mention that my background is not 'western'.
Comments
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance]
> Art[ist] wrote:
>
> I am not claiming to be 'observant'.
> The direct mode of perception I speak of is not
> 'being observant'.
>
> 'Being observant' is a characteristic of 'clever monkeys'–
> and their fixation on the eyes and brains.
>
> Got any more meaningless cardboard cutouts in your head?
So when you told Max you were not "considering" but instead were "observing"
you in fact were being a "clever monkey"
Welcome to club monkey.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> So when you told Max you were not "considering" but instead were "observing"
> you in fact were being a "clever monkey"
No. I meant the word observation in a direct perception sort of way.
Words are not flat in their meaning–and until you learn to read INTENT
you'll remain illiterate. Until then, your verbal 'gymnastics' are
nothing but lexical shifting.
> Welcome to club monkey.
Not really. i am not you, I am not like you, and the possibility of my
being so passed long ago.
Attempting to put people in 'clubs' is debasing them.
Human beings are 'individuals' though Ido not mean that in the
ego-being-myself way. They are not a herd-mass.
Go back to your cage, monkey, and talk to me when you grow up,
and learn to manage your attention properly–and give individual
attention–and as appropriate–to each human.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Patrick Lichty wrote:
> During the Spiritualist movement, the practitioners within various 'sects'
> (Spiritualist Society, Golden Dawn, Theosophy, some of the Enochian Lodges)
> were 1: often almost interchangeable at times, depending on your point in
> history, 2: very interested in Orientalism, sometimes looking at Zen, but
> more likely the more Indian flavors of Buddhism.
>
> In fact, The Golden Dawn does have influences from Zen.
> However, I find the new Order of the Tehelemic Golden Dawn as being fostered
> by the Crowley Society as peculiar. That's a historical matter that's
> getting further afield than we already are.
Pat–I am all familiar with that. More than you know–but that's another
story. The Golden Dawn was not influenced by Zen–they were influenced
by kitschy Orientalism–and not one or two 'zen' masters have been
peddling their goods to the 'west'.
Crowley himself abused many fashionable pseudo-religious
tendencies of the time–including Zen. He himself had
absolutely no familiarity with ACTUAL Zen practices–
as do not most westerners today–still.
This would be confirmed by anyone who has direct contact
with those practices–and any legitimate Eastern teachers of the sort.
Crowley himself was not all that dumb–and was aware of
what was going on (gradual removal of actual spiritual lines).
He certainly was aware of the immaturity of the psycho-sexual impulse
in humans–and took advantage of it, with Zen as well as many othjer
things.
To say that the Golden Dawn had influence from Zen is to admit
little but kitsch familiarity with Zen. They were no more 'Zen'
then Jehova's Witnesses are actually Christian.
To make matters even worse–Crowley himself was one of many
failed–and hybristic 'magicians'–ie, the kind who do
drain energy from the collective mass after their death.
So were many of the nazi. To perpetuate this hapless public
interest in them is to allow_ them 'feeding gates' into
people's psyche. And yet the current tendency of
nazi object collection, idiotic knee-jerk 'artistic
commentaries'–etc etc.
Similarly as the Gdawn were 'kitsch' Zen, so were the Nazi
'kitsch' Buddhism. There is no (uncriminal) necessity for these
matters to be hoisted again and again and again over people's heads.
Most are neither qualified nor strong enough to deal with these.
Ie, back to the issue of esoteric vs esoteric kitsch–
the latter being rampant in current society, including
the idiot Dalai Lama–even though passing familiarity
with any esoteric knowledge would indicate that the
spiritual line of the lamas has been broken–so he's
no 'reincarnation' of anything, and psychotic
posing of the sort of Eryk Salvaggio, Max G2K, and Joseph mcElroy.
Why the latter is problematic: a lot of spiritual teaching of
the esoteric sort was brought out because as 'dictated' by evolution,
humans are to assimilate this on a 'mass scale' if they want to survive.
Ie, the knowledge was made available–because 'old'-style leaders
and 'saviors' are no longer necessary. Instead, now you have every Joe
Schmoe who hasn't done one ounce of actual work on itself–claiming
to have it 'figured out'–and elitism is wide spread every-bloody-where.
To make matters even worse–crippling egotistical bullies pose as
'teachers' left and right in a dictatorial manner–and specifically art
circles are FULL of ideological opportunism of the sort. It reeks.
And I don't intend to be 'pleasant' about this. I am not going to sit
and waste my time with euphemisms for shit.
The only 'duty' of all human beings to anyone is to deal with
their egos. And considering the way humanityis 'plummeting'
avoiding the issue is not an option–it's criminal.
One easy way to determine if a teacher is a 'fraud'–
ask oneself if this person is making one see for yourself the problem–
and allowing you to deal with it–or if one is offering to 'kill'
somebody's ego for him/her. The latter is a murderer, because
nobody can destroy another's ego.
And last but not least: the destruction of the ego is mpstly__
a private affair. The current tendency in modern western art
to do it 'in public'–aka G2K is posing.
It simply does not 'work' that way.
So anyone who's peddling killing two rabbits with one stone–
killed my ego AND got an art career out of it is a moron.
If__ those ppl get anywhere (and most don't) they only end up
as hybristic 'vampiric' energetic fields.
'Permit one to vomit'.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> You sexually inept, moronic dictator…I did a search for penis, monkey, and
> dictator and found Kj's soul brother…
Hardly. I am not you, I am not wishful thinking about me,
nor am I your cardboard cutout 'thinking'.
McElroy wrote:
> If found this for the dear Kandinskij
> http://www.thelemicgoldendawn.org/art/Zen.gif
You are not qualified to find things for Death. Your link is
meaningless. Idiot.
When I read his words, this is who is typing them:
http://www.geocities.com/thak98/thinking.jpg
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> If found this for the dear Kandinskij
>
> http://www.thelemicgoldendawn.org/art/Zen.gif
What does 'thelemic golden dawn' have to do with Zen, dear?
Go tell that to your friend Max–Mr. Yeats was quite heavily involved
with them–and he quotes it left and right.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
You sexually inept, moronic dictator…I did a search for penis, monkey, and
dictator and found Kj's soul brother…
www.jiggscasey.com
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Ever notice how those who claim to be observant are not?
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > If found this for the dear Kandinskij
> > http://www.thelemicgoldendawn.org/art/Zen.gif
>
> You are not qualified to find things for Death. Your link is
> meaningless. Idiot.
That would be true–as the Golden dawn applies to Max, and his
british poets–not Zen. A quick look over reality would indicate
a fascination for Western poets with the 'orient' turn-of-the
century. Maybe you being so 'clever' could tell us all
why it was all going on–and I mean the real reasons,
not historical glossing over.
While you're at ait–open your eyes and see those influences
of which you are a 'victim' too all over any art and design
after 1930s.
You can't even flame for shit.
Not to mention that my background is not 'western'.
Ignorance + stupidity. Bunch of idiotic apes.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> Ever notice how those who claim to be observant are not?
Yeah. Certainly applies to you.
I am not claiming to be 'observant'.
The direct mode of perception I speak of is not
'being observant'.
'Being observant' is a characteristic of 'clever monkeys'–
and their fixation on the eyes and brains.
Got any more meaningless cardboard cutouts in your head?