G-day mate! Thanks for the most interesting reply.
+O+ G'day yourself. +O+
I assumed respect. I extend the same. I have constructed a form and myriad of forms yes - is there any other way to communicate with human beings without doing thusly? I say no.
Again, with respect - I say yes, there is a way. The way enshrined in the ONA, which is of learning the skills of the dark arts, such as dark empathy, from practical experience.
Words, terms, should follow this acquiring of Occult skills. All the ONA does is point the way - to what lies beyond the forms.
+O+ Yes I know - which is partly why I am here arguing what seem like intellectually suicidal concepts - the ONA pointed the way. +O+
Truth is, the ONA was, and still is to a far greater extent than most apparently seem to realize, the way of direct individual guidance, as in the seven fold way. This seems to have been missed or forgotten in this internet age.
Hence ONA adepts still guide individuals on the personal level. Skills, learning, are passed on from person to person. Practical advice is given. It's just not often talked about, on the internet - 'CoS
there's no reason to.
+O+ Yes I know that too. And now I'm one of THEM. +O+
Consider this - how many people interested in the ONA or inspired have done the rite of Internal Adept? How many planning to do so have been given practical advice from someone who has? I personally know two people who have done the rite, and succeeded. They are not and never have been *on the internet*.
+O+ private reply 1 +O+
What we see here, on forums such as this, and what we see in such things as published ONA texts, are not the whole ONA.
+O+ No - but with respect, I am forging my own direction and have been in regards to analysing forms, language, duality and many other things that ONA pointed the way to +O+
So we still communicate to others of our kindred in the old fashioned way - by knowing them personally, and often because of this personal relationship having an intuitive understanding with them, a communication, which transcends words and *forms*.
+O+ Quite so, you're correct. And you've made a fantastic point SM - the tension does not exist outside of verbal spoken or written communication - but pure empathy or ESP is not amenable to breaking forms presently held by the majority. +O+
The words, the forms, may inspire them initially to seek us out - and that is the primary function of such words, forms. or they may inspire them to go it alone, and learn the hard way. Which is their secondary function. Only their secondary function.
Again, in a personal setting, a lot of communication is non-verbal.
+O+ Agreed, see above. But as I say to Diavolo, language hems us in, even if as I acede, empathy does not. +O+
Do you recognize that there are similarities between the experiences of Long and Aquino as illustrated above?
Yes, and no. Yes, on a superficial level - and no on the level of essence, and source.
Superficial - because both are intelligent, articulate, Occult LHP seekers, and both have decades of Occult experience.
+O+ Goes without saying when you look at their bodies of work - but you're not commenting on the specific comparisons - could you? +O+
Also, like AL (as SB) said to Aquino in one of the Satanic Letters -
We are both aware of the potential inherent within individuals and how certain forms, magickal or otherwise, can be used to explicate that potential....
No, because AL has lived a practical and remarkably diverse amoral and
moral life and from it distilled certain techniques and practical guides. He has been touched by, and embraced, darkness - lived the Dark Side, and the Light Side, which I don't think Aquino has.
+O+ That's opinion +O+
Their experiences are very different and this difference is IMO evident in the nature, the essence, of the ONA - which could be said to be AL's sinister pathei-mathos combined with a little bit of inherited knowledge.
+O+ Their later experiences and what they did with themselves is very different - but I'm not interested or discussing that stage of their plateu inj my essay - I'm interested in the same archetype that occurred and occurs through their work in a completely different way and caused them to have remarkably similar archetypal experiences, which are complex to explain since people only view that statement one way and begin again and again to compare the Apples and Oranges, not the root. I have made some headway into the different focus of analysis as orchestrated through Diavolo's keeness of mind and the analogy of a root system. +O+
The tension of opposites is the basis of life
Again, with respect, I profoundly disagree. It is just an assumption about the basis for human life.
+O+ As is anything - but what I observe is wordless form at play and I write what I observe. I ignore what is written about it, said about it, and this gives me a remarkable and unique insight into the world around me - evne if I am wrong - it is necessary to pursue this unique view to its utmost so that a new tension can be provided as a catalyst against my own forms and arguments - or at least, that is what I observe to be the case with forms, yes, I know - all subjective contruction... +O+
For me, the basis of life is acausal energy manifesting via a nexion. This neither implies nor imputes a tension of opposites - it just is what it is.
+O+ Wherein you tension acausal against causal. And even if you dont MEAN that, language does it for you. Precisely why actually performing ONA rites, practices, and so on does provide different wordless insight to intellectual speculation and why I am here today discussing a very difficult topic that I have discerned to be at the heart of things. +O+
The majority of humans however do project some causal forms onto this simple process - but that is their mistake, which practical LHP experience in the amoral ONA manner might well correct
+O+ Good luck to them - insight isnt bliss +O+
Without a Tension of opposites you cannot define Anything.
This is the essence of your approach. That of the ONA (and I'm taking my cue from an as yet unpublished text by AL) is to not to define but to experience. Words, terms, only take us so far. What matters is dark-empathy, pathei-mathos, and the overcoming resulting from practical experience of what is conventionally termed Dark/Light.
+O+ Yes I know this. But to get beyond Dark/Light requires the smashing of Duality - and awareness of what sustains Duality - and the Magi worldview/architecture - which is what THEM attacks/dissolves. +O+
As Myatt wrote in a recent article - "only the empathy of the living changeful transient moment, and us-as-Being".
Applied to the Dark Side, this equates to - "only the dark-empathy of the living changeful transient moment, and us-as-acausalBeing."
There you are again, to explain the current of the ONA you have compared it to the TOS.
I think you miss the point, which is that it was you who made the comparison while I attempted to explain the essence of the ONA, and then pointed out, for you, how this essence differs from the ToS/Aquino. The essence does not depend on this comparison - which comparison is only an illustration, not the essence.
+O+ The comparison is not between Apples/Oranges but the root system - and the tension of opposites/abstracts which is not to compare Apples/Oranges - but must first be established as an example Before I can explain the Tension I refer to. +O+
In truth, I would go so far as to say that the ToS is irrelevant. The ONA is the ONA. If the ToS ceased to exist or never existed, the ONA would still be the ONA.
+O+ OK. That may be the case now that the ONA/TOS have established their fruit - but that statement is too far past the archetype I am attempting to point out - or in the wrong context of what I am attempting to point out. +o+
The fact is the ONA was brought into being before ToS existed, and it was nearly two decades later that the ONA even mentioned the ToS/Aquino (in those Satanic Letters). That simply because the ToS had proscribed the ONA.
+O+ I can't verify that - and again perhaps "enmity" is the wrong word in the personal sense as I said to Aquino in the Set thread - yet in the archetypal sense it is still "fitting" so long as enmity is taken to be seen as a force that pushes forms apart on a fundamental level - as I will later get to illustrating. +O+
Since then, the ToS - like Crowley - has been the subject of a mere ten or so ONA texts - out of several thousand.
+O+ OK. +O+
The similarities that formed ONA and TOS are archetypally identical
Perhaps you should define what you mean by *formed* and *archetype*. Are you using archetype in its ONA sense - as "An archetype is a particular causal presencing of a certain acausal energy and is thus akin to a type of acausal living being in the causal (and thus in the psyche)" ?
+O+ Definitions are at the heart of half the problems with language. You will just have to use your own judgement. +O+
Are you using *form* in the ONA sense of a causal manifestation of acausal energies?
+O+ Who knows? In a sense that terminology influences my writing - but without experiencing what ONA or you experience first-hand the difference may be vast - all I know is what I experience and describe as best I can. +O+
But that aside, I also disagree with this statement of yours - they are profounsly different. To start one is amoral and subversive on both the individual and non-individual level (in terms of soceity). The other isn't.
+O+ After they bear Fruit - yes, no question - but they are still archetypally similar regardless of how different that fruit is. +O+
That you haven't yet addressed this practical difference in terms of morality, subversion, violence, practical, revolution, is interesting. For such things manifest the dark essence, the dark source, the practical archetypes of the ONA.
+O+ Those things are irrelevent here. We're not comparing the TOS and the ONA - I'm comparing what lies beneath. New ground. +O+
The star game is a perfect example of tensioned opposites too. How else could it work if people did not tension the black against the white?
The esoteric essence of that game is that the *player* is both Back and White, and then through the flow of both, their changes, their cliology, they move toward a dark-empathic awareness, which brings an understanding, or intuition, a knowing, of the acausal beyond forms and opposites.
+O+ Yes but to be both you must percieve two halves to be combined. The Star Game is in part responsible for my being here otoday putting forth what may seem like disjointed abstract views - but I know what I know and its my Wyrd to share it. +O+
The advanced *game* played over a period of many days can induce this type of knowing. That is, it's a type of magickal rite.
+O+ Yes I know - I have played it for days in a row. +O+
Again, I ask - how many people have constructed the advanced form of the star game? How many have played it over a period of many days?
+O+ Well, I have. I made a 3D model using Blender so others could too - though computer programming is nowhere near a talent - some indication of how strongly I feel that the Star Game is an important tool in teaching abstraction and withdrawal of abstraction. +O+
As in the case of culling, and the internal adept rite, theory is one thing - practical doing, another. Discussing it in theoretical terms is not the same as having experienced it. The doing, the experience, takes us beyond words and forms - and reveals the essence of the ONA.
+O+ OK +O+
This practical revealing makes us aware of just how different the ONA source is from that of the ToS. The point is the experience comes first, then a personal knowing, them the realization of the difference, and then for some maybe some public texts to outline these differences.
+O+ OK +O+
Who so outline? As possibly useful illustrations for those aspiring to alchemically transform themselves by practical sinister deeds and practical sinister magick - like a teacher explaining the works of Jane Austen and Wordsworth, which explaining of one as literature and one as poetry doesn't mean there is a tension of opposites, or some underlying common source of inspiration or even that they're trying to express the same thing. Jane Austen is Jane Austen and Wordsworth is Wordsworth - and we relate to them (or not) because they affect us in their differing ways, not because we are scrutinizing them in some dreary academic way based on some theory we have about some possible link between them.
+O+ How very condescending. +O+
For if we do that, we've lost their emotive practical essence that can affect us in our moment of our reading. We lost their Art, the experiences and feelings they are trying to communicate, through our assumptions about them.
+O+ Says you. On one hand you dimiss my ability to forge constructs and forms as representative of forces of life - but on the other you insist you have that ability. Did I just use a tension? +O+
It's not the tension of some theoretical opposites that brings knowledge, insight - but, in the case of the LHP, the practical doing.
+O+ You said that. +O+
As in the case of Jane Austen and Wordsworth it is the reading of them as works of literature and as poetry that captures their essence and may bring us some insight.
+O+ What the hell do Austen and Wordsworth know if they wrote instead of did? +O+
Thus for the LHP it's not the tension of some theoretical opposites that expresses the source or direct us toward the source, but the practical doing of amoral deeds, of undertaking sinister rites, of undertaking such things as internal adept, of playing the star game, etcetera.
+O+ No - 1) you cant speak for the whole LHP - just yours - thats the point of the LHP - thats the archetypal form of Satan. 2) LHP is an abstaction, a tension against the RHP. You cannot have your arguments both ways. Part of the problem again highlighted by the inferior nature of language to GET IT. +O+
Like I said - practical experience, then the knowing, then possibly attempts to explain to others such knowing.
+O+ Which is why I am here. +O+