Dr. Fred Alan Wolf
Correspondent:: "Barnabas Shitgulp"
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:40:45 -0800

--------
I know some of you heard this and are listening now. I didn't know who he
was until now. The idea that there is only one mind projecting itself
against a cave wall in the dim light of phosphorent fungi in to a
kaleidascope of conciousness is something. How long after the last two
things in the previous, for the lack of a better term, universe combined in
a black hole whirlpool did it take it to stick the proverbial shotgun in
it's mouth?




Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:26:26 -0800

--------
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:08:07 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:

>Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>Yada Yada Yada wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>>
>>> Pretty interesting guy.
>>>
>>> Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>>
>>> Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>>
>> Christian Reconstructionists? =)
>
> Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>http://www.fourthway.info/
>

"The Work", but not "the great work".

"The Work", especially from Guerdjieff and Ouspensky who followed him,
is used because Guerdjieff emphasized heavily an approach to whatever
it was he wa doing which was based on working physically. I.e. which
could only be taught experientially, like Zen Buddhism, and not
theoretically.

"The great work" comes up in Crowley descendants and others who were
influenced by Alchemy because the 18th century "spiritual alchemists"
referred to the transformation which they sought as the Magnum Opus,
which translates to "the great work".

They mean different things. "The work" is like "working in a garden"
and "the great work" is like "the great operation", "the great
effect".


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Capt. Dobbs:
You admit it!
Capt. Yossarian:
I admit I'm being persecuted.
Capt. McWatt:
Yeah? By whom?
Capt. Yossarian:
By them!
Capt. Dobbs:
But, who specifically is "them"?
Capt. Yossarian:
Every one of them!
Capt. Dobbs:
Every one of who?!
Capt. Yossarian:
Every one of who do you think!
Capt. Dobbs:
I haven't any idea!
Capt. Yossarian:
Then how do you know they aren't?!



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:37:17 GMT

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:08:07 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>>Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>Yada Yada Yada wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>>>
>>>> Pretty interesting guy.
>>>>
>>>> Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>>>
>>>> Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>>>
>>> Christian Reconstructionists? =)
>>
>> Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>>
>
>"The Work", but not "the great work".
>
>"The Work", especially from Guerdjieff and Ouspensky who followed him,
>is used because Guerdjieff emphasized heavily an approach to whatever
>it was he wa doing which was based on working physically. I.e. which
>could only be taught experientially, like Zen Buddhism, and not
>theoretically.
>
>"The great work" comes up in Crowley descendants and others who were
>influenced by Alchemy because the 18th century "spiritual alchemists"
>referred to the transformation which they sought as the Magnum Opus,
>which translates to "the great work".
>
>They mean different things. "The work" is like "working in a garden"
>and "the great work" is like "the great operation", "the great
>effect".
>
>

I don't know how much of "The Work" is emphasis on working
physically, but no doubt different that the OTO work--sometimes
some of them whirl around like dervishes.

I think the work is the alchemy, the fruit of the fusion of the efforts
in several areas. It may or not be great, depends on your perspective
I suppose.

I like Crowley a lot, and have read "Moonchild" many times,
and probably will read it some more. I read "Confessions"
too, which I thought sort of self-indulgent and silly.

But I don't think that "The Work" is so much about physical work at all.
http://www.fourthway.info/

Eh, it's a good thing that I am full of shit, or you'd go hungry, huh?

"Let love under will be the whole of the law."


COR
Church of the Old Religion

ook ook ka chook!

also

om tut sut








Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:59:40 -0800

--------
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:37:17 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:

> But I don't think that "The Work" is so much about physical work at all.
>http://www.fourthway.info/

"We just started a new discussion in our forum:
How should Gurdjieff Movements be transmitted?"

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Never regret the past; neither curse the rain.

Just keep your umbrella always close to hand, and change your phone number a lot.



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:23:46 GMT

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:37:17 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>> But I don't think that "The Work" is so much about physical work at all.
>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>
>"We just started a new discussion in our forum:
>How should Gurdjieff Movements be transmitted?"
>

or

"The Alchemical Formula for the Transmutation of Borax
into Gold Without the Use of Cockatrice Egg"



Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:23:57 GMT

--------
König Prüß wrote:
> Zapanaz wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:37:17 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't think that "The Work" is so much about physical work at all.
>>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>>
>>"We just started a new discussion in our forum:
>>How should Gurdjieff Movements be transmitted?"
>>
>
> or
>
> "The Alchemical Formula for the Transmutation of Borax
> into Gold Without the Use of Cockatrice Egg"

Ha, I thought that was really funny for some reason.


Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:20:51 GMT

--------
In article <1HMmd.29768$Qv5.242@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:

> > "The Alchemical Formula for the Transmutation of Borax
> > into Gold Without the Use of Cockatrice Egg"
>
> Ha, I thought that was really funny for some reason.

That's because you are a goddamned crackhead, mitigated by a very high
IQ, the vocabulary of 5 men who are NOT on crack and a Dobbsgland. The
results are not the same as those one usually sees. I mean, haven't you
ever started reading a book and realized that you had not turned on a
light yet? Me too! I am depraved on account o' I'm deprived, yet still I
am self-illuminating. Gee, I never thought "Bob" and Buddha could drink
in the same bar.... wow.

We find really peculiar things funny, such as each other. Remember,
Cosby just pointed out that he sometimes likes the FLOW of words for
their inherent "musical" aspects, even when they are close to
meaningless in their construction. Hmmm... maybe that's why the group is
becoming increasingly incoherent. Its the next stage in mutantcy. We'll
give up words for sounds again, but with ME as your musical leader, we
will have actual melody and chords again, instead of a return to mere
grunting and all that
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *GDUNK* Ouch.

--

HellPope Huey
Religion is the opiate of people who need a hash break.

"..so here it hangs, like a gym sock on a shower rod."
- "The West Wing"

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems
just with potatoes.
- Douglas Adams


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 14 Nov 2004 23:55:15 GMT

--------
>Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>Yada Yada Yada wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>>>
>>>> Pretty interesting guy.
>>>>
>>>> Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>>>
>>>> Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>>>
>>> Christian Reconstructionists? =)
>>
>> Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>>
>
>"The Work", but not "the great work".
>
>"The Work", especially from Guerdjieff and Ouspensky who followed him,
>is used because Guerdjieff emphasized heavily an approach to whatever
>it was he wa doing which was based on working physically. I.e. which
>could only be taught experientially, like Zen Buddhism, and not
>theoretically.
>
>"The great work" comes up in Crowley descendants and others who were
>influenced by Alchemy because the 18th century "spiritual alchemists"
>referred to the transformation which they sought as the Magnum Opus,
>which translates to "the great work".
>
>They mean different things. "The work" is like "working in a garden"
>and "the great work" is like "the great operation", "the great
>effect".

Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
Wala?)

I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:19:10 -0800

--------
On 14 Nov 2004 23:55:15 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote:

>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>Wala?)
>

VIOLA!

>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.

I would bet alchemy. Alchemy in it's earlier days had a blurring of
lines between the spiritual and chemical, the "philosopher's stone"
and other characteristic "mysical" ideas seems to have taken a greater
prominence later during the enlightenment as the two sides became
separated. The Great Work as work done on a human's soul just sounds
very much like the way they talked around then, the 18th century.

Personally, I think the actual, real philosopher's stone came about
like this:

- Early alchemy was derived from metallurgy which was both passed on
from Egypt, or attributed to the Egyptians. In the early days of
alchemy, as with later "New Age" periods, there was a belief that
earlier cultures held these great and mighty secrets which have since
been lost, and the Egyptians in particular were believed to have had
some incredible sciences lost since then.

- The Egyptians' knowledge of metallurgy was, compared to later
periods, actually fairly crude. They did not have very sophisticated
means of assaying gold. If it looked like gold and was soft like
gold, it was gold.

- The philosopher's stone was generally described as a red powder.

- It was described invariably as -multiplying- gold. In some cases
it was said to convert lead to gold, but the idea that it "multiplied"
gold is always there. What this means is simply that you would add it
to gold and have more gold than you started with.

Personally, I think the Egyptians simply had some allow which came in
the form of a red powder, which would either mix with gold without
changing it's properties, or possiblty it could be added along with
lead (in which case the red powder could be assumed to give the lead a
gold coloring). So they increased the weight of the gold without
adding gold; but only in so far as they had no way of telling
alchemical gold from real gold.

Or maybe they could simply mix lead with this red powder and the lead
took on a gold color, which again would have been indistinguishable
from real gold to the Egyptians (since lead is soft like gold and
heavy like gold).

It would have been a mystery gauranteed to go on forever, because the
alchemists of the later period, after the middle ages and into the
18th century, -did- have better means of assaying gold. So they
couldn't have made the same mistake the Egyptians did, and so they
would have had to go on searching forever for this magical powder.

I know nobody really asked. It was just in the back of my mind. I
read alchemy works going back into the late Arabs and that was the
conclusion I reached, anyway.

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
I have sold more books about physics than Madonna has about sex.
- Stephen Hawking



Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 15 Nov 2004 00:30:41 GMT

--------
>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for
>me
>>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>>Wala?)
>>
>
>VIOLA!

Damn, you are so right.

>>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
>
>I would bet alchemy. Alchemy in it's earlier days had a blurring of
>lines between the spiritual and chemical, the "philosopher's stone"
>and other characteristic "mysical" ideas seems to have taken a greater
>prominence later during the enlightenment as the two sides became
>separated. The Great Work as work done on a human's soul just sounds
>very much like the way they talked around then, the 18th century.

I used to know all about all of this, but pretty much put it all out of my
mind- to be completely forgotten apparently.

Now I'm lucky if I can spell viola.

>Personally, I think the actual, real philosopher's stone came about
>like this:
>
> - Early alchemy was derived from metallurgy which was both passed on
>from Egypt, or attributed to the Egyptians. In the early days of
>alchemy, as with later "New Age" periods, there was a belief that
>earlier cultures held these great and mighty secrets which have since
>been lost, and the Egyptians in particular were believed to have had
>some incredible sciences lost since then.
>
> - The Egyptians' knowledge of metallurgy was, compared to later
>periods, actually fairly crude. They did not have very sophisticated
>means of assaying gold. If it looked like gold and was soft like
>gold, it was gold.
>
> - The philosopher's stone was generally described as a red powder.
>
> - It was described invariably as -multiplying- gold. In some cases
>it was said to convert lead to gold, but the idea that it "multiplied"
>gold is always there. What this means is simply that you would add it
>to gold and have more gold than you started with.
>
>Personally, I think the Egyptians simply had some allow which came in
>the form of a red powder, which would either mix with gold without
>changing it's properties, or possiblty it could be added along with
>lead (in which case the red powder could be assumed to give the lead a
>gold coloring). So they increased the weight of the gold without
>adding gold; but only in so far as they had no way of telling
>alchemical gold from real gold.
>
>Or maybe they could simply mix lead with this red powder and the lead
>took on a gold color, which again would have been indistinguishable
>from real gold to the Egyptians (since lead is soft like gold and
>heavy like gold).
>
>It would have been a mystery gauranteed to go on forever, because the
>alchemists of the later period, after the middle ages and into the
>18th century, -did- have better means of assaying gold. So they
>couldn't have made the same mistake the Egyptians did, and so they
>would have had to go on searching forever for this magical powder.
>
>I know nobody really asked. It was just in the back of my mind. I
>read alchemy works going back into the late Arabs and that was the
>conclusion I reached, anyway.

I remember "tinctures" and the phases of the alchemy each had names.

I have a million books here. It would all be in one of them. I just can't be
bothered anymore.

(Expecially for things I once knew anyway)

Glad you retained info.
I retained the wisdom, but none of the knowledge.

And you know what wisdom gets you.

--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 15 Nov 2004 01:12:08 GMT

--------
>(Expecially for things I once knew anyway)
>
>Glad you retained info.
>I retained the wisdom, but none of the knowledge.
>
>And you know what wisdom gets you.

Bad spelling for one thing.
Jesus Christ. I need to start doing drugs.
At least then there will be an excuse.


--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:24:31 GMT

--------
>On 14 Nov 2004 23:55:15 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote:
>
>>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
>>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>>Wala?)
>>
>
>VIOLA!
>
>>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
>
>I would bet alchemy. Alchemy in it's earlier days had a blurring of
>lines between the spiritual and chemical, the "philosopher's stone"
>and other characteristic "mysical" ideas seems to have taken a greater
>prominence later during the enlightenment as the two sides became
>separated. The Great Work as work done on a human's soul just sounds
>very much like the way they talked around then, the 18th century.
>
>Personally, I think the actual, real philosopher's stone came about
>like this:
>
> - Early alchemy was derived from metallurgy which was both passed on
>from Egypt, or attributed to the Egyptians. In the early days of
>alchemy, as with later "New Age" periods, there was a belief that
>earlier cultures held these great and mighty secrets which have since
>been lost, and the Egyptians in particular were believed to have had
>some incredible sciences lost since then.
>
> - The Egyptians' knowledge of metallurgy was, compared to later
>periods, actually fairly crude. They did not have very sophisticated
>means of assaying gold. If it looked like gold and was soft like
>gold, it was gold.
>
> - The philosopher's stone was generally described as a red powder.
>
> - It was described invariably as -multiplying- gold. In some cases
>it was said to convert lead to gold, but the idea that it "multiplied"
>gold is always there. What this means is simply that you would add it
>to gold and have more gold than you started with.
>
>Personally, I think the Egyptians simply had some allow which came in
>the form of a red powder, which would either mix with gold without
>changing it's properties, or possiblty it could be added along with
>lead (in which case the red powder could be assumed to give the lead a
>gold coloring). So they increased the weight of the gold without
>adding gold; but only in so far as they had no way of telling
>alchemical gold from real gold.
>
>Or maybe they could simply mix lead with this red powder and the lead
>took on a gold color, which again would have been indistinguishable
>from real gold to the Egyptians (since lead is soft like gold and
>heavy like gold).
>
>It would have been a mystery gauranteed to go on forever, because the
>alchemists of the later period, after the middle ages and into the
>18th century, -did- have better means of assaying gold. So they
>couldn't have made the same mistake the Egyptians did, and so they
>would have had to go on searching forever for this magical powder.
>
>I know nobody really asked. It was just in the back of my mind. I
>read alchemy works going back into the late Arabs and that was the
>conclusion I reached, anyway.
>
>--

Here's a good website on alchemy:
Over 90 megabytes online of information on alchemy in all its facets.
Divided into over 1300 sections and providing tens of thousands of pages
of text, over 2000 images, over 200 complete alchemical texts, extensive
bibliographical material on the printed books and manuscripts, numerous
articles, introductory and general reference material on alchemy.
(some nice graphics, too!)
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/home.html



Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:52:10 -0800

--------
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:24:31 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
wrote:

>>On 14 Nov 2004 23:55:15 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote:
>>
>>>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
>>>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>>>Wala?)
>>>
>>
>>VIOLA!
>>
>>>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>>>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
>>
>>I would bet alchemy. Alchemy in it's earlier days had a blurring of
>>lines between the spiritual and chemical, the "philosopher's stone"
>>and other characteristic "mysical" ideas seems to have taken a greater
>>prominence later during the enlightenment as the two sides became
>>separated. The Great Work as work done on a human's soul just sounds
>>very much like the way they talked around then, the 18th century.
>>
>>Personally, I think the actual, real philosopher's stone came about
>>like this:
>>
>> - Early alchemy was derived from metallurgy which was both passed on
>>from Egypt, or attributed to the Egyptians. In the early days of
>>alchemy, as with later "New Age" periods, there was a belief that
>>earlier cultures held these great and mighty secrets which have since
>>been lost, and the Egyptians in particular were believed to have had
>>some incredible sciences lost since then.
>>
>> - The Egyptians' knowledge of metallurgy was, compared to later
>>periods, actually fairly crude. They did not have very sophisticated
>>means of assaying gold. If it looked like gold and was soft like
>>gold, it was gold.
>>
>> - The philosopher's stone was generally described as a red powder.
>>
>> - It was described invariably as -multiplying- gold. In some cases
>>it was said to convert lead to gold, but the idea that it "multiplied"
>>gold is always there. What this means is simply that you would add it
>>to gold and have more gold than you started with.
>>
>>Personally, I think the Egyptians simply had some allow which came in
>>the form of a red powder, which would either mix with gold without
>>changing it's properties, or possiblty it could be added along with
>>lead (in which case the red powder could be assumed to give the lead a
>>gold coloring). So they increased the weight of the gold without
>>adding gold; but only in so far as they had no way of telling
>>alchemical gold from real gold.
>>
>>Or maybe they could simply mix lead with this red powder and the lead
>>took on a gold color, which again would have been indistinguishable
>>from real gold to the Egyptians (since lead is soft like gold and
>>heavy like gold).
>>
>>It would have been a mystery gauranteed to go on forever, because the
>>alchemists of the later period, after the middle ages and into the
>>18th century, -did- have better means of assaying gold. So they
>>couldn't have made the same mistake the Egyptians did, and so they
>>would have had to go on searching forever for this magical powder.
>>
>>I know nobody really asked. It was just in the back of my mind. I
>>read alchemy works going back into the late Arabs and that was the
>>conclusion I reached, anyway.
>>
>>--
>
> Here's a good website on alchemy:
> Over 90 megabytes online of information on alchemy in all its facets.
> Divided into over 1300 sections and providing tens of thousands of pages
> of text, over 2000 images, over 200 complete alchemical texts, extensive
>bibliographical material on the printed books and manuscripts, numerous
>articles, introductory and general reference material on alchemy.
>(some nice graphics, too!)
>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/home.html

yeah what I really need in my life right now is a link to a website
with 98 megabytes in 1300 sections and 200 complate texts about
Alchemy.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
"Come to think of it,
there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters,
and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
- Blair Houghton



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:27:32 GMT

--------
>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:24:31 GMT, König Prüß, GfbAEV
> wrote:
>
>>>On 14 Nov 2004 23:55:15 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
>>>>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>>>>Wala?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>VIOLA!
>>>
>>>>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>>>>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
>>>
>>>I would bet alchemy. Alchemy in it's earlier days had a blurring of
>>>lines between the spiritual and chemical, the "philosopher's stone"
>>>and other characteristic "mysical" ideas seems to have taken a greater
>>>prominence later during the enlightenment as the two sides became
>>>separated. The Great Work as work done on a human's soul just sounds
>>>very much like the way they talked around then, the 18th century.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think the actual, real philosopher's stone came about
>>>like this:
>>>
>>> - Early alchemy was derived from metallurgy which was both passed on
>>>from Egypt, or attributed to the Egyptians. In the early days of
>>>alchemy, as with later "New Age" periods, there was a belief that
>>>earlier cultures held these great and mighty secrets which have since
>>>been lost, and the Egyptians in particular were believed to have had
>>>some incredible sciences lost since then.
>>>
>>> - The Egyptians' knowledge of metallurgy was, compared to later
>>>periods, actually fairly crude. They did not have very sophisticated
>>>means of assaying gold. If it looked like gold and was soft like
>>>gold, it was gold.
>>>
>>> - The philosopher's stone was generally described as a red powder.
>>>
>>> - It was described invariably as -multiplying- gold. In some cases
>>>it was said to convert lead to gold, but the idea that it "multiplied"
>>>gold is always there. What this means is simply that you would add it
>>>to gold and have more gold than you started with.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think the Egyptians simply had some allow which came in
>>>the form of a red powder, which would either mix with gold without
>>>changing it's properties, or possiblty it could be added along with
>>>lead (in which case the red powder could be assumed to give the lead a
>>>gold coloring). So they increased the weight of the gold without
>>>adding gold; but only in so far as they had no way of telling
>>>alchemical gold from real gold.
>>>
>>>Or maybe they could simply mix lead with this red powder and the lead
>>>took on a gold color, which again would have been indistinguishable
>>>from real gold to the Egyptians (since lead is soft like gold and
>>>heavy like gold).
>>>
>>>It would have been a mystery gauranteed to go on forever, because the
>>>alchemists of the later period, after the middle ages and into the
>>>18th century, -did- have better means of assaying gold. So they
>>>couldn't have made the same mistake the Egyptians did, and so they
>>>would have had to go on searching forever for this magical powder.
>>>
>>>I know nobody really asked. It was just in the back of my mind. I
>>>read alchemy works going back into the late Arabs and that was the
>>>conclusion I reached, anyway.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>> Here's a good website on alchemy:
>> Over 90 megabytes online of information on alchemy in all its facets.
>> Divided into over 1300 sections and providing tens of thousands of pages
>> of text, over 2000 images, over 200 complete alchemical texts, extensive
>>bibliographical material on the printed books and manuscripts, numerous
>>articles, introductory and general reference material on alchemy.
>>(some nice graphics, too!)
>>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/home.html
>
>yeah what I really need in my life right now is a link to a website
>with 98 megabytes in 1300 sections and 200 complate texts about
>Alchemy.


Well, why you might need that in your life right now, or at some more
convenient time, is the section on "Internal Alchemy"

All that glitters is not gold



Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:14:18 GMT

--------
kdetal wrote:
>>Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>>Yada Yada Yada wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty interesting guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>>>>
>>>> Christian Reconstructionists? =)
>>>
>>> Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>>>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>>>
>>
>>"The Work", but not "the great work".
>>
>>"The Work", especially from Guerdjieff and Ouspensky who followed him,
>>is used because Guerdjieff emphasized heavily an approach to whatever
>>it was he wa doing which was based on working physically. I.e. which
>>could only be taught experientially, like Zen Buddhism, and not
>>theoretically.
>>
>>"The great work" comes up in Crowley descendants and others who were
>>influenced by Alchemy because the 18th century "spiritual alchemists"
>>referred to the transformation which they sought as the Magnum Opus,
>>which translates to "the great work".
>>
>>They mean different things. "The work" is like "working in a garden"
>>and "the great work" is like "the great operation", "the great
>>effect".
>
>Well lucky me, I decided to forgo making that point and Wala- you did if for me
>anyway. ( How the hell do you spell
>Wala?)
>
>I still doubt it originated with Thelema. Not much actually did. Or even
>alchemy. You'd probably find it in Eckartshausen or somewhere similar.
>--

I think that the original Magnum Opus goes back to illuminated scripts
by Monks, some of whom took a path into chemistry and the Black Arts
that later transmogrified into various dojos of the castle keeps' wizard shop.

Víola! I think that a walla is like a person in British Colonial India who assists
in some manner, such as a tea walla, or a ganga walla, or an elephant walla.

Opus is the penguin in "Bloom County" who has herring breath.



Correspondent:: Frere Jean Bleu
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:06:59 +1100

--------
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:40:45 -0800, "Barnabas Shitgulp"
wrote:

>I know some of you heard this and are listening now. I didn't know who he
>was until now. The idea that there is only one mind projecting itself
>against a cave wall in the dim light of phosphorent fungi in to a
>kaleidascope of conciousness is something. How long after the last two
>things in the previous, for the lack of a better term, universe combined in
>a black hole whirlpool did it take it to stick the proverbial shotgun in
>it's mouth?

Number of papers Wolf has published in SERIOUS peer reviewed journals
in the last ten years.... that I am aware of.

NONE

Fr J B


Correspondent:: nenslo
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:31:36 -0800

--------
Frere Jean Bleu wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 04:40:45 -0800, "Barnabas Shitgulp"
> wrote:
>
> >I know some of you heard this and are listening now. I didn't know who he
> >was until now. The idea that there is only one mind projecting itself
> >against a cave wall in the dim light of phosphorent fungi in to a
> >kaleidascope of conciousness is something. How long after the last two
> >things in the previous, for the lack of a better term, universe combined in
> >a black hole whirlpool did it take it to stick the proverbial shotgun in
> >it's mouth?
>
> Number of papers Wolf has published in SERIOUS peer reviewed journals
> in the last ten years.... that I am aware of.
>
> NONE
>
> Fr J B

Oh well, if it can't be peddled to the Greyface Conspiracy it's
worthless. Wolf is now officially irrelevant. End of thread.


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 14 Nov 2004 23:57:44 GMT

--------
>
>> Number of papers Wolf has published in SERIOUS peer reviewed journals
>> in the last ten years.... that I am aware of.
>>
>> NONE
>>
>> Fr J B
>
>Oh well, if it can't be peddled to the Greyface Conspiracy it's
>worthless. Wolf is now officially irrelevant. End of thread.

I don't care. I like humorous, creative thinking, half kooky, quantum
physicists.
--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:24:09 -0600

--------
On 14 Nov 2004 23:57:44 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (kdetal) wrote:

>>
>>> Number of papers Wolf has published in SERIOUS peer reviewed journals
>>> in the last ten years.... that I am aware of.
>>>
>>> NONE
>>>
>>> Fr J B
>>
>>Oh well, if it can't be peddled to the Greyface Conspiracy it's
>>worthless. Wolf is now officially irrelevant. End of thread.
>
>I don't care. I like humorous, creative thinking, half kooky, quantum
>physicists.

you forgot snuggly-looking GILF


Correspondent:: Frere Jean Bleu
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:40 +1100

--------
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:02:29 -0600, HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
wrote:

>On 14 Nov 2004 13:52:15 GMT, kdetal@aol.com (Yada Yada Yada) wrote:
>
>>http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>
>>Pretty interesting guy.
>>
>>Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>
>>Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>
>I don't know.....but did you notice, girlfriend, how cute he is for a
>70 year old man? What a smile!

"25 Fred was always quite the ladies man. Late one night, he made love
to a very sexy young secretary in David Bohm's great leather chair at
Birkbeck. The next morning Bohm's much older secretary who looked like
Miss Marple started sniffing the chair saying

"Someone's been here who shouldn't!"

Jack Sarfatti: The Destiny Matrix

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/parsifal.html

There's some older photo's of Wolf there.

Fr J B


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 14 Nov 2004 23:49:37 GMT

--------
>>http://www.fredalanwolf.com/
>>
>>Pretty interesting guy.
>>
>>Also uses the phrase "the great work".
>>
>>Is this prevalent anywhere else besides Thelema?
>
>I don't know.....but did you notice, girlfriend, how cute he is for a
>70 year old man? What a smile!

Actually, yes I did. I thought- where are his counterparts, about 20 years
younger in my neck of the woods?

>He seems like a nice guy, who doesn't take what he does too seriously.

Anyone with intelligence who delves into spirituality of any kind, usually
comes to this conclusion.

A quantum physicist with humor, hair and a quirky background. Yep, thats what I
need.
--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 15 Nov 2004 00:20:37 GMT

--------
>>I don't know.....but did you notice, girlfriend, how cute he is for a
>>70 year old man? What a smile!
>
>Actually, yes I did. I thought- where are his counterparts, about 20 years
>younger in my neck of the woods?
>
>>He seems like a nice guy, who doesn't take what he does too seriously.
>
>Anyone with intelligence who delves into spirituality of any kind, usually
>comes to this conclusion.
>
>A quantum physicist with humor, hair and a quirky background. Yep, thats what
>I need.

Well, that or a beer-drinking, ass-scratching, tobacco-chewing redneck who
wants me to make him dinner.

--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (kdetal)
Date: 14 Nov 2004 23:51:51 GMT

--------
>Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>http://www.fourthway.info/

I lump them all together (different brands of cereal).

I imagine the phrase does have christian origins somewhere going back.
--
"It is the human situation that is basically tragic. Right and Left
revolutionaries cannot alter this basic dilemma....the most radical Left-wing
group has no program to overcome death. The entire Right-Left establishment is
still death oriented."


Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:59:04 GMT

--------
kdetal wrote:
>>Ouspensky, Gurdiev, and Blavatsky; The Fourth Way
>>They're always going-on about "The Work"
>>http://www.fourthway.info/
>
>I lump them all together (different brands of cereal).
>
>I imagine the phrase does have christian origins somewhere going back.
>--

Or yet still The Work could be from "Thelema and Louise"


"One man's poison ivy is
another man's spinach"
--George Ade

"When he looked the cave in the eye,
Hercules
Had a moment of doubt."
--W. H. Auden