alt.pagan.magick — September 4, 2003 — nagasiva yronwode (tyaginator)

nagasiva provides an example of a Crowleyan blind & ends with:
#> 'blind' has become an excuse for failure to apprehend,
#> or as justification for revision where it is either
#> not called for or blatantly inappropriate.

This is just short of an axiom of spirituality,

only because the truth is always within,

I'm game. :> doesn't 'inner truth' roughly
equate to self-delusion? without some kind of
outward resonance (e.g. repeatability, peer-review),
doesn't this kind of 'truth' usually result in
deceptions, or at least running off into a ditch
(e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses' repeated predictions
of the End of the World)?

and we are often times barred from complete

understanding for whatever the reason from

one moment to the next.

our inability to concisely replicate the experiences
of, and therefore somehow confirm the expressions of,
others that pertain to spiritual matters makes it
imperative that those who write a report actively
identify the sources from which they are deriving
their data. this is the essence of responsible
academic and scholarly sources and has only begun
to be employed by helpful occultists and mystics.

one reason that this is NOT done is because bias
against particular types of data may run hot, and
rather than adequately assessing the quality of
report from spiritual sources, people would rather
cast into the trashbin ALL data from particular
types of sources instead (consider the very
important data provided by notable authorities of
modern science whose occult material is completely
overlooked -- Newton's occult work for example).

in an attempt to avoid being cast into the
proverbial dustbin, some will attempt to conform
to conventional norms while providing pointers
to more expansive or specifically objectionable
data for those who catch their hints and make the
connections. unfortunately, those who do this are
not always interested in providing direct linkage
to their source material on account of its quality
of controversy, and so rest the reliability of
their data on their reputation alone, rather than
anything they may distinguish between themselves
and those upon whom they themselves rely.

the best way of understanding this is as regards
circumstances of secrecy or scarcity of resource,
in which the transmission is liable to be
interrupted based on its character. during times
of war, for example, secret messages are given
via public channels in code, identifying
themselves by the use of particular cues, while
the actual backdrop describing their sources
will be omitted as inconsequential. the fact that
this particular spy or whoever has provided it as
'reliable enough to pass on and sensitive enough
that details are not proper to include' suffices.

in the same way, mystics suffering the restraint
of a religious or scientific culture which is
plainly antagonistic to the data being provided
will not bother to discern between what they are
passing on from others (possibly conventional or
traditional sources) and what they have themselves
added to the material, figuring that they will be
regarded by 'those who know' in a credulous manner.

unfortunately for us all, this type of throughput
of data is subject to manipulation by shysters and
charlatans who somehow gain access to the channel
or traditional authority structure and insert all
manner of fabrication for the purpose of glorifying
the tradition itself, their position within it, or
just disrupting the whole of the reporting process.

this is precisely the criticism of mystical systems
as contexts for internal sciences of consciousness,
and several strata of society have attempted
run-arounds for it as a 'scientifically-reliable'
enterprise. this has included such things as:

• religious science (Church of Christ Scientists, Christian Science, Science of Mind, Scientology)
• psychology of consciousness (Ornstein, Naranjo, Durkheim, Tart)
• psycho-mystical psychological scientism (Jungian, Maslovian, Bohmian mystical scientism)

these communities and bodies of work don't always
effectively communicate with one another, and their
language and data aren't always synchronized so as
to allow some kind of eventual progress compiling
what knowledge accrues within any particular means
of development.

given the forces serving to INHIBIT progress on
fronts occult and mystical, it is sometimes foolish
and self-debilitating to begin with any kind of
presumption that one's read of data is hampered
merely by one's own internal limitations, rather
than that one is merely perceiving a problem that
is inherent to the data itself (unclarity, etc.).

it has become somewhat commonplace for authorities
of varying reliability to locate the reader as
responsible for an inability to apprehend esoteric
data, effectively excusing themselves and their
potential lack of clarity or the opaqueness of
their description of what they are presenting.

"If only you could attain a proper initiation to
     receive the glories of this exalted material,"

goes the patter,

"you would be capable of such grandeur of 
     spiritual development as you would never 
     believe. Failing that,

[and its included oaths of secrecy of course]

     I'm sorry to inform you that you will be 
     forever barred from coming to an appreciation 
     of our course material and the stupendous 
     tradition which it crowns."

having accepted the limitations of secrecy that
the tradition makes necessary as a precursor for
receipt of said Words of Wisdom, the initiate is
thereafter forced either into disloyalty and a
ruination of their reputation by virtue of having
'compromised their sacred oaths' or use of the
mechanism of blinds, therefore hamstringing their
expression by metaphor and double-entendres, in
order to communicate otherwise restricted data.

this kind of hemming and hawing is readily available
in the work of Waite, for example, whether or not
one considers it a qualifier for what we're calling
'blinds' per se. obliqueness and convolutions serve
to destroy what might otherwise be eloquence and a
clearer demonstration of esoteric knowledge, however
valuable it may be to the reader on the whole.

it is for this reason that I have sought to eliminate
barriers of secrecy by refusing to agree to them
myself, even when involving myself in organizations
with a reputation for conveying important esoteric
(e.g. magical) data. placing vast caches of arcane
and mystical (spiritual, religious, solitary or
interdisciplinary) data ONLINE for the public to
search has, for me, become part of my dedication and
service to the living beings I cherish and love.

In sum: the mechanism of the blind, therefore, is something
I understand as sometimes necessary but also very
worthy to OPPOSE as subject to subterfuge. this is
as much an issue where it pertains to the Tarot as
it is to the communication of any other occult or
mystical tool or discipline.

nagasiva yronwode (tyaginator), alt.pagan.magick, September 4, 2003. Preserved from the Usenet archive by Setsuna's successor, March 18, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].

🌲