Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
New Magicks for a New Age, Volume 4, Book 7

New Magicks for a New Age, Volume 4, Book 7

Ratings: (0)|Views: 41|Likes:
Published by Polaris93
New Magicks for a New Age. Volume 4: Notebooks of a Magickian. Book 7. Keywords: Magick, alchemy, Qaballah, astrology, divination, science, history
New Magicks for a New Age. Volume 4: Notebooks of a Magickian. Book 7. Keywords: Magick, alchemy, Qaballah, astrology, divination, science, history

More info:

Published by: Polaris93 on Jul 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/24/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Yael R. DragwylaFirst North American rightsEmail: Polaris93@aol.com 20,400 wordshttp://polaris93.livejournal.com/
New Magicks for a New Age
Volume 4: The Notebooks of a Magickian
Book Seven: 10/1/95
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Nota bene
: Throughout all four volumes of this work, NEW MAGICKS FOR A NEW AGE, I frequentlyuse the terms “man,” “men,” and “mankind” in an absolutely non-sexist, generic sense. In German, theword
man
means “one,” “that one,” “the designated individual,” etc., and is completely neutral with respectto gender, age, even species. Its ultimate meaning is “this particular sentient individual,” “this soul,” “this person,” a living being of some kind with a will of its own, as opposed to a soulless thing without will or awareness. The English word “man” unfortunately combines the functions of this word with another German word,
Mann
, meaning “adult male human being,” and as Feminists have rightly pointed out, its usetherefore often confuses the issue. – Too bad. As George Orwell made bitingly clear in his politicalhorror-story
1984
, fascism is the deadly enemy of the lovely, maddening linguistic ambiguities such asthese, upon which poetry, the Songs of the Gods, necessarily draws for much of its psychospiritual wealth.The histories of both individuals and whole cultures is embedded in such ambiguities – histories containingtruths deadly to the aims of fascism, one of the reasons why fascists are so often moved to attempt to try to“pare language down to its essentials” and thereby cut away and banish all those embarrassing implicittestimonies that give the lie to many of the propagandistic claims of fascist states and movements.Further, in the same way that to speak the name of a God or demon is to invoke Him, Her, or It, use of such psychodynamically ambiguous terms as “man” and “mankind” is to stir up currents in the CollectiveUnconscious, that Ocean deep as Time and broad as all the Universe which has existed from the beginningof Life and will exist until the end of all things, currents which often pay little or no respect to the desperate parochial determinations of human States, societies, and cultures of any kind. The Collective Unconsciousis as inalienable from Life, including human life, as perception, thought, dream – even more so, for it is therealm from which springs the Intentionality that is the hallmark of Life itself, as well as all other, more
 
ephemeral, less necessary aspects of Spirit, including awareness in any form. The fascist mentality ever strives to make existence as orderly, predictable, and easily managed – and thus Spiritless and Soulless – as possible. The fascist mentality doesn’t like the Collective Unconscious.Too bad – the fascist mentality, like all other mentalities, indeed, like any other trait or set of traits of living beings, whether psychospiritual or physical, is just one of all the infinite possible manifestations intoConsciousness of the Collective Unconscious. Like anything else that strikes at its own roots, the fascistmentality invariably comes to grief because of its attempts to suppress and deny and even destroy theCollective Unconscious, in part or whole.So let us not make that deadly mistake, ourselves. While it is indeed unfortunately the case that usingthe English words “man,” “men,” “mankind,” etc. to mean “person,” “persons,” “personkind,” and the likecan encourage a tendency to a sexist mind-set among their users, such generic use of these terms has a longand honorable history. Indeed, their origins in Germanic tongues are absolutely neutral with respect to ageand sex, and if time has somewhat muddied the waters as far as their use goes today, it has also given thosewords vast, concealed treasury of historical wealth, the careful examination and analysis of which will yieldthe modern seeker enormous rewards.So thank you, but I’ll be using “man,” “men,” and related words here in their generic sense in many places. If you’ve read this far, my friend, you have the intelligence and the education and the guts to easilysee from the context in which I use them whether I am referring to “sentient beings of no particular sex,age, or biological taxon” or “adult male human beings,” and take it for what’s it worth to you. You don’tneed the sort of intellectual coddling which the current advocates of Politically Correct scholasticismdemand that authors and speakers give their audiences – a coddling which, incidentally, would necessarilyeliminate about 98% of this work, as it is. Poetry and the telling of tales – the songs and stories of the Godsin all Their glory – have always been and always will be Politically Incorrect. They made Socrates drink Hemlock because of the ones he loved and shared with his students, and assassinated the Rev. Dr. MartinLuther King, Jr., for his Dream. Male or female, of whatever age or even species,* if you have come thisfar in my little book, you value the things of God far more than the dubious approval of society, anyway, sowill ultimately only find P.C. linguistic nit-pickings to be (a) a tremendous bore, (b) an immense nuisance,and (c) a royal pain in the
tuches
, and out of my overwhelming respect and love for you, my reader, I willnot bother with them.*If, by the time you read this, we’ve finally made it to the Stars – or simply realized what the Gypsies andthe native peoples of so many lands have known all along about all our fellow-travelers onSpaceship Earth, that like us, they all are Spirits, with souls and dreams and hopes and fears anddesires of their own, who temporarily possess bodies of whatever kind)* * *The thing I’ve been thinking ever since watching that show on Fox 13 TV last night (Sept. 4, 1995e.v.) with the allegedly authentic film of the autopsy of a E.T. from a crashed UFO in Roswell, NM in1947, was that in questioning whether that film could have been faked or not, the first thing we should ask is not, “Could that have been a real humanoid alien there on that table they were cutting open?”, but rather,“Could that have been a real living organism of E.T. origin they were dissecting?My roommate, Kelly,after watching the show, pointed out a number of features of the whatsit on the table, such as the apparentlack of a true rib-cage, the combination of traits such as apparent polydactyly (extra fingers and toes) andTurner’s Syndrome (seen in mammals with no sex chromosomes, including no development of secondarysexual characteristics) and the tiny ears much too low on the skull for a normal human being that in us
 
would imply a collection of genetic and/or congenital defects too large and varied for their possessor to livemuch past conception, the over-developed long muscles on the front of the thigh that might have impliedthat the legs articulated
backward 
, like a bird’s, that fit together too well for a real non-human organism of whatever origin and simply weren’t the sort of things that they would have faked in 1947, or even 1967,especially in combination. On my own part, watching it, seeing how the neck seemed to articulate in deathas the body was moved a bit here and there during the dissection, seeing how the blood flowed and puddled, looking at the flexure and structure of the musculature, I had to conclude that even in
1987 
, noteven the most expert of Hollywood’s thing-makers could have or would have created such an exquisitelyarticulated, superbly integrated imitation of 
life
. And even as late as 1967 – the latest date for themanufacture of the film used – the
type
of fake organism which Hollywood would have created would nothave looked like that: our cultural set, then and now, was just too different. From the glimpses of itsinternal organs as well as its external appearance, the being on the table could have been the descendant of archosaurs – dinosaurs and birds – that had been infected with a “cool” version of something like Ebola,one that didn’t kill quickly, and may even have lived in something approaching symbiosis with its host. Or it could have been the product of generations of biological engineering by unknown creators – andengineered from the germ-plasm of something like archosaurs,
not 
mammals. Now, concluding that we have 99.5% confidence that it was indeed a once-living organism they weredissecting there on the table,
was it also sentient 
? Yes, of course – for 
all of life is, in its way, sentient,wherever it turns up
. The hallmark of all life is its
 purposiveness
– and whatever that being was, it camefrom a
long 
way away. To get it here, its people or masters or whatever had to exert the utmost iningenuity, persistence, practical ability, high intelligence, and all the other virtues so necessary to greatengineering, scientific, and romantic adventuring. Surely such a journey, so far across the cosmos, has tohave been one of the great adventures of all time, even if only one of many! Life is known for itsadventuring, its persistence in the face of the most horrendous adversities and obstacles, and the beings thatcreated the technology and economy that made it possible for the one on that table to get here at all were nodifferent than the rest of life in that. These are after all the hallmarks of true sentience – so we can say thatthe being on the table was a sentient being, or at least sent and controlled by sentient beings.So I have to conclude that yes, indeed, we have been visited by true extra-terrestrial sentient beings – non-human ones, true aliens. But this conclusion only becomes inevitable if we first ask: was that a real
living organism
on that table, in that film? Given the state of our film technology and our cultural sets evenas late as 1967, the last year in which the film that made that could have been made, it
had 
to have been.And all else follows from that.Forensic pathologists are, after all, biological specialists under another name. Always think biologyfirst, anthropocentrism second. It cuts through to the bone a
lot 
faster!(I must give credit to someone who helped set me on the path to becoming a biologist early on, at this point; this James White, the author of several marvelous science-fiction novels and collections of storiesabout Sector General, the fabulous interspecies/interstellar general hospital in space, such as
Sector General 
,
Code Blue – Emergency!
,
 Hospital Station
, etc. There was also Zenna Henderson and her wonderful stories of the People, and of course, above all, Robert A. Heinlein, with novels such as
 DoubleStar 
,
Star Beast 
, and
 Have Space-Suit, Will Travel 
.)* * *
The Terminal Cretaceous Event and its Great Extinction
If, as is now believed, the Terminal Cretaceous Event was a nuclear-winter type scenario set in motion by the impact of a vast comet or meteor in the shallows just off the Yucatan Peninsula, it would haveinjected a tremendous amount of impact debris into the upper atmosphere of the Earth. Much of thisdebris, falling back to Earth within a short time from great heights, would have become hot enough as aresult of re-entry before hitting ground again to set off vast forest fires all across our Planet. For quite awhile after that, as a result of these fires Earth’s lower atmosphere would have been significantly depletedof free oxygen and carrying much more carbon dioxide, and perhaps a large burden of ozone, than normal.This also could have contributed in an important way to the enormous number of extinctions whichapparently coincided with the Terminal Cretaceous Event, if up until that event Earth’s atmosphere was

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Rod Mccarthy liked this
Laya liked this
Robert R. Myers liked this
jakobym liked this
30chr liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->