Unfair, since the observation that Secret Chiefs are essential to the whole structure of AA is quite sound. One simply cannot claim to be an ‘8=3′ and subsequently argue that there’s no point trying to contact such beings.

Yes, one can, because that’s how it is.

Why are you even in AA then?

If you choose to describe things in those terms, then the answer is “by virtue of my grade”. The “AA” proper is just a grouping that is applied by some to people like me; it isn’t something you choose to join. If by “AA” you’re talking about the raggedy collection of schoolboy Victorian occult organisations who call themselves “AA” in between Dungeons & Dragons games then I’m not “in AA”, never have been, and never will be, either.

I have yet to see you describe any experience one could say is either interesting or ‘magickal’.

There are some people who consider this entire field of study to consist of nothing other than a form of spiritual television, deriving personal entertainment from chasing “trances” and experiences which are “interesting” or “magickal”, and then describing them to others in order to make them feel all wizardy and cool.

And then there are some people who don’t think that.

“It cannot be said too strongly that any amount of mystical success whatever is no compensation for slackness with regard to the technique. There may come a time when Samadhi itself is no part of the business of the mystic. But the character developed by the original training remains an asset. In other words, the person who has made himself a first-class brain capable of elasticity is competent to attack any problem soever, when he who has merely specialized has got into a groove, and can no longer adapt and adjust himself to new conditions.”

What do I care about these run-of-the-mill kitchentable philosophies that are basically just ‘Nietzsche on a bad hairday’?

I simply couldn’t give a rat’s ass on a Sunday what you do or don’t care about. If you don’t care about what I write, then don’t read it. There’s precisely no point in complaining to me about it. You can lead a horse to water, as they say, but you can’t make him drink.

While that might be true, it doesn’t change the fact that presenting some rational constructs about ‘will’ and ‘nothing’ is very easy and no evidence of any spiritual development.

And you think that claiming to have had some “interesting” experiences is “evidence of spiritual development”, I suppose?

If “presenting some rational constructs” is so “very easy”, then I suggest that you have a go at it, see how far you get before you start talking crap.

The fact is that the fruits of one’s “spiritual development” are the only evidence of it. You might be impressed by empty claims of spooky, witchypoo experiences, but I’m not. The only halfway reliable gauge of “spiritual development” is how sensibly one can talk about the subject.

All this is, of course, quite apart from the fact that I simply couldn’t give a rat’s ass about convincing anybody of my “spiritual development” or of anything else, for that matter. If you aren’t convinced, I don’t give a shit.

You don’t seem very keen on magick at all – as I see it you seem perfectly happy reducing thelema to some basic rational philosophies that, in the end, don’t mean a whole lot.

As opposed to “reducing Thelema” to a chasing of idle witchypoo experiences which don’t mean anything at all, I suppose? If you want to be entertained, just watch TV, there’s no need to actually put any effort into it.

It’s all cool & dandy to argue against reincarnation but let’s not forget that Liber Berashith’s practice strongly contradicts your stances.

While we’re on the subject of not forgetting about things, let’s not forget that firstly, Liber Berashith does nothing of the sort, and secondly, that Liber Berashith is one of Crowley’s magical instructions, and not a Thelemic text.

‘And you think that claiming to have had some “interesting” experiences is “evidence of spiritual development”, I suppose?’

Yes

Nothing more to be said, really, other than ‘suggest you stick to poetry, then’.