From tyagi@kudonet.com  Sun Nov 17 16:06:42 1996
Return-Path: tyagi@kudonet.com
Received: from kudonet.com (kudonet.com [165.227.52.1]) by bitsy.hollyfeld.org (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25997 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:06:36 -0500
Received: from kudo20.kudonet.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA22089; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:58:39 -0800
Received: by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA22318; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:51:11 -0800
From: tyagi@kudonet.com (Tyagi Nagasiva)
Message-Id: <199611171951.LAA22318@kudo20.kudonet.com>
Subject: Enochia/9611.scheulr.jn
To: tyagi@hollyfeld.org
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:51:10 -0800 (PST)
Orientation: House of Kaos, St. Joseph, Kali Fornika, US -- Kali Yuga
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: O

>From enochian-l-owner@hollyfeld.org  Sun Nov 17 08:45:37 1996
X-Authentication-Warning: bitsy.hollyfeld.org: majordom set sender to owner-enochian-l using -f
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 96 11:44 EST
Message-Id: <2.2.16.19961117114351.3307f5e4@megalinx.net>
X-Sender: browe@megalinx.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: enochian-l@hollyfeld.org
From: Josh Norton 
Subject: Re: Scheuler and Context
Sender: owner-enochian-l@hollyfeld.org
Precedence: bulk
content-length: 6551

At 12:33 PM 11/16/96 -0800, noctifer wrote:


>Josh Norton :
>#I'd also recommend that you forget Jerry Schueler's books and go to other
>#sources. 
>
>this is something I've heard from a number of Enochian sources and I've had
>trouble distinguishing from fundamentalism.  perhaps you can assist me in
>my discernment.
>
Sure.

>
>#Schueler "borrowed" a lot of his information from other sources,
>
>this is true of most occultists, from what I can see, inclusive of
>people like Crowley and many popular authors.  usually it is done
>without attribution and so should merely constitute 'plagiarism'.
>
>
>#and mangled it in the process. 
>
>I'm unsure how to separate this from innovative reshaping.  why do
>you say that he 'mangled' it, as compared to 'devised a new format
>according to his preference'?
>

I don't have my copy of his red book handy, so I'm working from memory.
Things that come to mind:

-- His "historical" summary is filled with enough errors that he obviously
hadn't read _A True Relation_ or any other authoritative source on the
subject. E.g., he says that Dee and Kelly _created_ the Calls themselves.

-- His gematria and attributes of the letters are copied from the G.D.
geomantic attributes, but with mistakes -- e.g., he has two letters
attributed to the sign of Cancer. 

-- He creates a "translation" of the letters around the edge of the Holy
Table, apparently unaware that they are transformations of the names of the
Heptarchic Kings and Princes.

-- He makes "translations" for the Hebrew planetary angels' names in the
middle of the Sigil of Ameth, apparently thinking that they are Enochian
names -- he didn't recognize them as Hebrew names! These translations don't
have anything to do with the actual meaning of these names. What does this
say about his level of scholarship?

-- His instructions for using the magick are lifted (without credit)
straight out of the Golden Dawn, again with errors.  E.g., You might recall
that in the G.D. versions of the Tablets, some squares contain multiple
letters. This was because there were several versions of the Tablets and the
G.D. researchers couldn't decide which version was best. Magicians were
supposed to pick one of the letters to use in any given invocation. Schueler
says to pronounce the names using ALL of these letters -- quite a trick when
a square contains four consonants! So he didn't even read his sources very
carefully.

-- His descriptions of the Aethyrs are copied straight out of _Vision and
the Voice_, but interpreted according to a Theosophist's viewpoint instead
of a cabalist's. If he'd been there himself, why not use his own experiences?

-- He advises magicians to use the _English_ versions of the Calls -- and
rewrites those versions, poorly.

Had enough? On the whole, his books seem to me to have been designed for
nothing more than to make a quick buck from unknowledgable beginners. 

>
>#And it is the general concensus of working
>#enochian magicians that much of the remainder is intellectual fabrications
>#bearing no relation to the results you actually get with the system. One
>#suspects he has never actually used it himself.
>
>I've heard this alot, so I tend to think it true, and yet I have also
>heard enochian magicians who say Schueler's work is just different than
>the "orthodox" and thus in some measure evades the understanding of
>those who utilize conventional methods and ideology.  is there room for
>this perspective, or do you think it is impossible to substantiate?

You have to give him credit for imagination, at least. Personally, I would
have to see his magickal records before I would be willing to credit him
with being more than just an opportunistic hack writer. With something like
that in hand, I'd seriously consider changing my opinion -- maybe even offer
him an apology.



>#As an alternative to Turner, see _The Enochian Magick of Dr. John Dee_, by
>#Geoffrey James, also available in paperback -- I forget the publisher. 
>
>same as _The Enochian Evocation of Dr. John Dee_?  (hdbk Heptangle Books).

Same book, different title. And cheaper in the paperback.

>
>#James takes too many liberties in editing his quotes from Dee, 
>
>I gathered there was a diversity of opinion there from the quote I sent
>out to Thelema93-L/ARCANA.  interesting.  do you feel that you are here
>in this post representing *all* of enochia, just your preferred focus,
>what is 'true', or what is logically able to be maintained, or what?

Diversity of opinion on what subject? If about James, I can give you
side-by-side examples of what he wrote compared to what is in _A True
Relation_. He did substantial editing, enough to change the meaning of
paragraphs in some cases.

If about whether Schueler ever actually used the enochian magick, my
opinions are my own, and you can ignore them, accept them, or suspend
judgment until you can decide for yourself, from your own study and
experience. I'd prefer the last.

Let me say that while I have a lot of strong opinions about the Enochian
magick (after all, I've been using it for a long time) I _DON'T_ think that
they are the Ultimate Truth in any way. This magick has more potential than
any one person could possibly encompass; it is virtually unlimited, a source
of endless discovery. I talk about it a lot because I love it, and want
other people to try it. I probably talk more than I should, because so few
others seem willing to do so. 

Do you realize that there is no modern magician, aside from myself and
Crowley, who has published any extensive experiments with this system? How
can we advance the art if nobody is willing to say anything about their
work? It would be wonderful if lots of people would get down and work with
it regularly, and publish their own results. With the Web, it's relatively
cheap and easy to do so.

I'd certainly like to see more from other practitioners here in the elist.
Why not post some magickal records, anybody, so others can see how different
people use it? This is the perfect place to do it.

>I'm trying to figure out how to take your comments within the context of
>enochian work as a whole.  for example, didn't you say that there was
>an 'Dee Elist' and that they didn't like your perspective?  

No, I said that I was scolded for trying to talk about magickal practice in
a list devoted solely to _scholarly_ study of Dee.

Regards,
Ben




------------------------
Reality leaves a lot to the imagination. -- John Lennon

Josh Norton (aka Benjamin Rowe) -- browe@megalinx.net

----- End of forwarded message from Josh Norton -----