It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Andrew Breitbart making a Masonic gesture in this picture?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by iwilliam
I'm not certain I agree with you on this point. It seems to me like your idea is based on a notion of intention. If I were to make some kind of amulet with a sigil on it, for example, you could not 'strengthen it for my purposes' as you say, because you don't know my intention. (Please do correct me if I'm misinterpreting this)
Yes, that is my position. It's ALL about intent. Another word for intent is will. "Do what thou wilt" means act with true intent.

Again, this is my own belief based on the Morrison interpretation of Spare, with a bit of Phil Hine and Patrick Dunn thrown in.

But if I create a sigil, I am charging it with my intent during the creation process. That's a conscious effort of creation. If you saw that sigil, it would be meaningless to you. If I saw that sigil, it would remind me of my intent, but to you, it's just a squiggle.

However, some see focus and / or attention of any sort as a kind of energy generating or directing exercise. Energy follows focus. Crowley, for example, claimed that it was not necessary for a participant in sex magick to know the purpose of the ritual, or even to know they are participating in such!.
I'm not sure that I see that that's a great example. Wouldn't at least one of the parties in a sex ritual need to know it was happening? (otherwise, it wouldn't be a ritual, would it?) Sex is a deliberate act, generally (though not always) with consent. I'm not sure I buy the extension that a casual observer of a sigil, so far removed from the original creator, could unwittingly aid the will of the creator simply by observation. If the observer acted, and that action was in concert with the intent, that might be one thing. But simple observation leads to uninformed dismissal.

Symbols act as a focal point regardless of whether someone understands their meaning. Sometimes even more so, as the mysterious and mis-understood can be alluring and emotionally provocative.
But if a symbol is misunderstood by the masses, then isn't it more likely that it's original intent will fail?

posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Lagrimas
reply to post by network dude

I am in the process of joining the O.T.O. in england yes.

Were you persuaded to join before or after seeing their massive Olympic advertising stunt?

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in