From Conjure@yahoogroups.com

RedWill0w@aol.com wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Littleshoes
> To: Conjure@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, Mar 18, 2011 2:06 am
> Subject: [Conjure] Re: Joe's Blog
>
>
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>
>
>> Which i mention only in that the point, as per the "blurb" is, at least
>> partly what i have writ here.As i go through my archives of material i have contributed to this and other groups.
>> At this point i have examples of materials i have posted to my blog from
>> this specific conjure group (conjure@), both, attributed and non
>> attributed in my blog. Im not really sure if there is a protocol for
>> this, a common netequette i am unfamiliar with?
>>
>
>
>
>
> Joe,
> Your posts are yours of course, and are under your copyright. They are
> yours to do with as you wish. I know of no particular protocol for this,
> other than perhaps a mention of the site of original publication, if you wish.
>
>

Those very few "quotes" i have made from this group are simple at best: he said & then she said & etc.

& several of them i have quoted in my blog i have edited out even that.

> However, I would like to remind those of you who may have forgotten this
> that it is part of this group's hard and fast policy that Conjure posts may never be copied to another group, etc. without the express, written permission of every single author involved. This applies to everyone who may comment within a given thread, and every post in separate threads must also be so treated.
> I know this isn't your intent Joe! Your post just reminded me of this caveat to joining the group, and I want everyone to remember it.
>
>

Ok but even if its just a yes but? or some small introductory statement? and then i go on and on and on?

I have no real interest in archiving other peoples long, involved explanations, or pithy statements of esoteric formulas for that matter, only my own have a special place in my heart.

Which i then place in my blog:)

0 = 11 ~ (0+10=11) and/or 0 + 9.

But then .... T+A={R}=O+T.

So basically, if you look at my blog you might see an brief... acknowledgement of conjure@....rather than a wholesale quote of our other contributors here.

Does that make any sense?

It seems to, to me, but sometimes im not quite sure of my self:)
--
JL

p.s. especially with this written word.

Archival Attmepts

Robert Scott Martin wrote:

> Wisdom & Technic of ye Ancients
>
> M. JL Esq. wrote:
>
>
>> "Some scholars" see many things including cabalistic
>> symbolism http://tinyurl.com/5tuq4u4
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> "It is the trouble with such connections that they are more easily made than undone. Associations are like gossamer threads; however light they may be, they tend to cling. Perhaps the injunction -- 'Only connect' -- is misleading. We want the switchboard operator to make only the right connections. It will be remembered that Shearman triumphantly did so in his earlier comments on the very subject of Mary's mourning over the dead Christ. Is it not a pity that he has here obtruded such erudite irrelevancies into our experience of one of Michelangelo's most moving images? We writers on art may carry a greater burden of responsibility in such matters than is sometimes realized."
>
> http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showrev.php?id=19


Thanks for that. But it seemed a long way to go for very little.

THough im not sure how you relate Mary mourning over the dead Christ and the Doni Tondo.

http://www.gnostic.org/ihsm/rosary/images_lrg/02_glori_ascen_dali.jpg

"The probability for an event that can happen in two indistinguishable ways is the sum of the probability for each way considered separately."

The forming of any opinion is ultimately a 50/50 chance or random event.
--
JL

Cailles

Cailles (Quail, very small, can go in an apple or an potato:)

>>> Not something I cook often but tonight we will be having one each
>>> stuffed with a mix of sausagemeat and fresh herbs. There will not be
>>> very much jus, if any from these, anyone got any tips on making a
>>> simple gravy, I thought of shallot, red wine and thickening it with
>>> creme fraiche but I think that will be a bit bland?
>>
>>
>> Whisky sauce? deglaze the cooking pan with brandy & stock & add a bit of
>> orange zest? use the calvados if you have it? Madeira is often used
>> with quail, a good brandy and very ripe quince? quails with cherries is
>> not uncommon but involves poaching the cherries and adding red currant
>> jelly and port wine as well as veal stock.
>> --
>> JL
>
>
>
> Brilliant, Calvados it is as I love apples. I don't have any oranges
> in the house but I do have lemons so I'll use that. I have a big
> bottle of cherries in eau de vie, they are now ready to eat, so I will
> incorporate a few in the jus, thank you Joseph.


Just FYI

Cailles aux Cerises

For 4 Quails: Truss the quails en Entree and cook them en Casserole with butter.

Deglaze the casserole with a little brandy and 2 fl. oz or 1/4 cup Port wine in which a piece of orange peel has been soaked.

Add 3 tbs. good veal stock, 1 tbs. red currant jelly and 40 stoned MOrello cherries, poached in a syrup of about 18 degree on the saccharometer and cooled in the syrup. Drain these cherries before adding to the quails.

If the sauce is too sweet, acidulate it with a few drops of lemon juice.

I can see using your brandied cherries in this dish just by draining them and adding to a pan sauce made from the pan juices & any basting liquids of the roasted quail.

Perhaps cook the quails on a bed of veggies with some water or stock and baste with butter? afterwards reserving the pan juices for the sauce to which the cherries could be added. Add the calvados at the last moment and serve 'flambe"?

Im not so big on fruit and meat dishes (chicken ala proust being an exception) but i occasionally make a plumb & asparagus or broccoli beef for an elderly relative, i don't do it often because a really ripe plumb is hard to find in the city without going way out of my way. But i used to use me mums home canned plums, and then it was about as good as fruit and meat gets:)

And here's Escoffiers Apple & quail recipe.

Cailles a la Normande

"Select nice even shaped pippin apples; cut off the top third horizontally and empty them out to form cases; hollow out the tops of the apples as well.

Place 1/2 ounce of butter in each quail then colour them in butter; place one quail in each of the apples, sprinkle with a little Calvados and cover with the tops of the apples.

Enclose each apple with its quail in a layer of short paste as one would a Rabotte de Pomme. Place on a baking tray, brush with beaten egg and place in a hot oven for approximately 30 minutes."

There is a similar recipe using a potato shell (no short paste) rather than apples and a whisky sauce and just cause im thinking about it, i often bake apples & pork chops together with butter & a bit of calvados and finish with cream, cotes de porc a la Normande iirc?
--
JL

> Ok...
>
> I'm also saying thje tree as a whole is an emanation.....thus we'dd have 11 (2 er emanations.......(cue someone quoting the sefer yetziirah)
>
> arguably the fool of course can go anywhere....
>
>

I meant to expand on my understanding of the paths and the lack of them in the model i offered, but i forgot to do so.

However, to correct that oversight, i conceptualize 0 as a symbol for both (in some irrational way) the centre/core of my own being and the Universe as a whole.

An multi-omni-inter-dimensional Mobius strip of one many all is about as good as i can describe it in words.

And the stages of this as symbolized by the paths of the TOL can just as easily be illustrated by the lack of them:)

In so far as we postulate 10 concentric spheres, we delineate a difference and distinction between them, thus, like the spaces between the musical notes the "spaces" between the sphere produce the music of them:)

Are implied rather than explicit and are more spherical, nested one inside the other than they are lineal and proceeding in straight or curved lines and rather more like radiation emanating multi directionally, as well as receiving multi dimensional influence form all around and both inside and out?

> the modern image that is associated with hermetic kabbalah is associated with Kircher.....of course as a christian cleric, and if we do some digging...the association of kircher is garbage...
>
> The best argument I have seen for the paths is sacred geommetry...and the flower of life
>
>

Esoteric Anatomy.

> the tree can be modelled in many ways....the kircher glyph as am sure you know...is really quite modern
>
If by Kircher glyph you mean....

http://img04.ti-da.net/usr/kukururagu/Tree_of_life_kircher_hebrew.png

12-1300's c.e. iirc, previous to that the so called "tree of life" or QBL diagram was 10 concentric spheres with various names/attributes inscribed between each ring of the nested spheres. Is zero kether as the mathematical point or is zero behind kether as ain soph aur and Kether as #1 is the central, core sphere. Or is Kether the mathematical point, central core sphere 0. And Chokmah while labelled number 2 is really most peoples #1 or first sphere. There is a necessarily recognizable ambiguity in it all that i despair of ever doing justice to in any descriptive form attempting to explain it all. Something distinctly irrational that is only attempted to be explained by Daath.

The earliest forms of the so called Kircher TOL have differing mapping for the paths than the modern versions. Which i have had explained to me as like trying to open up the nested spheres and demonstrate in a more lineal manner the transmission or evolution of something from nothing, i find it easier to think of the nested spheres than the extended TOL of the Kiercher glyph.

My experience of the phenomena as an example of esoteric anatomy does not qualify me to suggest even an opinion on the efficacy of either approach. I know less about one than i do the other:)

And the experiential aspect i mentioned is based on my own perceptions of my own awareness, which is ordinary in the extreme, and biased in favour of its own existence, even when its comfortable contemplating its own illusory nature.

A passing, transient, ephemeral phenomena not unlike a twig momentarily held motionless in a turbulent stream of water, a brief, accidental interlude of mutual contending forces producing, seemingly, a cessation of motion, a transcendental stillness.

In so far as a body in motion will remain in motion & etc. how is it we come to have reports of these twigs held steady by the perfectly balanced currents of water? Of course, unlike the ancient natural philosophers, we cant remove the specific from the general. No matter how still the individual twig in its individual stream may be it is still whirling madly through the universe, the momentary stillness of any particular twig is just an illusion.
--
JL

QBL

> No...lol
>
> but honestyly will have to write that one down to visualize ot....
>
> Only quick comment.....
>
> How do you deal with 22 cards...but rt paths, if Iam understanding you?
>
>

There is an early form of Hebrew QBL called the QBL of concentric spheres. In which there are no paths as illustrated in the later development of the TOL.

0 (zero) in this case represents not so much the abstract mathematical point as much as what ever may cause the mathematical point to come into existence.

> Have you ever thought of seeing Zero as the entire tree.itself?


Im familiar with each number, including zero, having its own complete universe of existence, "all numbers are infinite and there is no difference' each number containing a complete tree.

> In the same way that the four elements contain each.other water is made of water, air, fire, earth....and each kabbalistic emanation can also be seen "fractally"......
>
> Which is good for your concentric circles......perhaps then zero could be The limitless light...that is Ain....
>
>

I associate the point with 0 but of course the ain soph aur is 'behind' the zero..
--
JL

I Fantasize......

I fantasize about a forest i can tidy up.

At least some small acreage of forest, of pine or fir, with mossy ground that can be manicured to a state of natural perfection. Ala the strolling gardens of Kyoto. WHere the placement and arrangement of plants, moss and stone are seemingly random but highly manicured and maintained.

I used to go to a hippy commune up in Oregon (USA), in the Mohawk valley that did much the same thing with about 20+ acres of old growth forest, The forested areas were just tidied up, cleaned, pruned or otherwise manicured to a tidy version of their natural state.

Eventually stone paths were placed and the occasional flowering plant such as fern and rhododendron were transplanted and allowed to spread.

It was a very charming, calm, soothing place with a distinctly Zen vibe. For about 3 months of the year, the rest of the time it either rained or snowed:(
--
JL

Hoodoo group (Conjure@) archive 1.

Albert Great wrote:

>>"That is how Pow Wows which is German became part of hoodoo"
>>
>>
>>Perhaps your thoughts are more clear to you the thinker of them than they are to
>>those you communicate them to in writing.
>>Where did they get the word? as for calling it "stealing" or any other form of
>>appropriation look to the context of this entire thread.
>>
>>
>--
>
>
>>JL
>>
>>
>
>Joseph,
>
>I have been on this forum for a while, but don't contribute overly much. Every
>once in a while, I'll post, but I read the threads quite�a bit. I've noticed
>that you tend to dissect and cut apart posts and people's statements for your
>own clarification, but in the process tend to confuse the matter a bit for the
>rest of us. You usually follow this up with rather lengthy posts that ramble on
>for a bit. I don't mean to be insulting and I do find what you have to say both
>insightful and interesting, but it'd be nice if you didn't dissect posts in such
>a manner. It simply leads to all sorts of confusion.
>
>

Personal preference, i prefer limiting what i quote of another persons
posts to that which i am directly replying to.

>For example, when I read your response to Mike I was thoroughly confused--where
>did Mike make any of the claims you implied he did when you decided to post that
>rather long bit about the word "pow wow?" It wasn't until this post that once
>again you seemed to have miscontrued something and then�it went somewhere
>entirely elsewhere.
>
>Maybe, I am just a tad dense, or maybe you are completely missing what is being
>said. Mike was talking about respect and being open. He mentioned that the
>German Pow Wow became part of Hoodoo because of this. Pow Wow refers to the
>shortened or popular name of a text known as the Long Lost Friend. This
>text�details a series of German folk practices employed by the Pennsylvania
>Dutch. He never claimed it was Native American, nor did he claim the word was
>German, in fact he made no reference to etymology at all. All he did was to
>point out that sometimes certain practices are adopted by practictioners of a
>different tradition.
>
>


You should read the previous posts in reference to people taking things
from one tradition and grafting them on to another. Changing aspects of
one tradition for their own purposes does not mean they are changing the
entire tradition & culture they are taking it from.

Some people here resent this when it directly impinges on aspects they
consider as belonging solely to hoodoo and are then applied in ways they
do not approve of.

But its a two way street, hoodoo is not free from adopting the practices
of many traditions besides the christian. For that matter neither is
Christianity you just have to go back further in time to see the
borrowings Christianity made or copied from older traditions and that
not limited to the Hebrew traditions.

>
>The practices of the Pennsylvania Dutch made it into hoodoo and while I'm sure
>that some at the time bemoaned the fact that it wasn't hoodoo, the point of the
>post was to indicate (correct me if I am wrong, Mike) that with respect and an
>open mind traditions can learn from another and be informed by one another.
>
>
>Saif.
>
The original subject title of this thread was "hoodoo and christianity"
at some point the "christianity" got edited out of the subject line and
some people coming into the thread late may not understand the origins
of the thread.....Dara started the thread with this statement.

"Friends,
As you all know, over the past few years there has been a strong
popular
interest in Hoodoo by many folks from outside of the culture to which
it belongs. Some of these folks contest and dislike the idea that Hoodoo is
fundamentally and inseparably entwined with Christian beliefs and practices.
Yet it firmly and undeniably is....."

Later on this comment was made.

" the argument keeps coming up because Pagans are trying to justify
cherry picking & changing Hoodoo to suit their beliefs. It's bad
etiquette, it's rude & it's wrong."

From this sprang several observations on sources for hoodoo and even
for christianity. The subject title was altered to ATR's and Hoodoo
and a comment about the offering of whisky to the spirit of the Sauk
Chief Black Hawk was made and i replied that no matter how "traditional"
this may be for hoodoo does not lessen the offensiveness of it to Native
peoples, and then we got caught up in the definition and etymology of
"Pow Wow".
Which, as far as im concerned is a Native american word.

To sum up all this it seems to me hypocritical for a hoodoo'er to
complain about cherry picking, "stealing" or adopting of one traditions
practices by another or even using aspects of one tradition to bolster
or support the invention of a new tradition when it is so obviously
apparent that hoodoo itself is an amalgam of many traditions.

I am as much against the bogus spiritual frauds, hucksters, & etc.
whose only purpose is to separate the gullible from their money as most
people are, but those people aside, this 'syncretism' is a universal
phenomena for people who are exposed to other people, its inevitable and
does not of itself imply any lack of respect or fraud. In many case
quite the opposite.

And when ever i hear these accusations of a lack of respect coming from
one tradition and aimed at another i tend to think the accusers are
either naive or fanatics, possibly both and when it involves the major
religions of the world i suspect a political agenda that has nothing to
do with 'truth' or reason. But is rather the expression of an
irrational fanaticism.

Hebrew, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God and yet look at
the squabbles they have over "Truth" and tradition (even within their
own communities). And this extending beyond the philosophical into the
real politic of the world where people are killed and maimed and
impoverished over assumed insults to "tradition."
--
JL