Archive for January, 2010

I haven’t done an english lesson in awhile, so I figured I jump back in with a very obscure topic. “And” and “&”. I’ll first start off with stating that the difference is very minor, and nearly impossible to know, in english. But as a writer, I find it VERY important. Further, the difference (though minor) can be used to very strong effect. The real ailment is more in the laziness and stupidity of these last generations of native english speakers and to that effect the degradation of english as a whole. (“OMG” is actually in some recently printed dictionaries. How pathetically sad. That states my point succinctly, to a T.)
What the difference is and how to use them, as I will show, can be very important. That said, let’s begin.

“&”, which is spoken as “and” when used in a sentence in place of “and”, is a symbol meaning “and per se and”. The symbol’s name is “ampersand”, a contraction of the aforementioned phrase. It can be used just like “and” can, in lieu of “and”. But, it should not be. This is a bastardization of its purpose.
“&” shows affinity and sympathy of two items, unlike “and” which only denotes the grouping of items. I know this is hard to understand. In fact, most english speakers do not understand the difference. So let me give three examples:

“Mark and Becka and Sherry and John went hiking together.”

“Mark, Becka, Sherry, and John went hiking together.”

“Mark & Becka and Sherry & John went hiking together.”

The first example is horrible english. Never write like this.
The second example is how the first example should be written and it is proper english.
The third example it also proper english and tells more about the people hiking than the second example. Here’s how:
Look at the second example again. Notice how it groups the four people together? This sentence only shows a grouping. Judging by the fact that they are hiking together you assume they are friends, or at the least have some type of reason they are together. It tells you there are two girls and two guys, so you can guess they are two couples going on a hike, but you can’t be sure about any of this. The sentence just doesn’t tell you enough for you to make a guess.
However, example three does. Look at it again. By using “&;” instead of “and”, this example shows that “Mark & Becka” are together with “Sherry & John” and that they are hiking. By using “&” instead of “and” you know that Mark cares more about Becka than he cares about Sherry or John. Why? Because “&” is sympathetic, unlike “and”, it shows favoritism. It shows a grouping within the grouping provided of by “and”.

Now that I’ve explained it, can you tell the difference between example two and three?

Here’s another example to reiterate:

Amy was asked what were some of her favorite foods.
She said, “Mangos, kiwi, orange sherbet, fish & chips, green olives… oh, and pickles!”

Did you notice “fish & chips”? She is stating that she likes fish and chips together, as a single unit, as a single favorite snack. It also means that she may not like fish and chips separately. Or at least not half as much as she would if they were together.

Read Full Post »

My Mystical Studies

Now as anyone, who knows even a little of me, knows I’m very methodical, clinical, and logical. (Though some would debate the logical part of my claim, referencing the fact that I am not an atheist. To that I say, “I am logical, just neither short-sighted nor pompous in my attributions of laws of science nor confining myself to said mere laws which are incomplete in scope. We still haven’t solved M-Theory, now have we. There are many things which modern science cannot explain and, which to any truly rational person, cannot be denied. Exhibit: Yale’s experiments on the Effects of The Observer on it’s environment.) As such, I’ve been and will continue to be very thorough in my studies & investigations regarding magic and matters of the occult.
 I have treated my current studies as occupational, though with a zeal and hunger I give none save my fetishes. 

    In other words, I am reading a shit load! 

    Here is a list of the Books I have read since the end of November: 

6Th & 7th Books of Moses
8Th Book of Moses
The Golden Tractate of Hermes Trismegistus
Theurgia Goetia
Ars Almadel
Ars Paulina
The Key of Solomon
Golden Dawn – The Supreme Invoking Ritual of the Pentagram
The Grand Grimoire
The Grimoire of Armadel
The Grimoire of Honorius
The Grimoire of Turiel
Grimoirum Verum
Herbs And Their Magickal Properties
Dr. Johannes Faust’s Threefold Coercion of Hell (a.k.a. The Black Raven)
Libellus Jesuitus
The Emerald Tablet of Hermes
Sepher Raziel
The Grand Grimoire (Pratt’s Version)
The Sword of Moses
The Black Pullett
The Twelve Keys of Basil Valentine
The 49 Enochian Calls by David Griffin
Golden Dawn Enochian magic by Pat Zalewski
The Nature of the Enochian Magickal System by Benjamin Rowe
Liber 58
Liber 777
Liber Samekh Hé
Lives of the Necromancers (Uses the term improperly)
Liber Satangelica
John Dee and the Magic Tables in the Book of Soyga by Jim Reeds
Summoning Spirits by Konstantinos
The Testament of Solomon
The Enochian Tablets by Aleister Crowley.
Enochian Linguistic
A Treatise on Elemental and Talismanic Magick
Paracelsus, Scrying, and The Lingua Adamica 

                                      …I think that was all.
                                         …I read…a lot. 

Communing with the Spirits by Martin Coleman (I forgot one.) 

(I also started reading the Dead Sea Scrolls. If anyone’s interested.) 

Thesis thus far: 

    Waite is sloppy and lazy. He gives more errors than effort.
    Crowley is notable being the counterbalance to Waite’s errors, but applies Jung’s outdated Pseudo-psychology to local gods. Jung was an idiot. So by association, that makes Crowley one as well.
    Dee is most curious. He is extremely varied in his studies. Knowing Kelley was a con man, he still used him as a tool. This leads me towards two options: He is either a genius or a fool. By his ability to work out the most complicated algorithms seen in squares and add to them means I am inclined towards the former.
    Konstantinos by far I respect the most if only by his clear forthright manner. He makes no attempt to dissuade through boring or “enlightened” prose. Above all, he is concise. He describes exercises which are themselves forms of thought focus.

Read Full Post »

Historical Sea Levels

     First, I’ll cover the most boring. This first map is a map based on maximum sea level height. Given current warming of the atmosphere and oceans, the water levels will increase by 250 feet within 300 years. The map, I should state, is only accurate within 100 miles. The two hand drawn lines are the Gulf Streams. The blue line represents the current Gulf Stream. The purple line represents the future Global Gulf Stream.

World, with 100 meter sea level rise

This  image is licensed under a Creative Commons License.  Credit: Dave Pape

  Now onto historical sea levels. This second map represents Earth just before the end of the last Ice Age. You’ll notice how much more land was present then. The timeframe is the year, 10,500 B.C.

The sea levels rose very swiftly after this time, roughly 450 feet over 1,000 years. The shear massive inundation of the land during this sea level adjustment is why a The Flood Myth occurs in nearly all religions. An interesting note that lends itself towards this fact is that ancient man had to live near the water to fish or be within a few days walk inland (40-100 miles), as a trading city to survive. Also, the Arabian, Mediterranean, and Floridian areas were permanently flooded inland by, in some cases, hundreds of miles.
    The area labeled (1) points to:
Japan, which was once a mountain range connected to Asia Proper with a giant prehistoric inland lake.
Indonesia, Malaysia, & the islands, were all connected on a much larger peninsula. Of all the prehistoric world this area was the most effected by the sea level rise, losing tens of thousands of square miles.
Austrailia, also was much larger during this time. Allowing for the easy crossing of the ancient Polynesian peoples to reach the continent during the ice ages starting 50,000 years ago. These became the indigenous australoid peoples, who are now a distinct and separate phenotype who are superficially similar to the negroid peoples. They are not even vaguely related.
You’ll notice a very large island once existed east of prehistoric Australia. There were also thousands of smaller islands which once existed or larger versions of the ones that still exist now, throughout the oceans of the world. Most are not visible on this map, as they are less than a hundred miles in their dimensions.

Under the label (2):
The Red Sea, The Persian Gulf, The Mediterranean Sea, and the surrounding bodies of water did not exist in during the last ice age.

Under label (3):
At this time, Europe, The Caribbean, and Central America had much more land.
You’ll notice the yellow dot below the (3). This dot is on a large island which no longer exists. This island is unique. Many ancient kabbalistic maps mark this island as Atlantis.
The true curiosity of this island comes from Edgar Kasey, the most profound psychic and prophet in history. What was so astonishing about him was that he gave only gave the answers to questions, while under clinically controlled hypnosis. He had cured thousands of illnesses, found lost & kidnapped children, solved murders, and was even investigated after providing information on a plane crash. He gave a little over 44,000 prophecies. A stenographer was used to record everything he said during this time. To date, it is the most complete and largest collection of prophecy.
    He was once asked if Atlantis existed.
        He answered, “Yes.”
    He was asked where it was.
        He asked for a map and draw an island in the Caribbean. (Just where it appears on this map.)
    He was then asked if we would ever prove it existed.
        He answered, “In the year 1966 or ‘67.”
Now while we do not believe Atlantis ever existed, in 1967 a road was found lined with ruins in the Caribbean at the yellow dot on the map. A spot, on the island Kasey marked as, “Atlantis.”

Man has always had a strong need for the sea. Even today, the most populated areas are those closest to large bodies of water who can harbor ports. While man need of the sea has changed from being used for fishing to also being used for commercial shipping, we need it no less now than we have throughout history.
 And with most every early tribe of man along the shores or the nearby low lying plains for survival. They began building small cities, which became buried under the rising waters. Over 4,000 years later, they became the cities of myth.

Read Full Post »