Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!oliveb!rap From: rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Crowley's sense of humor. Message-ID: <486@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:02:01 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.486 Posted: Wed Jul 3 12:02:01 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:43:31 EDT References: <437@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5429@cbscc.UUCP>, <452@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5458@cbscc.UUCP>, <464@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <5517@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 30 >> = Tim Maroney > = Paul Dubuc >>As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >>subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >>subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. > >The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward >the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? Maybe I can help clarify what Tim is saying (or at least what I think he is saying). Replace the phrase "subject of secrecy" with "subject of the secrecy" and it should make more sense. >So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate >murder? There is not any reference to murder at all. Only to sacrifice, and we all know that there are many forms of sacrifice. The readers are left to draw their own conclusions. >BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, >but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. Maybe calling it a joke wasn't the best description possible, but you should be able to see that many people use the word "joke" to indicate that they are not really serious. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap