To answer your first question, yes and no. Your experiences are certainly valid and verifiable by others who have done the Walking. What I meant, though, was that the traditional allocation of the planets to each of the spheres is actually a blind. I did not know this when the Necronomicon was first published, but practice and study have led me to that realization. That is what Gates of the Necronomicon is all about. To anticipate anyone's reactions, let me say that the practices outlined in the Necronomicon are perfectly reliable without this additional knowledge. It is a system that is internally consistent and which is, to a large extent, consistent with other occult practices of the Middle East including pre-Zoharic Kabbalah among others. However, a closer inspection of the system -- and particularly of the rather ambiguous instructions for the calendar to be employed -- lead us to greater insights as to how the system works, and also leads us to realize that the Walking of the Necronomicon is in many ways identical to other shamanic practices around the world.

As for my own experiences with the Gates, I must remain silent on this issue as I always have. The best I can do is offer advice and clarification where I can.

And thanks for ordering Gates! I am interested to know your reaction to the text.

In the manner that Jesus of Nazereth was said of have changed peter's name to Simon - bestowed him the title, therein, of Simon. How very interesting.

peace

Sounds great. I have noticed the many Egyptian and Kabbalic similarities. The Chinese comparisions and gate walking methods of other cultures promise to be very enlightening. It is also very true that many spirits called in the Necronomicon can be summoned within ones self in Shamanistic manner. Shapeshifting and knowledge of shapeshifting in the astral does not have any direct connection to the book but I can say that Marutukku teaches a type of body form shifting for astral combat.

I am definitly looking forward to November 1st when it releases. I will try to be the first to post a review on Amazon.com

Although it is out of context here I can think of no one more appropriate to ask than the Master Sage himself. On pg 192 of the Necronomicon the Minu Of Enki is said to be effective against many demonic forces. I have always thought this to be reffering to the Agga sign. I have always called it the Sign Of Enki although it is not so acclaimed in the Necronomicon. Is the Minu the Agga? Or is it perhaps the number of Enki which was written on the dragons Kalaturru and Kalaturru to give them power over Ganzir?

I was born in 1974 close to when the Necronomicon had its first printing. By my math if you where 20 years old in 1974 that makes you at least 52 now. I would further guess that you are closer to the number of Anu. I can not blame you for being tight lipped concerning the Necronomicon. I do hope that before you go before Kinma for final judgement that you give us as much of the unwritten higher knowledge as the Gods may allow. After all you are a prophet in every sense of the word and I know that your wisdom can profit many. The Mad Arab only made 1001 moons or 77 years. So the clock of Cronos is ticking!

Thank you for ushering such knowledge to the world.

Be blessed.

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jun 28 2006, 08:05 PM

The Agga and Enki are related, certainly, and the number of Enki as well as the sign of Agga are potent against the demonic forces.

As for my age, I am older than 52 but have not yet reached the number of Anu! I will answer as many questions as I can for now, though, and I hope that Gates will give everyone a more global context for the Walking (in particular) and the Necronomicon in general. But there will always be questions that I did not address in Gates, either due to space limitations (as anyone who has tried to deal with publishers can attest, space limitations do exist!) or simply to the fact that I had not considered the question before.

Peace.

Okay, lets just get this over with right now lol. Simon, are you or have you ever been ( (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) Peter Lavenda? As you may know, that is one of the rumors going around on the net.

It is good to hear my personal conclusions and revelations echoed by you. It shows that the system has a consciousness which can be tapped by anyone. It is remarkable that so many have the same experiances and recieve the same information from the powers that be.

Thanks

Amazon.com has finally posted a cover for gates of the Necronomicon. Looks cool. Simon I have always liked the Gate like border on the cover of the Necronomicon. Is this the artwork of L.K. Barnes?

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jul 1 2006, 12:40 AM

At the very least, Ashnook deserves an explanation for the continued use of the pseudonym. Even if Simon's tale were true, the book being stolen property is hardly a good enough excuse. Huback and Chapo received light sentences, and it's unlikely someone would track someone who merely possessed one of those books - which can't even be proved to exist - from thirty years ago. Pseudonyms are used for specific reasons, and Simon - as any other author - should be clear on which ones apply when they use one.

I like one other who asked you who you were are also curious. I am under the assumption that it was a group of people that got together and wrote the Necronomicon as a joke and Herman Slater took it and published it as a real grimoire and he was Simon. It says that in every article I have read. So my question is WHO are you as Herman Slater died in 1992. Are you one of the firends who helped write it taking up the name and carrying on with writing in this area of endeavor? This has me very confused because if he was Simon then you are not or vice versa.

Confused

Well, er, I am not Simon or anything, but there must be some cool greek term for questions asked by somone who may himself part of the answer ... if I had written a book which was claimed by certain people to advocate blood sacrifice and the same certain people questioned my judgement for publishing such eviltry into the world ... then I would remain pretty glad that I had chosen to remain enigmatically behind a pseudonym.

The idea which you have that an author should be clear on which specific reasons one is using a pseudonym for ... or what exactly will happen? I think that any reader is capable of imagining circumstances where revealing the purpose behind ones pseudonym would be even more damaging than not having one in the first place. - Or would simply destroy the fun.

All the best
Nox

This post has been edited by nox: Jul 7 2006, 02:04 PM

I'll write on this in my blog later, but here's a quick version.

One of the most important aspects of authorship is responsibility. My name is on my books. Thus, if something within is incorrect, or if I'm being a jerk, you as a reader can then hold me accountable for it. The exception is if there's some risk to the author - they'll lose your job, their family will be put in danger, or something of the sort. That's why pseudonyms have been used historically - to protect those without power from those who have it taking retribution against them.

(We could also talk about the issues surrounding craft names and Internet handles, but Simon's not just another Internet poster, and if he can joke about it being his real name, it seems unlikely that it's a craft name.)

If you're using a pseudonym to avoid being critiqued, or just for your own amusement (such amusement is never shared by all readers), or to attack people because you'd never have the guts to do so under your real name, you're really abusing and weakening a writer's tool that is even more necessary in today's world of multinational corporations and eroding civil liberties than ever before.

Not to be a jerk Dan but I really wasnt reaching for anything. It was more of a joke (hence the grin). I really do not think that it matters much "who" simon is. The same could be said about you or any other author. Since I will never have a personal relationship with Simon, You, Crowley, Mathers, etc. knowing a "real name" is irrelevant. I began posting my findings about the Necronomicon about 2 1/2 years ago. I use the name "Ashnook." It matters not what my "real name" is. People who have posted comments about my site, vids, lessons, etc. will base their opinions about my work in the Necronomicon field, not by my personal life....which is how it should be.

@Smasher666....dood the book cover for The Gates looks SWEET.

Hi Dan,

my name is on my book as well, but it sure aint gonna be there on any book I ever publish anything within the field of occultism. I would had assumed that this would be selfexplanatory but here goes: if one allows ones name to be associated with occult practices - or any practices which the majority of people view as totally whacky then one can just count on being discriminated against in the workplace and most probably in other areas as well. I seriously doubt that I would remain employed where I am presently working if I were open about my occult practices.

Yeah, I agree, let's skip the internet anonymity discussion. There are enough other intelligent people engaging in it.

Frankly I do not understand why you bring up the points you do regarding using a pseudonym to avoid being critiqued - do you think that is what Simon is doing? He has engaged in a lengthy dialogue with you in this very thread! Do you think Simon is using his pseudonym merely for his amusement? Now, personally I do not consider that wrong in any way - but certainly that doesn't appear to be the case. Do you believe Simon is using his pseudonym in order to attack people because he lacks the guts to do so under his real name? Again, I will not presume to speak for Simon, but to the extent (if any) that he has attacked anyone I would be very surprised if this was due to a lack of guts rather than a concern that his identity may be revealed.

I am pleased to read that at least there is one thing we are in agreeanse about, namely the absolute necessity for and legitimacy of using a pseudonym - even if we disagree about when and for what purposes such use is warranted. I can only state that I disagree with your implication that Simons use of a pseudonym would harm the institution of pseudonymous publishing. Au contraire: Simons use of his pseudonym is absolutely brilliant and should make most intelligent people value the institution even higher.

All the best
Nox

Nox,

You're preaching to the choir on the issue of discrimination - most people really don't give a damn why someone's writing about magic, and even writing as a scholar has given me my share of lumps. Nonetheless, I've chosen to sign my own name to what I write. A quick look at my bookshelf turns up Kraig, Tyson, Lisiewski, Flowers, Regardie, Grant, Cicero, Black, and Hyatt, all of whom are writing under their own names (feel free to call me on it if that doesn't hold true for any). Nonetheless, I can certainly understand why others would make the choice not to do so, and I can respect that. Let's look at the case before us, though.

Yes, I know who Simon is. I've watched for the times when he emerges into the public eye. I'd be quite tempted to buy your argument regarding the Simon of thirty years ago. Today, from what I know about the man and his situation, none of those reasons fly.

His continued presence here indicates that he isn't particularly interested in anonymity. If someone wanted to find out who he was, I'm sure it'd be pretty easy, and from what I've seen elsewhere, he hasn't exactly tried very hard to do this. The way he's danced around who he is when questioned in this thread suggests that "Simon" is "Simon" largely just because he enjoys being that mysterious individual who was at the center of the NYC occult scene, not for any reason of personal safety.

I know some people think I'm this horrible ogre who's out to destroy magic or the worship of the Sumerian pantheon, but I'm really not. Even if I don't agree with people who practice Necronomicon magick, I can respect the sincerity of those who do, and I try to do something if I think sincere people are being conned. Given that, I think that an explanation as to why he isn't publishing under his own name is long overdue.

In the interests of correcting myself, I found Simon's answer to this question on page 122 of DEAD NAMES:



I find it somewhat dubious as a reason for publishing under a pseudonym, but others might find it acceptable.

Or would they, knowing what I do?

If Simon adopted his pseudonym in order to avoid becoming a guru, why was he publishing under that name in Earth Religion News for years before the book was released? A few of these articles were on magical techniques (none I can recall on Nec magick - sorry, folks), but others are not. To accept his thesis is to accept that complaining about Isaac Bonewits or reviewing The Exorcist are the sorts of activities that inspire cult-like devotion.

Besides, if Simon's goal was to avoid attention, why hold lectures on Necronomicon magick after the paperback was released?

I'll give Simon a chance to respond, after which I'll decide what is appropriate. I haven't announced who Simon is because I wasn't absolutely sure about his personal situation. If this is his reason, and his reason is as bad as it looks, the game's over.

Dan,

I am sure you have heard of the Manson murders. On two consecutive nights, seven innocent adults and one unborn child lost their lives in what seemed to be a senseless, motiveless crime.

However one feels about the lifestyles of the wealthy and glamorous, it is hard to imagine any social good coming from these vicious murders. Yet over the years, the perpetrators of these crimes and their persistent followers have tried to suggest that these killings were necessary and desirable.

Some of these cult members actually thought that Manson was Jesus Christ and that he would lead them to a civilization in the center of the Earth.

There are alot of people out there who would slit your throat in the name of fun. If Simon chooses to protect himself by hiding his idenity I can not see how that is anyones buisness.

Don't let your hate get the best of you. Keep it civil.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/face08.gif)

This post has been edited by smasher666: Jul 12 2006, 10:56 AM

Hi Dan,

personally I find your reasoning horrendous and the act you are proposing detestable. I will explain exactly why. You have written that you contacted Simon by contacting his real name - and that Simon answered. To me personally this implies that you are trustbound and publishing Simons real name would very simply be a betrayal of such trust.

Also the fact that you disagree with the ethics of someone else is fair enough but when you start dogmatically arguing and acting as if your ethics are in any way superior to another persons ... sorry, but they aren't.

Furthermore your reasoning is exactly faulty regarding Simon's guru status. He is exactly NOT adopting the guru pose. Big creds to him for that - even when it replies that he doesn't reply to the most interesting questions I have posed to him. If you are unable to see what kind of guru v.s. non-guru distinction Simon is actually drawing then that does not imply that the distinction doesn't exist.

But beyond that - so what! Even if there is another reason for Simon to wish to remain pseudonymous what business of yours is it to expose him? To be perfectly honest I think that Simons pseudonymity partly functions as a literary device which is one determining part in what makes his work great. But who cares? No matter what his reasons are they are his reasons.

I must also ask you what purpose would it really serve for you to publish his name? I mean beyond the service of some rhetorical justification by pointing towards stupid dogmatic morality to which noone really subscribes. Will it add ANY kind of value? No - it will only serve to fatten your purse and make your name more often mentioned - is that what you are after? I have to admit, if that is the case, then I personally am pretty disapointed.

However the strongest argument for not publishing his name bears repeating, because my last argument is just the same as my first, since you have corresponded with Simon he has confirmed his dientity to you personally, he has shared his secret with you, hence the act you are contemplating, to publish it, would be shameful.

All the best
Noxlux

Guys,

Actually, your best argument falls by the wayside, as Simon never told me his identity.

I don't think I'm an immoral money-grubbing glory-hound, but even if I were, that wouldn't mean I wasn't right, now would it? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I write non-fiction. My job is to tell people the truth, as best I'm able, in the best way possible, on issues where they want to know it. There are exceptions to that, such as when a person is writing under a pseudonym.

Simon writes under a pseudonym. He has given his reason for doing so. Evidence shows that this cannot be the reason why Simon wrote under a pseudonym.

Simon's reason for using a pseudonym has just vanished. Not only that, it is not true. How it ended up untrue is another question, but it is.

Who cares, you ask? Who wouldn't? Most people want to know if someone isn't giving them correct information. Further, if you stand by and don't say anything when they're told, they end up really mad at you. Maybe it's only on a small matter today, but they'll want to know for tomorrow.

If I don't tell people the truth when there's no reason not to do so, I'm not doing my job. Plus, if I know people are hearing something that's false and I remain silent, I'm in trouble myself.

Simon has ways he can clear this up. I don't think he can do so gracefully, but I've already considered two or three arguments that'd be fine with me. Nonetheless, they're his to make.

With regard to ethics and morals - what about those who oppose this? Noxlux, at this point your argument is strictly aesthetic. Smasher, your argument does have ethics, but if applied broadly it means no pseudonymous author can ever be revealed, and it fails to handle the issue of untrue statements regarding motivations. Step up, gentlemen!

Dan Harms

this is just bullshit.

No, my argument is not just about estethics it is about both ethics and ethos. My claim that the pseudonym may be viewed as a literary device was a counterexample which disproved your implication that there could only be one justification for the use of the pseudonym - and that justification had to be known by and approved by you according to your set of moral standards.

(And btw to claim that it is "just" about aestethics is also quite silly. Imagine some of the greater court cases regarding cencorship vs art during the last century being thrown out of court because some person who was convinced about how right he was said that it would be absolutely unimportant to protect joyce (or burroughs) from cencorship because the oppositions argument were "just" about aesthetics.)

And NO, my best argument doesn't fall by the wayside because Simon never told you his identity. Of course he didn't, and I never claimed so. I claimed that you wrote to him under his identity and he answered, hence confirming your assumption regarding his identity.

This is something you clearly stated here:
http://danharms.wordpress.com/2006/06/14/d...-dead-dog-bias/

I fear of course that this will matter little now as you have started to misrepresent the critique from your opponents and answer it with set phrases like "I write non-fiction. My job is to tell people the truth, as best I'm able, in the best way possible, on issues where they want to know it." Yes, sure, and that little nifty phrase liberates you of moral responsibility. Nice one. Sounds just like thos journalists working in those papers we all so deeply respect. Congratulations.

Or am I just playing straight into your hand by getting pissed by this? Is it that you wish to provoke a reaction so that you can add the adjective "controversial" to your revelation of Simons pseudonym?

BTW If I were dealing with someone who had demonstrated the qualities you have demonstrated recently I would be EXTREMELY HESITANT to contact you in order to clear this up like you say Simon has ways to - it would not exactly be tempting to confide anything to someone who is preparing to blow my cover and who assumes the right to decide when it is proper to do so ... Jeez ... you have already considered two or three arguments that would be fine with YOU. Wow! Fine with you. Sounds a bit to much like a blackmailing pseudomuckrakers attempt at getting even more info to expose.

I also have a question. You claim that evedence proves according to you that Simon no longer has any reason for using a pseudonym. And yet you grant that there are ways he can clear it up. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I am extremely skeptical. Especially considering your "reasoning" recently. Well, maybe you will succeed in footnoting yourself into history, but maybe the word shame will be burned as an association to your name.

All the best
Noxlux

This post has been edited by nox: Jul 12 2006, 06:39 PM

Greetings!
Let's stay on topic please! Muckraking and casting aspersions against one another doesn't serve a discussion about a book! Cool it or I shut it down. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/butcher.gif)

Maybe this will help.

I can understand where NoxLux is coming from on this. I don't want it to look like there's going to be some quid pro quo or backroom deal that I'm trying to initiate. At the same time, there is a serious discrepancy here, and I'm not handing Simon his talking points.

Here's what I propose. If any readers like to know what sort of arguments I'd accept as legitimate - and if you can promise me you'll keep them to yourself and not repost or forward them - PM me, and I'll send them to you.

Fair enough?

There is certainly more than one reason why a person can use a pseudonym. Simon has given his choice from among them in Dead Names. Using a pseudonym does not necessarily exempt one from guruhood, and using one's real name does not compel one to adopt the position, so the argument is arguably flawed. Nonetheless, the real problem here is that the premise on which Simon’s argument is based is unsound, which renders that discussion moot.

Thanks for making the aesthetic-moral link explicit. I’d agree with the principle that aesthetics carries a moral worth to it, and I’m happy to apply them to the Necronomicon when considered as a work of art.

Nonetheless, the question then becomes whether an aesthetic perspective can be the only or the overriding principle, especially with regard to works that are supposed to have non-aesthetic worth as well. Dead Names, in fact, could be seen as an entire justification for the book's worth in a historical as well as an aesthetic sense. I’d say these measures of worth exist alongside each other – you can be right aesthetically, but wrong on the others.



That was poor wording on my part. I wrote this person under his non-Simon identity, and he responded in kind. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, and I've corrected the entry.



If you feel I am misrepresenting other’s arguments, here or elsewhere, please let me - and everyone else - know. When emotions run high, it’s easy to get lost and post things that are incorrect. That’s why it’s important to work through these things in a logical manner, and leave oneself open to critique. Plenty of people would say I'm already committing an ethical breach by not telling everyone who Simon was a long time ago.

I’ve yet to hear anyone say that my evidence is flawed, or that my reasoning, even if in “set phrases”, is incorrect. What I need are counterarguments that critique those, or that state that there’s a higher-level principle that trumps them. Instead of that, I'm getting disagreement based on what Simon could or should say, instead of what he actually did say. Under these circumstances, I should wait to see what Simon himself says in response and make a decision based on these principles.



My knowledge of Simon’s life, as I’ve stated, is limited. I can honestly say that, based on what I see of it, I see no reason for him – on non-aesthetic grounds, I’ll clarify – to maintain a pseudonym. Nonetheless, I’m willing to admit factors might be at play of which I know nothing.

Does that clarify matters?

@ Bym: I'll be cool.

@ Danharms:

Ok, I will have to keep this short. This is not my job, so I have to limit the amount of time I put into this.

First off I would like to apologise for the harshness of my words. My anger was triggered by a miscommunication (I hope!) which you have cleared up now. I still disagree strongly with you and consider what you are proposing to do to be wrong - but had I known yesterday what you have clarified today I would not had attacked you personally the way I did.

Ok, I will make a quick comment to some of the things you write about.



I will say pass to this offer. Simply because I do not think Simon owes you any kind of explanation - so what kind of arguments you would/will accept as legitimate is irrelevant from my point of view.



This is what I consider to be a main flaw in your reasoning: that if an author gives a reason for using a pseudonym and that reason proves wrong (according to you) then it is ok for you to expose him.



I will offer a point of view which has zero weight in todays society, but which I think will become quite weighty as the occult currents grow stronger in the world - namely that occult works work very much on the same principles as art, by pulling different semantic symbolic strings and hence shifting the realities of the viewer. Today the main difference is that only a small elite has access to the codes of the art world and the occult world respectively however the art world view is considered high status and written about in the prestigous papers whereas the occult world view is almost underground. To a great extent I would claim that loads of occult works have art status - except since the art people do not have access to the occult codes they have no means of recognizing that. One point is of course that occult works deserve exactly the same status art does. Full stop.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in your belief that the Necronomicon is indeed a forgery made up by Simon and possibly some other people. Occultly speaking this would place his Nec in the tradition of almost every older occult work, since they were almost all pseudoepigraphica. In the art sphere forgery has also been a brilliant part of immensely increasing the value of some works, consider: Carlos Castaneda, Ossian. Now, if this is indeed the case, then Simon is obviously a genious. Perhaps a minor genious since occult works do not recieve the recognition they deserve - but still.




Ok, so that miscommunication was the source of some (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif) - Good that it is cleared up.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you wrote Clark Kent and Clark Kent wrote back, signing his letters with Clark Kent, while you believe that Clark Kent is Superman. Is this a correct understanding?



Regarding my accusation about misrepresenting it stemmed from the above miscommunication, and one other thing which is also of the past now, and which I presently think was a result of english being my third language.

My commendations for remaining calm and thorough under fire. :-)



Saying it doesn't make them right.



Ok, I no longer consider what you wrote to have been "set phrases" - I am back to my previous view where I see you yet again as someone basically honest but with whoom I disagree strongly.

The problem I percieve with your line of reasoning here is that it presents an impossible dilemma to anyone arguing with you. If I appeal to a higher level principle which trumps the arguments you have presented you would not percieve it as such since you live inside your own hierarchy of values.

You see, to me, as a writer, planning to publish some work under pseudonym, the mere idea that someone would consider publishing my real name ... well, it doesn't even need any arguments it is wrong. It is a breach into someone elses integrity. It is meddling inside someone elses business where one has no business and is not aware of the consequences or reasons. And demanding to know such reasons under the threat of exposure is wrong.

As per Byms instructions above I will not count the ways specificly in which I consider such behavior wrong.

One higher level principle out of many is that one should respect other peoples decisions regarding how they wish to live their lives. But arguing about such principles is sort of pointless, again, since this is what I consider a higher level principle, while if you considered this a principle of the high level it is you wouldn't be contemplating publishing Simons identity in the first place.



Well, I don't think any of my arguments make assumptions about Simon or what he could or should say.



Fair enough that you remain open to persuasion. Though personally I fail to see any justification for why you assume the right to demand to be convinced or else you will act against the stated interests of Simon.

/Noxlux

What is the importance, again, of knowing or not knowing who simon really is? I consider myself a pretty sharp observer, but I don't see a point in all of this.

Each to his own artform, Dan, but you seem pretty geared towards stoking the fire - taking realtively innocent/minor curiosities, and turning them into an inferno of a debate... Kudos, if that's your intention, you do a good job.

I bet that Simon is none other than J.R.R Tolkien! Who didn't really die, but took over the body of another, commiting the original inhabitant's consciousness to the Darkness of the Void.

Shame on you 'simon'. Tsk tsk.

Jaa'

On the first bit - don't worry about it.



If everyone were looking at works of art and the occult from an aesthetic perspective - which, I'd admit, would be nice - then I'd buy this argument. They're not, however. People are buying, selling, and displaying these for other reasons as well, whether art for its monetary value or magic for its ability to give them a vision of a higher reality. What I find great about life is that people can find different ways to value the same thing. Deliberately not giving those people what they seek is disrespectful to their own values of what's important.



That's it.



Divulging a pseudonym cannot be absolutely wrong - otherwise, someone could kill me to stop me telling who Simon would be, and it would be acceptable, no? ;-) We might vary on where that line is, but we cannot simply place that as impermissible under any circumstances.

I do agree that not divulging the true identity of authors is important, especially in an occult context. If someone doesn't give a reason, I'll assume that they've got good cause. Nonetheless, Simon volunteered what he says is his reason - not one of his reasons, but his reason, for remaining anonymous. He created this situation, not me.

Let's take Simon out of the picture. I have a piece of information right now that people want to know. There is a reason before me to keep that information back. I know that reason cannot be correct, which I'm sure itself is of interest to those same people. I ask for clarification of that reason, and if that is not given or is insufficient, I give that information. No threat is involved.

I do respect Simon's morality - though I'm not quite sure what it is - but I also have my own. We can't know everything about a situation, but as moral individuals we need to try to understand what's before us and make choices. Right now, I'm being asked to set that evidence aside based on nothing but speculation, and I'm not willing to do that. Simon makes his choices, and I make mine.

I may have missed something, but it seems to me so far at least, that the only person really itching to expose Simon, is you, Dan. It was brought up as a simple matter of speculation, not in any real demand to know who Simon really is.

And as for Art vs. the Occult - both of them give one a higher vision of reality. Both of them are expressions of primal urges, both hold meaning which represents a deeper dimension of consciousness (or higher, depending on your point of view), and both can be viewed by anyone and interpreted in any of a hundred different ways. An Occult work IS an work of literary art - the art of words - and it is an Artform that people buy, sell, and display not because of its Aesthetic Artistic value, but it's Intellectual Artistic value. It is an interpretation of the primal forces which lie underneath the physical universe. The fact that people value it isn't enough of a reason to -try- to expose simon.



Come now, that's just ridiculous. Chances are there would be no personal consequences on your own part. Hah, well, maybe a couple dozen angry wizards.... who knows. Of course it would permissible under certain circumstances. If it was known that Simon had, say, murdered someone in cold blood, and now had to be brought up on charges and no one knew who he was, except you. Well, there's one good reason. Simply the fact that you don't know exactly why simon chooses not to reveal himself, or disagreeing with the reason, is not reason enough. That is your own ego justifying why you should give out that info.



No, you created the discussion - this does not warrant the dramatic title of situation - by judging on your own grounds that his reason is not enough, and by proposing that because you don't think it's enough of a reason, you therefore have the right to divulge his personal information. That's no form of gross collective judgement - many people deciding together that indeed it is time for simon to come out - which i may add, wouldn't make it right necessarily. It is simply your own personal vendetta.



Technically it's blackmail, basically the same thing, although I'd say this is hardly serious enough to really us the word. Who are you on your high horse to make such a demand? What business is it of yours? Are you occult papparazzi or something? No one likes the papparazzi, you know...



tsk tsk... Dan, you can't use morality in this argument. Understand what's before us and make choices? What choice will hinge on knowing simon's name? There is no reason to need to understand that. If you can give a sufficient reason why Simon's identity is somehow critical information to the masses, i'll jump fence and hang out in your pasture.

To divulge an Author's identity, who doesn't just come out of it on his own, requires a good solid reason. The author's lack of subjectively valid reason(s) is not enough. Using that argument makes it obvious that there is something personal in this for you. So far you seem to enjoy the speculation that you have some sort of highly prized information - now this isn't a rip, i'm just trying to understand what is driving you so hard in this matter, because it isn't morality, that's very obviously just a cover, unless you have some sort of child's sense of morality, tattle tailing on a classmate - which everyone should logically WANT to know. However, so far no one's on your side about this. Most of us here agree, if Simon wants to remain in the shadows, so to speak, then let him. What is important to most people is the work he's done. Don't think that readers value the author more than the book. It's the creation that get's the fame, and the Author get's a nod from the populace. That's the Author's place, and there is a kind of humility in that which should be respected, and shared by other writers.

You are looking for fame, or infamy - you're looking for attention on this matter, and trying to make yourself seem like the dutiful informant, shedding light onto the dark places that people cannot see in order to some how deliver them from the lies. Rubbish, Dan, rubbish. There is no good reason to divulge Simon's name.

shalom.

Vagrant Dreamer,

Before we talk, I think you should answer two questions:

1) If someone wants to avoid becoming an occult teacher, why is teaching occultists via lectures and classes all right, while writing a review of "The Exorcist" under your given name is not?

2) Based upon your "blackmail" argument, my goal is to benefit from not giving out information. Yet, via your "seeking fame" argument, my goal is to benefit from giving out the same information. How does one run both at the same time?

This post has been edited by Danharms: Jul 14 2006, 07:23 PM

1.) What simon said was that he did not want to be a 'guru' figure. Or acquire a personal following, in any case. There are doubtless many who would want to be Simon's Attache as it were, but he can't help how people see him. Teaching via lectures and classes, is not the same as becoming a guru and guiding a student or group of students through the gatewalking experience. He is spreading his technique, much like a math teacher. Math teachers, we may likely agree, are not Math Gurus. They know a field of study, and the pass on the technical details so that others can apply them to their own experiences and come up with something independant. I have taught plenty of people how to read tarot. Does that mean that I wish to become a Guru as well? No, a guru takes responsibility for the psyche of his students, shaping them into something more enlightened, a teacher just gives information. I should think all of that would be fairly obvious, both the difference between the two ideas and what Simon meant in context, given the information available. As far as Exorcist reviews goes, I don't see why it would be a problem, review a movie if you want, who cares, and who cares what name you want to review it under?

2.) That's what is known as a win win situation. Who wouldn't run both at the same time? Fame and infamy are largely the same thing - create enough of a stir and you're a social commodity in one circle or another. Personally, I don't believe you know simon's true identity. reading through these posts, what I see is a tendancy you have to enflame the 'vulnerable' points of conversation, a sort of devil's advocate. It seems to me this is consistent with your attitude towards Simon and the Necronomicon in general. Surely you can agree that in matters of conversational manipulation, social manipulation we should say, Tactics do not have to be an extension of true intention. It took just the slightest mention of Simon's identity, not even in a serious attempt to uncover it, for you to jump on the topic like a crusader on a holy mission. It doesn't seem to me you consulted Simon much in your research before producing a book trashing the integrity of the text and Simon himself - why would you exercise sudden interest in his reasons and justifications for this issue? You're not really either blackmailing or looking for the credit of finding out and publishing who Simon really is - you're looking to win a battle for you side, to bury a bunch of people in debate, and hopefully win over something that you clearly feel personally about towards Simon.

Basically, it's all about ego. You don't really care about wether or not anyone believes in the necronomicon, or wether it's regarded as a classic accepted text on the occult - you're interested in using it's infamy to become more respected in whatever social dimension you're in. Fame only really counts if it's fame within the community you want to influence.

But of course, These are just objective observations. Who really knows? Only you.

peace

Vagrant Dreamer is offering some good arguments with which I agree I shall not repeat them however, but only offer some comments and such regarding the rest.



Ok, as a side point I think it is fairly obvious from your reply that you are not a practicing occultist, right.



Deliberately not giving someone what they seek may also be good teaching.



Well, I never claimed it was impermissible under any circumstances. I claim that it is BAD. And as far as I can see you have offered NO argument for that it would be any good to publish Simons identity.



Ok. Please remember this.



Excellent!



I do not believe this. I think you have to prove to us that Simon is somewhere saying that there is only one reason and all other reasons are nonexistant - otherwise that statement is not probable. I think your take of this is a very partisan interpretation you are making precicely because you want to publish Simons identity.

Simons comment "You'd be a recluse, too, if you were associated with bringing the Necronomicon to print!" ( http://www.sacred-magick.org/index.php?showtopic=1310&hl= ) Certainly seems to indicate that he does not want all the attention generated by the nec associated to his real identity - and in this statement there is absolutely no talk about guruness.



I will assume that this was something you wrote in haste and do not really take to be the case, and hence pass commenting. If I am mistaken, and you really think that Simon created the present situation and you didn't please state so again.



Sure, the problem with removing the most relevant part of the picture is that all conclusions following are void. Hell - if Simon was not in the picture I would say: reveal his identity!



I am really skeptical regarding your claim that you know the reason not to be correct.
Of course a threat is involved.



You are not being asked to set evidence aside based on nothing but speculation. Your flaws in your reasoning are being pointed out but you keep acting as if your reasoning was flawless.

Let us briefly review what seems now to have become the crumbled foundation stone of your argument:




So, Simon says:



Your interpretation that this would imply that antiguruambitions were the only possible reason is not exactly the first interpretation which jumps into my mind. Actually the first interpretation that jumps into my mind is that you have decided what you want to do and now try to make it as justifiable as possible.



Simon did not state that he ADOPTED his pseudonym in order to avoid becoming a guru - he stated that he USED it for that reason.



I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you somehow implying that by writing those articles Simon became a guru?



I do not follow, I think it is pretty obvious that there is a large difference between publishing one of the stronger grimoires of the twentieth century and complaining about bonewits or reviewing the exorcist. But I do not even understand what one has to do with the other.



Well, I do not find anything strange in this whatsoever. Again since I do not know Simon I do not know how he thinks, but very simply, if I were in a similar position - say I had managed to discover and publish a grimoire which I understood was one of the top grimoires for both the present and the future, and I also was knowledgeable about how to use it - of course I would like to instruct people about it. At the same time I would prefer not to be known by my christian name by millions of readers. That does not strike me as particularly mysterious or strange or questionable. Does it really strike you as strange Dan?



Like Vagrant Dreamer already pointed out there is a huge difference between an occult teacher and a guru. Considering how the english language is used Simon is or has at least been an occult teacher, however afaik he has not been a guru.

I suspect that the way you are changing the terms you use are actually a result of a growing understanding that your position is untenable.

I fail to see the relevancy of reviews of the exorcist.



And now you intend to make an unethical choice which will null his choice.

All the best
Noxlux

P.S. I am now frustrated with myself for spending so much time on this board reading and responding to posts not relevant to occult work. I should rather had been spending time reading Ashnook and Smashers posts. And Simons of course.

This post has been edited by nox: Jul 14 2006, 09:39 PM