Who is Erwin Hessle?

Dicon wrote:

OK who was/is Erwin Hessle? Please.

Chade wrote:

He’s a magician, a philosopher, an adventurer, an ale drinker, a web
master, a seducer, a secret chef, a singer of songs, a heckler of
poets, a lover of women, a bare knuckle fighter, an alt.magick reg and
a Welshman too. Although not necessarily in that order, at least not
every day.

As good a summary as any, I suppose.

6 Comments on “Who is Erwin Hessle?”


By IAO131. November 26th, 2007 at 12:13 am

93 Erwin,

An egoist who posts aggrandizements of himself when he ironically claims to be 8=3.

That which is Erwin Hessle (at least those qualities naemd) can only reach to about 7=4 if not 4=7… all in the Ruach.

No?

210 & 65,
IAO131

By Erwin. November 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am

An egoist who posts aggrandizements of himself when he ironically claims to be 8=3.

So it would seem, eh?

That which is Erwin Hessle (at least those qualities naemd) can only reach to about 7=4 if not 4=7… all in the Ruach.

No?

“No” is correct.

By IAO131. November 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

It would seem. A master of the temple would agree with this statement equally:

Who/what is Erwin?

He’s not a magician, not a philosopher, not an adventurer, not an ale drinker, not a web master, not a seducer, not a secret chef, not a singer of songs, not a heckler of poets, not a lover of women, not a bare knuckle fighter, not an alt.magick reg and not a Welshman too. Although not necessarily in that order, at least not every day.

Aside from that, they would probably not post something to their blog which has nothing to do with anything except self-aggrandizement because 1 out of 200 people actually complimented you for once….

But oh well.

By Erwin. November 26th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

A master of the temple would agree with this statement equally:

Sure, why not? “As good a summary as any.”

Aside from that, they would probably not post something to their blog which has nothing to do with anything except self-aggrandizement because 1 out of 200 people actually complimented you for once…

The only reasonable statement you can make about what Masters of the Temple “would probably not” do is that they “would probably not” conform to your expectations of what you think they “would probably not” do. How many Masters of the Temple do you know, for instance, to be able to make this kind of claim?

If you are interested in saving time, there’s been a long line of people over the last 11 or so years waiting in line to tell me all kinds of crap about what a Master of the Temple “probably would not” do, some of them very smart people, and none of them had it right, either. At some point (or not) you’re just going to have to accept the fact that your fanciful, wistful imaginings of an 8=3 and an actual real live 8=3 are two very different animals. That’s just the way of the world.

By Adam Kadmon. July 5th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

It’s a meaningless distinction. Since the 8=3 has disidentified with the very thought of an individual “I”, the ability of someone without that realization to understand the actions of a MoT are severely limited. Understanding in this context is actually referring to the ability to predict the actions of a MoT successfully, or in retrospect to divine the probable decisions leading to those actions. However, while still caught in a conceptual framework that enshrines the concept of personal self, most individuals, even occultists, simply do not possess the necessary underlying understanding to do so.

If Irwin happens to be an 8=3, it is for him to know. Other 8=3 adepts (or equivalents) may not understand Erwin’s actions either, but will instead simply decline to analyze his actions until they catch up with him. Adepts can understand whether the one they are speaking to shares the amazingly simple yet never understood fact that the self is just a movement of mind.

By Sajid. October 11th, 2015 at 8:26 am

Brian,What you’ve offered is not a criitcism. It’s merely an expression of disagreement. When you provide reasons for your disagreement other than tradition, then it will be productive criitcism. Your response highlights why I’m such a fan of IAO131: he’s grounding the work in products of critical dialog and healthy skepticism instead of vague feelings, inclinations, and tradition.We have few tools that help us discern truth with any accuracy. IAO131 s work is based on the repeated use of these tools. I wish that wasn’t so controversial in the magic community.Just my two cents as well. Thanks for taking the time.

Leave a Reply

Note: Comments may be edited for relevance or content.