The Book of Solomon's Magick
nagasiva yronwode
Lars:
>> What dou think about this book?
>> The Book of Solomon's Magick
>> Author Carroll "Poke" Runyon
aka Gnome d' Plume, who posts regularly to alt.magick and other occult forums
sorc...@NOSPAM.mailcity.com (Paracelsus):
> It's a wonderful book, and if one wanted to learn Goetic Magick from
> scratch using one book, this would be it.
ok, so now we know that it deals with Goetic magic. that's a start.
perhaps it relates to Crowley ("magick"), unknown.
> In this, it holds an enormous advantage over other Goetia books
> that are designed for those who have already become experienced
> in the other stages of magick before Evocation.
besides "Goetic Evocation: The Magician's Workbook", Volume 2 of
the pair, by Steve Savedow, Eschaton Productions, 1996, to what
other references (I presume excluding straight grimoires such as
Crowley's or Mathers/De Laurence's editions of Lemegeton) do you
refer here?
> I got this and I gotta say it's one of my most valued and
> studied grimoires, on par with Practice of Magical Evocation
> by Franz Bardon.
thanks for the reference. does Bardon focus on Goetia, or is his
a more general work?
> The tape is excellent, too; It shows visibly the rituals
> and shows Bael and Astarte coming to visual appearance in
> the dark mirror.
impressive. thanks for the review. very helpful.
nagasiva
--
FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: cata...@luckymojo.com
mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
nagasiva yronwode
Paracelsus:
>> The tape is excellent, too; It shows visibly the rituals and shows Bael
>> and Astarte coming to visual appearance in the dark mirror.
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
> ...I do want to clarify that the manifestations of Baal and Astarte
> in the dark mirror that we show in the video are "special effects"
> because the actual process is subjective and cannot be photographed.
thank you for this correction! I was wondering how seriously to take
the claim being made. so 'evoking to visual manifestation', as you
understand it, does not mean 'visible to the naked eye' so much as
'visible to the magician'? that's different than I've usually heard
from Solomonic magicians who qualified the 'reality' of their evocation.
> But we did try to make the conjurations and the visionary effects
> as realistic as possible given the lighting and sound requirements
> necessary to get it on tape. It wasn't easy and our video-god Mitch
> Lieding of Third Wave Productions deserves a lot of credit.
> An interesting post-production anecdote: when we ran the raw
> footage of the first hypnotic conjuration (the rushes) in the studio,
> the sequence rolled right up the point where the spirit was supposed
> to appear -- and suddenly all the power in the city of Glendora went
> out for 45 minutes! Who says magick is "all in the mind"?
I'll presume that this is a jest.
Gnome d Plume
*****Nagasiva:
No. It is not a jest. It really happened, but unlike some
other folks on this news group, I don't make a big thing out of
"supernatural" magical effects. They certainly do occur, but as a
student of Eastern practice, you must agree that lusting after
"sidhis" (powers) is not the way to perfection, liberation or
enlightenment; it usually leads in the opposite direction.
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
Come visit us at http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
Darth Pikachu
(in message <8qg8qe$h...@bolt.sonic.net>):
> besides "Goetic Evocation: The Magician's Workbook", Volume 2 of
> the pair, by Steve Savedow, Eschaton Productions, 1996, to what
> other references (I presume excluding straight grimoires such as
> Crowley's or Mathers/De Laurence's editions of Lemegeton) do you
> refer here?
That's a pretty fine book, but mostly a supplement to the real Greater and
Lesser Keys. The Goetia depends upon concepts established in the Greater Key,
and that is a more mature and complicated volume. As for Savedow's book, he
mostly seems on the right track, and provides a lot of good information and
caveats regarding working the Goetia. But there is some junk in there too.
He fucks up in four areas: (1) He makes references to a "necessary" ritual in
Volume 1 which appears nowhere else, thereby beefing up sales of the
otherwise unimpressive V1 (2) He adds tons of Kabbalah which has almost no
functional bearing whatsoever on standard Goetic rituals or even anything he
suggests, and is thus likely to confuse the less experienced results-oriented
practitioner (3) Stories of his own communications with the Goetic demons
which seem like Star Trek episodes; sounds like one of the demons found a
rube, and (4) Steve Savedow concludes that Goetic Magic is basically
impractical and too risky to bother with-- something which indirectly
discredits him as an authority on it. We don't need another A.E.Waite.
But that shouldn't discourage anyone from buying it. Anybody who wants to
pursue Goetic Arts needs all the information they can get, and sifting
through a ton of crap for pearls is a part of that process. Savedow is no
different.
> thanks for the reference. does Bardon focus on Goetia, or is his
> a more general work?
Bardon is a lot like Savedow in that he describes many really excellent
principles, but then goes headfirst into a la-la land peopled by friendly
monsters. Bardon is extremely preachy, and is not fond of evil spirits at
all. (What a wuss!)
He also literally believed that he was an Emissary of God, superior in every
way to the Buddha and Jesus. I think he was smoking too much wacky weed,
because his infallible arse got shot off by the Nazis. Maybe he would have
done better if he had been a little more modest.
--Clifford Hartleigh Low
nagasiva yronwode
Paracelsus:
>>>> The tape is excellent, too; It shows visibly the rituals and shows Bael
>>>> and Astarte coming to visual appearance in the dark mirror.
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
>>> ...I do want to clarify that the manifestations of Baal and Astarte
>>> in the dark mirror that we show in the video are "special effects"
>>> because the actual process is subjective and cannot be photographed.
nagasiva:
>> thank you for this correction! I was wondering how seriously to take
>> the claim being made. so 'evoking to visual manifestation', as you
>> understand it, does not mean 'visible to the naked eye' so much as
>> 'visible to the magician'? that's different than I've usually heard
>> from Solomonic magicians who qualified the 'reality' of their evocation.
>>> But we did try to make the conjurations and the visionary effects
>>> as realistic as possible given the lighting and sound requirements
>>> necessary to get it on tape. It wasn't easy and our video-god Mitch
>>> Lieding of Third Wave Productions deserves a lot of credit.
>>> An interesting post-production anecdote: when we ran the raw
>>> footage of the first hypnotic conjuration (the rushes) in the studio,
>>> the sequence rolled right up the point where the spirit was supposed
>>> to appear -- and suddenly all the power in the city of Glendora went
>>> out for 45 minutes! Who says magick is "all in the mind"?
>>
>>I'll presume that this is a jest.
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
>No. It is not a jest. It really happened
it may have really happened, but do you really accept that the
two were connected based on a single coincidence?
> ...unlike some other folks on this news group, I don't make a
> big thing out of "supernatural" magical effects.
I think that may be wise given your criteria for considering
them as such.
> They certainly do occur
hasn't Tom Schuler lectured you on this yet? :>
peculiar coincidences happen all the time, but I'm not sure that
they do so at a variance from what would be called random chance.
come back to us when you have finished your third such ritual of
the same (hell, any) type and at the same (hell, any) momemt when
viewing the rushes the same (hell, any) power outage occurs.
then we'll talk. ;>
> ...as a student of Eastern practice, you must agree that lusting
> after "sidhis" (powers) is not the way to perfection, liberation
> or enlightenment; it usually leads in the opposite direction.
and yet this appears to be that upon which the foundation of the
Hermetic mystico-magical tradition is laid. I'm not sure to where
such lust leads. typically mystical practice of both Eastern and
Western types benefit from fanaticism to the achievement of their
objectives, which are often phrased in a manner that is highly
suspect. perhaps lusting for them (i.e. unusual persistence in
pursuit of these supposed supernatural powers) will lead one away
from spiritual development because, discovering that these sidhis
are either metaphorical or complete fabrications, the student
(understandably) considers the entire enterprise to be charlatanry
and departs from it post-haste.
cf.
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/lustresult.h
by Haramullah (aka n.yronwode!), which addresses this issue.
blessed beast!
nagasiva yronwode
Gnome d'Plume:
>>> because the actual process is subjective and cannot be photographed.
nagasiva:
>> thank you for this correction! I was wondering how seriously to take
>> the claim being made. so 'evoking to visual manifestation', as you
>> understand it, does not mean 'visible to the naked eye' so much as
>> 'visible to the magician'? that's different than I've usually heard
>> from Solomonic magicians who qualified the 'reality' of their evocation.
papa...@aol.com (Papaj418):
> If the manifestation is visible to the magician, how would one know
> if it were visible to the naked eye, failing the presence of an
> objective observer?
films, cameras. obviously it is not visible to the naked eye because
it doesn't appear on film without special effects. elsewise the truly
critical Absolute Manifestation Magician would say that they weren't
successful in their evocation and only imagined it or only achieved
a manifestation on the Astral Plane (cf. Dion Fortune's discernment
between the two: astral/physical, who was ectoplasmic in her ideas).
> I've seen things in rituals that I was quite sure any observer
> would have seen too, had there been one. And of course something
> that might be visible to all observers in a room might still not
> come thru on film.....
group vision/hallucination is apparently possible. that doesn't
make the effect visible to the naked eye. perhaps you can name
some other event known to exist that has this quality? even
rainbows can be photographed, as can mirages.
>>>Who says magick is "all in the mind"?
>>I'll presume that this is a jest.
>Would it have to be?
I was attempting to allow Gnome the benefit of the doubt where
his statement of criteria for accepting relevant coincidences
pertinent to magical effects. apparently I was too generous.
Gnome d Plume
*****nagasiva:
There are other valid methods of conjuration in Goetia presently in
use. Lon Du Quette uses a non-visual "presence" and "communication"
approach (although he has gotten occasional visuals as a side-effect).
However, the old Goetia method specifies "conjuration to visible
appearance" and demands that the spirit "appear in fair and human
form." As far as I know our method (dark mirror facial
reflection/distortion) is the only practical and replicatable method
of doing this short of spending years in a Bardon type training
program, or driving yourself (and your assistants) to exhaustion and
temporary insanity ala Steve Savedow, or taking a whopping does of
something to alter your consciousness ala Crowley and others --
or being a natural clairvoyant (which most of us are not).
Our method derives from the Eastern practice of evoking
previous incarnations, the African practice of evoking visions of
one's ancestors, and the Arabian idea (according to Ibn Al Kaldhun)
that "a mist forms between the scryer and the mirror upon which the
vision appears."
We consider Goetia to be an ancient system of ritual
self-perfection, purification and universal-mind access in line with
the principals of Hermetic philosophy and Carl Jung's concept of an
archetypal dimension called the "Collective Unconscious."
We have been doing this work on a monthly basis since 1969.
We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of Solomon's
Magick* on our web site at:
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
*The Book of Solomon's Magick* and the accompanying video *The
Magick of Solomon* are both available for immediate shipment from
Amazon.com (U.S.)*******
Happy Equinox!
Gnome d Plume
nagasiva yronwode
lots of 5s today
Gnome d'Plume:
>>>>> because the actual process is subjective and cannot be photographed.
nagasiva:
>>...obviously it is not visible to the naked eye because
>>it doesn't appear on film without special effects. elsewise the truly
>>critical Absolute Manifestation Magician would say that they weren't
>>successful in their evocation and only imagined it or only achieved
>>a manifestation on the Astral Plane (cf. Dion Fortune's discernment
>>between the two: astral/physical, who was ectoplasmic in her ideas).
Gnome d'Plume:
> There are other valid methods of conjuration in Goetia presently in use.
you know, I wouldn't have been so peculiarly interested if I hadn't
received many inquiries from Goetic Magicians (at least this is how they
characterized themselves) who touted the doctrine that 'if it isn't
evoked to visibility then it isn't the real mccoy'. I thought that
they were kind of ghost-buster-like in their attitudes and, when they
would talk with me about these demons wrestling them to the ground
and tearing their clothes I found it rather extreme. these were in
some cases well-placed individuals in occult orders. so I have ever
since tried to understand what was being claimed by demon-summoners.
what constitutes a "valid method of conjuration"? I personally think
that the physical/visible manifestation stuff is tenuous at best and
possibly entirely charlatanry. I was reading Fortune on it recently
(discernable through my mention of her above) and she (as did Levi)
mentioned the Medium as an essential role in evocative summonings:
In the great majority of cases of evocative magic, the form
is built up in on the astral and can only actually be seen by the
clairvoyant, though any sensitive person can feel its influence.
It is only when there is a materializing medium as member of
the circle that materialization takes place and the form
evoked is visible to the physical eye. A tenuous type of form
can be induced to build itself up by the use of certain substances
that give off ectoplasm, the principal of which is fresh blood;
excreta can also be used for the same purpose. A considerable
bulk of these unpleasantsubstances is necessary, however, to
get a form of any definiteness, and their virtue is fugitive, for
the ectoplasm has gone off by the time the body heat has
departed. Therefore for all practical purposes they are of no use
to the operator under the ordinary conditions of civilized life;
neither can a very high type of presence be induced to manifest
through such media....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Applied Magic", Dion Fortune, Aquarian Press, 1987; p. 105.
____________________________________________________________
do you agree that these roles (magnetizer/medium) are traditional,
necessary to evocation to perceivable appearance by the mage, and
if so, what is the value of attempting to do more than "just evoke"
a spirit? how does 'mere evocation' differ from mediumized evocation
if it isn't based on the fact that these spirits produce some kind
of ectoplasmic, physically-observable (by cameras) result?
just to be sure you know where I'm coming from here, I have quite a
bit of experience in ritual and out with gods, spirits, elementals,
and what I'd call demons. sometimes I could perceive them, but did
know that nobody else around would be able to if I'd drawn their
attention to these beings. I've refused to decide whether this
meant that the phenomenon was completely subjective or represented
some contact with a being at least partially outside my consciousness.
in many cases I received information that I was certain I did not
consciously originate, and this was impressive to me and gave me
reason to continue to pursue communications, contact, service, and
in a few cases, worship. so I am not asking these questions in order
to make you look bad or embarrass you or anything. I'm serious.
> Lon Du Quette uses a non-visual "presence" and "communication"
> approach (although he has gotten occasional visuals as a side-effect).
> However, the old Goetia method specifies "conjuration to visible
> appearance" and demands that the spirit "appear in fair and human
> form." As far as I know our method (dark mirror facial
> reflection/distortion) is the only practical and replicatable method
> of doing this short of spending years in a Bardon type training
> program,
what are you proposing that spending years in such a program would help
you to achieve? what better results do you think are possible?
> or driving yourself (and your assistants) to exhaustion and
> temporary insanity ala Steve Savedow,
do elaborate here, if you will, concerning what you know about
Mr. Savedow and his temporary insanity. it is obvious that he is
not the most popular of demonologists, by accounts from Darth Pikachu,
my own review of his text, and others, so I'm curious what you have
available about his practice that you would make such a comment. thanks.
> or taking a whopping does of
>something to alter your consciousness ala Crowley and others --
this I've done and can testify to its effectiveness, though the
psychoactives may get in the way of grounding the experience or
retaining one's bearings (a certain amount of discipline is
required to make it a truly valuable mechanism for summoning).
I notice that those who use this method predominantly are more
prone to flights of imaginative fancy and gullibility.
>or being a natural clairvoyant (which most of us are not).
many Hermetic authors mention the value of having clairvoyants
involved with summonings. how would such an individual become
part of your ritual evocation? my understanding is that a
clairvoyant is someone who can see at a distance, as through
someone else's eyes, or at a different location, through what
are typically referred to as psychic abilities. why would a
clairvoyant (rather than a medium) be valuable?
> Our method derives from the Eastern practice of evoking
> previous incarnations,
I've never heard of that. something you learned from Buddhists?
how is this conceptualized in terms of cosmology that one's
previous incarnations could be evoked?
> the African practice of evoking visions of one's ancestors,
visions seem to be popular in religious cosmologies, so that is
not too surprising.
> and the Arabian idea (according to Ibn Al Kaldhun) that "a mist
> forms between the scryer and the mirror upon which the vision appears."
who was Ibn Al Kaldhun? I'd like to compare and contrast the variety
of techniques used by all of these individuals, inclusive of your
own, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to this thread. this is
in part why I'm taking such time in reviewing your publications below.
for my part, I've never used a glass, mirror, or stone in an
attempt to evoke, and only really put my will into a single
summoning of this sort (with no immediate 'visible' appearance).
since then my technique has without exception been INvocation,
even with demons, and I'm curious how evoking is being
accomplished, complete with its variation of methods.
> We consider Goetia to be an ancient system of ritual
> self-perfection, purification and universal-mind access in line with
> the principals of Hermetic philosophy and Carl Jung's concept of an
> archetypal dimension called the "Collective Unconscious."
a psychological model of magic. yes, this is the rationalization of
demons that I first accepted as legitimate (first magical essay).
there is much to recommend it. it does seem to fit into Hermetic
values and goals nicely when interpreted in this manner. all those
who did not understand this possibility with whom I've spoken have
told me that Goetic evocation was 'insane and dangerous' and that
I should avoid it. I found their warning somewhat extreme.
> We have been doing this work on a monthly basis since 1969.
admirable.
> We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
>the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of Solomon's
>Magick* on our web site at:
>http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
>download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
thanks! I was able to download both to my UNIX shell and get them
into MSWord documents and I'll review them in subsequent posts.
SOD of the CoE
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
> We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
>the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of Solomon's
>Magick* on our web site at:
>http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
>download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
ok, here's the review of "Magick & Hypnosis":
----------------------------------------------
in this article (1999 apparently) you write:
# hypnosis is the operative technique of Ceremonial Magick.
# Visions of Spirits appearing in the Triangle of Art are
# actually archetypes evoked from the deep-mind via hypnotic
# induction.
if this is true, then why does it matter whether one evokes to a
visual appearance (to the mage)? as long as one is perceptive
enough and in tune with one's own faculties of imagination, why
would evocation to any kind of communication (even merely sonic)
be enough?
several times you mention Jungian archetypes in the collective
unconscious. you believe that these are as Jung described them?
what evidence do you have which leads you to believe that these
are real, or as you put it "a reality that goes beyond anyone's
individual conception" and "contains the entire history of the
human race and probably the destiny of mankind"?
# As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
# in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively merely
psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to affect the
world outside hir mind? or do you have some explanation for why what
Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
# The reason why so few people practice magick is not that
# there are so few students of the art -- there are
# thousands -- but that only a few know the real secret. (1.)
the notes (as "(1.)") do not appear to be contained within this
file, fyi.
# Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
# reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
# they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
truly worthwhile?
# Crowley spent many weary hours trying to conjure a spirit
# to visible appearance in smoke over the Triangle of Art.
there's one technique: smoking the triangle and trying to see the
demons in the smoke during the rite.
# ...drugs. Such agents tend to activate their own unique
# effects....
we seem to agree on this, though my experience is that for some,
psychoactives can be a valuable tool for ritual (an ability to
retain some level of skepticism is imperative, as can be, during
this period, a Magical Record to be reviewed when completely sober).
# ...magick and witchcraft are powerful psychodynamic systems,
# even in an exclusively subjective, phenomenologically
# conservative sense. The practice of "the art" and "the craft"
# is not as dangerous as our credulous Christian critics contend,
# but neither is it as frivolously dysfunctional as Cartesian
# pedants would suppose. We are the inheritors of a great ancient
# system of psychology perfected over thousands of years. It can
# bring much good and happiness to us and our associates or, like
# any of the major systems of knowledge, it can be misused with
# harmful effect. In magick and witchcraft, however, most
# malicious transitive operations tend to backfire because the
# would-be sorcerer does not understand the subjective nature of
# the art. (11.)
what danger is involved? are you talking about the detours of those
who discover their own symbol-system that you mention below? what is
the range of repecussion which might be involved in a "backfire" of
this type?
# I strongly advise against initiating anyone who refuses to
# accept this concept [that magick is an hypnotic process].
# In order to underline this point, I will admit to having made
# the mistake and finding out that there is no convincing such
# a person afterward to abandon his objective view. You will
# only succeed in convincing him that you are a poor magician
# because you are unable to make the floor burst open and spill
# forth the legions of Tartarus in cinemascope and stereophonic
# sound.
LOL! wonderfully written. I've witnessed similar interactions among
magicians, sometimes quite acid. do you think that some in the
Hermetic culture *know* the limitations of their magick and yet
initiate, train, or otherwise work with those with objective views
such as these in the hopes that they'll 'come around'? it can set
the candidate up for a tremendious let-down to be sure.
# In ceremonial magick everyone should have their turn at taking
# every role in temple rites, seasonal ceremonies, and
# initiations; otherwise a magical lodge becomes a "cult" in the
# worst sense of the word.
agreed. this seems to be how the cult of Crowleyanity is developing.
# We recommend Leslie M. LeCron's "Self-Hypnotism: The Technique
# and Its Use in Daily Living" as a basic text.
thanks, a valuable reference.
# [The trance states of "yoga students and Zen sitters" are
# closely associated with sedentary asana positions, and
# induction of the trance is less controlled and direct. It
# is, in fact, a by-product of the meditation rather than
# the principle effect.
my limited experience confirms this. yogic austerities and zazen
seem to be the foundation of insight into the reality of oneself
in a kind of composed entirety, rather than viewing aspects of
oneself in imaginative forms. compare the visualizations of
Neopagans and Tibetan Buddhists for a closer resemblance.
# ...the ability to stare at a fixed point, or symbol, for
# long periods of time without blinking or letting the
# eyes change focus.... ...is absolutely essential to
# ...Almadel and Goetia operations.
how so?
# It is important to note that such [Goetic] rituals [in which
# the spirits may be interacted with] do not depend on the use
# of drugs or hysterical dancing preliminary to the experience.
was there anyone who has suggested hysterical dancing as a preliminary?
I've used this technique before for ritual once or twice, but didn't
know that ceremonial magicians considered it seriously.
# Before any magical working is undertaken , there should be a
# period of 'preliminary meditation'.
similar to the 'grounding and centering' of Wiccans, if this stands
alone. you subsequently describe a series of trance-inducing visuali-
zations, however, so I gather by 'meditation' you are here speaking
of a visualization as such. Wiccan or general Neopagan ritual
typically includes this as part of preliminaries for grounding or
group integrity, but also later in group journeying.
# there are three basic types of magical operations: evocation,
# wherein the operator calls forth the spirit from his, or his
# receiver's, subconscious; invocation, wherein a supernal power
# is called down to in-dwell in the subconscious; and inner-plane
# projection (path working, soul-travel, etc.) wherein a
# journey is made into the realms of the subconscious -- in this
# case the collective unconscious. Healing, the building of
# telesmatic images, the charging of talismans, and even
# divination are variations on these basic themes.
what is the difference between 'building telesmatic images' and the
evocation of a spirit? to which of the above (evocation, invocation,
and projection) would you assign divination? why?
# The traditional symbolism of these paths and spheres [involved
# in path-working] is set forth in Gareth Knight's "A Practical
# Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism (1965)....
thanks for the reference.
# The method is to create a consistent, realistic fantasy land
# which will include all the symbolism we wish to encounter
here is a direct connection with role-playing games -- one which I've
consistently tried to get magicians to take seriously.
# The purpose of working a path is to learn more about it and
# yourself, that will bring something up from your subconscious
# that will help you along the road to individuation. The way
# we do this in the O.T.A.'s path-working system is to
# establish 'attention points'. (17.) These attention points
# are situations, objects, or entities that we are instructed
# to question individually and privately, or otherwise comprehend.
# We are told to remember the special knowledge we have received.
this is a technique which is also valuable in dream-work. some find it
very easy to encounter repeated situations or places during a night's
dreaming which may allow one to establish a means of interacting with
that part of one's mind which fabricates it. there are those who claim
that Lovecraft was also familiar with it and that this is what led to
his construction of his 'Dreamlands'. roleplaying games and Thelemic
magicians (often Typhonians) have tried to use this possibility in
their ritual work to do the rough equivalent of demonic summoning.
# Later, in the critique which always follows any magical
# operation, we are asked to recount what we have experienced.
# Some of these revelations are remarkable and often confirm
# our contention that the collective unconscious is truly a
# transpersonal dimension.
I'm not sure what this contention means, however. I'd agree, based
on my own ritual experience, that contact with the Between World
(as I've enjoyed calling it, after comic books) enables one to
encounter intelligences which are beyond the conscious mind. I am
not sure if this is what you mean by 'transpersonal', however.
for example, I don't know if you'd use this contention to try to
explain how "Low Magic" spells work.
# Avoid the magus who has created his own revealed system
# for it will inevitably reflect the particular imbalances
# of his own personality.
while I can appreciate this warning, and was previously going to
ask you how you could be sure that there is only one set of symbols
useful for this ritual technique, I can understand that you are
saying that Hermetic tradition has rarefied a set of parameters for
ritual symbolism with which to work. I'd suggest in response that
those who find traditional symbolism to be problematic in some way
are not imprudent to look elsewhere for alternatives being used in
any number of more modern variations or in "creating their own
qabalah", as Crowley described it. while it may be more risky or
subject the mage to otherwise avoidable traps and complexes which
the traditional symbol system can sidestep, some aspects of this
same tradition can be abrasive and dangerous to the personalities
and/or background of the mage encountering it.
that is, I think that to suggest that traditional Hermetic
symbolism is 'safe for everyone' is irresponsible, and prone to
lead those not 'ready' for it into some of the same types of
problems about which you are warning here (because the Hermetic
tradition has its own imbalances of symbolism which those who
engage it find palatable on account of background and taste).
this is especially possible if the bulk of Hermeticists (i.e.
the Golden Dawn) have been doing it without even understanding
its functional parameters (e.g. as a psychoanalytic tool).
some of these hazardous 'revealed' systems may prove to be more
in tune with those who have problems with Hermetic tradition,
though I don't expect that Hermetic mages would necessarily be
aware of this. it is the rough equivalent of the biases which
may be found in religious rituals (e.g. masses and their efficacy).
# There is a more subtle danger which may be encountered
# even in traditional working. The operator himself is
# in a light state of trance (as he would be in any magical
# operation) and is subject to impromptu visionary
# experiences. He should not involve his group in such a
# phenomenon and should banish it, or extricate himself,
# as quickly and quietly as possible. If the scenario is
# properly written and rehearsed this should not be too
# much of a problem.
this is the place where individual vision-journeying becomes more
profitable to the mage, as I see it, than group working, because
the impromptu experiences have at times been very important to me.
in Neopagan ritual we've occasionally had folks 'wander off' on
their own visualization while the group was doing its thing. I
didn't notice that this proved severely detrimental to the rest
of the group, though I can see why it might be valuable to avoid
it, especially if everyone has a particular role with respect to
the ritual and you are depending on them to 'be there'.
# Keep your narration simple and carefully sequenced so that
# you will not prematurely evoke a vision that you will
# contradict with a subsequent description.
this is very good advice (particularly with your elaboration)
for anyone interested in doing visualized ritual journeying.
# ...invocation. ...is usually done on the double-cube altar
# in the center of the great circle with a crystal orb as
# a focal point. In our Lemegeton system we derive invocational
# rituals from the book Almadel.
maybe within certain traditions this is true, but generally it is
not done within such a constrained structure. that's a lovely
technical description with the orb, by the way. I presume that it
is described that way in the Almadel.
# We can become so intellectual and sophisticated that we lose
# our sense of wonder, dimming the light of intuition that
# leads us on. I hope that I have at least hinted at the
# philosophical key to avoiding such a trap: the grand Hermetic
# monism of the Renaissance magi.
this must be the 'key' of which you were speaking previously. I gather
by it you mean a particular interpretation of the grimoiric language
and ritual elements (in particular, along the lines of the psychological).
# We should establish canons of magick in terms of kabbalistic
# philosophy, Jungian psychology and hypnotic practice -- for
# these are the three pillars upon which the art stands today.
with regard to Hermetic magic, this seems a reasonable statement.
I do think you generalize overmuch, however, given that not all magic
is ceremonial and not all ceremonial is Hermetic/Solomonic.
# End Notes: Magick and Hypnosis
# ...
# My colleague, Philip H. Faber has written a fascinating paper
# on the subject, Hypnosis and Ritual Magick for Paradigm
# Magazine. This can be accessed on Faber's website:
# http://members.aol.com/discord23/hypno.htm
definitely worth the read, though Faber's Crowleyphilia seems a bit
much at times.
# A currently annotated version of Negative vs. Positive Gnosis
# will be posted on our web site at some future date.
let us know if you ever get this up on the web site for viewing.
# A former Jungian admirer, and avid promoter of Jungian ideas,
# Richard Noll, experienced a sudden change of heart (not
# uncommon among cult devotees) and wrote two books scathing
# the life and work of his mentor with yellow-journalistic
# fervor. Both these authors have capitalized on the
# unfortunate fact that Carl Jung, like Pope Pious, did not lie
# down across the tracks of an on-rushing Nazi train before and
# during World War II. ( For an extensive, and corrective,
# critique of these anti-Jungian works see Robin Robertson's
# review in Gnosis magazine, Winter 1998.
hmm, this seems somewhat of an understatement given Jung's dealings
with the Solar-Phalic man episodes. I'm sure that some who read this
may find something to argue with you about here. in any case thanks
for the reference on the Jung-defense in Gnosis.
# Eliphas Levi (whom Crowley claimed as a previous incarnation)
# attempted a similar experiment to summon the shade of Apolonius
# of Tyana. Quite properly he used a mirror as a conjuration
# device, but he mistakenly thought that smoke on the altar would
# provide a substance for the spirit to use in building a visible
# form. He was successful, at least in the visualization, but
# banished before attempting communication.
I don't understand. if he was successful (and I wonder how anyone can
tell, over this intervening period of years, that he was, given his
lack of reliability about his reports), then why do you say that his
thought about the smoke was "mistaken"?
# Today we use smoke before the dark mirror as an olfactory
# correspondence, and a mood enhancer. Concentration stays on
# the mirror, not the smoke.... ...the O.T.A.'s 'Assumption
# of God/Goddess Form' method of conjuration in which the
# receiver lies under a dark mirror while being lightly
# massaged by the operator and his assistants.
so you differ with some traditional magicians on how the "visible
appearance" should be achieved. I appreciate the reflection on
your technique. it sounds rather unusual. was the massage an
innovation of your own, extending from the concepts of Mesmer,
as above, perhaps building on Reich, or did you get this from
elsewhere?
# ...all this work, as valuable as it may be, merely refines
# our ability to employ a phenomenon we still don't understand.
if true, then how can you be sure that you are 'correctly'
proceeding and that Levi was 'mistaken'?
btw, you and Faber both mention the value of ideas and techniques
from Neuolinguistic Programming (NLP: Faber with respect to the
Bandler/Grinder work; your off-handed reference to an NLP discipline),
which leads me to think that you focus on magic as predominantly a
linguistic and conceptually-keyed psychospiritual discipline. I'd
be interested in knowing why you bother with Levi and his ilk if
his ideas concerning magic are apparently so far off. is it possible
that those who describe magic differently can get some details right
and be so far off as regards the results or its general operation?
# When we say 'traditional' we mean 'Golden Dawn' traditional.
# Although based on a Rabbinical structure, the 19th century
# G.D. system incorporates Tarot symbolism, and Pagan
# mythological archetypes. It has become standard for most
# students of Western magick.
upon what "rabbinical system" is it your understanding that the
Golden Dawn was based upon?
# The O.T.A. system was inspired by the soul-travel methods
# of Sikh-Sant guru Kerpol Singh (also the mentor of Paul
# Twitchell who developed Ekankar.)
another important description. this helps us to see where your
ideas are getting coming from. my understanding is that Twitchell
and his Ekankarists do not think of their soul journeying as
strictly psychological in nature.
thanks for making your views available for free to the interested!
I hope that you may be able to address my questions. enjoy!
blessed beast!
boboroshi
Satanic Outreach Director,
Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
Re O酬tat
of the CoE) wrote:
The implication of Poke¹s statement is that the GD used hypnosis while
their ³Victorian forbears² did not.
From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
Neophyte ritual.
³The Obligation² of the Neophyte.
Page 78
³I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
actions.²
From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
Neophyte ritual
³The Obligation² of the Neophyte.
Volume Six, page 12
³I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions.²
Is Poke right or wrong?
You decide.
RE
catherine yronwode
> # A former Jungian admirer, and avid promoter of Jungian
> # ideas, Richard Noll, experienced a sudden change of heart
> # (not uncommon among cult devotees) and wrote two books
> # scathing the life and work of his mentor with yellow-
> # journalistic fervor. Both these authors have capitalized on
> # the unfortunate fact that Carl Jung, like Pope Pious, did
> # not lie down across the tracks of an on-rushing Nazi train
> # before and during World War II.(For an extensive, and
> # corrective, critique of these anti-Jungian works see Robin
> # Robertson's review in Gnosis magazine, Winter 1998.
Nagasiva:
> hmm, this seems somewhat of an understatement given Jung's dealings
> with the Solar-Phallic Man episodes. I'm sure that some who read
> this may find something to argue with you about here. in any case
> thanks for the reference on the Jung-defense in Gnosis.
I have to agree with nagasiva on this: Noll's critique of Jung is not
merely based on Jung's failing to be an anti-Nazi -- or even on
revulsion at Jung's open anti-Semitism (in 1925, as a propent of the
Volkische Movement's "Blood and Soil" doctrine, Jung opined that Jews
could not partake of the Collective Uncosncious because they owned no
national territory!!!). Rather it is based on specific charges of Jung's
plagiarism and outright lying about the case of the so-called
Solar-Phallic Man, the case which provided virtually the entire basis of
Jung's "archetype" system of belief. I shan't go into great detail here,
as it is OT for this newsgroup, but a full run-down can be found in "The
Cult of Jung" by Richard Noll.
Essentially, Jung claimed that one of his mental patients, the so-called
Solar-Phallic Man, had, while confined to an institution, received a
vision that was nearly identical to one found in an unpublished and
unknown Mithraic ritual -- and that this was proof of the theory of the
Collective Uncosncious and of racially-transmitted Archetypes ("Aryan"
archetypes in this case, in which Jews could not partake).
Actually, G.R.S. Mead had previously published the Mithraic ritual in
question and it had even appeared in a German translation; the mental
patient was probably a member of the Ansona group of occultists with
access to Mead's work; and the man was not Jung's patient at all, but
rather the patient of a (Jewish) colleague who himself was dead by the
time Jung began both his excoriations of the Jews and his promotion of
the "Solar-Phallic Man" as "his" mental patient.
Well, that was my only comment... and since it veers slightly OT, i am
renaming the subject line.
cat yrownode
Hoodoni
>In article <8qo037$4...@bolt.sonic.net>, bobo...@satanservice.org (SOD
>of the CoE) wrote:
>
>> 50000925 Vom
>>
>> Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
>> > We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
>> >the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of Solomon's
>> >Magick* on our web site at:
>> >http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
>> >download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
>>
>> ok, here's the review of "Magick & Hypnosis":
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> in this article (1999 apparently) you write:
>> # hypnosis is the operative technique of Ceremonial Magick.
>> # Visions of Spirits appearing in the Triangle of Art are
>> # actually archetypes evoked from the deep-mind via hypnotic
>> # induction.
>>
>> if this is true, then why does it matter whether one evokes to a
>> visual appearance (to the mage)? as long as one is perceptive
>> enough and in tune with one's own faculties of imagination, why
>> would evocation to any kind of communication (even merely sonic)
>> be enough?
It seems to be a matter of depth and intensity, which credulous
supernaturalists would reject at any level because it isn't
"miraculous"......
>>
>> several times you mention Jungian archetypes in the collective
>> unconscious. you believe that these are as Jung described them?
>> what evidence do you have which leads you to believe that these
>> are real, or as you put it "a reality that goes beyond anyone's
>> individual conception" and "contains the entire history of the
>> human race and probably the destiny of mankind"?
Tantric Buddhists hold that everything is illusion. Hermetic
philosophers say that the only thing that is real is that which never
changes, therefore a Jungian archetype is probably more real than a
Mack truck (I wish we could convince you of this so you would test the
theory for us......)
>>
>> # As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
>> # in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
>>
>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively merely
>> psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to affect the
>> world outside hir mind? or do you have some explanation for why what
>> Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
What a stupid question! The Human Mind (which is part of what of what
we call "God") is the most powerful creative force in the universe.
High Magick works in harmony with the flow of the God Force; low
magick works because we want it to---and the bumble bees can't fly and
dolphins swim 40 miles an hour faster than they should because God
wants them to.
>>
>> # The reason why so few people practice magick is not that
>> # there are so few students of the art -- there are
>> # thousands -- but that only a few know the real secret. (1.)
>>
>> the notes (as "(1.)") do not appear to be contained within this
>> file, fyi.
Well, that's because it's "a secret"......
>>
>> # Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
>> # reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>> # they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
>>
>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>> truly worthwhile?
Again, this is stupid -- and you go on to answer your own question and
then contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
>>
>
>The implication of Pokeąs statement is that the GD used hypnosis while
>their łVictorian forbears˛ did not.
Ridiculous!
>
>From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
>Neophyte ritual.
>łThe Obligation˛ of the Neophyte.
>Page 78
>łI will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
>actions.˛
>
>From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
>Neophyte ritual
>łThe Obligation˛ of the Neophyte.
>Volume Six, page 12
>łI will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions.˛
>
>
>Is Poke right or wrong?
>You decide.
No. Robert Word is wrong again, as usual. He just proved that the
early G.D. did have a strong prejudice against hypnosis, which is
exactly what the author said they had. Word is articulate but his mind
seems scrambled. During the era when the G.D. was founded there was a
popular wave of hypnotic and mesmeristic seances going on in England.
Many of these parlor swamis did not know what they were doing, and
some were downright unscrupulous. This condition is what caused
Westcott and Mathers to throw out the baby with the bath water, and
cripple the G.D.'s operative techniques by rejecting what even that
curmudgeon Arthur Edward Waite knew was the operative phenomenon
behind conjuration to visible appearance: hypnosis (see The Book of
Ceremonial Magic).
As for the validity of hypnosis and subjective deep mind in
Goetia, the author Word is criticizing has stated (in another post on
this news group) that: ---
>***.... Allow me to suggest this:
>If the individual human being is the center of the universe, and a
>microcosmic model thereof, then we may assume that the human skull is
>"The Brass Vessel" in which Solomon contained his 72 spirits (who
>Hermes says we are born with). If this is true, and Man is made in
>God's image, then a person's reflection in a dark mirror should be the
>best starting point for visualizing these components of the macro and
>micro cosoms we all share.
> The sad fact that many magicians denigrate this
>philosophically elegant and wondrously effective method of conjuring
>to visible appearance (it works like dynamite!) is indicative of the
>superstition and childish escapism that characterizes a sizable
>percentage of those attracted to "The Occult" and "Magick" in
>particular. It is amazing to me that some of these emotional children
>are so apparently well-educated and articulate in defense of medieval
>supernaturalism. I love the glamour and romance of ceremonial Magick
>and after all these years I am still in awe of the powerful and
>transcendental experiences we can invoke and evoke. Real Magick
>certainly has its mysterious and trans-personal aspects. It does
>influence the material world -- but not in the way these modern
>medievalists so desperately want to believe.
> When a t.v. host asked me years ago: "Is turning water into
>wine ceremonial magick?"
> I replied: "No --- but it's a good trick if you can do it."
nagasiva yronwode
Carroll 'Poke' Runyon's "Magick & Hypnosis":
>># Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
nagasiva:
>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>> truly worthwhile?
Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net>:
> The implication of Poke's statement is that the GD used hypnosis
> while their "Victorian forbears" did not.
this seems reasonable.
>From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
>Neophyte ritual.
>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
>Page 78
>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
>actions."
this seems to contradict Poke's assertion.
>From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
>Neophyte ritual
>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
>Volume Six, page 12
>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions."
this also contradicts Poke's assertion. not only that, Fortune, whom
Poke quotes and was part of the Golden Dawn, talked about ectoplasmic
necessities, indicating that she did not think of the evocation of
spirits to merely be an "hypnotic" enterprise.
>Is Poke right or wrong?
>You decide.
who are the 'forebears' of the Golden Dawn?
nagasiva
nagasiva yronwode
nagasiva:
>>> several times you mention Jungian archetypes in the collective
>>> unconscious. you believe that these are as Jung described them?
>>> what evidence do you have which leads you to believe that these
>>> are real, or as you put it "a reality that goes beyond anyone's
>>> individual conception" and "contains the entire history of the
>>> human race and probably the destiny of mankind"?
(apparently Poke's newest sock puppet:) Hoo...@debukum.com (Hoodoni):
> Tantric Buddhists hold that everything is illusion.
we didn't disabuse you of this within our alt.magick.tantra discussion?
most Buddhists seem to believe that 'that which does not change is
what is real' and that this includes basic cosmological principles
inclusive of karma (action), sunyata (no own being), and, for some,
upaya (the magnificent diversity of the manifestation of the 8 Fold
Path to Nirvana).
> Hermetic philosophers say that the only thing that is real is that
> which never changes, therefore a Jungian archetype is probably more
> real than a Mack truck....
as long as these archetypes exist (of which I'm not quite convinced)
and do not change (which I haven't seen demonstrated), then perhaps
you are correct.
Carroll 'Poke' Runyon wrote, in "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>># As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
>>># in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
>>>
>>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively merely
>>> psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to affect the
>>> world outside hir mind? or do you have some explanation for why what
>>> Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
>
> What a stupid question!
is it? is this the way that you would prefer to address sincere queries?
I'm going to assume that you are technically capable of intertextual
commentary, based on your response to Re O'Stat here. why you won't do
me the courtesy of responding to my very thorough review and (polite!)
request for elaborateion escapes me. I can only presume that you are
incapable of this technique at certain locations in your geography or
that you do not wish to return the favour and construct a discussion
worthy of the newsgroup and its participants. instead you seem more
interested in merely replying with screeds, such as does Dharma Dave
in alt.magick.tantra, whom the bulk of us have killfiled. I'd hoped for
something more from you.
> The Human Mind (which is part of what of what we call "God") is the
> most powerful creative force in the universe.
very interesting. thanks for sharing your psychological theology with us.
I'm sorry, but it wasn't very obvious to me what were your beliefs about
any of this.
> High Magick works in harmony with the flow of the God Force; low
> magick works because we want it to---and the bumble bees can't fly and
> dolphins swim 40 miles an hour faster than they should because God
> wants them to.
bumble bees can fly. I presume that the problem with the 40 miles per
hour is due to our misapprehension of the facts. I find it interesting
that you take it as a confirmation of your theory about your God.
>>># Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
>>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
>>>
>>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>>> truly worthwhile?
>
>Again, this is stupid -- and you go on to answer your own question and
>then contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
eh? which you conveniently neglected to include. ::shrug:: can you
guess why I tend not to get into serious discussion with you? suffice
it to say that your proclamations of my stupidity do not help me to
understand you any better.
Re O'Stat:
>>The implication of Poke's statement is that the GD used hypnosis while
>>their "Victorian forbears" did not.
>
>Ridiculous!
then what were you talking about? who are these forebears?
> ...the early G.D. did have a strong prejudice against hypnosis, which is
>exactly what the author said they had.
oh, so the "forebears of the Golden Dawn" were early Golden Dawn members?
> ...During the era when the G.D. was founded there was a
> popular wave of hypnotic and mesmeristic seances going on in England.
> Many of these parlor swamis did not know what they were doing, and
> some were downright unscrupulous. This condition is what caused
> Westcott and Mathers to throw out the baby with the bath water, and
> cripple the G.D.'s operative techniques by rejecting what even that
> curmudgeon Arthur Edward Waite knew was the operative phenomenon
> behind conjuration to visible appearance: hypnosis (see The Book of
> Ceremonial Magic).
ok, so you're saying that Westcott and Mathers believed in the material
manifestation basis of the Goetic spirits. and what? that modern GD
members understand that this is not the case?
> As for the validity of hypnosis and subjective deep mind in
> Goetia.... If the individual human being is the center of
> the universe,
so far so good. everything seems to be the center, by all indications.
>> and a microcosmic model thereof,
now we're entering into mystical cosmologies.
>> then we may assume that the human skull is "The Brass Vessel"
>> in which Solomon contained his 72 spirits (who Hermes says we
>> are born with).
to what expression of Hermes do you refer? I don't follow your
logic here other than arriving at a place you'd prefer.
>> If this is true, and Man is made in God's image, then a person's
>> reflection in a dark mirror should be the best starting point
>> for visualizing these components of the macro and micro cosoms
>> we all share.
why not one's reflection within a brass vessel?
nagasiva
Re O酬tat
(Hoodoni) wrote:
>The Pokemon wrote:
> >> # Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
> >> # reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
> >> # they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
I wrote:
> >
> >From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
> >Neophyte ritual.
> >³The Obligation² of the Neophyte.
> >Page 78
> >³I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
> >or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
> >actions.²
> >
> >From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
> >Neophyte ritual
> >³The Obligation² of the Neophyte.
> >Volume Six, page 12
> >³I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
> >or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions.²
> >
> >
> >Is Poke right or wrong?
> >You decide.
>
> No. Robert Word is wrong again, as usual. He just proved that the
> early G.D. did have a strong prejudice against hypnosis, which is
> exactly what the author said they had. Word is articulate but his mind
> seems scrambled. During the era when the G.D. was founded there was a
> popular wave of hypnotic and mesmeristic seances going on in England.
> Many of these parlor swamis did not know what they were doing, and
> some were downright unscrupulous. This condition is what caused
> Westcott and Mathers to throw out the baby with the bath water, and
> cripple the G.D.'s operative techniques by rejecting what even that
> curmudgeon Arthur Edward Waite knew was the operative phenomenon
> behind conjuration to visible appearance: hypnosis (see The Book of
> Ceremonial Magic).
THREE different sources show that the G.D. required that members not
allow themselves to be hypnotized.
Poke has provided not ONE source to show his hypnotic fantasies have any
validity with the G.D.
You can come up with your hypothetical ideas, but until you can show
evidence to counter what the G.D. clearly required of members, you are
just wrong.
Now, it should be pointed out that one of the LATER forms of the G.D.,
the Stella Matutina, deleted the comment about hypnosis and mesmerism
from their obligation oath (see the Llewellyn edition of The Golden
Dawn). This was when they started to have seance-like meetings of a
sub-group called the Sphere.
Re
Re O酬tat
>
> who are the 'forebears' of the Golden Dawn?
>
> nagasiva
From the way Poke keeps bring up Eastern ideas and traditions that have
NOTHING to do with traditional Western theurgy, I think he must mean
Yogi Bear.
:-0
Re
Hoodoni
yronwode) wrote:
>50000925 Vom
>
>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon's "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>># Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
>>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
>
>nagasiva:
>>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>>> truly worthwhile?
In the early 1500s Abbot Trithemius collected, rectified and codified
the scattered fragments of the European medieval magical
tradition.Some years later his student Henry Agricola published a
compendium of this work. 300 years later W.W. Westcott and his
colleagues of the British Rosecrucian Society and the Golden Dawn
brought about the second great codification of Western magical
correspondences. As we have often pointed out: you can make magick on
Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, but if you value tradition, the Golden
Dawn in the West is the best and most complete system.
This is not to say that the Golden Dawn magicians were that competent
in practice. They severely culture-bound in their practical methods.
The magicians of Trithemius and Agrippa's time used dark mirrors and
crystal balls extensively as conjuration devices. The Golden Dawn
magicians never used them.
>
>Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net>:
>> The implication of Poke's statement is that the GD used hypnosis
>> while their "Victorian forbears" did not.
>
>this seems reasonable.
No, it is ridiculous! (See the above to realize just how ridiculous)
The Golden Dawn forced their initiates to forego hypnotic methods by
oath -- and this numb-brain Robert Word just quoted that from G.D.
rituals. Get your head on straight! Here's Bobby Word's quote....
>
>>From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
>>Neophyte ritual.
>>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
>>Page 78
>>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>>or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
>>actions."
>
>this seems to contradict Poke's assertion.
Not at all. We know that Bobby Word enjoys dis-information. I know you
like to talk around in endless circles, but are you developing a taste
for double-think too?
>
>>From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
>>Neophyte ritual
>>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
>>Volume Six, page 12
>>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
>>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
>>or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions."
>
>this also contradicts Poke's assertion. not only that, Fortune, whom
>Poke quotes and was part of the Golden Dawn, talked about ectoplasmic
>necessities, indicating that she did not think of the evocation of
>spirits to merely be an "hypnotic" enterprise.
No. Wrong again.
Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn. She was at
various times in her life a Pagan, a Christian, a person who believed
that magick was entirely psychological with no non-human entities, and
at times --under other influences-- she may have entertained the
"ectoplasm" belief (ugh). Crowley and Gerald Yorke once convinced her
to rub herself all over with a dead mackerel in a Mercury operation.
When she told them that she had actually done it they both burst out
laughing.
>
>>Is Poke right or wrong?
>>You decide.
No. This is what's really going on: Robert Word (Re O'Stat) is what he
is (and we all know what he is), nagasiva, on the other hand, has
developed what he thinks is a method of circular, ill logical argument
that meanders in and out of fact and innuendo, until its false
premises are concealed (he thinks) and "serious" questions can be
raised (all of which have already been answered.) We've played this
game before. It's stupid, it's pointless, and it's
borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.
>
>who are the 'forebears' of the Golden Dawn?
If you don't know, what are you doing acting as an "authority" on
alt.magick?
>
Hoodoni
(I am a disembodied spirit. To summon me you should put out a
tray of bagels and lockes --my favorite snack when alive -- Of course
I will not eat the bagels -- but I might pick at the lockes......)
SOD of the CoE
Carroll 'Poke' Runyon's "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>>>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
boboroshi:
>>>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>>>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>>>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>>>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>>>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>>>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>>>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>>>> truly worthwhile?
Mr. Runyon's new sock-puppet, Hoo...@debukum.com (Hoodoni):
>In the early 1500s Abbot Trithemius collected, rectified and codified
>the scattered fragments of the European medieval magical
>tradition.Some years later his student Henry Agricola published a
>compendium of this work. 300 years later W.W. Westcott and his
>colleagues of the British Rosecrucian Society and the Golden Dawn
>brought about the second great codification of Western magical
>correspondences. As we have often pointed out: you can make magick on
>Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, but if you value tradition, the Golden
>Dawn in the West is the best and most complete system.
ok, this answers question #05 (is the Golden Dawn material worthwhile?).
you think it is, even if they aren't using it right, because it is
based on Agricola's compendium of Trithemius' collection of European
medieval magical texts. thanks. that wasn't so difficult.
>This is not to say that the Golden Dawn magicians were that competent
>in practice. They severely culture-bound in their practical methods.
>The magicians of Trithemius and Agrippa's time used dark mirrors and
>crystal balls extensively as conjuration devices. The Golden Dawn
>magicians never used them.
thank you for answering this question.
>The Golden Dawn forced their initiates to forego hypnotic methods by
>oath....
>Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn. She was at
>various times in her life a Pagan, a Christian, a person who believed
>that magick was entirely psychological with no non-human entities, and
>at times --under other influences-- she may have entertained the
>"ectoplasm" belief (ugh)....
thanks for your perspective.
>If you don't know, what are you doing acting as an "authority" on
>alt.magick?
<Reagan mask>
There you go again, trying to turn the conversation
toward personalities. I won't fall for the bait, Mr. Runyon.
</mask>
Re O'Stat
> >Carroll 'Poke' Runyon's "Magick & Hypnosis":
> >>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
> >>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
<snip irrelevant material>
> >Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net>:
> >> The implication of Poke's statement is that the GD used hypnosis
> >> while their "Victorian forbears" did not.
> >
Nagasiva wrote:
> >this seems reasonable.
>
To which Poke wrote:
> No, it is ridiculous! (See the above to realize just how ridiculous)
> The Golden Dawn forced their initiates to forego hypnotic methods by
> oath -- and this numb-brain Robert Word just quoted that from G.D.
> rituals. Get your head on straight! Here's Bobby Word's quote....
Gee. That's EXACTLY what I put forward and DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what you
wrote. Now you are saying that Your position was mine, and my position
was yours.
Re posted:
> >>From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
> >>Neophyte ritual.
> >>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
> >>Page 78
> >>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
> >>or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
> >>actions."
> >
Nagasive wrote:
> >this seems to contradict Poke's assertion.
>
Poke replied:
> Not at all. We know that Bobby Word enjoys dis-information. I know you
> like to talk around in endless circles, but are you developing a taste
> for double-think too?
> >
So now you're claiming that DIRECT QUOTES INCLUDING PAGE NUMBERS are
"dis-information" and "talking around in endless circles." And when
Nagasiva points out that I am right and you are wrong you claim that is
"double-think."
You ought to read your buddy Nelson White's (who you have publicly
claimed to be a liar here by stating that what he wrote was untrue) book
on "Spiritual Intimidation."
LOL!
Re Posted:
> >>From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
> >>Neophyte ritual
> >>"The Obligation" of the Neophyte.
> >>Volume Six, page 12
> >>"I will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >>place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person, power
> >>or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or actions."
> >
Nagasive posted:
> >this also contradicts Poke's assertion. not only that, Fortune, whom
> >Poke quotes and was part of the Golden Dawn, talked about ectoplasmic
> >necessities, indicating that she did not think of the evocation of
> >spirits to merely be an "hypnotic" enterprise.
>
And Poke writes:
> No. Wrong again.
> Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn. She was at
> various times in her life a Pagan, a Christian, a person who believed
> that magick was entirely psychological with no non-human entities, and
> at times --under other influences-- she may have entertained the
> "ectoplasm" belief (ugh). Crowley and Gerald Yorke once convinced her
> to rub herself all over with a dead mackerel in a Mercury operation.
> When she told them that she had actually done it they both burst out
> laughing.
> >
> >>Is Poke right or wrong?
> >>You decide.
>
Well, in this one Poke is "sort of right" if you wish to allow him to
play word games. Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the Golden
Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and knowledge of
the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares Press and now
by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for all
practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct descendent
of the G.D.
> No. This is what's really going on: Robert Word (Re O'Stat) is what he
> is (and we all know what he is), nagasiva, on the other hand, has
> developed what he thinks is a method of circular, ill logical argument
> that meanders in and out of fact and innuendo, until its false
> premises are concealed (he thinks) and "serious" questions can be
> raised (all of which have already been answered.) We've played this
> game before. It's stupid, it's pointless, and it's
> borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.
Well, as any person who can read English will see, the ONLY one who is
vainly attempting to argue in circles is the Pokemon. On the other hand,
I've provided DIRECT QUOTES which prove him wrong. It's stupid,
pointless and boring to Poke because when people see how wrong he is it
would deflate alpha-male position in his personality cult.
> >Nagasiva asked:
> >who are the 'forebears' of the Golden Dawn?
>
Poke responded.
> If you don't know, what are you doing acting as an "authority" on
> alt.magick?
Re translates: Poke doesn't have the faintest idea. He throws out terms
to try and give himself credibility. In this case, he has none.
RE
Gnome d Plume
yronwode) wrote:
>50000925 Vom
>
>nagasiva:
>>>> several times you mention Jungian archetypes in the collective
>>>> unconscious. you believe that these are as Jung described them?
>>>> what evidence do you have which leads you to believe that these
>>>> are real, or as you put it "a reality that goes beyond anyone's
>>>> individual conception" and "contains the entire history of the
>>>> human race and probably the destiny of mankind"?
>
>(apparently Poke's newest sock puppet:) Hoo...@debukum.com (Hoodoni):
>> Tantric Buddhists hold that everything is illusion.
>
>we didn't disabuse you of this within our alt.magick.tantra discussion?
>most Buddhists seem to believe that 'that which does not change is
>what is real' and that this includes basic cosmological principles
>inclusive of karma (action), sunyata (no own being), and, for some,
>upaya (the magnificent diversity of the manifestation of the 8 Fold
>Path to Nirvana).
*****You forget the two quite knowledgable Tibetan practitioners who
very politely but firmly corrected your misconceptions of the
philosophy of ultimate illusion in Vajrayana.****
>
>> Hermetic philosophers say that the only thing that is real is that
>> which never changes, therefore a Jungian archetype is probably more
>> real than a Mack truck....
>
>as long as these archetypes exist (of which I'm not quite convinced)
>and do not change (which I haven't seen demonstrated), then perhaps
>you are correct.
>
>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon wrote, in "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>>># As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
>>>># in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
>>>>
>>>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively merely
>>>> psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to affect the
>>>> world outside hir mind? or do you have some explanation for why what
>>>> Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
>>
>> What a stupid question!
>
>is it? is this the way that you would prefer to address sincere queries?
****This is not a sincere query unless you are a superstitious
fool.****
>I'm going to assume that you are technically capable of intertextual
>commentary, based on your response to Re O'Stat here. why you won't do
>me the courtesy of responding to my very thorough review and (polite!)
>request for elaborateion escapes me. I can only presume that you are
>incapable of this technique at certain locations in your geography or
>that you do not wish to return the favour and construct a discussion
>worthy of the newsgroup and its participants. instead you seem more
>interested in merely replying with screeds, such as does Dharma Dave
>in alt.magick.tantra, whom the bulk of us have killfiled. I'd hoped for
>something more from you.
*****Nagasiva:
In deference to your very close friend Catherine, I would like to try,
but I'm going to have to level with you: I don't play the
inter-textual debate game with anyone whom I have determined to be
using the method maliciously or dishonestly; this puts the defender at
a distinct disadvantage -- and when the subject is esoteric, such a
weak strategy allows damage to one's cherished philosophies. In other
words, why should I encourage you to be the swine crushing my
pearls?
Also it should be especially obvious to you that I have no
respect for the slanderer Robert E. Word (Re O'Stat, SAR Draconis). By
associating yourself with him in this antagonistic discussion you
automatically forfeit any respect I might otherwise have for your
questions. Stop holding hands with Bad-Boy Bobby down in the
cess-pool, come on up and shower-off, and maybe we can have a
discussion -- but even then, let's don't have any more dumb questions
like:"Do you think magick is all just psychological."
Gnome d Plume
the CoE) wrote:
>50000925 Vom
>
>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon's "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>>>># Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
>>>>># reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
>>>>># they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
>
>boboroshi:
>>>>> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
>>>>> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
>>>>> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
>>>>> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
>>>>> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
>>>>> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
>>>>> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
>>>>> truly worthwhile?
>
>Mr. Runyon's new sock-puppet, Hoo...@debukum.com (Hoodoni):
>>In the early 1500s Abbot Trithemius collected, rectified and codified
>>the scattered fragments of the European medieval magical
>>tradition.Some years later his student Henry Agricola published a
>>compendium of this work. 300 years later W.W. Westcott and his
>>colleagues of the British Rosecrucian Society and the Golden Dawn
>>brought about the second great codification of Western magical
>>correspondences. As we have often pointed out: you can make magick on
>>Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, but if you value tradition, the Golden
>>Dawn in the West is the best and most complete system.
>
>ok, this answers question #05 (is the Golden Dawn material worthwhile?).
>you think it is, even if they aren't using it right, because it is
>based on Agricola's compendium of Trithemius' collection of European
>medieval magical texts. thanks. that wasn't so difficult.
*****"FYI Agricola was an ancient Roman farmer from whom the word
agriculture derives. Henrich Cornellius Agrippa was a 16th century
philosopher and magus.*****
>
>>This is not to say that the Golden Dawn magicians were that competent
>>in practice. They severely culture-bound in their practical methods.
>>The magicians of Trithemius and Agrippa's time used dark mirrors and
>>crystal balls extensively as conjuration devices. The Golden Dawn
>>magicians never used them.
>
>thank you for answering this question.
>
>>The Golden Dawn forced their initiates to forego hypnotic methods by
>>oath....
>
>>Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn. She was at
>>various times in her life a Pagan, a Christian, a person who believed
>>that magick was entirely psychological with no non-human entities, and
>>at times --under other influences-- she may have entertained the
>>"ectoplasm" belief (ugh)....
>
>thanks for your perspective.
>
>>If you don't know, what are you doing acting as an "authority" on
>>alt.magick?
>
><Reagan mask>
> There you go again, trying to turn the conversation
> toward personalities. I won't fall for the bait, Mr. Runyon.
****Well, then try an interesting experiment: try seeing things from
my perspective. After 30 years of study and practice in this art don't
you think maybe it might be a good idea to ask me polite questions?
Do you think I'm supposed to enjoy having people who don't know the
difference between Agrippa and Agricola acting like "authorities" and
lecturing me? Just try putting yourself in my position. You'd probably
flame the little whipper-snapper's butt worse than I do --- And I
usually do with touch of humor.****
catherine yronwode
>
> ...try seeing things from
> my perspective. After 30 years of study and practice in this art
> don't you think maybe it might be a good idea to ask me polite
> questions? Do you think I'm supposed to enjoy having people who
> don't know the difference between Agrippa and Agricola acting like
> "authorities" and lecturing me? Just try putting yourself in my
> position. You'd probably flame the little whipper-snapper's butt
> worse than I do --- And I usually do with touch of humor.
In usenet, there often arises a situation in which someone presents him
or herself as an authority or teacher (or both) and another person
wishes to play the role of scoratic student, eliciting definitions of
terms, posing simple questions for the benefit of less informed students
and lurkers, perhaps causing the authority figure to present his or her
beliefs in a more tidy package than would occur in casual conversation.
In some cases, as for instance where the questioner maintains an archive
of substantive posts on esoteric subjects, the aim of the questioning is
not to provoke wrath, but to draw out esaays, book reviews, deinitions,
practical lessons, and other material suitable for archivng.
Under questioning by students (whether real or socratically
role-playing), it is very easy for the assumed authority figure to
become exasperated, but this is counter-productive, because then instead
of attracting new students, the teacher is revealed as an ill-tempered
boor. Lurkers and newbies observe with horror the teacher talking about
"flam[ing] the little whipper-snapper's butt" and wonder if there might
not be some other, better teacher to follow instead -- or if the very
subject that is being taught is so fraught with mental traps and snares
as to render its teachers into angry old men.
A word to the wise is sufficient.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
catherine yronwode
>
>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon wrote, in "Magick & Hypnosis":
>>>># As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
>>>># in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
Nagasiva wrote:
>>>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively
>>>> merely psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to
>>>> affect the world outside hir mind? or do you have some
>>>> explanation for why what Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
Poke wrote:
>>> What a stupid question!
Siva wrote:
>> is it? is this the way that you would prefer to address sincere
>> queries?
Poke wrote:
> This is not a sincere query unless you are a superstitious
> fool.
This is beginning to resemble a Monty Python sketch, but i would like to
see if we can't diffuse the anger and get down to cases.
Poke, for whatever reason, nagasiva is taking your system of magic very
seriously at present. He is doing what he calls "reviewing" it -- which
is to say, he is sorting through your statements about the principles
of magic and comparing them to other, equally authoritative systems of
magic, such as Crowley's, Levi's, Fortune's and so forth. You might not
consider this an nonour (you seem to consider it painful) but as a
living author, you, unlike the above named, are available for
elucidation of certain points and so he is simply asking you to further
explain things he found in your writing.
In particular, by bringing up your reference to Dionne Fortune's
characterization of "Magick [as] the art of causing changes in
*consciousness* [emphasis added], he is trying, as i see it, to elicite
your attitude toward practical folk magic in which chages are believed
to occur in the *material world.* That is, he is asking you whether you
think folk-magic works or is an illusion caused by a change in
*consciousness* or perception on the part of the practitioner. Or are
these two seemingly irreconcilable points of view somehow reconcilable,
for instance, by making it a premise of belief that all matter is an
aspect of consciousness, so therefore a change in consciousness is de
facto a material change?
It really IS a simple question. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer.
It is not a "trick question."
If you and nagasiva disagree, he will not flame you. The answer will
simply help him define your approach to magic, that's all, so he can
categorize it as he has other systems of magic.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Lucky W Amulet Archive --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/luckyw.html
No personal e-mail, please; just catch me in usenet; i read it daily.
Lucky Mojo Curio Co. http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Send e-mail with your street address to cata...@luckymojo.com
and receive our free 32 page catalogue of hoodoo supplies and amulets
This post copyright (c) 2000 catherine yronwode. All rights reserved.
nagasiva yronwode
Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net>:
>...Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
>Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the Golden
>Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and knowledge of
>the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares Press and now
>by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for all
>practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct descendent
>of the G.D.
thanks. my memory was hazy but something similar. it did seem like a
slight dodge on Mr. Runyon's part.
nagasiva
nagasiva yronwode
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
>>ok, this answers question #05 (is the Golden Dawn material worthwhile?).
>>you think it is, even if they aren't using it right, because it is
>>based on Agricola's compendium of Trithemius' collection of European
>>medieval magical texts. thanks. that wasn't so difficult.
>*****"FYI Agricola was an ancient Roman farmer from whom the word
>agriculture derives. Henrich Cornellius Agrippa was a 16th century
>philosopher and magus.*****
thank you for helping me to keep these names straight.
>****Well, then try an interesting experiment: try seeing things from
>my perspective.
that is precisely what I'm attempting to do, Mr. Runyon, precisely.
sometimes I must ask questions in order to discern what your
perspective includes, included, or may include as a result of them.
thank you for your patience with my ignorance.
nagasiva
Gnome d Plume
*****Cat:
This is what I said:
>Just try putting yourself in my
> position. You'd probably flame the little whipper-snapper's butt
> worse than I do --- And I usually do with touch of humor.
Come on now ....don't quote me out of context again, please!
But aside for that, your post above is, once again, very even-handed,
mature and useful--and in the interest of felicity I will avoid an
obvious opportunity to contrast it to something near-at-hand. However,
your word to the wise in this case might be misdirected. Over the last
few years that I've been posting on this, and similar, news groups,
I've observed a phenomenon that at first surprised and disturbed me--
but later made anthropological sense: alt.magick, by its very nature,
attracts a certain number of emotionally unbalanced, immature and
dysfunctional people who are often quite articulate and very
assertive.
A serious and fairly well-established magical order offering
a program of instruction geared to college-level, sane and
sophisticated individuals will act as a lightning rod for these
crazies, druggies and malcontents if that order chooses to maintain a
presence on such an open forum.
Because I believe in the principle of the internet as a
similacrum of the Universal Mind (see H.G. Wells on this. He predicted
it) we will maintain that presence -- but, like our beloved Masonic
order, we do not recruit---and so we are really not interested in
coddling and pampering the newbie or the timid lurker on alt.magick.
If the newbie is going to be a magician, my sarcasm won't hold him/her
back; magicians by nature are self-driven and tough.
If (I) we were recruiting or even trying to make money selling
our materials I would have to agree with you---but that is not where
we are at. We are here for those very few who are looking for what we
have to offer. When they find it, they will not need to be lured in by
honey to be stuck on fly paper. They'll fly in like hawks and depart
like eagles.*****
Good Magick!
Gnome d Plume
Come visit us (if you aren't afraid to) at:---
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
Gnome d Plume
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>>
>>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon wrote, in "Magick & Hypnosis":
>
>>>>># As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
>>>>># in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
>
>Nagasiva wrote:
>
>>>>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively
>>>>> merely psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to
>>>>> affect the world outside hir mind? or do you have some
>>>>> explanation for why what Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
>
>Poke wrote:
>
>>>> What a stupid question!
>
>Siva wrote:
>
>>> is it? is this the way that you would prefer to address sincere
>>> queries?
>
****Cat:
I am truly sorry that your friend nagasiva and I just can't seem to
get along. I think it started with the Tibetan tantric debate over on
alt.magick.tantra. I really did understand more about the deeper
philosophy of ultimate illusion in Vajrajana than nagasiva did because
I spent nearly a year studying and practicing with Tibetan lamas of
the Sakya Order, and I patiently tried to explain it to him. As you
recall he was sarcastic, and authoritarian arguing from a
misconception that Hindu Tantric philosophy and Buddhist Tantric
philosophy were essentially the same as regards the concept of "maya"
(a term the Tibetans rarely use). The nastiness in this debate was
mostly on his end. He was "The Authority" until two Tibetan
practitioners, both of which were far more qualified than I was, came
on and gentley but firmly corrected nagasiva.
Now I think its time for him to perhaps offer me an apology. If
he sincerely wants to understand our O.T.A. system, I will help. But
I must tell you that any intelligent student of the magical arts who,
in this day and time---especially if they have seriously studied
Eastern systems---who would ask a question like: "Do you mean to say
that magick is all just psychological?" after all the material we've
posted, discussed and otherwise made available, is either stupid,
childishly superstitious, or purposely baiting.
Rather than assume the later, I preferred to think he was just
being plain stupid-- for which I will apologize, if he will apologize
for baiting me. It's gotta be one way or the other.
I hope you can work it out.
And if he comes back with another convoluted word-salad to
re-open the "Ultimate Illusion" argument, then I will have no use for
him at all at any future time. Nuff said on that.
Good luck at peace making. I'll meet him more than half-way,
and that's probably more than he would offer me.*****
On the Level and on the Square,
SOD of the CoE
sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>...for whatever reason, [boboroshi] is taking your system of magic very
>seriously at present.
in part to show that I have no hard feelings about recently using
Poke as the target of a recent example in a discussion about folk
magic (dollbabies), and in part because it is part of my review
of the works of ceremonial magicians (Hermetic) concerning practical
details of occultism (summonings, divination, etc.).
>He is doing what he calls "reviewing" it -- which
>is to say, he is sorting through your statements about the principles
>of magic and comparing them to other, equally authoritative systems of
>magic, such as Crowley's, Levi's, Fortune's and so forth.
yes, attempting to understand some of the theory behind the practice
and the specific practical elements of ceremonial rite.
>...as a living author, you, unlike the above named, are available for
>elucidation of certain points and so he is simply asking you to further
>explain things he found in your writing.
very true, especially as he has made his interest in being taken
seriously so well known in alt.magick. the mention of having
'discovered the lost keys of goetic evocation' and his correcting
of someone who mistook his video effects for evocation to visible
manifestation (a common claim of goetic magicians; apparently
Mr. Runyon and his order used video to simulate the perception of
the magician of a spirit in a dark mirror) led me to scrutinize
his text more closely as it seemed to me both at variance with
conventional ceremonial evocation and attesting to using a
technique which was new or forgotten until recently.
in particular, it fitted in with my recent scan of the work of
Hermetic magicians, especially as it focussed on practical
elements and was critical of certain aspects of Hermetic
tradition. I often find I can learn a great deal from those who
are critical of traditions from whom they are offering a
variation.
in creating an email forum which is open to cross-posting (Egroups'
'Occultism' email list) I figured I'd post this review and any
subsequent clarifications offered by (or extracted from) Mr. Runyon's
text as an archival material exemplifying modern goetic evocation
in practice and, to an extent, in theory.
>In particular, by bringing up your reference to Dionne Fortune's
>characterization of "Magick [as] the art of causing changes in
>*consciousness* [emphasis added], he is trying, as i see it, to elicite
>your attitude toward practical folk magic in which chages are believed
>to occur in the *material world.* That is, he is asking you whether you
>think folk-magic works or is an illusion caused by a change in
>*consciousness* or perception on the part of the practitioner. Or are
>these two seemingly irreconcilable points of view somehow reconcilable,
>for instance, by making it a premise of belief that all matter is an
>aspect of consciousness, so therefore a change in consciousness is de
>facto a material change?
he answered this question. apparently he believes that human
beings are capable of doing anything we wish if we believe in
it strongly enough, and that Low (folk) Magic is a result of
intensified belief. this is not unlike the assertions made by
Tom Schuler and Nova Solo recently in magical forums. it seems
to be a popular concept amongst those who prefer modern science
and ceremonial magic -- a way that they find reconciles them,
whether through Jungian archetypal structures, or through some
undefined mechanism which they either do not describe or have
not discovered.
I hope to be corrected of any misconceptions I may have. without
cooperation from Mr. Runyon in understanding him, it is not always
easy to discover a) whether he has thought about what I am asking,
b) whether he has arrived at a conclusion regarding it, and
c) if he would admit it if he didn't know or wasn't sure.
>If you and [boboroshi] disagree, he will not flame you. The answer
>will simply help him define your approach to magic, that's all,
>so he can categorize it as he has other systems of magic.
very true. thanks.
Gnome d Plume
the CoE) wrote:
>5000926 Vom Hail Satan!
>
>sri catyananda <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>>...for whatever reason, [boboroshi] is taking your system of magic very
>>seriously at present.
>
>in part to show that I have no hard feelings about recently using
>Poke as the target of a recent example in a discussion about folk
>magic (dollbabies), and in part because it is part of my review
>of the works of ceremonial magicians (Hermetic) concerning practical
>details of occultism (summonings, divination, etc.).
>
>>He is doing what he calls "reviewing" it -- which
>>is to say, he is sorting through your statements about the principles
>>of magic and comparing them to other, equally authoritative systems of
>>magic, such as Crowley's, Levi's, Fortune's and so forth.
>blessed beast!
>
>boboroshi
>Satanic Outreach Director,
>Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
*****Nagasiva:
I think the problem between us may be more than just personal.
If you are doing a "study" of "Hermetic Magicians" as part of a
"Satanic Out-Reach" program, then I might have an even more valid
reason than personal bad-chemistry between us on use net for not
cooperating. I personally think that satanism is an arrested form of
spiritual development (i.e., hating mommy,daddy, and the family
religion);continoius rebellion without liberation; a counter-religion
rather than a religion. A satanist's perspective on Hermetic
Philosophy would be skewed from the starting gate--in the same way you
probably think my perception of satanism is skewed. Sorry, but we do
need to bring this point out.****
Gnome d Plume
Hermetic Out-Reach Director
The Steel Wolf
<us...@mediaone.net> scripsit:
>THREE different sources show that the G.D. required that members not
>allow themselves to be hypnotized.
Allowing oneself to be hypnotized and actually hypnotizing oneself are
two very different things. In the former case, the subject is
relinquishing control to the hypnotist, which the oath clearly does
not tolerate. In the latter case, one is not relinquishing control.
In fact, they are seizing it by making use of a technique which allows
them a more complete access to their subconscious. Thus I do not see
any reasonable argument that self-hypnosis is prohibited by the
Neophyte oath, either in letter or in spirit.
>Poke has provided not ONE source to show his hypnotic fantasies have any
>validity with the G.D.
I rather doubt that Poke cares what the G.'.D.'. thinks about the
validity of his system, given that the two are completely separate.
--
"Because you can't cotton to evil. No sir. You have to smack evil
on the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad
evil. Bad, BAD evil.'"
- The Tick
The Steel Wolf
d Plume) scripsit:
>*****"FYI Agricola was an ancient Roman farmer from whom the word
>agriculture derives. Henrich Cornellius Agrippa was a 16th century
>philosopher and magus.*****
While the word "agriculture" undoubtedly comes from the same root word
as agricola ("farmer" in Latin), that being "aeger" (tree), the word
most definitely does not come from the name of the person of whom you
speak. Trivial, yes, but I have a thing for etymology.
Gnome d Plume
Wolf) wrote:
>anno Domini Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:23:16 GMT, Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome
>d Plume) scripsit:
>
>>*****"FYI Agricola was an ancient Roman farmer from whom the word
>>agriculture derives. Henrich Cornellius Agrippa was a 16th century
>>philosopher and magus.*****
>
>While the word "agriculture" undoubtedly comes from the same root word
>as agricola ("farmer" in Latin), that being "aeger" (tree), the word
>most definitely does not come from the name of the person of whom you
>speak. Trivial, yes, but I have a thing for etymology.
****You might be right, but which came first on Agricola's farm?
The egg or the chicken?****
Old McGnome
Joshua O'Brien
>
> 50000925 Vom
>
> Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
> > We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
> >the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of Solomon's
> >Magick* on our web site at:
> >http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
> >download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
>
> ok, here's the review of "Magick & Hypnosis":
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> in this article (1999 apparently) you write:
> # The reason why so few people practice magick is not that
> # there are so few students of the art -- there are
> # thousands -- but that only a few know the real secret. (1.)
>
> the notes (as "(1.)") do not appear to be contained within this
> file, fyi.
From "Magick and Hypnosi2.doc" unzipped from
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/magick.zip
"(1.) In the intervening 20 years since this article first appeared
this situation has not improved as much as we had hoped. I am left to
assume that those who make the marketing decisions at the occult
publishing houses have determined that "hypnosis" is a negative selling
point with an essentially credulous customer base. But we are slowly
gaining ground. My colleague, Philip H. Faber has written a fascinating
paper on the subject, Hypnosis and Ritual Magick for Paradigm Magazine.
This can be accessed on Faber's website:
Re O酬tat
Steel Wolf) wrote:
> anno Domini Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:36:48 GMT, Re O酬tat
> <us...@mediaone.net> scripsit:
>
> >THREE different sources show that the G.D. required that members not
> >allow themselves to be hypnotized.
>
> Allowing oneself to be hypnotized and actually hypnotizing oneself are
> two very different things. In the former case, the subject is
> relinquishing control to the hypnotist, which the oath clearly does
> not tolerate. In the latter case, one is not relinquishing control.
> In fact, they are seizing it by making use of a technique which allows
> them a more complete access to their subconscious. Thus I do not see
> any reasonable argument that self-hypnosis is prohibited by the
> Neophyte oath, either in letter or in spirit.
Very true. However there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the
G.D. used self-hypnosis, either.
>
> >Poke has provided not ONE source to show his hypnotic fantasies have any
> >validity with the G.D.
>
> I rather doubt that Poke cares what the G.'.D.'. thinks about the
> validity of his system, given that the two are completely separate.
No, he probably doesn靖. Except that you have taken this out of context.
HE was the one who claimed that the G.D. used hypnosis. I showed
evidence they did not.
I repeat that he has not provided one source to show his hypnotic
fantasies have any validity with the G.D.
RE
SOD of the CoE
SOD of the CoE:
>> the notes (as "(1.)") do not appear to be contained within this
>> file, fyi.
Joshua O'Brien <jo...@nsw.bigpond.net.au>:
>From "Magick and Hypnosi2.doc" unzipped from
>http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/magick.zip
>"(1.) In the intervening 20 years since this article first appeared
>this situation has not improved as much as we had hoped. I am left to
>assume that those who make the marketing decisions at the occult
>publishing houses have determined that "hypnosis" is a negative selling
>point with an essentially credulous customer base. But we are slowly
>gaining ground. My colleague, Philip H. Faber has written a fascinating
>paper on the subject, Hypnosis and Ritual Magick for Paradigm Magazine.
>This can be accessed on Faber's website:
>http://members.aol.com/discord23/hypno.htm"
cool! I wonder how my file (also magick.zip) lost its numbers! I think
I can reconstruct them now. easier to understand. thanks!
The Steel Wolf
<us...@mediaone.net> scripsit:
>In article <39d2051e...@24.94.163.122>, stee...@mmcable.com (The
>Steel Wolf) wrote:
>> Allowing oneself to be hypnotized and actually hypnotizing oneself are
>> two very different things.
<snip>
>>Thus I do not see any reasonable argument that self-hypnosis is
>>prohibited by the Neophyte oath, either in letter or in spirit.
>Very true. However there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the
>G.D. used self-hypnosis, either.
This doesn't matter. If I understood your post correctly, you were
trying to illustrate that the self-hypnotic methods used by the O.T.A.
are forbidden by the Neophyte oath. Whether that is actually the case
is up for debate.
>> I rather doubt that Poke cares what the G.'.D.'. thinks about the
>> validity of his system, given that the two are completely separate.
>No, he probably doesn靖. Except that you have taken this out of context.
>HE was the one who claimed that the G.D. used hypnosis. I showed
>evidence they did not.
True enough. I hadn't seen the post to which you were responding when
I replied to your article. My news server has been a bit crufty
lately.
>I repeat that he has not provided one source to show his hypnotic
>fantasies have any validity with the G.D.
I haven't seen all the articles yet, but I haven't seen evidence of
such either. Certainly the Stella Matutina seems to have been
involved with hypnosis, and thus there is a precedent for hypnosis
within the Golden Dawn tradition, but the tradition is not the
original Order.
Gnome d Plume
Wolf) wrote:
>anno Domini Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:12:52 GMT, Re O酬tat
><us...@mediaone.net> scripsit:
>
>>In article <39d2051e...@24.94.163.122>, stee...@mmcable.com (The
>>Steel Wolf) wrote:
>
>>> Allowing oneself to be hypnotized and actually hypnotizing oneself are
>>> two very different things.
><snip>
>>>Thus I do not see any reasonable argument that self-hypnosis is
>>>prohibited by the Neophyte oath, either in letter or in spirit.
>
>>Very true. However there is not the slightest bit of evidence that the
>>G.D. used self-hypnosis, either.
>
>This doesn't matter. If I understood your post correctly, you were
>trying to illustrate that the self-hypnotic methods used by the O.T.A.
>are forbidden by the Neophyte oath. Whether that is actually the case
>is up for debate.
****Strictly speaking, they are--but in actual fact several current
G.D. temples now recommend our methods (no, we will not document this
for obvious reasons.)****
>
>>> I rather doubt that Poke cares what the G.'.D.'. thinks about the
>>> validity of his system, given that the two are completely separate.
*****Not true. If you will consult my biography on our web site you
will discover otherwise. http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
(see The Master Magicians.) *****
>
>>No, he probably doesn靖. Except that you have taken this out of context.
>>HE was the one who claimed that the G.D. used hypnosis. I showed
>>evidence they did not.
****This is the sort of miss-information Robert Word loves to
contrive. Nowhere have I ever stated that the Golden Dawn used
hypnosis. He justifies this falsehood by the convoluted logic that if
I state that the operative secret behind magick is hypnosis, then I
must mean that any group claiming to do magick must be "using
hypnosis." In a weak and indirect sense the Golden Dawn was using
it, but not as an accepted or acknowledged technique. Word knows this,
but he sees this "indirect implication" as an excuse to lie.*****
>
>True enough. I hadn't seen the post to which you were responding when
>I replied to your article. My news server has been a bit crufty
>lately.
****Word depends on that. If he can throw out enough falsehoods and
misrepresentations, some of them are sure to slip by unchallenged.****
>
>>I repeat that he has not provided one source to show his hypnotic
>>fantasies have any validity with the G.D.
*****This is another exercise in miss-direction; spinning off on
another tangent. I haven't provided any evidence to prove that
Ardvarks nurse their young either!*****
>
>I haven't seen all the articles yet, but I haven't seen evidence of
>such either. Certainly the Stella Matutina seems to have been
>involved with hypnosis, and thus there is a precedent for hypnosis
>within the Golden Dawn tradition, but the tradition is not the
>original Order.
****The use of tattwas in the original order was an undeclared
self-hypnotic technique. The primary reason for the G.D. oath
provision against hypnosis was the then-current popular wave of
"Svengali-type" Mesmerism. Recently a book has been published
documenting this social phenomena; it was apparently causing a good
deal of concern in certain circles. If I run across the title and
author, I'll post it. *****
sla...@my-deja.com
>
> >In article <8qo037$4...@bolt.sonic.net>, bobo...@satanservice.org
(SOD
> >of the CoE) wrote:
> >
> >> 50000925 Vom
> >>
> >> Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume):
> >> > We have covered this in much more detail in a free download of
> >> >the chapter *Secrets of the Dark Mirror* from *The Book of
Solomon's
> >> >Magick* on our web site at:
> >> >http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/productions.html where you can also
> >> >download our *Gnostica* article *Magick & Hypnosis.*
> >>
> >> ok, here's the review of "Magick & Hypnosis":
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> in this article (1999 apparently) you write:
> >> # Visions of Spirits appearing in the Triangle of Art are
> >> # actually archetypes evoked from the deep-mind via hypnotic
> >> # induction.
> >>
> >> if this is true, then why does it matter whether one evokes to a
> >> visual appearance (to the mage)? as long as one is perceptive
> >> enough and in tune with one's own faculties of imagination, why
> >> would evocation to any kind of communication (even merely sonic)
> >> be enough?
>
> It seems to be a matter of depth and intensity, which credulous
> supernaturalists would reject at any level because it isn't
> "miraculous"......
> >>
> >> several times you mention Jungian archetypes in the collective
> >> unconscious. you believe that these are as Jung described them?
> >> what evidence do you have which leads you to believe that these
> >> are real, or as you put it "a reality that goes beyond anyone's
> >> individual conception" and "contains the entire history of the
> >> human race and probably the destiny of mankind"?
>
> philosophers say that the only thing that is real is that which never
> changes, therefore a Jungian archetype is probably more real than a
> theory for us......)
> >>
> >> # As Dion Fortune put it: "Magick is the art of causing changes
> >> # in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
> >>
merely
> >> psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to affect the
> >> world outside hir mind? or do you have some explanation for why
what
> >> Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
>
> we call "God") is the most powerful creative force in the universe.
> magick works because we want it to---and the bumble bees can't fly
Thought I should note that latest aerodynamic theories now account for
bumble-bee flight, so sorry to take away from some of the mystery.
and
> dolphins swim 40 miles an hour faster than they should because God
> wants them to.
> >>
> >> # The reason why so few people practice magick is not that
> >> # there are so few students of the art -- there are
> >> # thousands -- but that only a few know the real secret. (1.)
> >>
> >> the notes (as "(1.)") do not appear to be contained within this
> >> file, fyi.
>
> Well, that's because it's "a secret"......
> >>
> >> # Victorian forbears of The Golden Dawn were not able to
> >> # reconstruct the old method of magical evocation because
> >> # they refused to accept its hypnotic basis.
> >>
> >> upon what do you base this claim about the Golden Dawn members?
> >> would they agree with you? why do you bother with their techniques
> >> if they were ignorant of its basis in actual use? could it be that
> >> their symbolism contains qualities which aren't immediately
> >> obvious to those who use them and might become so within the
> >> context of trance state the way you're using it? what I'm trying
> >> to get at here is why are you convinced that the GD symbolism is
> >> truly worthwhile?
>
> Again, this is stupid -- and you go on to answer your own question and
> then contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
> >>
> >
> >The implication of Pokeąs statement is that the GD used hypnosis
while
> >their łVictorian forbears˛ did not.
>
> Ridiculous!
> >
> >From The Secret Rituals of the Golden Dawn by Torrens.
> >Neophyte ritual.
> >łThe Obligation˛ of the Neophyte.
> >Page 78
> >łI will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person,
power
> >or being may cause me to loose (sic) control of my thoughts, words or
> >actions.˛
> >
> >From The Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic by Regardie
> >Neophyte ritual
> >łThe Obligation˛ of the Neophyte.
> >Volume Six, page 12
> >łI will not suffer myself to be hypnotized, or mesmerized, nor will I
> >place myself in such a passive state that any uninitiated person,
power
> >or being may cause me to lose control of my thoughts, words or
actions.˛
> >
> >
> >Is Poke right or wrong?
> >You decide.
>
> No. Robert Word is wrong again, as usual. He just proved that the
> early G.D. did have a strong prejudice against hypnosis, which is
> exactly what the author said they had. Word is articulate but his mind
> seems scrambled. During the era when the G.D. was founded there was a
> popular wave of hypnotic and mesmeristic seances going on in England.
> Many of these parlor swamis did not know what they were doing, and
> some were downright unscrupulous. This condition is what caused
> Westcott and Mathers to throw out the baby with the bath water, and
> cripple the G.D.'s operative techniques by rejecting what even that
> curmudgeon Arthur Edward Waite knew was the operative phenomenon
> behind conjuration to visible appearance: hypnosis (see The Book of
> Ceremonial Magic).
> As for the validity of hypnosis and subjective deep mind in
> Goetia, the author Word is criticizing has stated (in another post on
> this news group) that: ---
>
> >***.... Allow me to suggest this:
> >If the individual human being is the center of the universe, and a
> >microcosmic model thereof, then we may assume that the human skull is
> >"The Brass Vessel" in which Solomon contained his 72 spirits (who
> >Hermes says we are born with). If this is true, and Man is made in
> >God's image, then a person's reflection in a dark mirror should be
the
> >best starting point for visualizing these components of the macro and
> >micro cosoms we all share.
> > The sad fact that many magicians denigrate this
> >philosophically elegant and wondrously effective method of conjuring
> >to visible appearance (it works like dynamite!) is indicative of the
> >superstition and childish escapism that characterizes a sizable
> >percentage of those attracted to "The Occult" and "Magick" in
> >particular. It is amazing to me that some of these emotional
children
> >are so apparently well-educated and articulate in defense of medieval
> >supernaturalism. I love the glamour and romance of ceremonial Magick
> >and after all these years I am still in awe of the powerful and
> >transcendental experiences we can invoke and evoke. Real Magick
> >certainly has its mysterious and trans-personal aspects. It does
> >influence the material world -- but not in the way these modern
> >medievalists so desperately want to believe.
> > When a t.v. host asked me years ago: "Is turning water into
> >wine ceremonial magick?"
> > I replied: "No --- but it's a good trick if you can do
it."
> >
> >Good Magick!
> >
> >Gnome d Plume
> >
> >Come visit us at: http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
>
>
--
Yes; I really am this wacked out, and no; I do not often come up for
air!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sla...@my-deja.com
Are you sure of your data, here? I read that Unkle Al had met her in
the G.D. Was Crowley not a member of the origonal G.D.?
>
--
Re O酬tat
> > Poke wrote:
> > No. Wrong again.
> > Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn.
Re: wrote:
>> Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
> > Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the Golden
> > Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and knowledge of
> > the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares Press and now
> > by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for all
> > practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct descendent
> > of the G.D.
>
> Slarty wrote:
> Are you sure of your data, here? I read that Unkle Al had met her in
> the G.D. Was Crowley not a member of the origonal G.D.?
Thanks for asking.
Both you and I were both in error.
According to the book, The Story of Dion Fortune by Fielding and Collins
(P. 38),
łBrodie Innes did not run a break-away movement from the Golden Dawn. He
was quite well regarded within that organization and was allowed to run
his own particular version of the Golden Dawn system and was given
considerable latitude to do so...His group was the Alpha et Omega and
was a duly accredited branch of the main order...
ł[Dion Fortune] was accepted and initiated into Alpha et Omega about the
end of World War I...˛
According to Kingąs The Rites of Modern Occult Magic (P. 142), Fortune
łwas initiated as a Neophyte of the Alpha et Omega in 1919.˛
And on P. 113.
ł...Crowley eventually founded his Order (1907)...˛
This order was the A.A. which was supposed to supercede the G.D.
In 1909 Crowley said he was going to publish the Inner Order rituals
which resulted in Mathers getting a restraining order to temporarily
stop him. So Crowley was definitely out of the G.D. before 1910. It was
9 years before Fortune joined the G.D.
So, here is a summation of the facts:
1) Poke is wrong. Dion Fortune was a member of a legitimate versions of
the Golden Dawn using the name Alpha et Omega.
2) I was wrong in saying that she was a member of the S.M. She was a
member of another legitimate Golden Dawn group.
3) Crowley could not have met Fortune in the Golden Dawn as he was no
longer a member by that time.
Re
sla...@my-deja.com
Gnome...@aol.com (Gnome d Plume) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:32:22 GMT, catherine yronwode
> <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gnome d Plume wrote:
> >>
> >>Carroll 'Poke' Runyon wrote, in "Magick & Hypnosis":
> >
> >>>>># in consciousness to occur in accordance with the will"
> >
> >
> >>>>> does this mean that you believe that ALL magic is effectively
> >>>>> merely psychological, as compared to enabling the magician to
> >>>>> affect the world outside hir mind? or do you have some
> >>>>> explanation for why what Hermetics call "Low Magic" works?
> >
> >
> >>>> What a stupid question!
> >
> >Siva wrote:
> >
> >>> is it? is this the way that you would prefer to address sincere
> >>> queries?
> >
> >Poke wrote:
> >
> >> This is not a sincere query unless you are a superstitious
> >> fool.
> >
> >This is beginning to resemble a Monty Python sketch, but i would like
to
> >see if we can't diffuse the anger and get down to cases.
> >
very
> >seriously at present. He is doing what he calls "reviewing" it --
which
> >is to say, he is sorting through your statements about the
principles
> >of magic and comparing them to other, equally authoritative systems
of
not
> >living author, you, unlike the above named, are available for
> >elucidation of certain points and so he is simply asking you to
further
> >explain things he found in your writing.
> >
> >characterization of "Magick [as] the art of causing changes in
> >*consciousness* [emphasis added], he is trying, as i see it, to
elicite
> >your attitude toward practical folk magic in which chages are
believed
> >to occur in the *material world.* That is, he is asking you whether
you
> >think folk-magic works or is an illusion caused by a change in
> >*consciousness* or perception on the part of the practitioner. Or are
> >these two seemingly irreconcilable points of view somehow
reconcilable,
> >for instance, by making it a premise of belief that all matter is an
> >aspect of consciousness, so therefore a change in consciousness is de
> >facto a material change?
> >
answer.
> >It is not a "trick question."
> >
> >simply help him define your approach to magic, that's all, so he can
> >categorize it as he has other systems of magic.
> >
You note that I am equally unlikely to pander to the sensationalist and
idiotic, if you remember my little cabala/tarot discovery. Bravo!
Gnome d Plume
*****Slarty:
Thanks. And you will be pleased to know that nagasiva and I have
settled our little spat off-stage and from now on we are going to try
for better and more positive interchanges. I will admit I
over-reacted to his line of questioning based on a past experience.
Also I should take this opportunity to confess that the original
"Agricola" mistake was mine! (my spell checker-demon didn't like
Agrippa) but I didn't realize this. Nagasiva picked it up and I jumped
on him. As Captain Hook would say: "Bad form, Peter!" Also, much as I
dislike giving Bad-Boy-Bobby credit for anything, he is right that
Dion Fortune was in what could be called a valid Golden Dawn. My
mistake; I was thinking of the original G.D., but I should have
qualified that-- and she probably took the same oath against being
hypnotized that has survived even to this day (even though none of us,
except our Beloved Bishop Bob, pay much attention to it.)
Anyway, this heated discussion has brought out a lot of
information and given some of the new people a lot to think about.
Nagasiva really does have a very sound knowledge of Hindu Tantric
practice. We can all (including myself) learn from him in that area. I
hope that newcomers to magick will realize what a treasure this news
group is if you don't mind walking over mine fields and flying through
flak on occasion.****
Good Magick!
Re O'Stat
(Gnome d Plume) wrote:
What sort of a stupid answer is this, Poke?
1) Fortune was not in a group that "could be called a valid Golden
Dawn." As the quotes I gave show it WAS the Golden Dawn.
2) You're not a member of the Golden Dawn.
Why should you make a wild claim that you don't pay attention to a vow
of not being hypnotized when you never took the vow?
3) And why don't you admit that your claim that the G.D. members
practiced hypnosis is just false. Afraid that some of your cult members
might leave?
Re
Jerry_31060
heretofore miraculous flight of the bumblebee does not diminish the
principle behind the use of that analogy. In fact, I would feel comforted
that it took such a long time, in this age of hypersonic test vehicles,
concordes, venture stars, comanches and so forth that it was so well hidden
(occulted) it took so long to ferret out the secrets. I think it belies the
oft stated criticism of magickal thought that it hasn't been measured, nor
does any theory predict it and it is therefore an unnecessary entity and
ought to be discarded by right thinking modern individuals.
In a similar way most of the seemingly miraculous or at least unexplained or
unfathomable aspects of magick are almost certainly perfectly natural and
not "supernatural." By my rather literal bottom line definition, there can
be nothing which exists outside, beyond, above or below nature, but there
can be things which our current state of the art knowledge of nature will
not reveal. Some of those hidden things are quite spectacular even when only
glimpsed darkly or when finally revealed in their full glory.
--
Jerry Adams
AKA: Praxis
<sla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qufgs$6u9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gnome d Plume
>In article <39d36796...@news.earthlink.net>, Gnome...@aol.com
>What sort of a stupid answer is this, Poke?
>
>1) Fortune was not in a group that "could be called a valid Golden
>Dawn." As the quotes I gave show it WAS the Golden Dawn.
>
******But it was not the original Golden Dawn. It was a post-rebellion
Mather's continuation, and by the time Dion Fortune got into it, Sam
was dead and his widow Moina was her mentor. Many would claim--with
some validity--that both Sam and Moina's culpability in the Horos
affair discredited them as Golden Dawn leaders. I will withhold any
judgement on that, but it is a point against equating the later French
Alpha et Omega with "The Golden Dawn" in England, or any continuation
from that regular lineage (Yeats, Felkin, Brodie-Innes, et allia). To
say that "it ( Alpha et Omega) could be called The Golden Dawn is
actually a pretty fair concession on my part. I conceded this was an
oversight. Why can't you be gracious enough to accept that, "Beloved
and Gracious Bishop Bob"?*****
>2) You're not a member of the Golden Dawn.
>Why should you make a wild claim that you don't pay attention to a vow
>of not being hypnotized when you never took the vow?
*****Let's re-phrase that: YOU are not a member of the Golden Dawn, in
fact the legally recognized Golden Dawn is suing you for libel. The
very fact that you have publically claimed a 7=4 in the G.D. (R.R. et
A.C.) voids any claim you have to genuine membership. Ipso facto. End
of story. ****
>3) And why don't you admit that your claim that the G.D. members
>practiced hypnosis is just false. Afraid that some of your cult members
>might leave?
****I never did make that claim. You are not just confused on this
point; you are in fact a premeditated liar.*****
Gnome d Plume
(Black Belt from J. C. Penny)
nguyen
> Re
>
And if he has a cult, what's the big deal in it?
Gnome's been pretty good about acknowledging error so far under
criticism, in this thread at least. Unless one is a practiced debater,
it's easy to make minor or even major inconsistencies in statements made
in good faith.
Gnome's problem is that Gnome is a little bit too cavilier, and tends to
underestimate competing propositions while being a bit lax on his own
propositions. A common human trait, and hardly a wholly discrediting
one.
You've got allot of invective. Where did it all come from?
--
nguyen
sla...@my-deja.com
Re OąStat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In article <8qugf2$7n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sla...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Poke wrote:
> > > Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn.
>
> >> Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
> > > Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the
Golden
> > > Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and
knowledge of
> > > the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares Press
and now
> > > by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for all
> > > practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct
descendent
> > > of the G.D.
> >
> > Are you sure of your data, here? I read that Unkle Al had met her
in
> > the G.D. Was Crowley not a member of the origonal G.D.?
>
sais, if I remember correctly, that they knew eachother when in the
G:.D:.
catherine yronwode
>
> ... you will be pleased to know that nagasiva and I have
> settled our little spat off-stage and from now on we are going to
> try for better and more positive interchanges.
Glad to hear it!
> I will admit I over-reacted to his line of questioning based on a
> past experience.
I used to do this too online, up until about a month after i met him in
person. I had the impression back then that he was being either smugly
sarcastic, or incredibly ignorant, or both (yes, even when those were
mutually contradictory positions -- which should have alerted me to
their use as technique). As with you, my reactions were based in my own
past experiences.
Even though i now understand his motivations as an archivist and a
philosopher, i still think he sometimes takes both the "devil's
advocate" and "please define your terms" debate positions to ungainly
extremes, but i have learned to appreciate that this is a matter of
style, and that he is not being hostile, merely seeking elucidation of
principles to a very firm degree of certitude.
> Also I should take this opportunity to confess that the original
> "Agricola" mistake was mine! (my spell checker-demon didn't like
> Agrippa) but I didn't realize this. Nagasiva picked it up and I
> jumped on him. As Captain Hook would say: "Bad form, Peter!"
Ah, okay... i missed that too, and thanks for clarifying it.
> Also, much as I dislike giving Bad-Boy-Bobby credit for anything,
> he is right that Dion Fortune was in what could be called a valid
> Golden Dawn. My mistake; I was thinking of the original G.D., but
> I should have qualified that -- and she probably took the same
> oath against being hypnotized that has survived even to this day
> (even though none of us, except our Beloved Bishop Bob, pay much
> attention to it.)
Regarding the anti-hypnotism clause in the oaths of the original and
subseqent Order(s) of the Golden Dawn.
I seem to remember reading something very similar in the Naylor OTO
ritual book while i was running through that to see how much Crowley had
plagiarized from the Freemasonic rituals. (There is no anti-hypnotism
clause in the Freemasonic Obligations, just to clarify that point.) So
-- am i correct in recalling that this same anti-hypnotism vow is part
of the Naylor collection of OTO rituals?
Also, is there an anti-hypnotism oath in the King book of OTO rituals?
Finally, i seem also to recall an anti-hypnotism clause in the
Scientology "contract" (for lack of a better word) whereby a new member
agrees to abide by certain terms and conditions of behavior as a
precondition to being audited. This is not surprising, given the
connection between Scientology and the OTO via Jack parsons.
If i am correct about the distribution of these G.D. era anti-hypnotism
oaths, it is interesting to see how such 19th century
anti-Spiritualistic precepts have perpetuated through recognizable lines
of transmission to the present, is it not? One could almost consider
their existence in any given fraternal, mystical, or magical order's
rituals and oaths a sign of lineal or collateral descent from the Golden
Dawn!
I look forward to responses from people more familiar with these groups
than i am.
cat yronwode
Gnome d Plume
<c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>Gnome d Plume wrote:
>>
>> ... you will be pleased to know that nagasiva and I have
>> settled our little spat off-stage and from now on we are going to
>> try for better and more positive interchanges.
>
> Glad to hear it!
>
*****( snip -- to the topic.....)****
>
>Regarding the anti-hypnotism clause in the oaths of the original and
>subseqent Order(s) of the Golden Dawn.
>
>I seem to remember reading something very similar in the Naylor OTO
>ritual book while i was running through that to see how much Crowley had
>plagiarized from the Freemasonic rituals. (There is no anti-hypnotism
>clause in the Freemasonic Obligations, just to clarify that point.) So
>-- am i correct in recalling that this same anti-hypnotism vow is part
>of the Naylor collection of OTO rituals?
****Yes, it is. In the regular O.T.O. as well.****
>
>Also, is there an anti-hypnotism oath in the King book of OTO rituals?
****As above....***
>Finally, i seem also to recall an anti-hypnotism clause in the
>Scientology "contract" (for lack of a better word) whereby a new member
>agrees to abide by certain terms and conditions of behavior as a
>precondition to being audited. This is not surprising, given the
>connection between Scientology and the OTO via Jack parsons.
>
>If i am correct about the distribution of these G.D. era anti-hypnotism
>oaths, it is interesting to see how such 19th century
>anti-Spiritualistic precepts have perpetuated through recognizable lines
>of transmission to the present, is it not? One could almost consider
>their existence in any given fraternal, mystical, or magical order's
>rituals and oaths a sign of lineal or collateral descent from the Golden
>Dawn!
>
>I look forward to responses from people more familiar with these groups
>than i am.
>
>cat yronwode
*****This is a very interesting topic and frankly I can argue from
both sides of the fence -- because, as you may recall from my *Magick
and Hypnosis* article (downloadable on our web site listed below) I do
not support the professional hypnotists in their insistence that it is
an essentially harmless activity that is almost impossible to misuse.
Quite to the contrary, I have been quite honest in detailing the
dangers and excesses possible in this ancient art.
This, however, does not mean that magicians--who are supposed
to be daring explorers of the unknown--should flee from it in horror.
It is in fact their most powerful tool.
In Victorian times "Mesmerism" (a form of trance induction
less understood than hypnosis itself) was a fad of almost frantic
popularity and equally frantic concern. Here is an excerpt from a
review on *Mesmerized: Powers of Mind in Victorian Britain* by Alison
Winter----- "In castles and cottages, rectories and pubs, hospitals,
lecture halls and churches across Victorian Britain, thousands of
women and hundreds of men were mesmerized. Apparently reasonable human
beings twisted into bizarre postures, called out in unknown languages,
and placidly bore assaults that should have caused unbearable pain.
The Victorians were literally entranced with this phenomenon."
Now that the book is available in p.b., I have ordered it and
will review it myself on this news group.
The anti-hypnotic oaths in both the G.D. and the O.T.O. stem
from this hysteria -- and can be understood in relation to it. Even
so, we have perhaps gone too much in the other direction since that
time and attempted to reduce the awesome power of hypnosis and
Mesmerism to the level a verbalized aspirin tablet.
The magician or order of magicians who use hypnotic and
Mesmerists techniques must maintain ethical standards. We require this
to be affirmed by oath.*****
Good Magic!
Gnome d Plume
You are very relaxed, completely at ease. You are concentrating
totally on reading this message. You will click on this web site and
visit us now.....
http://members.aol.com/CHSOTA/welcome.html
Re O'Stat
(Gnome d Plume) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:58:44 GMT, Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <39d36796...@news.earthlink.net>, Gnome...@aol.com
> >What sort of a stupid answer is this, Poke?
> >
> >1) Fortune was not in a group that "could be called a valid Golden
> >Dawn." As the quotes I gave show it WAS the Golden Dawn.
> >
> ******But it was not the original Golden Dawn. It was a post-rebellion
> Mather's continuation, and by the time Dion Fortune got into it, Sam
> was dead and his widow Moina was her mentor. Many would claim--with
> some validity--that both Sam and Moina's culpability in the Horos
> affair discredited them as Golden Dawn leaders. I will withhold any
> judgement on that, but it is a point against equating the later French
> Alpha et Omega with "The Golden Dawn" in England, or any continuation
> from that regular lineage (Yeats, Felkin, Brodie-Innes, et allia). To
> say that "it ( Alpha et Omega) could be called The Golden Dawn is
> actually a pretty fair concession on my part. I conceded this was an
> oversight. Why can't you be gracious enough to accept that, "Beloved
> and Gracious Bishop Bob"?*****
Once again, the ego-that-walks-like-a-man refuses to say, "Sorry, I was
wrong." Typical sign of an ego overcompensating for feelings of
inferiority.
Bet that as it may, NOWHERE did you way in your initial post, that DF
was not a member of the "original" GD. You said she was not a member of
the Golden Dawn. Period. That's it. Now you're playing word games and
everyone here can see it.
Just say that you were wrong and that Dion Fortune was a member of the
Golden Dawn and I'll be glad to say, "Carroll, that's very big of you.
You're acknowledging your mistake." I would certainly graciously accept
your admission of your error.
>
> >2) You're not a member of the Golden Dawn.
> >Why should you make a wild claim that you don't pay attention to a vow
> >of not being hypnotized when you never took the vow?
>
> *****Let's re-phrase that: YOU are not a member of the Golden Dawn, in
> fact the legally recognized Golden Dawn is suing you for libel. The
> very fact that you have publically claimed a 7=4 in the G.D. (R.R. et
> A.C.) voids any claim you have to genuine membership. Ipso facto. End
> of story. ****
Poke, you're making a mistake, here. This isn't about me, it's about
you. YOU claimed that members of the Golden Dawn then and now did not
pay attention to the vow against being hypnotized. Since YOU are not a
member of any Golden Dawn group, you have no way to support this claim.
>
> >3) And why don't you admit that your claim that the G.D. members
> >practiced hypnosis is just false. Afraid that some of your cult members
> >might leave?
>
> ****I never did make that claim. You are not just confused on this
> point; you are in fact a premeditated liar.*****
>
> Gnome d Plume
>
You did make this claim. Remember? You said the forebears of the Golden
Dawn didn't like hypnosis so they couldn't do Evocation. Your
implication is that either the G.D. didn't do successful evocations or
they broke their vow. Since they did do successful evocations, you are
claiming the broke their vows and practiced hypnosis.
I am claiming that they were successful and didn't need to use hypnosis.
Poke, just admit you were wrong and you can get on with the business of
advertising your personality cult.
Re
Re O酬tat
> In article <user-01EBDF.2...@nntp.we.mediaone.net>,
> Re OąStat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > In article <8qugf2$7n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sla...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Poke wrote:
> > > > No. Wrong again.
> > > > Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn.
> >
> > Re: wrote:
> > >> Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
> > > > Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the
> Golden
> > > > Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and
> knowledge of
> > > > the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares Press
> and now
> > > > by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for all
> > > > practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct
> descendent
> > > > of the G.D.
> > >
> > > Slarty wrote:
> > > Are you sure of your data, here? I read that Unkle Al had met her
> in
> > > the G.D. Was Crowley not a member of the origonal G.D.?
> >
> --
> Yes; I really am this wacked out, and no; I do not often come up for
> air!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Well, if so, King and Fielding & Collins are in error. Since just about
everyone else is dead, itąs going to be hard to come to a conclusion on
this.
I know that Grant claims that Fortune and Crowley had some sort of
łagreement˛ to leave each other alone in public. Grant further claims
that DF visited AC from time to time when she was on in years.
There is also an article where Fortune defends the writings of Regardie
and Crowley and actually defends his use of drugs!
Iąm inclined to think they knew each other. More than that, I do not
know.
Re
Gnome d Plume
>In article <39d39546...@news.earthlink.net>, Gnome...@aol.com
>(Gnome d Plume) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:58:44 GMT, Re O'Stat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <39d36796...@news.earthlink.net>, Gnome...@aol.com
*****Okay Bobby, you want it, you got it!
If I said Dion Fortune was not a member of "The Golden Dawn",
or implied that she was not a member of a valid Golden Dawn Tradition
group, then I could be called wrong for saying that, and if an apology
is warranted I sincerely render it. And believe it or not, that is
quite easy for me to do. Now what would you like to apologize for?
I surprised you, so it's your turn to surprise me (and surprise us
all!)******
Gnome the Ever-Penitent
sla...@my-deja.com
Re OąStat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In article <8r0aji$mq4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sla...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <user-01EBDF.2...@nntp.we.mediaone.net>,
> > Re OąStat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > In article <8qugf2$7n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sla...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Poke wrote:
> > > > > Dion Fortune was not a member of the Golden Dawn.
> > >
> > > Re: wrote:
> > > >> Dion Fortune most definitely was a member of the Stella
> > > > > Matutina which, of course, was one of the continuations of the
> > Golden
> > > > > Dawn. In fact, the most popular version of the rituals and
> > knowledge of
> > > > > the Golden Dawn (The version published originally by Ares
Press
> > and now
> > > > > by Llewellyn) are actually from the Stella Matutina. So, for
all
> > > > > practical purposes, Dion Fortune was a member of the direct
> > descendent
> > > > > of the G.D.
> > > >
> > > > Slarty wrote:
> > > > Are you sure of your data, here? I read that Unkle Al had met
her
> > in
> > > > the G.D. Was Crowley not a member of the origonal G.D.?
> > >
> > Yes; I really am this wacked out, and no; I do not often come up for
> > air!
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
about
> everyone else is dead, itąs going to be hard to come to a conclusion
on
> this.
>
> I know that Grant claims that Fortune and Crowley had some sort of
> łagreement˛ to leave each other alone in public. Grant further claims
> that DF visited AC from time to time when she was on in years.
>
> There is also an article where Fortune defends the writings of
Regardie
> and Crowley and actually defends his use of drugs!
>
> Iąm inclined to think they knew each other. More than that, I do not
> know.
>
> Re
>
life) people with whom crowley shared a sence of mutual respect. They
had a lengthy corespondance, almost all of which is; appearantly; now
lost. Fortune pretty much seemed to acknowledge Crowley as a superior
magickian to her.
I would like to know more about Fortunes advocacy of the
Neuro-chemical altering of crowley's brain. Got any?
Re O酬tat
>
> I would like to know more about Fortunes advocacy of the
> Neuro-chemical altering of crowley's brain. Got any?
> --
Basically, her comments, as I recall, were that magicians (here she went
general rather than specific) generally did not use drugs of addiction,
but drugs which open the mind.
The article is called, as I remember, ³Ceremonial Magic Revealed² and is
in Sane Occultism or one of the other books that is a collection of her
earlier articles.
Re
sla...@my-deja.com
Re OąStat <us...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In article <8r3164$iof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sla...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > I would like to know more about Fortunes advocacy of the
> > Neuro-chemical altering of crowley's brain. Got any?
> > --
>
> Basically, her comments, as I recall, were that magicians (here she
went
> general rather than specific) generally did not use drugs of
addiction,
> but drugs which open the mind.
>
is
> in Sane Occultism or one of the other books that is a collection of
her
> earlier articles.
>
> Re
>
E.M. Butler didn't seem to agree w/ that stance. Since when is Heroin a
psychedelic?
Tom Schuler
<sla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rj64b$3kj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> E.M. Butler didn't seem to agree w/ that stance. Since when
> is Heroin a psychedelic?
Heroin was the preferred treatment for asthma during that time and that is
why Crowley initially used it. It's powerful addictive properties were not
well-known. People were using it as a "cure" for morphine addiction, too.