Newbie Questions: The Magick Circle and Triangle -- how does it work?
Chade
I'm reposting your original message again with a trimmed crosspost
list. I'm not sure it, or my other reply commenting on it, are
distributing properly.
In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3....@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
>answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
>the Triangle.
>
>So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
>(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
>sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
>
>Any opinions?
>
>If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
>
>Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong) to the Astral
>Plane without a Triangle? If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
>placed?
>
>If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large to
>fit in?
>
>Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point B,
>then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
>
>Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
>
>If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
>carried out on the material plane?
>
>Sorry if these seem like stupid newbie questions, but the mechanics
>seem a little confusing and contradictory.
>
>Please post replies to this newsgroup. Any help appreciated.
>
>TIA
>
>--Bex.
Erwin Hessle
> Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
> >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> >the Triangle.
>
> >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
>
> >Any opinions?
The "theory" is that the circle acts as a protection, and the triangle
is both a container for the spirit, and a point of focus for it.
As for the other questions, they are easily dealt with, because the
theory, as stated, is utter bullshit. No "spirits" actually "appear"
anywhere, so all these questions about "where does the spirit
appear?", "what happens if it's too large?" and "can spirits
teleport?" are just non-starters.
This stuff about "spirits" and "demons" isn't real. So, you can pick
whichever answers sound the best to you, or, even better, don't pick
any of them. This is also the reason you're getting conflicting
answers. If you ask a question like, "does the earth's gravity effect
a force towards the centre of the earth, or away from it?" then you'll
get a degree of consistency in the answers you receive, since the
actual effect is relatively easily demonstrated. Since what we are
talking about here is imaginary, you'll get as many answers as there
are fools in the world.
This is 2007. We really shouldn't be having serious conversations
about "spirits" or "demons". Please exercise a modicum of common
sense.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Chade
On 28 Oct, 21:24, Chade <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Bex,
>
> I'm reposting your original message again with a trimmed crosspost
> list. I'm not sure it, or my other reply commenting on it, are
> distributing properly.
>
> In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3.6...@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
> Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>
> >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> >the Triangle.
>
> >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
>
> >Any opinions?
>
> >If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
>
> >Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong) to the Astral
> >Plane without a Triangle? If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
> >placed?
>
> >If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large to
> >fit in?
>
The magick circle divides the universe into the inside and the
outside. Leave your worries outside and they won't distract you.
You can evoke without a circle or a triangle, but you may find it
easier to use them.
Using a magick mirror, you would stare at it in dim light. Chanting
and staring at your reflection. This can cause a trance where your
reflection appears to distort. Like the game 'Bloody Mary'.
In other traditions than the WMT, like Voodoo, spirits would 'ride'
the person.
> >Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point B,
> >then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
>
No.
> >Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
>
What?
> >If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
> >carried out on the material plane?
>
Your actions and consciousness. The spirits 'live' inside your head.
Personifications of parts of you. This is more subtle and profound
than it sounds.
> >Sorry if these seem like stupid newbie questions, but the mechanics
> >seem a little confusing and contradictory.
>
> >Please post replies to this newsgroup. Any help appreciated.
>
> >TIA
>
> >--Bex.
A former reg in alt.magick has done a lot on reviving traditional
evokation.
http://www.templeofastarte.com/
To get an essay by Carroll on trance in magick, download and unzip
Kisai
> Bex,
>
> I'm reposting your original message again with a trimmed crosspost
> list. I'm not sure it, or my other reply commenting on it, are
> distributing properly.
>
> Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>
>
>
> >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> >the Triangle.
>
> >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
The circle designates the practioner's "space". The triangle
designates the spirit's "space".
> >Any opinions?
>
> >If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
The spirit interfaces with the mind of the practioner. Really, the
triangle is just to reinforce the thoughtform of the degree of
separateness (or depth of interface) between practioner and spirit,
> >Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong) to the Astral
> >Plane without a Triangle? If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
> >placed?
You don't really need a triangle. You don't even need a mirror or
crystal ball. These things are just tools.
> >If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large to
> >fit in?
Size has no meaning for spirits.
> >Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point B,
> >then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
If by "one" you mean a living person, no. Spirits can move from point
A to B, but they don't like doing so. They rather hang out in places
they are familiar with.
> >Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
I don't know what you mean by this. Living people cannot teleport.
>
> >If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
> >carried out on the material plane?
I don't understand this question. As far as I know, spirits are
easier cajoled and bargained with than commanded. It's like asking a
teenager to mow your lawn. If you just give him 20 bucks, he'll just
go away. If you withold the money until the job is completely done,
you'll be better off.
> >Sorry if these seem like stupid newbie questions, but the mechanics
> >seem a little confusing and contradictory.
>
Do some work! Practical experience is the best guide.
>
Meltdarok
Your Body of Light!" by Meltdarok
Meltdarok
View profile
More options Jan 1 2004, 2:19 am
Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: "Meltdarok" <meltda...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 06:19:23 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 1 2004 2:19 am
Subject: Magick *through* the years or, "How to Develop Your Body of
Light!" by Meltdarok
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report
this message | Find messages by this author
Yes once again, here is our most
fabulous repost, I can hear the groans already,"Oh no
not *again*!"
>>Sure, this'll probably just end up being a seed for a huge thread, but
> that's
>>cool, I kind of like to see those. All right, everyone, what follows are
> my
>>opinions on the basis of magick. Don't get pissed at me if you disagree,
>>just
>>post
>
> something to the contrary, because I'm certainly not trying to shove
> my
>>beliefs on anyone. As a matter of fact, MY personal beliefs won't get any
>>more attention than anyone else's, OK? Now, then:
>
>> What the hell is magick, precisely? One definition is: magick is
>>everything that can't be measured. Everything that is unquantifiable.
>>Pretty
>>broad, huh? Who's right, who's wrong? My beliefs are totally different
> than
>>yours, but both of our "spells" work. Why is that? I've only heard two
>>theories advanced that express why magick can work for totally separate
>>magical systems, then I came up with two more that are just kind of
>>unspoken.
>>Let's check them out, shall we?
>> 1) Orgone energy. I don't believe it entirely, but the idea behind
> it
>>seems to work out. The idea that life energy is universal and is the
> force
>>behind
>
> magick isn't uncommon. Call the life energy "God", and now you
> have
>>Christianity. If you call the life energy inside you "chi", "ki",
> "manna", or
>>"orgone" . . . well, you get the idea. Orgone Science (for lack of a
> better
>>word) says that magick is primitive technology that concerned learning how
> to
>>harness
>
> this universal force. I'm not saying I believe it, but it does
> answer
>>the question of how 90 million different magical systems can work.
>> 2) Quite frankly, this one worries me. Psychics. You know those
>>people? Some people say we're all psychic. Some people also say that all
>>magick is the controlled use of psychic powers. By this theory, all the
>>ritual and ceremony apparent in most magical systems is just there to
> trick
>>the
>
> subconscious into letting the psychic centers do their thing and
> say it
>
>>was an outside force.
This isn't really separate,
just the same thing described in a different
way.
>>Levitation -- telekinesis. Magical healing --
>>psychic
>>healing or biofeedback. A spirit that tells you something new -- using
>>telepathy to access the collective unconscious. A spirit that tells you
> the
>>future
>
> or the past -- pre- or postcognition. I'll tell you, though, I
> barely
>
>>like to consider the idea that I do it all myself.
A problem is trying to remember that we are both center *and* surround.
Our linear orientation as human consciousnesses kind of puts a serious
damper on our ability to experience life as our greater self, up to and
including the experience of the being that can be considered as the
entire basis of "Existence Itself." The word that we use in English
that comes closest to describing this entity that *is, was, and ever
shall be,* is the word God. Of course I happen to like the term
"Universal Father." Even in what they tell us in science, there is
only one thing going on, and we are all part of that same process. So
the differentiation of the reality that gives us life, and is the basis
of our life, also gives us the *illusion* that we are individuals.
But no matter what they tell you, even if by force, there is no
such thing as an individual. This orientation cost Jesus of Nazareth
his life.
But as the truth becomes uncovered, this sacrifice of
Jesus becomes something that the Christians cannot hog to themselves.
And, as the Love starts to spread, true believers don't even want
to withhold their agape, love, charity from others, no matter what
their professed beliefs
are. The want and desire is for more Unity.
This type of cognitive
function has a tendency to break the hold
that materialism can have upon
a being, since comfort becomes more
of a state of mind than anything
that the body can experience in
a physical manner.
>> Now let's go to the two ideas that a lot of people seem to share, but
>>I've never heard them spoken aloud or seen them written.
>> 3) All the different types of magick DO exist separately. God is
>>helping the Christian, and the Great Mother is there for the Wiccans, and
>>JHVH
>>is
>
> always with the Cabbalist. This seems to cover all our bases, but
> what's
>>the standard by which to judge gods? It seems hard to swallow that there
> are
>>all these deities around, and they're all of the exact same power. And if
>>they aren't of the same power, then shouldn't there be one type of magick
>>that
>>can
>
> overpower all of the others? One that can pretty much run amok
> without
>>any of its "spells" or "rituals" being undone, because no one else's deity
> is
>>strong enough? Seems to make sense
>
> to me.
That's primitive.
> 4) Last, but not least, magick is about belief. Of course,
> anyone who
>>has ever done any magick knows that you must have total belief, but that's
>>not
>>what I'm saying. For example: does anyone reading this know anyone who
> has
>>done a ritual from the Necronomicon? I do, and that's a work of fiction.
>>But
>>(I
>
> assume, based on this theory)Lovecraft and his cronies, as well
> as the guy
>>who wrote the Necronomicon did enough work making their fantastic ideas
> sound
>>at least semi-plausible that belief can easily embrace these works of
>>fiction.
>>Thus, if a
>
> person can put firm belief into just about anything, it'll work
> as
>
>>a magical system. Maybe . . . maybe not? I don't know, but then, I never
>>said I did.
As I said before, there
is a unity of self and surround.
> This leaves just one more question, and I'm not touching it.
> Spirits,
>>angels, demons, fairies, sylphs, elementals and the like. Do they exist?
> I
>>don't know. If anyone has any plausible
>
> theories out there, let's hear
> them.
These entities are
human-- alive or passed on, or a manifestation of
the higher self we can call God (or even a manifested probability
function that has been detected by human perception, or in other
words-- a function of precognition).
>>It's best if you have actually done something to help prove what you're
>>talking about, but pure theory is accepted. (For future reference, in
> spite
>>of all my talk, I AM practicing.)
>> Thanks in advance to anyone who's got anything to say based on this,
>>a
Well
then let's bite into some stuff! One of the most powerful tools
that
a magician can have is of course a house. If at all possible,
this house should be
located an a hill, and have both an attic and a
basement. In addition
to that, if the location has steps leading up the
hillside, so
much the better. Inside your house, the attic should have
large closets,
or crawl spaces. The basement should have storage rooms
and an
outside door.
What you should be doing of course is to lovingly
visualize each and
every inch of it. For instance, start from
your attic, and imagine
walking through it and inspecting every
nook and cranny. Check the view
from each attic window, then go
down the stairway to the second floor.
Starting from the bottom
of the attic stairs, begin to imagine going
through each room on
this floor. Follow this procedure until you are at
the basement
door. You should practice this as often as you can. When
you
perform rituals at home, you should make a choice as to whether
you
want to practice high or low Magick. When you practice high
Magick, use
your attic. When you practice low Magick, use your
basement.
To use your new found tool, keep a lamp at your bedside
that you only
use for this purpose (or a flashlight, if you sleep
with a partner).
Before you go to sleep, check to see if it is
fully functional,
visualize your entire house, then go to sleep.
What you want to do is
this, every time that you wake up during
the night, make a habit of
turning on that light. Then, when you
try to turn on your light, and it
doesn't work-- you are now in
a lucid
dream. Calm down now. Sit up,
and try again to turn on your light.
If it still doesn't work, now is
the time to perform your favorite
ritual, or just carefully explore your
house. At this point,
some people may want to try telekinesis
experiments. So go move
some objects to see the result when you
awaken.
Some people
might want to see what's going on in their subconscious, and
here
is where the house becomes a diagnostic tool-- as the attic becomes
the
representative of the mind itself, and the basement becomes the
representative
of the instincts. What you want to do is find that both
places
are swept neat and clean. Be sure to check *all* of your nooks
and
crannies, you may be in for a journey.
But all kidding aside,
now is the time to perform a ritual. It will be
entirely up to
*you* if it is a solitary ritual or not. And also, as we
begin
to delve deeper into the levels of consciousness, the people you
join
may or may not be *other* people (asleep and beyond!) But
remember,
if you have the idea to create destructive vibrations, you are
now
right smack dab in the middle of them. Hence, my opinion is to
use
the time to explore, but if you encounter any trouble, handle
it. Here
also, I shall put forth the concept that the person should
not
deliberately try to develop a concept that is too far
removed
from our physical reality. I would say try to stick to things
like
levitation,
flying (the sky's the limit!), underwater voyages,
etc. Avoid the old
razzle dazzle
type of encounters if you can.
And above all don't forget to come and rescue
us! For more information
on lucid
dreaming, check out
http://www.lucidity.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31- Nov 1, 1987 Lucid dream
Was with James Bond during the assault on the crater
in, "You Only Live Twice." He told me to stay back, then
they blasted open the crater which was covered with water,
and attacked. I joined him, and had my own group to
protect. I told my people to stay low and we would be
relatively safe from bullets. We reached the armory
and Bond helped me choose a sawed-off .38 caliber
pistol, but the ammo he gave me was all *old,* but I
loaded up anyway. He left while my group and I searched
for more hostages. I was surprised by one of the opposition, who
threw a fishhook bolo at me, but I had him covered. Three
hooks pierced my legs, one in my left calf, one in my right
calf, and one in my right thigh. I told the guy to help me,
and he gave me wire-cutters. I clipped the barbs off of the tips,
and pulled them through my legs blood and all, (There was a
distortion in size-- they were regular sized, but had gone through
quite a bit of flesh!) and then though I wanted to continue the
dream, it ended. I woke up, +Wooo weee!!!+ Feeling joyfully energized.1:11
am EST 1/1/2004
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7
Tom
"Chade" <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1193606683.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Bex,
>
> I'm reposting your original message again with a trimmed crosspost
> list. I'm not sure it, or my other reply commenting on it, are
> distributing properly.
Probably not, since I didn't see this thread earlier.
> In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3....@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
> Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>>I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
>>answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
>>the Triangle.
>>
>>So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
>>(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle
>>is a
>>sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
>>
>>Any opinions?
The use of a circle and triangle in evocational magick is a practice that
probably arose in the 1500's, probably following the manuscript called
"Heptameron", upon which a considerable part of Agrippa's (allegedly) Fourth
Book of Occult Philosophy was based. Perhaps the most commonly known
grimoire utilizing a circle and triangle is the Greater Key of Solomon. Not
all grimoires utilize a circle, notably, the Sacred Magic Of Abramelin does
not, and Agrippa himself considereed the circle to be simply an "easier" way
to perform evocations, but clearly not the only way.
I notice that your approach to magic is mechanistic and objectified.
Magical "energy" is "focused" by a "lens" much as physical light would be.
Spirits are "caged" as if they had substance and location that could be
manipulated. This isn't necessarily how things are. As a matter of fact,
given the complete lack of any independent measurement of magical "energy"
or instrumental way to detect a "spirit", it is extremely unlikely that
these are objective effects at all or that the circle and triangle work as
you conceive them here.
Rather, it seems likely that the effects of magical evocation are subjective
phenomena and that the purpose of the circle and triangle are conveniences
that make the evocation more believeable and easier to conceptualize. From
"The Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy", attributed to Agrippa: "And now we
will declare unto you Another Rite more easie to perform this thing: that is
to say, Let the man that is to receive any Oracle from the good spirits, be
chaste, pure, and confes'd. Then a place being prepared pure and clean, and
covered everywhere wih white linen, on the Lords day in the new of the moon
let him enter into that place, clothed with clean white garments; and let
him exorcize the place, and bless it, and make a Circle therein with a
sanctified cole [coal]; amd let there be written in the uttermost part of
the Circle the names of the Angels, and in the inner part thereof let there
be written the mighty names of God: and let him place within the Circle, at
the four angles of the world, the Censers for the perfumes."
>>If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
In your imagination. This is not to say that a "spirit" does not exist, but
that it is without form except when and where you choose to provide it with
one.
>>Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong) to the
>>Astral
>>Plane without a Triangle? If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
>>placed?
It is conventional to say that one *evokes" spirits" but "invokes" deities.
Yes, one can evoke a spirit to manifestation as an astral image. The best
placement of a crystal or mirror is right in front of you, so you can see it
easily and stare at it fixedly in relative comfort.
>>If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large
>>to
>>fit in?
There is no such thing as a spirit which is "too large" for any physical
space, however tiny that space may be. They are not "creatures", like lions
or elephants. They do not have physical bodies. They do not take up
physical space.
>>Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point
>>B,
>>then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
It has been claimed, but never demonstrated such that trickery could be
reasonably excluded. So, it's unlikely.
>>Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
Your terminology is eccentric. How does a "Magick Circle" differ from a
"Majick circle"? Since magic is unlikely to work upon the mechanistic and
objectivist principles that you assume, it is also unlikely that any
physical travel from one person's circle to another's could be accomplished.
>>If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
>>carried out on the material plane?
It probably cannot. Spirits affect the way you feel and think. They do not
affect physical objects outside your body. If you want physical effects
outside your body, you have to use physical forces to produce them.
Chade
why you've only had a reply from a single loon. Don't worry though, I
expect some more loons will be along presently.
Meanwhile I've added some comments.
In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3....@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
>answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
>the Triangle.
>
>So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
>(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
>sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
>
>Any opinions?
The circle divides the universe into the inside and the outside. Leave
your worries outside and they won't distract you.
>
>If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
>
In whatever your staring at until your eyes go silly. Be it smoke,
mirror or whatever.
>Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong) to the Astral
>Plane without a Triangle?
Yes.
> If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
>placed?
>
In the WMT outside the circle, usually at a convient height. Others
vary, in Vodoo for instance, as I understand it, the evoked spirit
'rides' the subject.
>If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large to
>fit in?
>
To take the commonly used magick mirror you stare at it in bad light
and chant until your own reflection distorts. Like the game 'Bloody
Mary'.
>Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point B,
>then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
>
No.
>Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
>
What?
>If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
>carried out on the material plane?
>
By your own actions, as the spirits live inside your head. This is
more subtle and profound than it sounds.
>Sorry if these seem like stupid newbie questions, but the mechanics
>seem a little confusing and contradictory.
>
>Please post replies to this newsgroup. Any help appreciated.
>
>TIA
>
>--Bex.
An old time reg who has done a lot of work on this has a website at:
http://www.templeofastarte.com/
if you check the alt.magick archives he posted as 'gnome de plume'
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Consult http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
Moderation Team at moder...@alt-magick-moderated.org
Josh O'Brien
> Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>
> >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> >the Triangle.
>
> >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
The circle is a boundary outside which the spirit is evoked. The
triangle is supposed to contain or catalyse the evocation by providing
a focal point.
> >Any opinions?
>
> >If I evoke without a triangle, where does the spirit appear?
Try it.
> >Can one evoke (or invoke -- sorry if the terminology is wrong)
Evocation and invocation are quite different things.
"To 'invoke' is to 'call in', just as to 'evoke' is to 'call forth'.
This is the essential difference between the two branches of Magick.
In invocation, the macrocosm floods the consciousness. In evocation,
the magician, having become the macrocosm, creates a microcosm." -
Crowley, Book 4
> >to the Astral
> >Plane without a Triangle? If so, where are the mirror or crystal ball
> >placed?
Place them outside the circle where you can see them.
> >If one evokes to the triangle, what happens if the creature is too large to
> >fit in?
Similar to how it would fit on a canvas before someone began painting
it.
> >Teleportation: Can one enter the Astral Plane at point A, travel to Point B,
> >then enter the Material Plane at Point B?
>
> >Can one travel from Magick Circle to Majick circle?
You could walk if it's physically distant, or wait if it is in the
future. You could also alter your perception of the circle so it
appeared to be a different circle. I've yet to be persuaded that
anyone can teleport themselves instantaneously in space from here to
there.
> >If one commands a spirit on the astral plane, how can the command be
> >carried out on the material plane?
You already know how: carrying out material commands is mundane. If
you want lemons, plant a lemon tree or go to the market. Material
change requires effort, which I think is why so many balk at it and
retreat to their childish fantasies about magic. The next question is
how to achieve those ends economically, and that's by "a right
understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things".
Bexley
All the input and thought is appreciated.
I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
communicated with.
I have a few additional questions:
1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
questions:
2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about the
triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit materialize
really small?
Thanks again for your patience,
--Bex.
"Chade" <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1193606683.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
whyzard
no, no
the circle is placed below the triangle
the triangle is above
within the circle is inscribed two dots for the sun and stars
below the two dots is the crescent moon
below this circle now with the two dots and crescent moon
you must inscribe the letters "jack in the box"
don't order the 2 for 1 dollar tacos
those things are fried heartattacks
Meltdarok
> Thank you everyone for answering what must've seemed like stupid
> questions. All the input and thought is appreciated.
>
> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
> communicated with.
>
> I have a few additional questions:
>
> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
> questions:
>
> 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
>
> 3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about
> the triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit
> materialize really small?
What an image. So you have a spirit whose tape measured size is twice
that of Mt. Kilimanjaro. When it appears before you in a comely form,
it manifests as a sexy little dwarf standing in your triangle.
However. . . the form you see in your triangle is only the tip of the
iceberg of this massive spirit you summoned, that is now occupying
your entire county. Heh.
>
> Thanks again for your patience,
>
> --Bex.
--
Tom
"Bexley" <bex...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:4dxVi.798$hM3....@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
> communicated with.
>
> I have a few additional questions:
>
> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
> questions:
No, he's not crazy. He's not right, but he's not crazy. At least, I don't
think he is, based on what I've read. He does appear to be a bit of a
wanker, though.
> 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
Evocation to visible appearance is possible. That's not at all the same
thing, but it can seem quite a bit like it.
> 3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about the
> triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit
> materialize really small?
The image on your TV screen is always the size of your TV screen.
Erwin Hessle
> 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
Not of the kind of "spirits" you are talking about, because they don't
exist outside of your imagination, so there's nothing to evoke. The
best you can hope for is to imagine so hard that they are there that
you fool yourself into seeing something that isn't.
You should completely and utterly discount the "objective entity"
theory of spirits, because it's garbage. If anyone disagrees, let's
see them post a video of one of their "evocations" to YouTube, and
we'll all take a look at these "spirits" of theirs.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Chade
> Thank you everyone for answering what must've seemed like stupid questions.
> All the input and thought is appreciated.
>
No problem. BTW your original post wasn't see by many people because
your had included alt.magick.moderated in the crosspost, this stopped
some people from seeing it properly. In fact, almost all of the groups
in the crosspost list apart from alt.magick are effectively abandoned.
So next time you might be better off just posting to alt.magick.
> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
> communicated with.
>
> I have a few additional questions:
>
> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
> questions:
>
Konstantinos, like Savedow, is a medieval dualist. Thats a fancy way
of saying his model of magick has demons as separate creatures to
people, with a separate place to live in. Including ideas like
torturing spirits to make them obey, summoning demons to physical
appearance and demons affecting the world 'paranormally'.
There is no good evidence to back this up. If the demons are physical
why drawings and not photos?
It does *seem* very much that you've evoked a separate creature, it
feels separate and you can see it with your own eyes. However, the
same trance that causes the 'appearance' of the spirit is associated
with something called 'dissociation'. Something that Tom has written
about in the past, check the archive.
As the demons aren't physical, so can't pull your arms off, you don't
need to cower behind a circle. That doesn't mean that it won't be
easier with a circle, but as it's not a mechanical defence there isn't
a wrong way and a right way like in engineering.
Just because an experience is subjective doesn't mean that it can't be
powerful, interesting, scary or affect your 'real' life. Consider the
demon 'paranoia'.
In another post I've already mentioned Caroll Runyon. I'm not
associated with him, or the OTA, but I would suggest "The Book of
Solomon's Magick" as a more 'psychological' introduction to evocation
than Konstantinos.
Bexley
appreciated.
However...
"Chade" <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:1193762403....@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Oct, 03:06, "Bexley" <bex...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> Thank you everyone for answering what must've seemed like stupid
>> questions.
>> All the input and thought is appreciated.
>>
>
> No problem. BTW your original post wasn't see by many people because
> your had included alt.magick.moderated in the crosspost, this stopped
> some people from seeing it properly. In fact, almost all of the groups
> in the crosspost list apart from alt.magick are effectively abandoned.
> So next time you might be better off just posting to alt.magick.
Thanks again!
>
>
>> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
>> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
>> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
>> communicated with.
>>
>> I have a few additional questions:
>>
>> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
>> questions:
>>
>
> Konstantinos, like Savedow, is a medieval dualist. Thats a fancy way
> of saying his model of magick has demons as separate creatures to
> people, with a separate place to live in. Including ideas like
> torturing spirits to make them obey, summoning demons to physical
> appearance and demons affecting the world 'paranormally'.
>
> There is no good evidence to back this up. If the demons are physical
> why drawings and not photos?
Maybe they can't be photographed!? Like Vampires! Did you think about
that? Huh? :-)
In all seriousness this did occur to me, but I'm trying to get a feeling of
the mechanics of the process.
More...
>
> It does *seem* very much that you've evoked a separate creature, it
> feels separate and you can see it with your own eyes. However, the
> same trance that causes the 'appearance' of the spirit is associated
> with something called 'dissociation'. Something that Tom has written
> about in the past, check the archive.
I've been away from usenet for some time: how do I get to the archive? It
will probably save me wasting your time.
>
> As the demons aren't physical, so can't pull your arms off, you don't
> need to cower behind a circle. That doesn't mean that it won't be
> easier with a circle, but as it's not a mechanical defence there isn't
> a wrong way and a right way like in engineering.
I have to bring up Konstantinos again. In "Summoning Spirits" pg 5 he
writes: "Evocation to the physical plane is the more difficult of the two to
master [he referred previously to Astral evocation]. When evoking an entity
in this manner, the magician must facilitate the full materialization of the
being on the physical plane." Note: *materialisation*. And in chapter
eight he goes to great lengths to describe this.
Reading Chapter 8, it seems that he is talking about a physical presence.
If not, why bother?
From his website:
"You will learn how to perform evocations to both the astral and physical
planes, plus opening and banishing rituals. "
BTW, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just looking for some clarity
in my own mind (no cheap-shots, please).
However, this should explain why I asked the questions about the physical
requirements of the triangle/room, etc; and about travelling
Astrally/Physically.
>
> Just because an experience is subjective doesn't mean that it can't be
> powerful, interesting, scary or affect your 'real' life. Consider the
> demon 'paranoia'.
So then, this experience might be liked to a religious experience --
evangelical Christianity for example. The ability of the "holy spirit" to
manifest itself in practicle -- if not physical -- form.
>
> In another post I've already mentioned Caroll Runyon. I'm not
> associated with him, or the OTA, but I would suggest "The Book of
> Solomon's Magick" as a more 'psychological' introduction to evocation
> than Konstantinos.
>
I watched three of Runyon's DVD's and I think I get the picture. Of course
they are shot under less than ideal circumstances, and I get the feeling
some of it is "recreated" (the lighting, for example, makes the dim room and
candles impossible). I have to say I was less than impressed but the
"prophesy" about "a son of Africa" -- very generic stuff. But I think I get
the philosophical angle a little better.
I have also been reading Waite (The Book Of Ceremonial Magic). Once I got
my head around the Oxford House Master language, it became a fascinating
insight into the "academic" examination of the various grimoires and their
histories.
Thank you again for your input -- very helpful.
--Bex.
PS -- what is the simplest most basic and elementary magical process one can
try? Something an idiot who has no prior experience (like me) can do at
home alone?
Meltdarok
Erwin Hessle
> Reading Chapter 8, it seems that he is talking about a physical presence.
> If not, why bother?
If by this question you mean "if spirits are not a physical presence,
why bother evoking them?" my answer is "exactly". It's a ridiculous
thing to do.
Even if you accept the "psychological explanation" of spirits,
ceremonial evocation is an exceptionally stupid and ineffective method
of getting them to come out.
> PS -- what is the simplest most basic and elementary magical process one can
> try? Something an idiot who has no prior experience (like me) can do at
> home alone?
Easy answer. Sit down comfortably somewhere quiet, try not to move,
and try to just exist without thinking of anything. Eyes closed or
open as you prefer. Breathe rhythmically if you prefer, otherwise just
let your breath do whatever it wants. If you find yourself thinking of
stuff, just quietly empty your mind again. Let sounds, sights or
smells just register in your mind; observe them without thinking about
them, just take them as they come. Try this for between fifteen and
thirty minutes at a time, once or twice daily, for two weeks. Obtain a
clock or stopwatch with an alarm on it so you know when to stop
without having to look at a clock. As proficiency grows (it won't take
long) try maintaining this sense of quiet awareness outside of your
formal practice, too, say whilst walking around, or whilst brushing
your teeth, or just sitting down and watching the TV. Each day write
down both your impressions of the practice itself, and how, if it all,
you find it affecting the rest of your life. Be as objective and
analytical as possible in your writing; avoid writing lots of flowery
gushing joyful guff. Don't try to interpret or judge - just write down
observations and impressions without trying to figure out what they
"mean" or signify. At the end of the two weeks, review what you've
written. If you feel you've gained something from it, take a week off,
and then do it again. You won't get much appreciable benefit from
extending the practice any more than an hour at a time, or from doing
it formally more than twice a day.
This is simultaneously both the most basic and elementary, and the
most advanced and genuinely useful of practices you can do. In terms
of "formal" practices, you're not going to really need much else if
you can get this one right, so avoid the temptation to try and hurry
into more "advanced" practices, because they really aren't any more
advanced, they're just more specialised. With this method you'll get
noticable results pretty quickly; avoid the temptation of thinking
that these results are the important ones, until you've been doing it
unhurriedly for substantially longer. If you do no practices except
this one for a year or so, you'll probably make the fastest progress.
Periodically report your findings here, if you are so inclined. If
anyone tells you something substantially different to what I just
have, they're wrong and I'm right, but you are at liberty to listen to
whomever you want. If anybody replies to this message agreeing with
me, listen to them.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joseph Littleshoes
> Edwina Hassle, the 3/8ths.
>
LOL i agree with with the quoted Edwina.
See also the "tidal breathing" exercise in Allen Watts book "Cloud Hidden.
And for something a little 19th century mystically poetic.
---
THERE are seven keys to the great gate,
Being eight in one and one in eight.
First, let the body of thee be still,
Bound by the cerements of will,
Corpse-rigid; thus thou mayst abort
The fidget-babes that tease the thought.
Next, let the breath-rhythm be low,
Easy, regular, and slow;
So that thy being be in tune
With the great sea's Pacific swoon.
Third, let thy life be pure and calm,
Swayed softly as a windless palm.
Fourth, let the will-to-live be bound
To the one love of the profound.
Fifth, let the thought, divinely free
From sense, observe its entity.
Watch every thought that springs; enhance
Hour after hour thy vigilance!
Intense and keen, turned inward, miss
No atom of analysis!
Sixth, on one thought securely pinned
Still every whisper of the wind!
So like a flame straight and unstirred
Burn up thy being in one word!
Next, still that ecstasy, prolong
Thy meditation steep and strong,
Slaying even God, should He distract
Thy attention from the chosen act!
Last, all these things in one o'erpowered,
Time that the midnight blossom flowered!
The oneness is. Yet even in this,
My son, thou shall not do amiss
If thou restrain the expression, shoot
Thy glance to rapture's darkling root,
Discarding name, form, sight, and stress
Even of this high consciousness;
Pierce to the heart! I leave thee here:
Thou art the Master. I revere
Thy radiance that rolls afar,
O Brother of the Silver Star!
-
Crowley "AHA!"
--
JL
Erwin Hessle
Some clarification appears to be in order. As I said, if anybody
replies to this message agreeing with me, listen to them. However, for
the avoidance of doubt, when it's somebody like this limp-wristed,
fluffybunny, sycophantic cocksmoker, *only* listen to them when
they're agreeing with me, and only for that portion of their posts.
For your convenience, I've stripped the parts of Littledick's latest
post that you should ignore, and left you with the only part worth
paying attention to.
HTH!
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Joseph Littleshoes
>
> Some clarification appears to be in order. As I said, if anybody
> replies to this message agreeing with me, listen to them. However, for
> the avoidance of doubt, when it's somebody like this limp-wristed,
> fluffybunny, sycophantic cocksmoker,
Like i couldn't find something better to do with a bit o' cock than
smoke it!
cog en pate?
> *only* listen to them when
> they're agreeing with me, and only for that portion of their posts.
> For your convenience, I've stripped the parts of my unrequited loves latest
> post that you should study carefully, and left you with the only part i am worthy
> to comment on.
>
> HTH!
>
> Edwina Hassle, the 3/8ths.
For such a High Test Hypocrite Edwina seems to be mellowing in her
declining years.
--
JL
>
Erwin Hessle
> I suspect your original message didn't propergate properly, which is
> why you've only had a reply from a single loon. Don't worry though, I
> expect some more loons will be along presently.
You need to fix your newsreader, son, they're "propergating" (as
opposed to what? "impropergating"?) just fine for everyone else.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Kisai
> Thank you everyone for answering what must've seemed like stupid questions.
> All the input and thought is appreciated.
>
> I've been reading "Summoning Spirits" by Konstantinos which includes
> instructions on summoning spirits to the Astral and Physical planes,
> Egregore creation, and some drawings of the spirits Konstantinos has
> communicated with.
>
> I have a few additional questions:
>
> 1 - Is he crazy? If the answer is yeas, please ignore the rest of the
> questions:
Is Konstantinos crazy? I have no idea. You cannot determine
someone's sanity by reading an edited book by them.
> 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
Forgive me for not having read Konstantinos. If you mean can a
spirit construct a physical body, no. If you mean can a spirit
interface with the mind of a physical being, then yes. If you mean
can a spirit interact with physical objects, then my answer is I'm
very skeptical that they could, and I would have to observe such a
phenonema do deem in possible.
> 3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about the
> triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit materialize
> really small?
Spirits are not physical beings. The spirit does not "materialize".
The spirit interfaces with the mind of the physical being. It's not
actually in the triangle. It is perceived by the mind of the
practitioner to be in the triangle. Just like: auras don't actually
have colors, but the mind can associate a color as a symbolic
shorthand to that aura.
mika
> On Oct 29, 10:06 pm, "Bexley" wrote:
>
> > 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
>
> Forgive me for not having read Konstantinos. If you mean can a
> spirit construct a physical body, no. If you mean can a spirit
> interface with the mind of a physical being, then yes. If you mean
> can a spirit interact with physical objects, then my answer is I'm
> very skeptical that they could, and I would have to observe such a
> phenonema do deem in possible.
Hey now, you physically exist, right? You just wrote the spirit can
interface with the mind of a physical being, thus, it *can* interact
with physical objects! Well, at least one physical object - the mind/
body of the individual evoking it.
ha HA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Interacting with physical objects external to the individual, well,
that's another story. To begin with, observing such phenomena would
require defining the distinction between what is internal and
external.
> > 3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about the
> > triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit materialize
> > really small?
>
> Spirits are not physical beings. The spirit does not "materialize".
> The spirit interfaces with the mind of the physical being. It's not
> actually in the triangle. It is perceived by the mind of the
> practitioner to be in the triangle.
Exactly.
The significant question here is, what is the effective difference,
the practical difference, between a spirit materializing to objective
physical existence, or materializing such that it is perceived by the
mind of the practitioner? What is the purpose of the evocation - to
make some spirit physically manifest, or to interact with and obtain
information from the spirit? If the former, then go learn some stage
magic and the task is easy enough. If the latter, then the whole
question of physical "materialization" is irrelevant.
Chade
> On Oct 29, 5:38 pm, Chade <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > I suspect your original message didn't propergate properly, which is
> > why you've only had a reply from a single loon. Don't worry though, I
> > expect some more loons will be along presently.
>
> You need to fix your newsreader, son, they're "propergating" (as
> opposed to what? "impropergating"?) just fine for everyone else.
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Thanks Erwin, it's nice to know your care.
When I sent the message Bex's only other reply, from Fr. O., had been
a warning to master the Middle Pillar ritual before attempting any
evocation.
Even though the message your replying to is dated the 29th it was
actually sent *before* the message dated the 28th that starts "Still
no sign of my first comments, so I'll comment again." What *you've*
quoted above are in fact the comments I was referring to in *my*
previous quote.
Basically, the Yronwoods can't run a moderated newsgroup for toffee.
Chade
> All this is fascinating, and your explanations and patience are genuinely
> appreciated.
>
> However...
>
Bex,
I regret that my attention has been elsewhere. I'll try to answer your
questions tomorrow.
C.
Kisai
> On Nov 1, 10:33 am, Kisai wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 10:06 pm, "Bexley" wrote:
>
> > > 2 - Is Physical evocation possible?
>
> > Forgive me for not having read Konstantinos. If you mean can a
> > spirit construct a physical body, no. If you mean can a spirit
> > interface with the mind of a physical being, then yes. If you mean
> > can a spirit interact with physical objects, then my answer is I'm
> > very skeptical that they could, and I would have to observe such a
> > phenonema do deem in possible.
>
> Hey now, you physically exist, right? You just wrote the spirit can
> interface with the mind of a physical being, thus, it *can* interact
> with physical objects! Well, at least one physical object - the mind/
> body of the individual evoking it.
>
> ha HA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
*puff puff* Hooorrrrgghhhh.... *ack*
Well now, if you're a spirit in a body, then by all means, your spirit
must be interacting with your body somehow. Exactly how it works I
have no fugging clue. If someone mentions quantum physics, I'm going
to step on their foot *hard*.
> Interacting with physical objects external to the individual, well,
> that's another story. To begin with, observing such phenomena would
> require defining the distinction between what is internal and
> external.
>
> > > 3 - It was the notion of Physical evocation inspired my question about the
> > > triangle: e.g. if the triangle is really small, does the spirit materialize
> > > really small?
>
> > Spirits are not physical beings. The spirit does not "materialize".
> > The spirit interfaces with the mind of the physical being. It's not
> > actually in the triangle. It is perceived by the mind of the
> > practitioner to be in the triangle.
>
> Exactly.
>
> The significant question here is, what is the effective difference,
> the practical difference, between a spirit materializing to objective
> physical existence, or materializing such that it is perceived by the
> mind of the practitioner?
A "spirit materializing to objective physical existence" would be by
some means, physically detectable. I'm not a fan of trying to get
evidence of spirits onto recorded media.
> What is the purpose of the evocation - to
> make some spirit physically manifest, or to interact with and obtain
> information from the spirit? If the former, then go learn some stage
> magic and the task is easy enough. If the latter, then the whole
> question of physical "materialization" is irrelevant.
I'm with the latter. Though I've "seen" spirits, I've never seen a
spirit physically interacting with something. If I did, then maybe
I'd attempt to acquire some hard evidence.
Chade
<bex...@videotron.ca> writes
>All this is fascinating, and your explanations and patience are genuinely
>appreciated.
>
>However...
>
>75866...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Vampires can so be captured on film! Have you not watched Buffy?
>In all seriousness this did occur to me, but I'm trying to get a feeling of
>the mechanics of the process.
>
>More...
>
>>
>> It does *seem* very much that you've evoked a separate creature, it
>> feels separate and you can see it with your own eyes. However, the
>> same trance that causes the 'appearance' of the spirit is associated
>> with something called 'dissociation'. Something that Tom has written
>> about in the past, check the archive.
>
>I've been away from usenet for some time: how do I get to the archive? It
>will probably save me wasting your time.
Alt.magick has been archived by Google for several years.
>
>>
>> As the demons aren't physical, so can't pull your arms off, you don't
>> need to cower behind a circle. That doesn't mean that it won't be
>> easier with a circle, but as it's not a mechanical defence there isn't
>> a wrong way and a right way like in engineering.
>
>I have to bring up Konstantinos again. In "Summoning Spirits" pg 5 he
>writes: "Evocation to the physical plane is the more difficult of the two to
>master [he referred previously to Astral evocation]. When evoking an
>entity in this manner, the magician must facilitate the full materialization
>of the being on the physical plane." Note: *materialisation*. And in
>chapter eight he goes to great lengths to describe this.
>
>Reading Chapter 8, it seems that he is talking about a physical
>presence. If not, why bother?
>
>From his website:
>
>"You will learn how to perform evocations to both the astral and physical
>planes, plus opening and banishing rituals. "
>
>BTW, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just looking for some clarity
>in my own mind (no cheap-shots, please).
An awful lot of nonsense is spoken about magick. A lot more of what is
said can easily be misunderstood.
Konstantinos says he can evoke to physical manifestation, and sells
books claiming people who read them can too. However, he can only
supply drawings and not photos.
I say that you can enter a trance where spirits are visible and seem
to be separate, but you can't actually evoke them to physical
manifestation.
How could you find out who's right?
>
>However, this should explain why I asked the questions about the
>physical requirements of the triangle/room, etc; and about travelling
>Astrally/Physically.
>
>>
>> Just because an experience is subjective doesn't mean that it can't be
>> powerful, interesting, scary or affect your 'real' life. Consider the
>> demon 'paranoia'.
>
>So then, this experience might be liked to a religious experience --
>evangelical Christianity for example. The ability of the "holy spirit" to
>manifest itself in practicle -- if not physical -- form.
>
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm not an evangelical Christian. I'm aware some claim that in their
services the holy spirit possesses people, others claim people are
possessed by demons and exorcise them in the name of the holy spirit.
I wasn't aware that any claimed to evoke the holy spirit to visible
appearance.
In the WMT the demon paranoia would normally be evoked, probably
looking scared & worried, kept separate from the magician (even though
in reality it's a representation of part of the magician's psyche).
The magician might try to talk to it to try to find out more about
what sustains his own paranoia and resolve it, get help in inducing
paranoia in someone else or whatever.
He wouldn't normally want to surrender to paranoia.
>>
>> In another post I've already mentioned Caroll Runyon. I'm not
>> associated with him, or the OTA, but I would suggest "The Book of
>> Solomon's Magick" as a more 'psychological' introduction to evocation
>> than Konstantinos.
>>
>
>I watched three of Runyon's DVD's and I think I get the picture. Of
>course they are shot under less than ideal circumstances, and I get the
>feeling some of it is "recreated" (the lighting, for example, makes the dim
>room and candles impossible).
IIRC he's said that some of it was.
The book is better.
> I have to say I was less than impressed but the "prophesy" about "a son
>of Africa" -- very generic stuff.
> But I think I get the philosophical angle a little better.
>
Although Runyon (a.k.a. Gnome), is a lot better than Konstantinos IMO.
But I don't agree with everything Gnome says.
I think such prophesy is a waste of time, other than entertainment.
Anyway, spirits can't be trusted.
>I have also been reading Waite (The Book Of Ceremonial Magic). Once I
>got my head around the Oxford House Master language, it became a
>fascinating insight into the "academic" examination of the various
>grimoires and their histories.
>
>Thank you again for your input -- very helpful.
>
>--Bex.
>
>PS -- what is the simplest most basic and elementary magical process
>one can try? Something an idiot who has no prior experience (like me)
>can do at home alone?
Erwin's is a good suggestion.
Many ceremonial magicians start with the lbrp.
Don't expect to get a big response straight away, it takes daily
practice.
Chade
> Many ceremonial magicians start with the lbrp.
Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram
Erwin Hessle
> Basically, the Yronwoods can't run a moderated newsgroup for toffee.
Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
See?
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Patrick Schaaf
Oh please. It has always been up to the moderators to decide, on an
ongoing basis, how much policy enforcement they think is neccessary.
Given the extreme low-volume nature of amm, a lax enforcement is
fully understandable. There's always cancelling after unwanted
content, and I'm sure that if volume and miscontent warrants it,
they'd have their robomod software rejecting crossposts and
using cryptographic approval in no time at all.
best regards
Patrick
Chade
> Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> writes:
> >On Nov 1, 7:50 pm, Chade <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> Basically, the Yronwoods can't run a moderated newsgroup for toffee.
> >Now why doesn't that surprise me?
>
> Oh please. It has always been up to the moderators to decide, on an
> ongoing basis, how much policy enforcement they think is neccessary.
> Given the extreme low-volume nature of amm, a lax enforcement is
> fully understandable.
While your apologising for them maybe you could explain why they would
reject Bex's original message but approve my reply?
>There's always cancelling after unwanted
> content, and I'm sure that if volume and miscontent warrants it,
> they'd have their robomod software rejecting crossposts and
> using cryptographic approval in no time at all.
According to their website *any* crosspost is explicitly banned.
"II. B. The fundamental guidance for this newsgroup's moderation
policy is provided by its charter, which states that "Any submission
not specifically restricted by the Moderation Policy will be accepted
for posting." The following are violations of the Moderation Policy:
...
II. B. 6. Crossposted posts, to any number of groups, to any
hierammy."
BTW what do you make of rule II. B. 1. banning "Posts that ADVOCATE
anything, whether pro or anti."?
Patrick Schaaf
> maybe you could explain why they would reject Bex's original message but
> approve my reply?
No, I can't.
>>There's always cancelling after unwanted
>> content, and I'm sure that if volume and miscontent warrants it,
>> they'd have their robomod software rejecting crossposts and
>> using cryptographic approval in no time at all.
>According to their website *any* crosspost is explicitly banned.
No. The website says, as you quoted, that submissions not specifically
restricted by the moderation policy will be accepted. That does not
say anything, or make any guarantees about, what will be rejected.
>BTW what do you make of rule II. B. 1. banning "Posts that ADVOCATE
>anything, whether pro or anti."?
Thou shalt not proselytize. Good rule.
best regards
Patrick
Erwin Hessle
> Chade <ch...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >BTW what do you make of rule II. B. 1. banning "Posts that ADVOCATE
> >anything, whether pro or anti."?
>
> Thou shalt not proselytize. Good rule.
And one that you've just broken.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Patrick Schaaf
Yes. But only a tiny little bit. And that rule is broken so often anyway
that I doubted that it would complain. Wrong, as usual. Sigh.
Chade
> try? Something an idiot who has no prior experience (like me) can do at
> home alone?
It occurred to me that you might like to have a go with a ideometer
such as a pendulum.
Tie a weight, like a metal washer, to the end of an approximately 8
inch piece of cotton. Sitting at a table rest the elbow of your
dominate arm on the table in front of you. Bend your hand down at the
wrist and dangle the weight on the end of the cotton, holding the
other end between your thumb and fore finger. Take a few deep breaths
to calm yourself and relax. Then speaking out loud ask "What's yes?"
Repeat the question until the pendulum starts to move.
Of course you can consciously move the pendulum but don't. Keep asking
until the pendulum seems to move by it's self. Make a note of the
direction it moves for 'yes' - this might be in a clockwise circle, an
anti-clockwise circle or simply swinging either from side to side or
forwards and backwards.
Repeat for 'No', 'Maybe' and 'Don't know'.
Some people claim it's spirits moving the weight in answer to your
questions, I think it's your unconscious mind making very small
movements in your arm that you don't notice but are magnified by the
pendulum.
Anyway, now you can ask questions and get answers. You can ask "will
seventeen appear in tonight's lottery?" or hold the pendulum above a
face down playing card and ask "is it black?" Keep notes, but don't
use a pendulum for too long especially at the beginning.
I expect that your prediction of lottery numbers is no better than
chance. After you've gone through a half-deck a few times your ability
to predict the colour of the suit will go up - until someone else does
the shuffling.
Through careful questioning you can find out what your unconscious
knows, or thinks it knows.
The most useful questions are questions about yourself that access
information you are not consciously aware of.
Chade
>
> No. The website says, as you quoted, that submissions not specifically
> restricted by the moderation policy will be accepted. That does not
> say anything, or make any guarantees about, what will be rejected.
"The following are violations of the Moderation Policy:...Crossposted
Kisai
tyagi and Cat are both occult packrats. They aren't practioners as
much as collectors. It does not suprise me that now that they've
"collected" alt.magick.moderated, they don't really know what to do
with it besides let it moulder on a shelf.
Erwin Hessle
> Anyway, now you can ask questions and get answers. You can ask "will
> seventeen appear in tonight's lottery?" or hold the pendulum above a
> face down playing card and ask "is it black?" Keep notes, but don't
> use a pendulum for too long especially at the beginning.
>
> I expect that your prediction of lottery numbers is no better than
> chance.
While the spirit of your suggestion is laudable, it really is time
that people stopped trying to prove things to themselves that have
been proven by others thousands of times before. People should take it
as read, from the beginning, that the idea that there may be some
predictive validity in dowsing or any other form of divination or
extra-sensory perception is as contemptible as the idea that stage
magicians may really be performing proper miracles. Whilst it's true
that epistemologically there *may* be such validity, there is
sufficient evidence now for the idea to be discarded out of hand for
all but the most abstruse of philosophical purposes.
Instead of advocating experiments such as this, somebody ought to
write a book from a "magical" or "occult" perspective summarising the
research that has been done into these areas, and describing the
tricks of the mind that make people fall for them, so that they can
put these fantasies behind them right at the beginning with a good
degree of understanding. This would be a far more value-adding
practice than this type of personal experiment. It is not necessary to
continually reinvent the wheel, and this is an area where book-
learning can quite satisfactorily replace personal experience, since
it would save an awful lot of time-wasting and allow for a quicker
accumulation of experience that's actually helpful to mastering this
subject.
I volunteer Tom for this project. Get to it.
> Through careful questioning you can find out what your unconscious
> knows, or thinks it knows.
>
> The most useful questions are questions about yourself that access
> information you are not consciously aware of.
Has dowsing given you access to such information? As my essay on the
subject shows, I consider divination to have much practical benefit
beyond any questions of fortune-telling, and whilst I've conducted
only the most cursory kind of experiments with dowsing, my expectation
would be that the limited number of symbols would make it particular
unsuitable in this regard. I would be interested in hearing how your
experience differs from this expectation.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Erwin Hessle
To be fair, that's actually the best thing to do with it, although I'm
sure the silly little crone and her kept whipping-boy have no real
conception of this. Almost all moderated fora on this subject very
quickly turn into nothing but a venue for deluded fuckheads to
continually congratulate each other on the mutual validity of their
fatuous and callow opinions. I suspect that is indeed the reason that
the Ironheads have collected it, since everytime they take their bogus
folksy voodoo shit into any kind of unmoderated forum, everybody
laughs at it like the utter horseshit that it is, which apart from
hurting their egos also hurts their sales.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
"Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
news:1194130210.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
I thought you might. Talk about your thankless and profitless tasks! The
people who'd read it don't need it and the people who'd need it won't read
it.
Erwin Hessle
> "Erwin Hessle" <er...@erwinhessle.com> wrote in message
>
> I thought you might. Talk about your thankless and profitless tasks! The
> people who'd read it don't need it and the people who'd need it won't read
> it.
Anything to get out of an honest day's work.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Tom
Heh. Like I need a reason for that.
mika
> On Nov 1, 12:57 pm, mika wrote:
>
> > Hey now, you physically exist, right? You just wrote the spirit can
> > interface with the mind of a physical being, thus, it *can* interact
> > with physical objects! Well, at least one physical object - the mind/
> > body of the individual evoking it.
>
> > ha HA! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
>
> *puff puff* Hooorrrrgghhhh.... *ack*
>
> Well now, if you're a spirit in a body, then by all means, your spirit
> must be interacting with your body somehow. Exactly how it works I
> have no fugging clue. If someone mentions quantum physics, I'm going
> to step on their foot *hard*.
Foot-stomping is a very effective and underused MMA technique. Go for
it!
> > The significant question here is, what is the effective difference,
> > the practical difference, between a spirit materializing to objective
> > physical existence, or materializing such that it is perceived by the
> > mind of the practitioner?
>
> A "spirit materializing to objective physical existence" would be by
> some means, physically detectable. I'm not a fan of trying to get
> evidence of spirits onto recorded media.
Those are two different issues, I think. I have "physically detected"
spirits that appear to have "materialized to objective physical
existence" during a ritual. That still doesn't mean the spirits
actually physically manifested or that they could be evidenced onto
recorded media.
Which brings us back to the question of why is it important to collect
this evidence?
> > What is the purpose of the evocation - to
> > make some spirit physically manifest, or to interact with and obtain
> > information from the spirit? If the former, then go learn some stage
> > magic and the task is easy enough. If the latter, then the whole
> > question of physical "materialization" is irrelevant.
>
> I'm with the latter. Though I've "seen" spirits, I've never seen a
> spirit physically interacting with something. If I did, then maybe
> I'd attempt to acquire some hard evidence.
I've "seen" spirits physically interact with things or people, and
still find collecting hard evidence to be irrelevant. If people want
to say what the spirits "did" was a 'trick of the mind' (eg, change
someone's physical appearance) or was a 'coincidence' (eg, tip over a
glass of water) then they are free to believe those explanations.
I'll accept those explanations myself as well. I don't care. The
explanation of "what actually happened" is irrelevant. What's
important is any knowledge gained from the experience.
For example, I'm doing a ritual with friends for a relatively serious
purpose (as usual) and we keep getting interrupted by random
ridiculous things (which is unusual). So we stop what we're doing
right in the middle of the operation and do a spontaneous ode to the
Trickster spirit, to acknowledge the distraction, give him some
attention and hopefully be able to move on and focus on our actual
intent. At which point, exactly on cue, 3 or 4 dogs howl in the
distance and the smoke detector goes off. Coincidence? Sure, why
not, if you're a fucking bore. It's way more interesting and
informative to believe a Trickster spirit actually was messing with
us, which leads to the question 'why'?, which leads to deeper insights
about expectations of what we were trying to accomplish - what, when,
why. Now, do I feel the need to "prove" that there "actually was" an
objectively, physically manifested spirit? Not at all. "Objectively
real" or "subjectively real" doesn't make a difference to those of us
who were there. Of course, none of us ever claimed after-the-fact
that we had the power to manifest spirits to physical existence - that
claim requires supporting evidence. Interpreting a personal
experience one way or the other doesn't.
Chade
m>, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> writes
Many people, myself included, were initially attracted to magick by
'delusions'. It's only when I realised I was so deluded, partly
through carrying out such experiments in an organised way, that I
started looking carefully for the traps.
>
>I volunteer Tom for this project. Get to it.
>
I've been toying with the idea of linking a few delusion explaining
posts
from the archive into a website to highlight tricks of the mind,
showcase the value of the alt.magick archive and explain a little
about usenet to the newcomers to computing. Non-profit of course. If I
can do it with a way that respects copyright, what do people think?
>> Through careful questioning you can find out what your unconscious
>> knows, or thinks it knows.
>>
>> The most useful questions are questions about yourself that access
>> information you are not consciously aware of.
>
>Has dowsing given you access to such information? As my essay on the
>subject shows, I consider divination to have much practical benefit
>beyond any questions of fortune-telling, and whilst I've conducted
>only the most cursory kind of experiments with dowsing, my expectation
>would be that the limited number of symbols would make it particular
>unsuitable in this regard. I would be interested in hearing how your
>experience differs from this expectation.
I've not really used dowsing like divination, re-framing things by
working generated symbols into their narration.
What I have found with dowsing is that it can express things I'm not
consciously aware of.
To take the playing card example. During a pretty intensive phase of
using a pendulum I turned to trying to dowse the colour of a face down
playing card. I'd tried and failed to get accurate and reliable
predictions of future events, so I was testing my ability to find out
about something that had happened but that I didn't know.
After a couple of fairly long practice sessions to get the hang of it
I started making notes. I shuffled the cards between runs, without
trying to consciously note where cards would now be. I tallied my hits
and misses but I didn't consciously count cards, or record the numbers
of red and black drawn so far.
I found that my ability to accurately predict the suit of a card
increased to significantly above chance, even if I had shuffled them
previously and left them to make sure I 'forgot'.
I then had someone else shuffle the cards without me watching. At
first my prediction rate was below chance, but after a few runs it
rose to about chance.
One more useful thing I use ideomotor responses for is gauging my
current level of suggestibility. During hypnosis it can be useful to
measure this. I use finger movement. The method I use is to ask,
sometimes several, 'yes / no' questions comparing my current state to
an imaginary yardstick, with one inch the most mild state and thirty
six inches as the most suggestible. I don't always pin my level down
to a specific number, more often to a small range.
Of course, I don't have a physical yardstick to measure my level of
suggestibility, but I have compared the 'readings' from my imaginary
yardstick with other indicators and find it gives a quick and simple
approximation of my currently level of suggestibility.
One does normally feel relaxed after hypnotic induction, and you tend
to be more suggestible when more relaxed, but I've found trying to
consciously work out exactly how relaxed you are isn't as accurate an
approximation, especially in more suggestible states. It can also be
distracting, causing one to 'un-relax' and so self-defeating.
Chade
>
> Which brings us back to the question of why is it important to collect
> this evidence?
>
Some people might be hoping for a physical demon to nudge the lottery
number drawing machine, and strangle the neighbour.
mika
> On 5 Nov, 19:16, mika wrote:
>
> > Which brings us back to the question of why is it important to collect
> > this evidence?
>
> Some people might be hoping for a physical demon to nudge the lottery
> number drawing machine, and strangle the neighbour.
heh. If the lottery number gets appropriately nudged, and the
neighbour gets strangled, does it matter whether or not the demon
which accomplished these acts was physically manifested?
Tom
>>
> I've been toying with the idea of linking a few delusion explaining
> posts
> from the archive into a website to highlight tricks of the mind,
> showcase the value of the alt.magick archive and explain a little
> about usenet to the newcomers to computing. Non-profit of course. If I
> can do it with a way that respects copyright, what do people think?
I'm in favor of it. Let me know if I can be any help.
Erwin Hessle
> I've been toying with the idea of linking a few delusion explaining
> posts
> from the archive into a website to highlight tricks of the mind,
> showcase the value of the alt.magick archive and explain a little
> about usenet to the newcomers to computing. Non-profit of course. If I
> can do it with a way that respects copyright, what do people think?
I don't think many of the sensible people here would have any
complaints about this sort of thing, provided that you attribute
correctly. I'd certainly have no objection to it.
> I've not really used dowsing like divination, re-framing things by
> working generated symbols into their narration.
>
> What I have found with dowsing is that it can express things I'm not
> consciously aware of.
<snip rest of explanation>
OK, thanks.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Chade
Plus I was Julius Caesar.
More seriously, some people try to get around the limited range of
responses by '20 questions' about all sorts of things, but the answers
can be, um, suspect.
Chade
>
> Instead of advocating experiments such as this, somebody ought to
> write a book from a "magical" or "occult" perspective summarising the
> research that has been done into these areas, and describing the
> tricks of the mind that make people fall for them, so that they can
> put these fantasies behind them right at the beginning with a good
> degree of understanding. This would be a far more value-adding
> practice than this type of personal experiment. It is not necessary to
> continually reinvent the wheel, and this is an area where book-
> learning can quite satisfactorily replace personal experience, since
> it would save an awful lot of time-wasting and allow for a quicker
> accumulation of experience that's actually helpful to mastering this
> subject.
I've been digging through some old Alt.magick related documents and in
one old recommended book list I've found a recommendation for
'Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday
Experience' by E. Bruce Goldstein.
Summarized by an unknown contributor as "A lot of the literature of
empirical cognitive psychology is about how we can be fooled into
thinking things are different from how they really are. Increasing
understanding of when and how that happens is among the most worthy
work an aspiring magician can do. This textbook is marketed for survey-
type college courses, so it's fairly accessible to a general audience,
and includes ample citations to primary sources articles (which I
recommend students delve into by their 5th year of committed effort)."
Has anyone read it? If so what do they think of it?
Asiya
The newsgroup charter listed on the same site contradicts the posting
guidelines.
"Cross-posted messages (messages that are posted to more than one
newsgroup at the same time) will be accepted on alt.magick.moderated.
However, a message that is cross-posted should be on-topic for ALL
groups that it is being posted too. In addition, any messages that are
'heavily cross-posted' will be weeded out by the robomoderator and
will not appear on any newsgroup that they are posted to. A message is
'heavily cross-posted' if it is posted to five or more groups at the
same time. Directly-related newsgroups are not counted toward this
five-group cross-post limit."
Who knows? I used to check on a.m.m. from time to time, but gave up after
the content was always only Nagasiva's cross-posts.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Asiya
> In message <1194130210.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.co
> m>, Erwin Hessle <er...@erwinhessle.com> writes
>>
>> write a book from a "magical" or "occult" perspective summarising the
>> research that has been done into these areas, and describing the
>> tricks of the mind that make people fall for them, so that they can
>> put these fantasies behind them right at the beginning with a good
>> degree of understanding. This would be a far more value-adding
>> practice than this type of personal experiment. It is not necessary to
>> continually reinvent the wheel, and this is an area where book-
>> learning can quite satisfactorily replace personal experience, since
>> it would save an awful lot of time-wasting and allow for a quicker
>> accumulation of experience that's actually helpful to mastering this
>> subject.
>
> Many people, myself included, were initially attracted to magick by
> 'delusions'. It's only when I realised I was so deluded, partly
> through carrying out such experiments in an organised way, that I
> started looking carefully for the traps.
>
>> I volunteer Tom for this project. Get to it.
>
> I've been toying with the idea of linking a few delusion explaining
> posts
> from the archive into a website to highlight tricks of the mind,
> showcase the value of the alt.magick archive and explain a little
> about usenet to the newcomers to computing. Non-profit of course. If I
> can do it with a way that respects copyright, what do people think?
It could be useful for newbies and old-timers alike. Copyright should be no
problem as long as you give attributions, though you may want, as a
courtesy, to ask the posters' permission first.
Tom
I haven't purchased a textbook since my college days, when my professors
insisted upon it. They are hugely overpriced and almost always dreadfully
poorly written.
Asiya
topic would you recommend to magick newbies?
Chade
> On 11/3/07 12:03 PM, "Chade" <ch...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > According to their website *any* crosspost is explicitly banned.
>
> > "II. B. The fundamental guidance for this newsgroup's moderation
> > policy is provided by its charter, which states that "Any submission
> > not specifically restricted by the Moderation Policy will be accepted
> > for posting." The following are violations of the Moderation Policy:
> > ...
> > II. B. 6. Crossposted posts, to any number of groups, to any
> > hierammy."
>
>
> The newsgroup charter listed on the same site contradicts the posting
> guidelines.
>
It also insists on an odd number of mods, yet as far as I'm aware
there are two mods; the Yronwoods.
> "Cross-posted messages (messages that are posted to more than one
> newsgroup at the same time) will be accepted on alt.magick.moderated.
> However, a message that is cross-posted should be on-topic for ALL
> groups that it is being posted too. In addition, any messages that are
> 'heavily cross-posted' will be weeded out by the robomoderator and
> will not appear on any newsgroup that they are posted to. A message is
> 'heavily cross-posted' if it is posted to five or more groups at the
> same time. Directly-related newsgroups are not counted toward this
> five-group cross-post limit."
>
Thanks, but it doesn't help. Bex's original post, and my reply, were
both posted to five groups. Yet one was approved and one wasn't.
> Who knows? I used to check on a.m.m. from time to time, but gave up after
> the content was always only Nagasiva's cross-posts.
What they do in a.m.m doesn't worry me. Posts shouldn't be stopped
from appearing in a.m though, even if rejected for a.m.m. If
everything looks fine locally, which it could, newbies would be non
the wiser.
Tom
"Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C35962A3.1DAE0%asiya_...@sbcSORATHglobal.net...
I'm not sure I would recommend any book on cognitive psychology in relation
to the study of magick. It's attractive to computer geeks because it posits
an information-processing model of human psychology. Where Freud compared
the human mind with a pseumatic process, all pressures and flows of
"libido", Neisser (the guy who coined the term "cognitive psychology")
compared the human mind with a computer, all algorithms and heuristics.
Both ignore neurology, mostly because neurology was ignoring them. While
cognitive psychology is a wonderful approach to use in the development of
artificial intelligence, I don't think it's going to reveral anything
seminal about natural human consciousness.
As an approach recommended for magicians, I can point out that the field has
an inherent contradiction in that it rejects the validity of introspection
as a research tool while it accepts the existence of inherent mental states,
which are only evidenced by introspection. Thus it rejects the very method
by which it has laid its own foundation.
In contrast, the experimentation of magicians is intensely introspective and
proceeds by the performance of a magical act and then a careful observation
of how that act affects how we feel and perceive. Introspection is entirely
valid as a magical method of experimentation.
Kisai
You can always get the previous edition for about $20. Usually only
the homework problems are shuffled to befuddle the students.
quintal
er...@erwinhessle.com says...
voodoo is horseshit? burn erwin!!
;-)
--
Albert Einstein said, "No problem can be solved by the consciousness
that created it."
quintal
er...@erwinhessle.com says...
> > In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3.6...@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
> > Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
> > >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> > >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> > >the Triangle.
> >
> > >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> > >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> > >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
> >
> > >Any opinions?
>
> The "theory" is that the circle acts as a protection, and the triangle
> is both a container for the spirit, and a point of focus for it.
>
> As for the other questions, they are easily dealt with, because the
> theory, as stated, is utter bullshit. No "spirits" actually "appear"
> anywhere, so all these questions about "where does the spirit
> appear?", "what happens if it's too large?" and "can spirits
> teleport?" are just non-starters.
>
> This stuff about "spirits" and "demons" isn't real.
schnoebelen disagrees
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7672003660947890622
> So, you can pick
> whichever answers sound the best to you, or, even better, don't pick
> any of them. This is also the reason you're getting conflicting
> answers. If you ask a question like, "does the earth's gravity effect
> a force towards the centre of the earth, or away from it?" then you'll
> get a degree of consistency in the answers you receive, since the
> actual effect is relatively easily demonstrated. Since what we are
> talking about here is imaginary, you'll get as many answers as there
> are fools in the world.
>
> This is 2007. We really shouldn't be having serious conversations
> about "spirits" or "demons". Please exercise a modicum of common
> sense.
materialism is a refuge for the poor
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
quintal
qui...@francom.esoterisme says...
> In article <1193608605.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> er...@erwinhessle.com says...
> > > In message <zuvUi.6694$ek3.6...@weber.videotron.net>, Owen
> > > Coughlan <bex...@videotron.ca> writes
> > > >I've been reading a variety of documents and can't seem to get a straight
> > > >answer about the functions and reasons for (1) the magick circle, and (2)
> > > >the Triangle.
> > >
> > > >So far there seem to be two clear ideas: (1) the circle focuses energy
> > > >(like a lens) and the triangle cages the evoked spirit. Or (2) The circle is a
> > > >sphere of protection and there is no triangle.
> > >
> > > >Any opinions?
> >
> > The "theory" is that the circle acts as a protection, and the triangle
> > is both a container for the spirit, and a point of focus for it.
> >
> > As for the other questions, they are easily dealt with, because the
> > theory, as stated, is utter bullshit. No "spirits" actually "appear"
> > anywhere, so all these questions about "where does the spirit
> > appear?", "what happens if it's too large?" and "can spirits
> > teleport?" are just non-starters.
> >
> > This stuff about "spirits" and "demons" isn't real.
>
> schnoebelen disagrees
> http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7672003660947890622
at 32:00 onward he recalls an evocation ritual turned bad.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
news:MPG.21a1ce70d...@news.club-internet.fr...
>> sure the silly little crone and her kept whipping-boy have no real
>> conception of this. Almost all moderated fora on this subject very
>> quickly turn into nothing but a venue for deluded fuckheads to
>> continually congratulate each other on the mutual validity of their
>> fatuous and callow opinions. I suspect that is indeed the reason that
>> the Ironheads have collected it, since everytime they take their bogus
>> folksy voodoo shit into any kind of unmoderated forum, everybody
>> laughs at it like the utter horseshit that it is, which apart from
>> hurting their egos also hurts their sales.
>>
>> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
>
> voodoo is horseshit? burn erwin!!
> ;-)
Careful there, Q. You almost expressed an actual opinion of your own.
Chade
On 1 Dec, 07:22, nagasiva <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote:
> 50071130 xi!
> Chade <ch...@newsguy.com>:
> > I say that you can enter a trance where spirits are visible
> > and seem to be separate, but you can't actually evoke them
> > to physical manifestation.
> the conflict seems to revolve about a metaphysical
> misunderstanding. absent being able to detect them,
> as with a video camera or sensitive equipment built
> to render them apparent to those observing the record,
> the question of location and their perception looms.
I think it's the distinction between physical manifestation and visual
appearance being ignored, or at least not being fully appreciated. One
reason for such different explanations is that different things are
being explained.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > How could you find out who's right?
> the only way to do that is to set a time limit,
> record the event, and stipulate in as detailed a
> manner as possible what should be observed or
> recorded that will demonstrate either position,
> then engage the attempted discovery. the problem
> with all "can/can't" hypotheses is that they do
> not contain within them a temporal limitation,
> and thus, it may be more a matter of who is doing
> a thing, how long they try, and what the strict
> conditions for attempting it include, which
> sets the likelihood that it can be achieved.
> in such a case 'finding out who is right'
> may well become an endless task, serving
> the one who is not right by distraction.
I find your above grammar unclear.
While it's true that the non-existence of physical demons anywhere,
ever, can't be 'proved' Bex can investigate Konstantinos claims.
Namely, that the methodology Konstantinos $ell$ does actually work to
produce physical demons, not that it might possibly start working one
day, maybe.