Regarding Practice
Old Coyote
of a.m. for the last couple years, which I do not agree with, but
have not to date seen anyone attempt to refute.
This is in respect to ritual practices. The assumption is, that
one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
serious way) in ritual practice.
Seeing as how no-one has come forward to dispute this assumption,
and in fact I do not agree with it, I am here to do that now.
In my opinion, ritual practice of magick is of an entirely lower
caste than the the actual serious practice of magick, somewhat as
bumper cars or go-carts are to formula one racing. It's the class
for 'special' kids, as in the kind who ride the short bus.
Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
both. There is a certain subspecies of man, the Extremely Lonely Guy,
who will join up with any group that will have him. He is the
exception.
Nowhere in Crowley's writing does it say that ritual practice is a
requirement. Jason if you read this, please produce chapter and verse
if I am wrong, I would really appreciate it. Of course anyone else could do
the same, except I doubt anyone reading this except Jason can.
Crowley came from a different time, and part of the vehicle he
used to transmit his ideas involved the trappings of things known
at the time as 'spiritualist'. Failure to apprehend this fact
is the most common and most serious mistake modern students make.
My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
I personally am one such, and even though I sincerely believe anyone
who feels otherwise is an idiot, I would never go so far as to use
that fact as a reason to justify poor treatment of anyone.
Tom
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.0408...@posting.google.com...
>
> In my opinion, ritual practice of magick is of an entirely lower
> caste than the the actual serious practice of magick, somewhat as
> bumper cars or go-carts are to formula one racing. It's the class
> for 'special' kids, as in the kind who ride the short bus.
>
> Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> both. There is a certain subspecies of man, the Extremely Lonely Guy,
> who will join up with any group that will have him. He is the
> exception.
Hmm. Compare with:
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.04081...@posting.google.com...
> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcglobal.netTEMPHIOTH> wrote in message
news:<7ZWUc.8788$RK4....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>...
> >
> > The only person I've noticed here with that attitude is Bruce Burhans
> > aka Alexander Mulligan. He's a new-ager who actively insults the
> > practitioners and methods of both ceremonial magick and folk magick.
>
> Tom does this as well.
So, given that you are engaged in the practice of insulting quite a few
practitioners of both ceremonial and folk magic methods, are you saying I'm
your role model here, or what?
Asiya
So that's what you meant by "pseudo-intellectual pursuits". You meant
the actual practice of magick instead of just hanging out in a newsgroup
with "magick" in the name.
Regarding Crowley, try reading 'Magick in Theory and PRACTICE'.
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
csm
I agree with you. It's like saying someone can't be Christian if they
don't go to church, pray over their meals, etc.
On 19 Aug 2004 20:32:49 -0700, OldC...@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote)
wrote:
Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!
Old Coyote
Other way 'round I'm afraid old bean. If you examine the evidence
closely, you will see that not only am I much better at it than
you, but also that I started first.
Old Coyote
Have done, of course. You might try 'algebra for dummies'.
Old Coyote
> I agree with you. It's like saying someone can't be Christian if they
> don't go to church, pray over their meals, etc.
Thanks. I agree. When it comes to religion the only thing that
matters is self-identification, and forcing others to adhere to
one's own ideal of what religion aught to be does not help them
get to a place where they feel comfortable about it, except in
terms of a social endeavor. In that regard, it should indeed be
ritualised, with the pressure to conform being made symbolic.
Aye!
Rick
know, I think similarly in some respects, but not all). What I don't see why
you think it.
It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the "actual
serious practice of magick." We already know what is entailed in what you've
defined as a "lower caste," because that's published all over the place. Now
we need to understand what your comparing to it.
Care to elucidate?
Rick
"Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
news:bacaf0e0.0408...@posting.google.com...
Alexander Mulligan
> There has been an assumption employed or accepted by most users
> of a.m. for the last couple years, which I do not agree with, but
> have not to date seen anyone attempt to refute.
>
> This is in respect to ritual practices. The assumption is, that
> one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
> serious way) in ritual practice.
>
> Seeing as how no-one has come forward to dispute this assumption,
> and in fact I do not agree with it, I am here to do that now.
>
What!?
I have posted dozens of articles saying just that, and with considerable
vehemence and persistence.
I have been killfiled for doing just that.
You have resonded to posts of mine that were focussed on criticizing
ritual/ceremonial magick.
Strange!
Ceremonial/ritual magick is but *one* form of magickal practice/theory.
I have said that over and over.
> In my opinion, ritual practice of magick is of an entirely lower
> caste than the the actual serious practice of magick, somewhat as
> bumper cars or go-carts are to formula one racing. It's the class
> for 'special' kids, as in the kind who ride the short bus.
>
Exactly.
> Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> both.
That's not right.
Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing.
> There is a certain subspecies of man, the Extremely Lonely Guy,
> who will join up with any group that will have him. He is the
> exception.
>
> Nowhere in Crowley's writing does it say that ritual practice is a
> requirement. Jason if you read this, please produce chapter and verse
> if I am wrong, I would really appreciate it. Of course anyone else could do
> the same, except I doubt anyone reading this except Jason can.
>
Jason is lost in ceremonial/ritual magick, so that doesn't make any sense
at all.
> Crowley came from a different time, and part of the vehicle he
> used to transmit his ideas involved the trappings of things known
> at the time as 'spiritualist'. Failure to apprehend this fact
> is the most common and most serious mistake modern students make.
>
Crowley is hardly the ultimate authority on magick.
> My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
> is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
> who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
We are here. They can't stop us from posting.
We can ignore those who just harass us, no matter how cleverly.
> I personally am one such, and even though I sincerely believe anyone
> who feels otherwise is an idiot, I would never go so far as to use
> that fact as a reason to justify poor treatment of anyone.
Calling someone an "idiot" or "stupid" is poor treatment....
<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Brett
>This is in respect to ritual practices. The assumption is, that
>one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
>serious way) in ritual practice.
Ah yes, the "You can't be serious unless you devote your life to it"
argument. *pfft*
Sorry, but I can be "serious" about more than one thing in my life.
>Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
>is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
>both. There is a certain subspecies of man, the Extremely Lonely Guy,
>who will join up with any group that will have him. He is the
>exception.
Seems to me the point of Practice is to learn and memorize. As a
child, you practice your multiplication tables and alphabet until you
KNOW them.
No mathematician scoffs and says that you aren't serious about math if
you aren't doing daily practice of the multiplication table.
No english professor or author scoffs and says that you aren't serious
about language if you aren't constantly reciting the alphabet and
practicing writing out the individual letters.
So you practice ritual magick until you know the basics, until you
have things memorized.
Of course, we should differentiate here what "we" mean by "Practice".
Daily repetition of simple rituals or occasional ritual work? Some
people would say you're not serious about magick unless you've done
the LBRP one (twice or three times) a day for several years running.
Others on this board have been known to say the same thing about the
Watchtowers or [insert favorite ritual here].
Me, I'm serious about Aikido. But I don't practice every day. Sure,
there are loonies who will try to tell me that this means that I'm NOT
serious about learning Aikido. But I'm not bound up in what they
think of me. I'm working my own path.
I "practice" magick too. But very irregularly. I do what I need to
do, when I need to do it, without the need to be bound to a formalized
schedule of doing X every day.
>My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
>is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
>who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
>I personally am one such, and even though I sincerely believe anyone
>who feels otherwise is an idiot, I would never go so far as to use
>that fact as a reason to justify poor treatment of anyone.
But you apparently do! People who practice are "obsessive or
terminally stupid", "anyone who feels otherwise is an idiot". Or
don't you even notice what you're doing?
Martin Swain
That was kind of mean. I apologise. But I have read nearly everything
Crowley
wrote, including MIT&P.
Mephistopheles13
> There has been an assumption...that
> one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
> serious way) in ritual practice.
I agree that this assumption is unfair and false.
> In my opinion, ritual practice of magick is of an entirely lower
> caste than the the actual serious practice of magick...
Possibly. But it has value in preserving certain folk traditions that might
not otherwise have survived, particularly in pre-literate communities or
communities where an oppressive ruling class forces the lower class to
practice discretely.
>Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
>is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
>both...
I can't agree with that.In several non-Western religions ritual magick is
part and parcel of practice, at least sometimes, though not necessarily its
cornerstone, and is intimately tied up with the culture. West Africa and
the Caribbean come to mind, as well as SE Asia, even Tibet
historically.Additionally, an educated person might practice it for
purposes of gaining psychological insight, self-help, any number of reasons
besides insanity or stupidity. Although it is certainly true that there is
a high percentage of mentally ill people who are obsessed with the topic
and probably getting worse because of practice of magick.
> My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
> is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
> who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
I would say "tolerance," with religious tolerance a subset of that.
Regards,
--M
--
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum." --Lucretius
Asiya
> "Asiya" <asiya_...@sbcglobal.netTEMPHIOTH> wrote in message
news:<r5hVc.2416$vg3....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:bacaf0e0.0408...@posting.google.com...
> > >
Jezus, it's like talking to a rock.
whyzard
as things are good they are energy mystics but as soon as they are
attacked by demons or something they pee in their pants crying to
jesus for mercy and protection
OldC...@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote) wrote in message news:<bacaf0e0.0408...@posting.google.com>...
Old Coyote
> This is all well and good; you've stated what you think (and just so you
> know, I think similarly in some respects, but not all). What I don't see why
> you think it.
I read carefully.
>
> It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the "actual
> serious practice of magick." We already know what is entailed in what you've
> defined as a "lower caste," because that's published all over the place. Now
> we need to understand what your comparing to it.
>
> Care to elucidate?
Maybe a little. I think the real practice of magick is
based upon a proper understanding of the nature of ritual.
Old Coyote
> On 19 Aug 2004 20:32:49 -0700, OldC...@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote)
> muttered intensely:
>
> >This is in respect to ritual practices. The assumption is, that
> >one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
> >serious way) in ritual practice.
>
> Ah yes, the "You can't be serious unless you devote your life to it"
> argument. *pfft*
>
> Sorry, but I can be "serious" about more than one thing in my life.
>
>
> >Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> >is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> >both. There is a certain subspecies of man, the Extremely Lonely Guy,
> >who will join up with any group that will have him. He is the
> >exception.
>
> Seems to me the point of Practice is to learn and memorize. As a
> child, you practice your multiplication tables and alphabet until you
> KNOW them.
>
> No mathematician scoffs and says that you aren't serious about math if
> you aren't doing daily practice of the multiplication table.
>
> No english professor or author scoffs and says that you aren't serious
> about language if you aren't constantly reciting the alphabet and
> practicing writing out the individual letters.
>
> So you practice ritual magick until you know the basics, until you
> have things memorized.
I entirely disagree. I think 1 minute spent doing that stuff is
a sign of insecurity. That said, I have spent a little time at it
myself.
> Of course, we should differentiate here what "we" mean by "Practice".
> Daily repetition of simple rituals or occasional ritual work? Some
> people would say you're not serious about magick unless you've done
> the LBRP one (twice or three times) a day for several years running.
> Others on this board have been known to say the same thing about the
> Watchtowers or [insert favorite ritual here].
Well I guess if they didn't waste thier time doing the LBRP it would
be some other trivial pursuit.
>
> Me, I'm serious about Aikido. But I don't practice every day. Sure,
> there are loonies who will try to tell me that this means that I'm NOT
> serious about learning Aikido. But I'm not bound up in what they
> think of me. I'm working my own path.
That's different. You see the benefits when you practice your sport right?
I too am into physical fitness a little, and I understand the effects
of practicing my sport quite well. In fact there is a relationship there
that I can exploit to my benefit.
> I "practice" magick too. But very irregularly. I do what I need to
> do, when I need to do it, without the need to be bound to a formalized
> schedule of doing X every day.
>
>
> >My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
> >is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
> >who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
> >I personally am one such, and even though I sincerely believe anyone
> >who feels otherwise is an idiot, I would never go so far as to use
> >that fact as a reason to justify poor treatment of anyone.
>
> But you apparently do! People who practice are "obsessive or
> terminally stupid", "anyone who feels otherwise is an idiot". Or
> don't you even notice what you're doing?
Hey, thanks for asking about that. I was thinking of a specific issue,
w.r.t. having opinions vs. passing judgements.
By saying 'people who' I am not addressing any specific individual,
and therefore not insulting anyone, I am just expressing my opinion.
If I were to point to a particular person, it might be a different
story.
This raises a question of whether or not I am as good as my word but I
suppose I can't answer that.
Old Coyote
> In die Thursday 19 August 2004 10:32 pm scripsit Old Coyote:
>
> > There has been an assumption...that
> > one cannot be a serious student unless one engages (in a
> > serious way) in ritual practice.
>
> I agree that this assumption is unfair and false.
>
> > In my opinion, ritual practice of magick is of an entirely lower
> > caste than the the actual serious practice of magick...
>
> Possibly. But it has value in preserving certain folk traditions that might
> not otherwise have survived, particularly in pre-literate communities or
> communities where an oppressive ruling class forces the lower class to
> practice discretely.
>
> >Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> >is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> >both...
>
> I can't agree with that.In several non-Western religions ritual magick is
> part and parcel of practice, at least sometimes, though not necessarily its
> cornerstone, and is intimately tied up with the culture. West Africa and
> the Caribbean come to mind, as well as SE Asia, even Tibet
> historically.Additionally, an educated person might practice it for
> purposes of gaining psychological insight, self-help, any number of reasons
> besides insanity or stupidity.
I have to tell you that I agree with you 100 % w.r.t. cultural issues.
In fact,
I made a mistake in my original post, it should have said "IMO anyone
who practices ritual magick..."
However I do not buy your argument about educated people. I do think
such
might practice magick, but I think it is much more likely to be for
the same
reasons as anyone else, i.e. because they hold beliefs about it, even
though
they might never admit it, rather than for any abstract, sanitised
reasons.
Finally, I need to point out that I honestly think a lot of people,
while
functionally ok, are not all there cognitively speaking. Again, this
is my perspective. From thier perspective I'm sure they're mostly ok.
(For instance, my mother in law, a certified teacher, once tried to
tell
me how maggots come from rotten meat. I tried to explain about flies
and
eggs and so on, but she argued. This lady is a teacher in the school
system)
> Although it is certainly true that there is
> a high percentage of mentally ill people who are obsessed with the topic
> and probably getting worse because of practice of magick.
I think I understand what population you are identifying here, however
I would probably refer to it more as marginalised than mentally ill.
Personally I favour a medical definition of mental illness.
> > My final thoughts on the subject are this. If religous tolerance
> > is to be of value, then it aught to include those students of magick
> > who neither adhere to nor value any system of ritual magick practice.
>
> I would say "tolerance," with religious tolerance a subset of that.
>
> Regards,
>
> --M
Regards,
Martin
Old Coyote
Only because you haven't said anything interesting yet.
Your style is engaging though, you have some skills as a writer.
Is that why you're so hard on Gnome?
Old Coyote
> its just like westerners who say they don't believe in jesus. so long
> as things are good they are energy mystics but as soon as they are
> attacked by demons or something they pee in their pants crying to
> jesus for mercy and protection
Heh, ok. If I pee in my pants and cry for Crowley to come
and save me I'll be sure to let you know.
Mephistopheles13
> its just like westerners who say they don't believe in jesus. so long
> as things are good they are energy mystics but as soon as they are
> attacked by demons or something they pee in their pants crying to
> jesus for mercy and protection
Uh, can a Jew with a 2,000-year history in Europe be a Westerner? And do you
imagine he reaches for Je$u$ when distressed?
Rick
> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<KdpVc.28659$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the "actual
>>serious practice of magick." We already know what is entailed in what you've
>>defined as a "lower caste," because that's published all over the place. Now
>>we need to understand what your comparing to it.
>>Care to elucidate?
> Maybe a little. I think the real practice of magick is
> based upon a proper understanding of the nature of ritual.
Okay. What's the proper understanding of the nature of ritual?
Rick
Alexander Mulligan
You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
you do. Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm,
which does not allow for the existence of magick. Your alleged understanding
of magick is purely academic and most of what you have read is considered
nonsense by people that are into real magick.
You just pick up a book that says it is about magick on the cover and read
it. This and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
It does *not* make you knowledgable about magick.
Beheaded Sacrifice
>
> Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm,
>which does not allow for the existence of magick.
science 'allows' for the existence of anything and even makes its own
metaphysical assumptions. But good scientists don't waste their time with
crap. They explore logic and implore against fuzzy thinking! Its so funny to
watch you fight against your own brain. It wants to learn, but you don't want
to let it! Evolution is literally dragging you along kicking and screaming.
Martin Swain
"Alexander Mulligan" <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
news:2p1l5qF...@uni-berlin.de...
> In alt.magick, Rick wrote:
> > Old Coyote wrote:
> >
> >> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<KdpVc.28659$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >
> >>>It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the
"actual
> >>>serious practice of magick." We already know what is entailed in what
you've
> >>>defined as a "lower caste," because that's published all over the
place. Now
> >>>we need to understand what your comparing to it.
> >
> >>>Care to elucidate?
> >
> >> Maybe a little. I think the real practice of magick is
> >> based upon a proper understanding of the nature of ritual.
> >
> > Okay. What's the proper understanding of the nature of ritual?
> >
> >
>
> You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
<snip self-serving rant>
Actually I'm addicted to pussy.
Martin
----
I climb 5.10 now. Wanna go?
----
Alexander Mulligan
Clumsy evasion of the issues I raised.
With the gratuitous insult that all bigots use when intellectually cornered.
But I'm not surprised: All religious fundamentalists have to
be intellectual weasels. They have no other choice.
Except intellectual honesty, of course.
You even changed your alias here, from Old Coyote to Martin Swain.
<chuckle>
Your Freudian Slip is showing!
SwAmI
> a high percentage of mentally ill people who are obsessed with the topic
> and probably getting worse because of practice of magick.
>
Do you have any sources for the above assertions that a high percentage of
mentally ill people are attracted to magick and that it makes them worse?
I've seen these assertions a couple of times but never seen any credible
evidence for them.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/04
Beheaded Sacrifice
>
>
>"Mephistopheles13" <mephistoph...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2oo5e7F...@uni-berlin.de...
> Although it is certainly true that there is
>> a high percentage of mentally ill people who are obsessed with the topic
>> and probably getting worse because of practice of magick.
>>
>
>Do you have any sources for the above assertions that a high percentage of
>mentally ill people are attracted to magick and that it makes them worse?
>I've seen these assertions a couple of times but never seen any credible
>evidence for them.
>
me neither. Its like saying retards suffer by not studying algebra. People
do what they can do, and don't do what they can't. If anything, practicing
magick is good for people who can't do anything more effective, because it
keeps them busy and keeps their brains as active as is possible.
Mephistopheles13
> Do you have any sources for the above assertions that a high percentage of
> mentally ill people are attracted to magick and that it makes them worse?
> I've seen these assertions a couple of times but never seen any credible
> evidence for them.
I confess that I do not! It is an observation only.I think that the "dream
quest" or mystical experiences and the like are a poor choice of pursuits
for one who has a disorder that already makes him hear voices! One could
cite the DSM for instances of extreme religiosity being a symptom of many
mental illnesses, and magical thinking in general; but No, I can't provide
evidence to back up my assertion that it actually worsens them, just
anecdotes and observation.
Old Coyote
Hearing voices would qualify as one of the medical versions of mental
illness I mentioned. There may be a few people involved in religion or
magick who fit that profile, but I think that people who are ill to that
extent do not fit in well with other people in any environment, hence
thier involvement in anything would be limited.
Furthermore, I believe that people who have that kind of diagnosis represent
a very small percentage of the population, and even further, are probably
more or less evenly distributed in terms of thier interests and so on.
What I think is going on here, is that you are inflating this number,
(and also artificially skewing the distribution to make it seem as if crazy
people are drawn to magick more than say polotics), so that you can use it as
a catch all for people you don't like or can't be bothered to understand.
'What's that guy doing?'
'I don't know, he's fucking nuts.'
I am only making a point about this because I believe it is a very
common behaviour that is not generally recognised as such, and hence
represents a potential trap for magickians. What do you think?
Mephistopheles13
> Furthermore, I believe that people who have that kind of diagnosis
> represent a very small percentage of the population, and even further, are
> probably more or less evenly distributed in terms of thier interests and
> so on.
You are right that it is a small percentage of the population, and that the
interests of the psychotic may cover as big a spread as that of any other
population. I am at least not intentionally inflating the number, because
given the fact that magical thinking often characterizes most of the florid
psychoses that we are referencing here, I think that such people are
especially drawn to formal magical studies and practices,rather than to
something like software development. But I can't prove that.
You have made me consider the matter, and I will say this: Of the three
people whom I know intimately well who are seriously psychotic, that is,
have hallucinatory disorders that preclude their normal function in life
(work, mating/bonding, etc.),only one is actually a member of lodges,
covens and the like. Additionally, as a long-time user of urban mass
transit, I have met many psychotics whom I do NOT know well, but whom I
strongly suspect do NOT practice ritual magick outside their hallucinatory
life.The obvious or admitted psychotics here on Usenet are very prolific
when in their florid phase, and hence loud, which might be giving me the
false impression that their numbers are greater than they really
are.Additionally, I think that most people in a lodge or a coven can name
at least one member who hears voices and can't hold down a job for that
reason. (Alt.Magick, please confirm or deny!)I do not find that the same
can be said of most other pursuits.But again...impressions.
> What I think is going on here, is that you are inflating this number,
> (and also artificially skewing the distribution to make it seem as if
> crazy people are drawn to magick more than say polotics), so that you can
> use it as a catch all for people you don't like or can't be bothered to
> understand.
I hope that this is not what I am doing. A near family member is
psychotic,and has required an enormous amount of my time, energy, and funds
over the years, to keep him balanced. Apart from him, I have had two
friends in my life who, for various reasons, I feel obligated to support
similarly when needed. And to be fair, this is sometimes a two-way street.
My pal who is into Magick, a lodge member, etc., can be very supportive
indeed in times of crisis, and I have actually sent people to him for his
counsel.
But in the main, the family member in particular has in large measure
exhausted my tolerance for psychotics in my life--it is as though my quota
is already filled. I hope that does not mean that I would use "he's nuts"
as an excuse for how I view people whom I don't like, or as a way of simply
shutting out people because I don't like them. I would certainly shut out
somebody for OTHER reasons, e.g., someone whose political views I despised,
or somebody trying to sell me his nasty messiah, or otherwise advocate
something that I consider harmful. There are some people on Usenet whom I
don't like, yet whose posts I read.If I think somebody someplace like here,
Usenet, is psychotic, then it's true, I have no further time for her or
him, and probably will killfile the person. But maybe not... You have given
me cause for introspection, thanks!
nagasiva
# Alexander Mulligan:
#> Rick:
#># Old Coyote:
#>#> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com>:
#>#># It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the
#>#># "actual serious practice of magick."
typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
in occult circles the evidence of 'serious practice' typically
revolves around the product or the cost of the engagement to the
occultist. with the product, an extended lavish expanse of temple
and tool may be seen. the seriousness is exhibited through technik
of tool-construction and the care and detail provided to the active
props and ornaments of the Art. with the cost of engagement, the
occultist is seen doing what is regarded as magic a good amount of
time or expending for things required in practice and it impacts hir
available resources and time in obvious ways. magicians who believe
that constant practice, rites, of purifying, spellcasting, whatever,
is imperative to being powerful and/or successful, will implement a
routine of daily and/or more frequent rites and disciplines, either
as a fortification and/or consolidation of power from which to
operate, or as preparation for all future endeavours (enlarging
the operating batterly/power available). what is entailed in the
actual serious practice of magic for these latter will include all
manner of spiritual disciplines, observances, ordeals, etc., and
more likely than not adherence to some doctrinal knowledge-set.
the first might be asked to explain how the tools have been crafted
to fit into the ceremonial tradition which inspired them, what raw
materials were used and how their crafting was timed and in what
conditions (external *+* internal) the tools were constructed.
this would identify the person at least knowledgeable about such
'serious practice', and especially if they could then explain how
the tools they'd crafted were used, demonstrate it, etc., we could
see quite readily that someone was knowledgeable, and, to the
extent that they actually made and used the tools, were engaged in
identifiable serious magical practice.
the second batch (cost of engagement) might be asked what motivates
them to devote themselves to such expenditures of time and energy.
whatever the response, they may have some ideas or feelings about
it and therefore could convey the 'seriousness of their practice'
as regards the intensity of their involvement when providing a
clear reflection of their activities and what these include. while
the craftsperson and dramatist might give clear liturgical and
blocking instruction, even combining this with theoretical under-
pinnings which relate to what is supposed to happen during the
Magical Operation, the ceremonial gymnast will be more familiar
with the psychology and rigor of routine meditative and trance
exercises. what the latter regards as 'serious' will tend toward
the sincere approach and sustained discipline of *any* type,
whereas the former will correctly see attention to trapments
as one of the most visible examples of serious practice.
#>#># We already know what is entailed in what you've defined as
#>#># a "lower caste,"
strange terminology
#>#># because that's published all over the
#>#># place. Now we need to understand what your comparing to it.
#>#> ...the real practice of magick is based upon a proper
#>#> understanding of the nature of ritual.
this emphasizes the effects of practice internally and how such
effects might be refined, pinpointed, and become part of an
overall 'career' as a magician-mystic.
#> You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
#> you do. Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm ...
physical science paradigm doesn't require that magick be inessential
or based on fallacies. physical science, for example, might allow in
through the back door a style of Natural Magic, for example, as long
as there are refinements on combinations between enculturation,
genetics, and magical styles to reach effective results. there may
be insufficient experimentation, for example, to have properly
examined and analyzed the methodology of magic before dismissing
it as proto-science or failed scientific enterprises.
compare this with addiction, in which something impedes healthful
operation or function due to its routinized or emphacized role
and negative side-effects. a preference for materialism doesn't
debilitate magic *necessarily*. one may come from a materialistic
background (as I have) and overcome one's conditioning to the
point that one might appreciate magical activity for itself,
then, like so many religious enterprises, see what actuality
results from the activities described in fantastic and trans-
material ways. it doesn't all have to be 'bad' or 'worthless'.
knowing about magic isn't a paradigmatic litmus either. some of the
best reporting on the operations and procedures of magicians has
been recorded by those with a keen attention to material detail
in the disciplines of anthropology and history of science.
"Martin Swain" <martin...@hotmail.com>:
# Actually I'm addicted to pussy.
that's a different kind of conception. ;>
nagasiva
Alexander Mulligan
> 50040826 viii om!
>
> # Alexander Mulligan:
> #> Rick:
> #># Old Coyote:
> #>#> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com>:
> #>#># It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the
> #>#># "actual serious practice of magick."
>
> typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
> rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
> certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
> attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
> the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
> deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
> the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
Ceremonial magick is regarded to be faux magick by those of us who
practice Natural Magick.
Indeed, this is born out by the evidence: Most ceremonial magick
practicioners can't do anything but play the role.
They usually don't even have a basic quality-of-life, which any
valid magickal practice gives FIRSTLY.
Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever that they can
do anything that anyone else can't do.
If they *can* do anything, it has nothing to do with any rituals
beyond their help in focusing one's attention and upon the expectation
(belief/spell) of a certain result.
>
> in occult circles the evidence of 'serious practice' typically
> revolves around the product or the cost of the engagement to the
> occultist.
I was referring to the fact that ceremonial magick is not serious
magick because it is based upon inaccurate concepts of what magick
is and how it works and can be used.
[...] What I've snipped here are details about ceremonial magick practices.
>
> #> You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
> #> you do. Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm ...
>
> physical science paradigm doesn't require that magick be inessential
> or based on fallacies.
Yes it does. Talk to any real Scientist (not our local amateur-fundamentalists)
and ask them what they think of magick such as you practice.
<snicker>
They are incompatible paradigms, no matter how desperately you want
to believe otherwise.
But this vain hope is what is keeping you from any real understanding
of magick.
> physical science, for example, might allow
What the *hell* does that mean? Physical Science doesn't "might allow"
anything. It tests hypotheses.
If yours hasn't been tested, it isn't Science. Duh.
You couldn't even get a Scientist to consider looking at it.
Try it.
> in
> through the back door a style of Natural Magic, for example, as long
> as there are refinements on combinations between enculturation,
> genetics, and magical styles to reach effective results. there may
> be insufficient experimentation, for example, to have properly
> examined and analyzed the methodology of magic before dismissing
> it as proto-science or failed scientific enterprises.
>
What a bunch of crude sophistry.
And utterly meaningless.
[.....]
Blazin' Tommy D.
BTD: Alexander Mulligan is a ninny:)
Therion
Hey - mulligan man! O.K. I'll give you a mulligan on this one too -
only this time go to Pat Zalewskis' Inner Order group and cough up a
100 bones first. Or if your broke - (and you probably are) go to
Chics' SI group and take another swing at the ball. Face it mulligan
man - you suck thick anacondas and you always shit your pants while
performing blue angels.
Nihilist
> Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever that they can
> do anything that anyone else can't do.
I've been trying for months to learn what the master magicians can do
that the average man or woman can't do by working with beliefs and
observation. Golden Dawn, Enochian, Goetia--no answers. I've been
trying to find some utility in such elaborate practices, going as far
as trying some of them myself.
Oh, one poster who runs a Golden Dawn organization thought himself
clever by telling me that a Golden Dawn magician can do Golden Dawn
magick better than I can. I suppose that's the best kind of answer one
can expect.
Alexander Mulligan
The best that I can say about any of those systems is that they are a
step in the right direction.
At least they are seriously entertaining the idea that there are important
aspects of reality not recognized by the dominant religion/paradigm,
physical science. That the individual has command of creative forces that
are not dependent on the action/inaction of anyone else.
Whareatua
No, not meaningless, quite well answered really. The problem is that
no where has a term of reference being defined for either science or
magick.
For a quick term of reference, Magick largely exists on the symbolic
and contemplative planes of experience; whereas science generally
exists on sensory planes of provable and verifiable phenomena.
What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither scientific
test nor device is going to provide an analysis or interpretation of a
work of art for example. Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of
art, and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
neither are there for magick.
Jean de Cabilis
http://cabilis.topcities.com
Alexander Mulligan
Yes it has, right here on this group, many times.
Science is about physical causation. It is based on the concept that
the physical universe is independent of anything outside of itself.
Self-contained. It is about an accidentally formed and largely
non-sentient universe.
Magick is about non-physical causation. It is based on the assumption
that the physical universe is created from, and dependendent on,
larger dimensions of activity. It is about a living, conscious, and
consciously created universe that rises from ancient fountains of
beings that all exist in the spacious present.
>
> For a quick term of reference, Magick largely exists on the symbolic
> and contemplative planes of experience; whereas science generally
> exists on sensory planes of provable and verifiable phenomena.
>
I disagree completely and uttlerly. That's a definition of magick
used by dabblers, poseurs, dilletantes, charlatans, and academics
who can't tell the difference between reading about doing something
and doing it.
Magick is a word used to describe the conscious control of the basic
creative forces of Being.
> What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither scientific
> test nor device is going to provide an analysis or interpretation of a
> work of art for example.
There is a relationship between magick and art, but they are not the
same thing at all.
> Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of
> art, and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
> neither are there for magick.
>
There are no empirical tests for magick because magick is what
creates all that is empirical.
Whareatua
Hi Nihilist, a rhetorical question 'Do you play a musical instrument'.
The art and craft of magick is a bit like that. For example: If you
want to get really good at piano, not only does one practice
regularly, but one also studies the theory of music, the various
musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc. A pianoist may even
study the lives, motivations and creativity of other composers etc. So
the answer to your question is quite simple really... the further you
get into, the more enriched music becomes.. magick is similar. It
depends on how deep you want to go.
psykonaut23
the discussion...
> >Anyone who practices ritual magick is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably both.
WTF? this is the second most stupid thing i think ive ever heard
anyone say
the 1st? ...
> > ... the physical science paradigm,
which does not allow for the existence of magick
now i just laughing... u ignorant fucks. 'science' has come a long way
since the middle ages or do still wanna be burned? not that any1 would
beleive you were a witch anyway. Pete Carroll has done wonders for the
advancement of magico-scientific understanding.
http://www.specularium.org/
READ IT
MDHJWH
>
> > Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever that they can
> > do anything that anyone else can't do.
>
> I've been trying for months to learn what the master magicians can do
> that the average man or woman can't do by working with beliefs and
> observation. Golden Dawn, Enochian, Goetia--no answers. I've been
> trying to find some utility in such elaborate practices, going as far
> as trying some of them myself.
You expect such evidence to convey itself over the internet?
Well miracles do happen but - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rick
> Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> both.
I've given this statement here some thought over the past few days, and
I have some comments. The first part is about the impression I have of
you from the posting style and contents of your posts to this thread,
the second is about the statement itself:
On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
that your intent? It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now; that
you haven't strikes me as either disingenuous or indicating a lack of
substance to support your statement.
As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from anthropology,
psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
typically human response to stress.
If we consider something like OCD an extreme expression of common human
experience and response, we can easily infer that routine (let's say
"socially accepted" ritual) is a socially acceptible response to routine
stress (which we all experience). Ceremonial magick, while somewhat
marginalized in the culture, is still right in line with that sort of
behavior. It's possible that we (humans) might use regular ritual
(religious, magical, etc.) in a prophylactic, systematic way, perhaps in
an effort to keep the negative effects of stress at a reasonable
tolerance level.
This may not be an indication of obsession or ignorance. It may simply
be one of the normal, human ways of dealing with life. We all have
something like instincts to be healthy and happy (though some of us
aren't very good at either). In that, ritual, properly applied, may be
as valuable to good health and happiness as a good diet and regular
physical exercise.
Rick
Old Coyote
NO. I READ CARROLL'S BOOKS AND HE IS A FOOL.
heh
Bassos
"Nihilist" <e_nih...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:8d9826c7.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Alexander Mulligan <alex...@mail2america.com> wrote in message
news:<2p75v6F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever that they can
> > do anything that anyone else can't do.
>
> I've been trying for months to learn what the master magicians can do
> that the average man or woman can't do by working with beliefs and
> observation.
Try the tom approach :
Acting with complete conviction.
Let some average man or woman try that.
Or better yet, you do it, and get back to me.
Rick
news:8d9826c7.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever that they can
> > do anything that anyone else can't do.
> I've been trying for months to learn what the master magicians can do
> that the average man or woman can't do by working with beliefs and
> observation. Golden Dawn, Enochian, Goetia--no answers. I've been
> trying to find some utility in such elaborate practices, going as far
> as trying some of them myself.
Is the whole of the value of a practice to be found in some measure of
uniqueness?
Rick
Nihilist
Evidence for what?
Alexander Mulligan
Evidence for the sensational irrelevancies that dabblers in Magick and skeptics
that are so frightened of Magick think are so important, or pretend to.
Was it you, Nihilist, that coined the term "magickian"? Seems I remember
seeing it first in one of your posts.
The more I play with it, the more I like it.
Nihilist
> Hi Nihilist, a rhetorical question 'Do you play a musical instrument'.
> The art and craft of magick is a bit like that. For example: If you
> want to get really good at piano, not only does one practice
> regularly, but one also studies the theory of music, the various
> musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc. A pianoist may even
> study the lives, motivations and creativity of other composers etc. So
> the answer to your question is quite simple really... the further you
> get into, the more enriched music becomes.. magick is similar. It
> depends on how deep you want to go.
OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit. I have no problem with
that. Some people like ballet, some people like painting, some people
like jazz, some people like ceremonial magick. No problem.
So whenever I'm doing ceremonial rituals, I'm working on my stagecraft
skills, my theatrical repertoire, and my artistic coordination. The
complexity is starting to make sense now.
BTW, do you have any thoughts on the utility of the Goetia? Or is it
entirely a Romantic pursuit?
Nihilist
> What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither scientific
> test nor device is going to provide an analysis or interpretation of a
> work of art for example. Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of
> art, and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
> neither are there for magick.
If a pop artist starts bragging that his or her painting can cause
incredible physical phenomena, people are probably going to request a
demonstration. Read up on Jesus if you haven't already. Certain
phenomena would be "amen"-able to an empirical test.
That's not to say there aren't artists working in Silence whose
paintings can cause said phenomena. It just means that the braggarts
should put up or shut up. No one I know disputes the *subjective*
appreciation of art and magick.
(OK, that's becoming lame.)
Basically, pop magicians who get by on explicit or tacit incredible
claims had better demonstrate those claims. Else they're just doing
the better magicians of the world a disservice, and they're bringing
the "Great Work" to a complete standstill.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even
so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
-- Matthew 7 (KJV)
Nihilist
> NO. I READ CARROLL'S BOOKS AND HE IS A FOOL.
>
> heh
I hate when I have to agree with *you*. I fucking hate it.
Old Coyote
> Old Coyote wrote:
>
> > Can I be any plainer about this? Anyone who practices ritual magick
> > is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> > both.
>
> I've given this statement here some thought over the past few days, and
> I have some comments. The first part is about the impression I have of
> you from the posting style and contents of your posts to this thread,
> the second is about the statement itself:
>
> On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
> thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
> that your intent?
Not at all. I was intending to insult people who try to assert
that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
> It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
> productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
> alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
the scope of a usenet post.
I was trying to be productive, but not in such a sweeping fashion,
rather with respect to one small issue; specifically, whether
people who do not engage in ritual practice can be serious.
> that
> you haven't strikes me as either disingenuous or indicating a lack of
> substance to support your statement.
> As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from anthropology,
> psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
> typically human response to stress.
That seems like a very good description. However, I was being specific
about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
> If we consider something like OCD an extreme expression of common human
> experience and response, we can easily infer that routine (let's say
> "socially accepted" ritual) is a socially acceptible response to routine
> stress (which we all experience). Ceremonial magick, while somewhat
> marginalized in the culture, is still right in line with that sort of
> behavior. It's possible that we (humans) might use regular ritual
> (religious, magical, etc.) in a prophylactic, systematic way, perhaps in
> an effort to keep the negative effects of stress at a reasonable
> tolerance level.
>
> This may not be an indication of obsession or ignorance. It may simply
> be one of the normal, human ways of dealing with life.
Well, I actually think that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like
saying air is a nice thing to have about.
> We all have
> something like instincts to be healthy and happy (though some of us
> aren't very good at either).
I don't think that's true at all. I think some of us at least have
instincts for curiosity and exploration. Some others have instincts for
organisation and orderliness. I do think that each is happiest when thier
inclinations are allowed to develop. Lost to the charioting, no?
> In that, ritual, properly applied, may be
> as valuable to good health
I think brushing my teeth each morning is the best thing I could
do for my health.
> and happiness
I like to watch tv after work.
> as a good diet and regular
> physical exercise.
Amen! lol
>
>
> Rick
Modern attitudes towards ritual magick, regardless of the flavour,
are as Crowley's attitude towards Christians was.
I raised this issue because I had the perception that some people
were trying to assert that one must engage in ritual practice in
order to claim initiation. And that is just un-thelemic.
Old Coyote
> I've been trying for months to learn ... --no answers.
Gee that's tough. I got my homework done early, so
maybe I can help with yours.
Let's assume, first of all, that you are invisible.
An invisible observer, watching people do stuff.
Since you are invisible, they won't be trying to impress you.
In fact they won't know you're there at all, so your presence
will have no impact on thier behaviour whatsoever.
Now, my question for you is, at what point do you, the
invisible obvserver, decide whether thier activities
have any utility or not?
In order to save time, I will tell you my answer. IMO
it is not an appropriate question, and in fact betrays
a lack of background understanding.
I think it is safe to assume that all thier activities
have *some* utility, and any efforts would best be spent
trying to determine what that is.
Old Coyote
>
> > What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither scientific
> > test nor device is going to provide an analysis or interpretation of a
> > work of art for example. Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of
> > art, and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
> > neither are there for magick.
>
> If a pop artist starts bragging that his or her painting can cause
> incredible physical phenomena, people are probably going to request a
> demonstration. Read up on Jesus if you haven't already. Certain
> phenomena would be "amen"-able to an empirical test.
>
> That's not to say there aren't artists working in Silence whose
> paintings can cause said phenomena. It just means that the braggarts
> should put up or shut up. No one I know disputes the *subjective*
> appreciation of art and magick.
Really? Don't get out much do you.
>
> (OK, that's becoming lame.)
>
> Basically, pop magicians who get by on explicit or tacit incredible
> claims had better demonstrate those claims. Else they're just doing
Why? That isn't the point man. They want little friends who
will play along, and maybe kick the kitten too.
> the better magicians of the world a disservice, and they're bringing
> the "Great Work" to a complete standstill.
If someone else wants to be an idiot, how does that
hurt you? If you really want to follow along, but are worried that
someone might see you, well that's your lookout, as I see it.
> 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
False prophets!? How about a slippery contiuum of half-informed, uniformed,
well-intentioned, attention seeking, self-appointed 'authorities'?
> but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their
> fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even
> so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
> bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil
> fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every
> tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
> the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Oh sure. & If all the evil trees are supposed to get cut down
and cast into the fire, I suppose that means the fire has to
built with *innocent* trees to begin with? Arborcide! Tree killers! Bastards!
> -- Matthew 7 (KJV)
Whareatua
>
> > Hi Nihilist, a rhetorical question 'Do you play a musical instrument'.
> > The art and craft of magick is a bit like that. For example: If you
> > want to get really good at piano, not only does one practice
> > regularly, but one also studies the theory of music, the various
> > musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc. A pianoist may even
> > study the lives, motivations and creativity of other composers etc. So
> > the answer to your question is quite simple really... the further you
> > get into, the more enriched music becomes.. magick is similar. It
> > depends on how deep you want to go.
>
> OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit. I have no problem with
> that. Some people like ballet, some people like painting, some people
> like jazz, some people like ceremonial magick. No problem.
Yes, magick is a romantic pursuit.
>
> So whenever I'm doing ceremonial rituals, I'm working on my stagecraft
> skills, my theatrical repertoire, and my artistic coordination. The
> complexity is starting to make sense now.
Yes, based on my 30 years experience in magick, the artistic approach
to magick will take you further than any other methodology I know.
Further than the stagecraft, further than the theatrical repertoire -
especially at the level of muti-minding :-)
>
> BTW, do you have any thoughts on the utility of the Goetia? Or is it
> entirely a Romantic pursuit?
While the Goetia has been rather heavily romanised, my own study of it
is that it is likely a rather an unworkable utility. In saying that
however, I will state that I have only superficial experience of the
Diabolic Rites - and thus i do accept that potentially a magician (or
witch) skilled in these areas could potentially manifest a coherent
mental production using the Goetia for example. If so then (I
suspect) the dichotomy of 'real and unreal' needs to be removed from
the Goetia in order for the magician/witch to establish that
programmatic space whence the magician/witch would work from. Upon
doing that, perhaps then it is feasible that the mental production of
the sort of cosmology/system within the Goetia could provide the
formation of the various forces within a ceremonial or astral
environment, however it is not the sort of system I would choice to
use.
IMO the old A,B,C [1,2,3] of magick will take you much further than
these phantoms <g>
LLL
Whareatua
>
> > What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither scientific
> > test nor device is going to provide an analysis or interpretation of a
> > work of art for example. Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of
> > art, and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
> > neither are there for magick.
>
> If a pop artist starts bragging that his or her painting can cause
> incredible physical phenomena, people are probably going to request a
> demonstration. Read up on Jesus if you haven't already. Certain
> phenomena would be "amen"-able to an empirical test.
Whether or not those miracles are "amen"-able to empirical tests (I.e.
repetition) I am not certain, one would certainly hope so however :-)
but yes, good point.
>
> That's not to say there aren't artists working in Silence whose
> paintings can cause said phenomena. It just means that the braggarts
> should put up or shut up. No one I know disputes the *subjective*
> appreciation of art and magick.
Yes agreed. This is one of the fundamental problems with magick.
I.e.: Some magicians may of experienced an OOBE for example. But I
have yet to meet a magician/witch (myself included) who can
voluntarily perform an OOBE at will. For example: Every magical
braggart I have met cannot tell me what random Tarot is face up on the
table in the next room. Yet based upon my own experiences and the
anecdotal reports I have read, I believe that such a thing is
possible. If someone can't even OOBE to the room next door, talk of
'Working' in the astral is deceitful nonsense in my opinion.
>
> (OK, that's becoming lame.)
>
> Basically, pop magicians who get by on explicit or tacit incredible
> claims had better demonstrate those claims. Else they're just doing
> the better magicians of the world a disservice, and they're bringing
> the "Great Work" to a complete standstill.
I think that we need to distinguish individual experience with, and/or
personal testimony of things magical (the supernatural etc) from those
whom persons whom purport magical power. The two are quite different.
BTW Do not be disheartened concerning the 'Great Work' (if you are
using the communal aspect of that) for it is written "My flock know my
voice" and "if all the voices themselves were silenced, then the rocks
themselves would sing" :-)
>
> 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
> but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their
> fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even
> so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
> bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil
> fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every
> tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
> the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
> -- Matthew 7 (KJV)
Yes, the Lion and the sheep (the Predator and grazer) all have a place
in God's kingdom; deceivers do not.
LLL
MDHJWH
> 'Working' in the astral is deceitful nonsense in my opinion.
The astral is in the next room ?
Alexander Mulligan
> e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist) wrote in message news:<8d9826c7.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>> cab...@snap.net.nz (Whareatua) wrote in message news:<c5684ff2.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> > Hi Nihilist, a rhetorical question 'Do you play a musical instrument'.
>> > The art and craft of magick is a bit like that. For example: If you
>> > want to get really good at piano, not only does one practice
>> > regularly, but one also studies the theory of music, the various
>> > musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc. A pianoist may even
>> > study the lives, motivations and creativity of other composers etc. So
>> > the answer to your question is quite simple really... the further you
>> > get into, the more enriched music becomes.. magick is similar. It
>> > depends on how deep you want to go.
>>
>> OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit. I have no problem with
>> that. Some people like ballet, some people like painting, some people
>> like jazz, some people like ceremonial magick. No problem.
>
> Yes, magick is a romantic pursuit.
Magick is the pursuit of, and use of, real power and knowledge.
>
>>
>> So whenever I'm doing ceremonial rituals, I'm working on my stagecraft
>> skills, my theatrical repertoire, and my artistic coordination. The
>> complexity is starting to make sense now.
>
> Yes, based on my 30 years experience in magick, the artistic approach
> to magick will take you further than any other methodology I know.
> Further than the stagecraft, further than the theatrical repertoire -
> especially at the level of muti-minding :-)
>
30 years experience in something that someone *told* you was magick.
>>
>> BTW, do you have any thoughts on the utility of the Goetia? Or is it
>> entirely a Romantic pursuit?
>
>
> While the Goetia has been rather heavily romanised, my own study of it
> is that it is likely a rather an unworkable utility. In saying that
> however, I will state that I have only superficial experience of the
> Diabolic Rites - and thus i do accept that potentially a magician (or
> witch) skilled in these areas could potentially manifest a coherent
> mental production using the Goetia for example. If so then (I
> suspect) the dichotomy of 'real and unreal' needs to be removed from
> the Goetia in order for the magician/witch to establish that
> programmatic space whence the magician/witch would work from. Upon
> doing that, perhaps then it is feasible that the mental production of
> the sort of cosmology/system within the Goetia could provide the
> formation of the various forces within a ceremonial or astral
> environment, however it is not the sort of system I would choice to
> use.
>
> IMO the old A,B,C [1,2,3] of magick will take you much further than
> these phantoms <g>
>
Thirty years of useless gibberish like that paragraph and a dollar will get
you a cup of coffee.
Rick
news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Rick <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<cgnnei$oer$1...@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>...
> > > ... Anyone who practices ritual magick
> > > is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> > > both.
> > On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
> > thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
> > that your intent?
> Not at all. I was intending to insult people who try to assert
> that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
I see. That's a reasonable distinction, but it's not at all what you did. I
left the relevant statement up there for reference.
It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
thing to do. It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort. It
becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to everyone
else. That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
when cosmological ideas come into play.
> > It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
> > productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
> > alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
> Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
> the scope of a usenet post.
I was responding to your statements from the perspective that it's
inadequate to criticize a practice without offering a substantial
alternative, or at least some basic examples of a counterpart. Criticism
alone tends to speak (to me) mostly of the poster's personality, and does
little to promote the technical and scholarly discussion of magick.
> I was trying to be productive, but not in such a sweeping fashion,
> rather with respect to one small issue; specifically, whether
> people who do not engage in ritual practice can be serious.
Maybe you can see why I didn't get this idea from what I've left at the very
top of this post.
> > As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from anthropology,
> > psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
> > typically human response to stress.
> That seems like a very good description. However, I was being specific
> about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
Okay, but it's reasonable that what is likely true of ritual in general is
relevant to ritual magick.
> > If we consider something like OCD an extreme expression of common human
> > experience and response, we can easily infer that routine (let's say
> > "socially accepted" ritual) is a socially acceptible response to routine
> > stress (which we all experience). Ceremonial magick, while somewhat
> > marginalized in the culture, is still right in line with that sort of
> > behavior. It's possible that we (humans) might use regular ritual
> > (religious, magical, etc.) in a prophylactic, systematic way, perhaps in
> > an effort to keep the negative effects of stress at a reasonable
> > tolerance level.
> > This may not be an indication of obsession or ignorance. It may simply
> > be one of the normal, human ways of dealing with life.
> Well, I actually think that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like
> saying air is a nice thing to have about.
Air is nice to have, food too, and sex, and many other things. Stress is a
common human experience (I'm sure we're in agreement there), and the ways we
deal with stress are important. If indeed ritual is among them (not
necessarily, but there is good evidence to suggest it), then I think what I
said does make sense. Notice the use of the phrase, "one of the" up there.
> > We all have
> > something like instincts to be healthy and happy (though some of us
> > aren't very good at either).
> I don't think that's true at all. I think some of us at least have
> instincts for curiosity and exploration.
Are you reading that statement as all inclusive? Because I didn't mean it
that way.
> Some others have instincts for
> organisation and orderliness. I do think that each is happiest when thier
> inclinations are allowed to develop. Lost to the charioting, no?
Proclivity is an interesting study in itself, and I think you're right that
developing skills and talents along those lines does tend to promote
happiness, which may play a role in how and why a magick practitioner might
choose particular methods over others. So many of life's other choices and
events are so highly influenced by circumstances: family social status,
geo-political/economic environment, etc. The choice of magical methods, for
those few who go into it, is probably much more internally focused and less
influenced by things other than proclivity than most choices we get to make.
The deriding manner in which you initiated this thread seemed to completely
lack any acknowledgement of the potential value of ritual magick for those
with that particular proclivity.
> > In that, ritual, properly applied, may be
> > as valuable to good health
> I think brushing my teeth each morning is the best thing I could
> do for my health.
It's certainly a good thing to do for your teeth, and it is, generally
speaking, a ritual.
> Modern attitudes towards ritual magick, regardless of the flavour,
> are as Crowley's attitude towards Christians was.
> I raised this issue because I had the perception that some people
> were trying to assert that one must engage in ritual practice in
> order to claim initiation. And that is just un-thelemic.
Initiation within a group (an order, a coven, etc.) necessarily entails
doing whatever leads to initiation within that group. Solo practitioners can
do whatever floats their boat, and can name anything at all "initiation" as
they will.
But your last comment there, that's truly interesting to me. You seem to be
appealing to one set of dogma to criticize all others.
Rick
Old Coyote
> "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Rick <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<cgnnei$oer$1...@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>...
>
>
>>>>... Anyone who practices ritual magick
>>>>is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
>>>>both.
>
>
>>>On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
>>>thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
>>>that your intent?
>
>
>>Not at all. I was intending to insult people who try to assert
>>that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
>
>
> I see. That's a reasonable distinction, but it's not at all what you did. I
> left the relevant statement up there for reference.
Yes it is man. You are not thinking this through. I will readily admit
that I am behaving in a political fashion. What I said, will apeal to
those who think the same way I do. It will not appeal to those who do
not agree, which is what I wanted.
>
> It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> thing to do. It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
Nowhere did I say I thought I was doing the right thing. Political
actions are very seldom either right or wrong.
> domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort. It
> becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to everyone
> else. That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
> when cosmological ideas come into play.
To each thier own eh? Well, I am trying to *keep* mine, not to take away
from any others.
Think about all the people who post about how horrible christianity is.
Does that take anything away from practicing christians? No, of course
not, and that isn't the intent. The people who post those opinions are
only stating thier own position, which is no more or less than what I
was doing. Frankly I think you're being a little dramatic.
>
>>>It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
>>>productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
>>>alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
>
>
>>Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
>>the scope of a usenet post.
>
>
> I was responding to your statements from the perspective that it's
> inadequate to criticize a practice without offering a substantial
> alternative, or at least some basic examples of a counterpart.
In general I agree with you. In this instance however, I was defining
a different practice through contrast, which I think is fair game, if
a little political.
> Criticism
> alone tends to speak (to me) mostly of the poster's personality, and does
> little to promote the technical and scholarly discussion of magick.
On the contrary, I am doing exactly that. If this issue of practice
is not a technical facet of magick (Crowley's system) then I would
certainly be hard pressed to find one that is.
>
>>I was trying to be productive, but not in such a sweeping fashion,
>>rather with respect to one small issue; specifically, whether
>>people who do not engage in ritual practice can be serious.
>
>
> Maybe you can see why I didn't get this idea from what I've left at the very
> top of this post.
That's my opinion, and I stand by it as such. I honestly feel that way,
and in order to talk about this I have to say that. Now are you trying
to silence or censor me? I mean, if you feel that way fine, but lets
not get crude about it.
>
>>>As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from anthropology,
>>>psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
>>>typically human response to stress.
>
>
>>That seems like a very good description. However, I was being specific
>>about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
>
>
> Okay, but it's reasonable that what is likely true of ritual in general is
> relevant to ritual magick.
Ritual is a lot more pervasive than you are granting. Ritual is how
people accomplish things. What exactly are you saying is accomplished
through ritual magick? All I can get from what you've written is that
it might be usefull for dealing with panic attacks when sucseptible
people have no idea what to do. Now that's thin man.
>
>>>If we consider something like OCD an extreme expression of common human
>>>experience and response, we can easily infer that routine (let's say
>>>"socially accepted" ritual) is a socially acceptible response to routine
>>>stress (which we all experience). Ceremonial magick, while somewhat
>>>marginalized in the culture, is still right in line with that sort of
>>>behavior. It's possible that we (humans) might use regular ritual
>>>(religious, magical, etc.) in a prophylactic, systematic way, perhaps in
>>>an effort to keep the negative effects of stress at a reasonable
>>>tolerance level.
>
>
>>>This may not be an indication of obsession or ignorance. It may simply
>>>be one of the normal, human ways of dealing with life.
>
>
>>Well, I actually think that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like
>>saying air is a nice thing to have about.
>
>
> Air is nice to have,
Air is a fundamental requirement of life. It goes beyond nice to have,
since not having it is a total show-stopper.
> food too, and sex, and many other things. Stress is a
> common human experience (I'm sure we're in agreement there)
> , and the ways we
> deal with stress are important.
You are differentiating between types of stress, I wasn't. In the
way I was thinking about it, people deal with all stress via ritual.
All stress, that is, all stimuli.
> If indeed ritual is among them (not
> necessarily, but there is good evidence to suggest it), then I think what I
> said does make sense. Notice the use of the phrase, "one of the" up there.
>
>
>>>We all have
>>>something like instincts to be healthy and happy (though some of us
>>>aren't very good at either).
>
>
>>I don't think that's true at all. I think some of us at least have
>>instincts for curiosity and exploration.
>
>
> Are you reading that statement as all inclusive? Because I didn't mean it
> that way.
No. I was disagreeing. I don't think there are instincts to be happy. I
think there are instincts to do things that are useful. In human beings,
that means things that make one useful to other people. I suppose some
people do have instincts to be happy, now that I think about it. Which
is probably why we like to watch them on tv and movie screens.
>
>>Some others have instincts for
>>organisation and orderliness. I do think that each is happiest when thier
>>inclinations are allowed to develop. Lost to the charioting, no?
>
>
> Proclivity is an interesting study in itself, and I think you're right that
> developing skills and talents along those lines does tend to promote
> happiness, which may play a role in how and why a magick practitioner might
> choose particular methods over others. So many of life's other choices and
Indeed.
> events are so highly influenced by circumstances: family social status,
> geo-political/economic environment, etc.
Always the external cause. How about, will?
> The choice of magical methods, for
> those few who go into it, is probably much more internally focused and less
> influenced by things other than proclivity than most choices we get to make.
I could disagree with that, but that's a different issue.
> The deriding manner in which you initiated this thread seemed to completely
> lack any acknowledgement of the potential value of ritual magick for those
> with that particular proclivity.
It was a political statement of position. I *don't* see the value of
ritual magick, and in the context of studying Crowley, I think that
is a valid position, as I clearly said before.
If other people feel differently about it, more power to them.
I haven't seen the soap from anyone else's box clean the world
up, & don't see why I should think mine might.
>>>In that, ritual, properly applied, may be
>>>as valuable to good health
>
>
>>I think brushing my teeth each morning is the best thing I could
>>do for my health.
>
>
> It's certainly a good thing to do for your teeth, and it is, generally
> speaking, a ritual.
Exactly.
>
>>Modern attitudes towards ritual magick, regardless of the flavour,
>>are as Crowley's attitude towards Christians was.
>
>
>>I raised this issue because I had the perception that some people
>>were trying to assert that one must engage in ritual practice in
>>order to claim initiation. And that is just un-thelemic.
>
>
> Initiation within a group (an order, a coven, etc.) necessarily entails
> doing whatever leads to initiation within that group. Solo practitioners can
> do whatever floats their boat, and can name anything at all "initiation" as
> they will.
My point is exactly that. Recapping, I believe it is possible
for 'solo practioners', as you've termed them, to *rightly* claim
initiation, under Crowley's flag. As they will. This is in fact quite
clearly spelled out, and it's well worth noting that even though I have
asked directly, no-one has come forward to say that I am wrong.
> But your last comment there, that's truly interesting to me. You seem to be
> appealing to one set of dogma to criticize all others.
Dude, this is alt.magick, as in Crowley. I am pretty much bound to stick
to that dogma in this forum, it is more than appropriate, what are
you complaining about? I am attempting to discuss a very specific, very
technical issue, that is in case it escaped your notice, the hot topic
of the day on this board.
Think about it. If I am right, it will make room for the likes of
the Enochians and the Mulligans and the Nihilists to all fairly
share the same domain.
Which is correct, right? The law is for all, is it not?
> Rick
>
>
Bassos
"Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:Z_3Yc.965$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > Rick <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<cgnnei$oer$1...@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>...
>
> > > > ... Anyone who practices ritual magick
> > > > is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> > > > both.
Or has developed a kewl kinda imagination.
Like me.
> > > On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
> > > thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
> > > that your intent?
>
> > Not at all. I was intending to insult people who try to assert
> > that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
>
> I see. That's a reasonable distinction, but it's not at all what you did.
I
> left the relevant statement up there for reference.
>
> It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> thing to do.
Why, of course.
It's all about me after all.
> It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort.
That's about attachment, right ?
> It becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to
everyone
> else.
Hmm, it seems to be the same thing.
Attack being the best defence and all.
> That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
> when cosmological ideas come into play.
I think it comes a lot closer to home.
Everything anyone does which is thought to be right.
> > > It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
> > > productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
> > > alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
>
> > Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
> > the scope of a usenet post.
>
> I was responding to your statements from the perspective that it's
> inadequate to criticize a practice without offering a substantial
> alternative, or at least some basic examples of a counterpart. Criticism
> alone tends to speak (to me) mostly of the poster's personality, and does
> little to promote the technical and scholarly discussion of magick.
Yes, agreed.
Now if only folks would discuss the technical and scholarly part of magick.
What do you think about :
Acting with complete confidence is about acting with ones whole person ?
And acting with ones whole person is about aligning thinking, feeling and
acting.
All just restricted to the acts themselves.
> > > As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from
anthropology,
> > > psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
> > > typically human response to stress.
>
> > That seems like a very good description. However, I was being specific
> > about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
>
> Okay, but it's reasonable that what is likely true of ritual in general is
> relevant to ritual magick.
Well, doing the much dissed lbrp merely by moving and talking is much
different from adding feeling, pictures and 'awe'.
Check my description from some years back :
http://www.google.nl/groups?selm=ab4a3572.0207251247.437479fc%40posting.goog
le.com&output=gplain
(don't mind the fuckup about the directions, it should be a cross, i wrote
it down as shorthand, the file is on a different pc, explantions are of
course possible)
Whareatua
Of course not. To reply to your point, do you really expect to fly if
you
can't crawl. Do you really expect to fly through, and work the
mutidimensions
of the astrals worlds, if you can't even astral project into the next
room. We can imagine all sorts of things, and Sight is not the same
things as actually being there. Consious control over our astral form
is a prerequiste of working the astral worlds, and this we can test
here on the physical realm. Anything else is pure fantasy.
LLL
Jean de Cabalis
MDHJWH
>
> Magick is the pursuit of, and use of, real power and knowledge.
Real to whom? Power over what?
Nihilist
<snip>
Nihilist
> > appreciation of art and magick.
>
> Really? Don't get out much do you.
Granted.
Nihilist
> Yes agreed. This is one of the fundamental problems with magick.
> I.e.: Some magicians may of experienced an OOBE for example. But I
> have yet to meet a magician/witch (myself included) who can
> voluntarily perform an OOBE at will. For example: Every magical
> braggart I have met cannot tell me what random Tarot is face up on the
> table in the next room.
Have you read Liber E's section about the experiment? I think the
"harmony of the cards" stuff is a facile cop-out, but what follows may
be of some interest to others.
********
6.Note that some cards are harmonious. Thus it would not be a bad
error to call the five of Swords ("The Lord of Defeat") instead of the
ten of Swords ("The Lord of Ruin"). But to call the Lord of Love (2
Cups) for the Lord of Strife (5 Wands) would show that you were
getting nothing right. Similarly a card ruled by Mars would be
harmonious with a 5, a card of Gemini with "The Lovers".
7.These harmonies must be thoroughly learnt, according to the numerous
tables given in 777.
8.As you progress you will find that you are able to distinguish the
suit correctly three times in four and that very few indeed
inharmonious errors occur, while in 78 experiments you are able to
name the card aright as many as 15 or 20 times.
Rick
> >>... I was intending to insult people who try to assert
> >>that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
> > I see. That's a reasonable distinction, but it's not at all what you
did.
> Yes it is man. You are not thinking this through.
I am thinking it through, but with my own mind, not yours.
Here's a slice of mine, so that you can better understand where I'm coming
from:
Nothing that you can say before or after this:
> >>>>... Anyone who practices ritual magick
> >>>>is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
> >>>>both.
can make it anything but a thoughtless, broadly sweeping generalization, and
a demeaning and insulting one at that. It's not aimed at the people you
claim you were aiming at (I left that at the top of the post for reference),
it covers *everyone* who practices any kind of ritual as a way of practicing
magick, regardless of their thoughts on any other practices.
> I will readily admit
> that I am behaving in a political fashion. What I said, will apeal to
> those who think the same way I do. It will not appeal to those who do
> not agree, which is what I wanted.
I can't imagine a negative stereotype like that appealing to anyone but an
ignorant bigot.
> > It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> > thing to do. It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> Nowhere did I say I thought I was doing the right thing. Political
> actions are very seldom either right or wrong.
Those comment were about people that think what they do is the "right thing"
while all others are wrong: the people you claim you are arguing against.
I wonder why you and I have so many misunderstandings like this one.
> > domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> > followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort. It
> > becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to
everyone
> > else. That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common
enough
> > when cosmological ideas come into play.
> To each thier own eh? Well, I am trying to *keep* mine, not to take away
> from any others.
So you wouldn't take away someone's right to be obsessed and/or terminally
stupid? Is that what you mean to say?
> ... In this instance however, I was defining
> a different practice through contrast, which I think is fair game, if
> a little political.
I haven't seen any definitions or descriptions of different practices from
you in this thread, despite asking for something along those lines a couple
of times.
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it as such. I honestly feel that way,
> and in order to talk about this I have to say that. Now are you trying
> to silence or censor me?
I wouldn't attempt to silence of censor you for all the tea in China. In
fact, I've done nothing but try to draw more out of you.
So you've given your opinion, you feel that way, honestly, and you have to
say it. As your reader, without seeing why you feel that way, and/or what
your alternatives are, I'm pretty much left to conclude that you have no
substantial reason for your criticism.
However, in truth, I think it's more likely that the problem is in your
communication style. So for now I'm choosing to think you're not really a
bigot; you just haphazardly posted a highly bigoted statement.
> Dude, this is alt.magick, as in Crowley. I am pretty much bound to stick
> to that dogma in this forum, it is more than appropriate, what are
> you complaining about? I am attempting to discuss a very specific, very
> technical issue, that is in case it escaped your notice, the hot topic
> of the day on this board.
Magick isn't limited to crowleyesque dogma just because he popularized the
'k'. There was magical practice of infinite variety eons before he lived.
I'm relatively sure you're aware of that. Further, Thelema proper is a
religion. This group was established specifically to provide a forum about
magick that could be free from any one particular religious bent. So
thelemic magick is but one among the many approaches to magick that are fair
game here (if we were actually honoring the founding charter).
> Think about it. If I am right, it will make room for the likes of
> the Enochians and the Mulligans and the Nihilists to all fairly
> share the same domain.
If you're right, if that negative stereotype is really true, then everyone
who practices any form of ritual magick should stop immediately, because
they're seriously fucked up and can only be feeding their sickness, or
further entrenching their stupidity.
Rick
Alexander Mulligan
Santa Claus.
> Power over what?
Elves and reindeer.
Jeesh...You don't know *anything*, do you?
Dagon Productions
Nihilist wrote:
Some of the most magickal acts I have been involved in have
included "getting out"... esp. since this was somewhat of an
anathema for me... being somewhat reclusive... traveling
to various states in the USA and to Europe
on a number of occasions. The European trips being
the most illuminating... changing my perspective in
numerous ways. Esp. confronting the "Ugly American"
stereotype.
I look forward to trips to Japan and South America...
immersing myself in their cultures should be most
illuminating.
-Douglas
--
**********************************************
Dagon Productions
Chaos Magick & Occult books
http://www.dagonproductions.com
in...@dagonproductions.com
Alexander Mulligan
>
>
> Nihilist wrote:
>
>>OldC...@webmail.co.za (Old Coyote) wrote in message news:<bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>>>>No one I know disputes the *subjective*
>>>>appreciation of art and magick.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Really? Don't get out much do you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Granted.
>>
>>
> Some of the most magickal acts I have been involved in have
> included "getting out"... esp. since this was somewhat of an
> anathema for me... being somewhat reclusive... traveling
> to various states in the USA and to Europe
> on a number of occasions. The European trips being
> the most illuminating... changing my perspective in
> numerous ways. Esp. confronting the "Ugly American"
> stereotype.
>
> I look forward to trips to Japan and South America...
> immersing myself in their cultures should be most
> illuminating.
>
> -Douglas
>
To equate travelling with the inner work needed to gain understanding
of, and facility in, Magick, is just plain stupid.
Travelling requires an intense *outward* focus.
Let me guess: You are a Ceremonial Faux-Magickian.
No. That's dishonest. It isn't a guess.
Ceremonial Faux-Magickians can rationalize anything. They have to
be able to do that because they have to convince themselves that
their theatrics are actually magick, even though they don't do
anything.
Old Coyote
> If you're right, if that negative stereotype is really true, then everyone
> who practices any form of ritual magick should stop immediately, because
> they're seriously fucked up and can only be feeding their sickness, or
> further entrenching their stupidity.
>
>
> Rick
I agree that we have a communication problem, I feel it too. I think
it is partly due to language, partly to attitude.
With respect to language, I employ a lot of slang, and sometimes
write midly outrageous statements for dramatic effect. For instance
when I say terminally stupid, I don't mean literally too dumb to
survive, I just mean dumb enough to make it obvious. Likewise when I say
crazy, I don't mean sick enough to even neccisarily warrant medication,
just nuts enough qualify as a crank lets say. I would have thought
these things were clear from context but I guess that's where the
problem lies. I honestly hope this helps you get more in tune with
what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to be anything more than
(perhaps painfully) blunt. There is one more thing to say with regards
to language, and that is that I really hate long usenet posts. I never
write them and only seldom read them. This makes for a very compressed
communication format, which could also complicate things.
With respect to (your) attitude, I'm starting to get the idea that I've
offended you personally, & if that's the case then I apologise.
With respect to (my) attitude, well, I feel entitled, as per my
previous posts. What I don't assume is that anyone in particular
should *care*, and that is apparently where we differ. You seem to
take for granted that you aught to be taken seriously, whereas I don't
expect that much from people.
Furthermore, I think I have described an alternate practice, granted
in a haphazard, possibly schizoid way.
Finally, if you want to call me a bigot I guess that's your perogative,
I really don't think it's true though. It's just not that big
a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish. I certainly don't think
there's any great harm in it. However, I do think that any belief
system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
Old Coyote
> "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Rick <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<cgnnei$oer$1...@daisy.noc.ucla.edu>...
>
>
>>>>... Anyone who practices ritual magick
>>>>is either obsessive or terminally stupid, but is in fact probably
>>>>both.
>
>
>>>On the surface the primary intent you seem to have in starting the
>>>thread appears to be to insult people who practice ritual magick. Was
>>>that your intent?
>
>
>>Not at all. I was intending to insult people who try to assert
>>that people who do not practice ritual magick can't be serious.
>
>
> I see. That's a reasonable distinction, but it's not at all what you did. I
> left the relevant statement up there for reference.
>
> It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> thing to do. It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort. It
> becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to everyone
> else. That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
> when cosmological ideas come into play.
I had to reread that comment, and think it through a bit.
I think you're right, in fact I wrote in a different post how
there is a premium on social structures, and I think that comes
into play here. I think the investment you are referring to is not
personal in terms of beliefs or views (or investment in physical
accoutrements for that matter), but social. The reason people
place the emphasis on thier desicions having been *right* is to
provide reinforcement for the group (by declaring their fealty).
I also think it's common in more arenas than cosmology, for instance
how many people change the political party they vote for? Or
the sports team they support? It's really a very basic social
behaviour.
Alexander Mulligan
> Rick wrote:
>
>> If you're right, if that negative stereotype is really true, then everyone
>> who practices any form of ritual magick should stop immediately, because
>> they're seriously fucked up and can only be feeding their sickness, or
>> further entrenching their stupidity.
>>
>>
>> Rick
>
> I agree that we have a communication problem, I feel it too. I think
> it is partly due to language, partly to attitude.
>
> With respect to language, I employ a lot of slang, and sometimes
> write midly outrageous statements for dramatic effect. For instance
> when I say terminally stupid, I don't mean literally too dumb to
> survive, I just mean dumb enough to make it obvious. Likewise when I say
> crazy, I don't mean sick enough to even neccisarily warrant medication,
> just nuts enough qualify as a crank lets say. I would have thought
> these things were clear from context but I guess that's where the
> problem lies. I honestly hope this helps you get more in tune with
> what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to be anything more than
> (perhaps painfully) blunt. There is one more thing to say with regards
> to language, and that is that I really hate long usenet posts. I never
> write them and only seldom read them. This makes for a very compressed
> communication format, which could also complicate things.
>
> With respect to (your) attitude, I'm starting to get the idea that I've
> offended you personally, & if that's the case then I apologise.
That's easy enough to do. All you have to do is fail to acknowledge him
to be the final and absolute authority on any subject.
Especially, if you doubt the so-called "knowledge" that he parrots from
physical science books.
Or ask him to live up to the standards of proof that he expects everyone
else to live up to.
Or to answer simple and direct questions about assumptions he makes in
his verbose articles.
Offending Rick is as easy as being an individual who won't be intellectually
bullied.
>
> With respect to (my) attitude, well, I feel entitled, as per my
> previous posts. What I don't assume is that anyone in particular
> should *care*, and that is apparently where we differ. You seem to
> take for granted that you aught to be taken seriously, whereas I don't
> expect that much from people.
>
> Furthermore, I think I have described an alternate practice, granted
> in a haphazard, possibly schizoid way.
>
> Finally, if you want to call me a bigot I guess that's your perogative,
> I really don't think it's true though. It's just not that big
> a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
> should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
> overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish. I certainly don't think
> there's any great harm in it. However, I do think that any belief
> system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
Not nearly as big a bar to progress as the belief system of physical
science.
Ceremonial/ritual magick is at least a step in the right direction.
I am pleased to see here the physical science fundamentalists circling
the wagons.
Watching them dodge simple and direct questions while trying to blame
the questioner for their intellectual cowardice has been very enter-
taining.
Nihilist
> I look forward to trips to Japan and South America...
> immersing myself in their cultures should be most
> illuminating.
Come now, Dougie, you're just rubbing it in that you get out and I don't!
Whareatua
>
> > Yes agreed. This is one of the fundamental problems with magick.
> > I.e.: Some magicians may of experienced an OOBE for example. But I
> > have yet to meet a magician/witch (myself included) who can
> > voluntarily perform an OOBE at will. For example: Every magical
> > braggart I have met cannot tell me what random Tarot is face up on the
> > table in the next room.
>
> Have you read Liber E's section about the experiment? I think the
> "harmony of the cards" stuff is a facile cop-out, but what follows may
> be of some interest to others.
Yes, though this is not good enough for me personally... please excuse
me, i may have missed your point? BTW found a copy of the book you
recommended in the United Kingdom and have ordered it. Thanks.
LLL
Jean de Cabalis
http://cabilis.topcities.com
MDHJWH
> here on the physical realm. Anything else is pure fantasy.
>
(some would claim necessarily not) applicable in another.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> > If you're right, if that negative stereotype is really true, then
everyone
> > who practices any form of ritual magick should stop immediately, because
> > they're seriously fucked up and can only be feeding their sickness, or
> > further entrenching their stupidity.
> I agree that we have a communication problem, I feel it too. I think
> it is partly due to language, partly to attitude.
> With respect to language, I employ a lot of slang, and sometimes
> write midly outrageous statements for dramatic effect. For instance
> when I say terminally stupid, I don't mean literally too dumb to
> survive, I just mean dumb enough to make it obvious.
I hope it's clear to you by now that what I've been addressing in this
thread is the content of that one statement, the sweeping stereotype. I
don't think my response would have been any different had you not
exaggerated the lable "stupid."
> Likewise when I say
> crazy, I don't mean sick enough to even neccisarily warrant medication,
> just nuts enough qualify as a crank lets say. I would have thought
> these things were clear from context but I guess that's where the
> problem lies. I honestly hope this helps you get more in tune with
> what I was trying to say.
Essentially I see you saying that you don't like that some people say they
know the "right way" to do magick and that others going about it in a
different way can't be serious. I see you saying that by saying essentially
the same thing they're saying: it amounts to "we're right and you're wrong"
and you saying back "I'm right and they're wrong."
I know what sorts of things most ritual magicians do. Their methods are in
print all over the place and I've practiced ritual magick myself for years.
But I still don't know what you do, despite asking you for a description or
some examples several times now. Netiher have I seen anything from you to
indicate what is wrong with ritual magick. Below you say it's a "bar to
progress" without explaining how or why.
So I have no good reason to think that you know what you're talking about.
If anyone agrees with what you said it has to be based on a mutual dislike
of ritualists (that's bigotry); you're not allowing for agreement due to
anything else, because you haven't substantiated your claim by describing
what the alternatives to ritual magick are.
> I wasn't trying to be anything more than
> (perhaps painfully) blunt.
I got it the first time: you don't like ritualists. But again, this tells me
about you, and the way you've expressed it tells me something about you're
personality. But you're not discussing magick.
If you mean to discuss magick, describe the non-ritual magick that you
believe is superior to what the ritualists do, and/or explain how and why
ritual magick impedes progress.
> There is one more thing to say with regards
> to language, and that is that I really hate long usenet posts. I never
> write them and only seldom read them. This makes for a very compressed
> communication format, which could also complicate things.
If you want to communicate your ideas and understand others then it's on you
to read and write a sufficient amount. That's a choice we all get to make.
> With respect to (your) attitude, I'm starting to get the idea that I've
> offended you personally, & if that's the case then I apologise.
You haven't offended me so there's no need to apologize. I do appreciate the
gesture but I'd prefer a description of magical practices that you feel are
superior to ritual magick here, and/or a description of how and why ritual
magick impedes progress.
> With respect to (my) attitude, well, I feel entitled, as per my
> previous posts. What I don't assume is that anyone in particular
> should *care*, and that is apparently where we differ. You seem to
> take for granted that you aught to be taken seriously, whereas I don't
> expect that much from people.
It's a discussion forum. We're here to discuss magick but right now we're
mostly discussing you. It's not all that "serious," I just tend to take
people at their word for the sake of discussion on Usenet. You've hinted
that you know a "better" way to practice magick than ritual, so I'm asking
you to describe it (then we will finally be discussing magick). You don't
have to, but if you don't I'll probably draw some negative conclusions about
you.
> Furthermore, I think I have described an alternate practice, granted
> in a haphazard, possibly schizoid way.
I haven't seen it. If you want me to see it you'll have to either point me
to the specific article or reprint it in response to this post.
> Finally, if you want to call me a bigot I guess that's your perogative, I
really don't think it's true though.
From dictionary.com
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own
You've demonstrated intolerance for ritualists, presumably because their
opinions differ from your own. If you persist in that without attempting to
substantiate your view with good reason, either by detailing what's wrong
with ritual magick or by detailing something superior to it, then I will
probably conclude that you're a bigot.
> It's just not that big
> a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
> should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
> overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish.
This is an odd attitude, to my mind. You want other people to stop doing
what they do for selfish reasons? How does what they do affect you in any
way (outside of some small portion of those who are vocally critical of
others)?
> However, I do think that any belief
> system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
Why do you think that?
Rick
Rick
news:2pcd31F...@uni-berlin.de...
> "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:Z_3Yc.965$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
> > It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> > thing to do.
> > It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> > domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> > followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort.
> That's about attachment, right ?
I think it is. I have more to say about it, but in response to Martin's last
post. You can read my comments there if you're interested.
> > It becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to
> everyone
> > else.
> Hmm, it seems to be the same thing.
> Attack being the best defence and all.
It's not the same thing though. It's one thing to recognize (or choose) what
is best for oneself to do then stick with it religiously. It's wholly
another to start thinking it's the only way for every person to do things.
That sort of attitude totally ignores the broad and expansive nature of life
and the seemingly infinite diversity nature is capable of producing. It's at
the root of all sorts of nastiness in the world and is aptly mirrored on
Usenet. When it comes down to "I'm right and you're wrong" is usually when
the name calling, put downs, and other attempts at emotional or
psychological harm come out (on Usenet). In the real world it gets decidedly
physical too. Check the news; you can't miss it.
> > That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
> > when cosmological ideas come into play.
> I think it comes a lot closer to home.
> Everything anyone does which is thought to be right.
Ideas on the cosmological scale are a special case. That's because we all
have a personal cosmology that essentially runs on autopilot. I gave some
suggestions in a recent thread about how a personal cosmology might form.
Most people are, in a way, victims of their personal cosmology, primarily
because it's not automatically subjected to every rational processes in our
arsenal. It takes a special effort to even question the responses our
cosmological framework produces, let alone effect substantial changes in the
framework itself. Magick, as near as I can tell, is one way of going about
that kind of work.
> > > > It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
> > > > productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
> > > > alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
> > > Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
> > > the scope of a usenet post.
> > I was responding to your statements from the perspective that it's
> > inadequate to criticize a practice without offering a substantial
> > alternative, or at least some basic examples of a counterpart. Criticism
> > alone tends to speak (to me) mostly of the poster's personality, and
does
> > little to promote the technical and scholarly discussion of magick.
> Yes, agreed.
> Now if only folks would discuss the technical and scholarly part of
magick.
I'm game.
> What do you think about :
> Acting with complete confidence is about acting with ones whole person ?
Maybe that's so, but I may be thinking of it differently than you are. To
act with complete confidence would suggest there are no internal conflicts
regarding the action, everything in perfect harmony. That was essentially
what I was discussing with Mika recently. If there's a conflict, or more
than one potential responses to one situation, one action has to be chosen
and any others suppressed. That sort of thing wastes resources, because some
resources have to be devoted to suppressing the actions not chosen. It's not
too big a problem for Joe Sixpack in the course of living a routine human
life, but it is not acceptible to the magician, who we expect to do better
than average.
> And acting with ones whole person is about aligning thinking, feeling and
> acting.
We tend to divide these things out as parts of ourselves, perhaps because we
are mentally capable of doing so and it makes talking and thinking about
ourselves easier. But those divisions really are arbitrary. Thought,
emotion, and behavior are so intricately interactive and interdependent that
it makes as much sense to think of an undivided whole to begin with. The
kinds of internal conflicts I'm alluding to above aren't between these
essentially artificial components, but between differing patterns of
responding that are triggered simultaneously under a given set of
circumstances.
Ironing things out so that there is essentially only one pattern of
responding to any one set of circumstances is essentially what the practice
of magick should do (according to my own, admittedly half-baked theory of
magick).
> All just restricted to the acts themselves.
I'm not sure what that means.
> > > > As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from
> anthropology,
> > > > psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
> > > > typically human response to stress.
> > > That seems like a very good description. However, I was being specific
> > > about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
> > Okay, but it's reasonable that what is likely true of ritual in general
is
> > relevant to ritual magick.
> Well, doing the much dissed lbrp merely by moving and talking is much
> different from adding feeling, pictures and 'awe'.
> Check my description from some years back :
>
http://www.google.nl/groups?selm=ab4a3572.0207251247.437479fc%40posting.goog
> le.com&output=gplain
> (don't mind the fuckup about the directions, it should be a cross, i wrote
> it down as shorthand, the file is on a different pc, explantions are of
> course possible)
Ritual magick seems to me to be an attempt to restructure the personal
cosmology from the one we naturally get by living life in a highly rich and
often confusing environment to a wholly internally harmonious cosmology. It
is training at the neural level, so all flavors of response are affected
when the rituals have their intended effects.
That said, I think it's possible to do the rituals without them having their
intended effect. That probably has to do with a strongly entrenched
pre-ritual cosmology. The only tools I can think of that might get one past
blockages of that sort are commitment and perseverance.
Rick
Old Coyote
Not exactly. I was objecting more specifically to the fact that
that notion seems to have gained popularity as the prevailing view.
I find that annoying, and more to the point, incorrect.
As I said previously, I acknowledge that I have probably raised
this issue in a dramatic and/or political, possibly even theatrical
way, nevertheless, there you have it.
> I see you saying that by saying essentially
> the same thing they're saying: it amounts to "we're right and you're wrong"
> and you saying back "I'm right and they're wrong."
That was exactly what I meant to do. I was 'responding in kind'. I do
it all the time, I find it to be a very effective method of
communication.
> I know what sorts of things most ritual magicians do. Their methods are in
> print all over the place and I've practiced ritual magick myself for years.
> But I still don't know what you do, despite asking you for a description or
> some examples several times now.
You are being too rigid in your frame of reference. I *don't*
'do stuff' in the same way as you are indicating, i.e. my method
of practice is not an activity, it is an approach. I have been about
as forthcoming as I can without writing a ton, which as I also said I
really don't want to do.
> Netiher have I seen anything from you to
> indicate what is wrong with ritual magick. Below you say it's a "bar to
> progress" without explaining how or why.
Because it is a waste of time. The more people who do it, the more
collective resources are wasted. That said, the time wasted undoubtably
is legitimate, nevertheless, for adults to do that is as I said,
mildly selfish. Along the same lines as say, people who are trekkies or
midievil enthusiasts.
> So I have no good reason to think that you know what you're talking about.
> If anyone agrees with what you said it has to be based on a mutual dislike
> of ritualists (that's bigotry); you're not allowing for agreement due to
> anything else, because you haven't substantiated your claim by describing
> what the alternatives to ritual magick are.
>
>
>>I wasn't trying to be anything more than
>>(perhaps painfully) blunt.
>
>
> I got it the first time: you don't like ritualists.
Not at all. I don't think too highly of it, but that's about
it. I'm a klingon costume away from being a trekkie myself.
> But again, this tells me
> about you, and the way you've expressed it tells me something about you're
> personality. But you're not discussing magick.
I am. You might not be, because we're not discussing *your* style
of magick. I don't really want to either, to me it is just a morass
of potential lost days.
> If you mean to discuss magick, describe the non-ritual magick that you
> believe is superior to what the ritualists do, and/or explain how and why
> ritual magick impedes progress.
I think I have done those things. I have said why I think it impedes
progress quite clearly.
>
>>There is one more thing to say with regards
>>to language, and that is that I really hate long usenet posts. I never
>>write them and only seldom read them. This makes for a very compressed
>>communication format, which could also complicate things.
>
>
> If you want to communicate your ideas and understand others then it's on you
> to read and write a sufficient amount. That's a choice we all get to make.
>
>
>>With respect to (your) attitude, I'm starting to get the idea that I've
>>offended you personally, & if that's the case then I apologise.
>
>
> You haven't offended me so there's no need to apologize. I do appreciate the
> gesture but I'd prefer a description of magical practices that you feel are
> superior to ritual magick here, and/or a description of how and why ritual
> magick impedes progress.
Well I have been quite explicit about the one, not so explicit about
my own approach, but I am mulling it over and if I can come up with
something brief and concise enough I will bring it.
>
>>With respect to (my) attitude, well, I feel entitled, as per my
>>previous posts. What I don't assume is that anyone in particular
>>should *care*, and that is apparently where we differ. You seem to
>>take for granted that you aught to be taken seriously, whereas I don't
>>expect that much from people.
>
>
> It's a discussion forum. We're here to discuss magick but right now we're
> mostly discussing you. It's not all that "serious," I just tend to take
> people at their word for the sake of discussion on Usenet. You've hinted
> that you know a "better" way to practice magick than ritual, so I'm asking
> you to describe it (then we will finally be discussing magick). You don't
> have to, but if you don't I'll probably draw some negative conclusions about
> you.
As I said before, it's all about an approach to ritual. A good example
would be this show I listened to about marathon running. There was
a trainer who spoke about people training for a marathon, and how that
required lifestyle changes. He said that it was very empowering for
people to do that, since it allowed them to achieve things beyond thier
previous reach, and showed them that they could indeed alter thier
lifestyle. The proper practice of magick should grant the practitioner
the generalised form of that ability, through the correct understanding
of ritual.
>
>>Furthermore, I think I have described an alternate practice, granted
>>in a haphazard, possibly schizoid way.
>
>
> I haven't seen it. If you want me to see it you'll have to either point me
> to the specific article or reprint it in response to this post.
Well I am kind of rambling on, but I think we might get there
eventually.
>>Finally, if you want to call me a bigot I guess that's your perogative, I
>
> really don't think it's true though.
>
> From dictionary.com
>
> bigot
>
> n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
> own
>
> You've demonstrated intolerance for ritualists, presumably because their
> opinions differ from your own. If you persist in that without attempting to
> substantiate your view with good reason, either by detailing what's wrong
> with ritual magick or by detailing something superior to it, then I will
> probably conclude that you're a bigot.
That's rather unkind of you. I don't accept it, btw. I am not intolerant
of ritualists at all. I am being very straightforward, to be honest, I
am feeling like it is you who is being intolerant, however, I don't want
to come to that conclusion, which is why I am pursuing this discussion
with you.
>> It's just not that big
>>a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
>>should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
>>overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish.
>
>
> This is an odd attitude, to my mind. You want other people to stop doing
> what they do for selfish reasons?
This is another of those word misunderstandings. I meant, it is mildly
selfish to practice ritual magick, not that it is selfish of me to want
them to stop. However, the way you've phrased it certainly sounds like a
good idea.
> How does what they do affect you in any
> way (outside of some small portion of those who are vocally critical of
> others)?
>
>
>>However, I do think that any belief
>>system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
>
>
> Why do you think that?
As I said, it's a waste of time. Any belief system that does not
reach that conclusion, must have some justifications. It is the
justifications that can cause problems, since, if the conclusion
were to change they would still have to be dealt with, and in
fact could take on a life of their own, like those yakuza guys
who have to cut off thier baby finger to leave the gang.
>
> Rick
>
>
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> > It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the* right
> > thing to do. It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> > domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> > followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort. It
> > becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to
everyone
> > else. That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common
enough
> > when cosmological ideas come into play.
> I had to reread that comment, and think it through a bit.
> I think you're right, in fact I wrote in a different post how
> there is a premium on social structures, and I think that comes
> into play here. I think the investment you are referring to is not
> personal in terms of beliefs or views (or investment in physical
> accoutrements for that matter), but social. The reason people
> place the emphasis on thier desicions having been *right* is to
> provide reinforcement for the group (by declaring their fealty).
Actually I was talking about personal investment (even as simple as
committing the mental resources necessary to make a choice), not necessarily
influenced by social concerns or drives. There are many studies on judgment
and decision making that demonstrate a strong tendency to inflate ones
preference or liking for something after it's been selected. I can dig up
some citations if you request it.
> I also think it's common in more arenas than cosmology, for instance
> how many people change the political party they vote for? Or
> the sports team they support? It's really a very basic social
> behaviour.
The social dimension is something else altogether but it's also very
important, especially if ones magick (or religious, or the other things you
list) practices are primarily group endeavors where the perceived rewards
include social acceptance and/or support. Also, all sorts of things come
into play when others are watching that act to solidify group attitudes and
strongly influence individual behavior. Some of these could certainly
account for some of the hallmark behaviors of "Order" people, including the
kind of behavior you claim you meant to criticize in this thread. I suppose
that could cause a natural division between the relatively unified "them"
and the solitary practitioners among us.
As a side note, we (the general public) tend to use terms like "peer
pressure" rather loosely, probably because we're exposed to them through the
popular media, without delving too deeply into the technical meaning of the
term and the real ramifications of what the term represents. For example,
recent evidence suggests that peer pressure has a direct impact on long term
potentiation mechanisms, which are known to be involved in reducing how much
neurotransmitter is required to push a neuron past threshold into an action
potential. It's fascinating stuff.
Rick
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> > "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:RhdYc.257155$gE.184641@pd7tw3no...
> > I know what sorts of things most ritual magicians do. Their methods are
in
> > print all over the place and I've practiced ritual magick myself for
years.
> > But I still don't know what you do, despite asking you for a description
or
> > some examples several times now.
> You are being too rigid in your frame of reference.
Like I said, I tend to take people at the word. I'm giving you a chance to
see how I'm receiving your words.
> I *don't*
> 'do stuff' in the same way as you are indicating, i.e. my method
> of practice is not an activity, it is an approach. I have been about
> as forthcoming as I can without writing a ton, which as I also said I
> really don't want to do.
Then you have only yourself to blame if people don't understand what you
mean. As I said, it's a choice we all get to make. I guess the amount of
effort one puts in depends on how important it is to be understood, or how
unimportant it is to be misunderstood.
> > Netiher have I seen anything from you to
> > indicate what is wrong with ritual magick. Below you say it's a "bar to
> > progress" without explaining how or why.
> Because it is a waste of time. The more people who do it, the more
> collective resources are wasted.
It's a waste of time to discuss the specifics of magicak practices (or
approaches if you prefer) on a forum dedicated to the technical and
scholarly discussion of magick?
> That said, the time wasted undoubtably
> is legitimate, nevertheless, for adults to do that is as I said,
> mildly selfish. Along the same lines as say, people who are trekkies or
> midievil enthusiasts.
You have two run-ons and not a single complete sentence there. How can
anyone be expected to form a mental picture that matches what's in your mind
from that?
> > I got it the first time: you don't like ritualists.
> Not at all. I don't think too highly of it, but that's about
> it. I'm a klingon costume away from being a trekkie myself.
You may not have meant what you said, but I'm responding to what you said
because it's the only clue I have as to what you meant.
> > But again, this tells me
> > about you, and the way you've expressed it tells me something about
you're
> > personality. But you're not discussing magick.
> I am.
Not that I can tell.
> You might not be, because we're not discussing *your* style
> of magick. I don't really want to either, to me it is just a morass
> of potential lost days.
That's your choice of course. I'm always happy to discuss what I do. When it
comes to discussing magical practices it's about the best we do to share
with one another what we do.
> > If you mean to discuss magick, describe the non-ritual magick that you
> > believe is superior to what the ritualists do, and/or explain how and
why
> > ritual magick impedes progress.
> I think I have done those things. I have said why I think it impedes
> progress quite clearly.
When and where? I haven't seen it.
> > You haven't offended me so there's no need to apologize. I do appreciate
the
> > gesture but I'd prefer a description of magical practices that you feel
are
> > superior to ritual magick here, and/or a description of how and why
ritual
> > magick impedes progress.
> Well I have been quite explicit about the one,
Again, not that I've seen. Where is it?
> not so explicit about
> my own approach, but I am mulling it over and if I can come up with
> something brief and concise enough I will bring it.
Okay.
> As I said before, it's all about an approach to ritual. A good example
> would be this show I listened to about marathon running. There was
> a trainer who spoke about people training for a marathon, and how that
> required lifestyle changes. He said that it was very empowering for
> people to do that, since it allowed them to achieve things beyond thier
> previous reach, and showed them that they could indeed alter thier
> lifestyle. The proper practice of magick should grant the practitioner
> the generalised form of that ability, through the correct understanding
> of ritual.
Okay, this is something, and something close to my own thoughts on the
matter. Now, what is the "correct understanding of ritual?" By the way, this
is the second time I've asked you that. I apologize if you've already
answered, but I haven't seen it, so I'm asking again.
> Well I am kind of rambling on, but I think we might get there
> eventually.
I have no doubt that you intend to express your thoughts, and even that you
believe you are. But please use my responses as a gauge of how well you're
doing. I'm sticking to the words you've posted here (you know, obsessed,
stupid, etc.)
> > You've demonstrated intolerance for ritualists, presumably because their
> > opinions differ from your own. If you persist in that without attempting
to
> > substantiate your view with good reason, either by detailing what's
wrong
> > with ritual magick or by detailing something superior to it, then I will
> > probably conclude that you're a bigot.
> That's rather unkind of you. I don't accept it, btw. I am not intolerant
> of ritualists at all. I am being very straightforward, to be honest, I
> am feeling like it is you who is being intolerant, however, I don't want
> to come to that conclusion, which is why I am pursuing this discussion
> with you.
I'm going with the words you chose to post. If you hold to them then you are
indeed a bigot. I suspect, however, that there's a serious misuse of words
in play that for some reason you're failing to recognize or take
responsibility for. When I've questioned you about what you've said you keep
coming back by telling me you meant something else. Maybe you'd have been
more successful at communicating your ideas if you said what you meant the
first time.
> >> It's just not that big
> >>a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
> >>should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
> >>overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish.
> > This is an odd attitude, to my mind. You want other people to stop doing
> > what they do for selfish reasons?
> This is another of those word misunderstandings. I meant, it is mildly
> selfish to practice ritual magick, not that it is selfish of me to want
> them to stop.
But that's not what you said. Please try to take this is a sincere attempt
to be helpful.
The subject of the sentence is "I" (meaning you in this case). What
grammatical clue have you given readers that would have them associate the
phrase, "only mildly selfish" with the phrase "practicing ritual magick"?
A little more care should eliminate some of these misunderstandings.
Rick
Blazin' Tommy D.
> "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> news:RhdYc.257155$gE.184641@pd7tw3no...
> > Rick wrote:
>
[clip]
>
> I know what sorts of things most ritual magicians do. Their methods are in
> print all over the place and I've practiced ritual magick myself for
years.
> But I still don't know what you do, despite asking you for a description
or
> some examples several times now. Netiher have I seen anything from you to
> indicate what is wrong with ritual magick. Below you say it's a "bar to
> progress" without explaining how or why.
>
[clip]
> > It's just not that big
> > a deal. I do think that anyone practicing ritual magick
> > should probably stop, but it's really not that important in the
> > overall scheme of things, only mildly selfish.
>
> This is an odd attitude, to my mind. You want other people to stop doing
> what they do for selfish reasons? How does what they do affect you in any
> way (outside of some small portion of those who are vocally critical of
> others)?
>
> > However, I do think that any belief
> > system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
>
> Why do you think that?
>
>
> Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTD: You know Martin you really are creating the impression that you're
setting yourself up in something like
"What was the password ? .... Yes that was the password at the door, {p}but
what is the password here"?
Rick's a good guy, and being familiar with his posts on this group over the
course of many years I can honestly and confidently say that he's sincerely
interested in what you've described or suggested as an "alternative". He has
no ulterior motive. He's just a naturally curious guy.
And quite frankly, I'm growing a bit curious myself:)
Blazin' Tommy D.
> Rick wrote:
> > "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:RhdYc.257155$gE.184641@pd7tw3no...
> >
[clip]
>
> As I said before, it's all about an approach to ritual. A good example
> would be this show I listened to about marathon running. There was
> a trainer who spoke about people training for a marathon, and how that
> required lifestyle changes. He said that it was very empowering for
> people to do that, since it allowed them to achieve things beyond thier
> previous reach, and showed them that they could indeed alter thier
> lifestyle. The proper practice of magick should grant the practitioner
> the generalised form of that ability, through the correct understanding
> of ritual.
>
[clip]
> >>However, I do think that any belief
> >>system that supports it would probably be a bar to progress.
> >
> >
> > Why do you think that?
>
> As I said, it's a waste of time. Any belief system that does not
> reach that conclusion, must have some justifications. It is the
> justifications that can cause problems, since, if the conclusion
> were to change they would still have to be dealt with, and in
> fact could take on a life of their own, like those yakuza guys
> who have to cut off thier baby finger to leave the gang.
>
> >
> > Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTD: You mean like marathon runners who burn so much muscle that the size of
their heart is reduced and then they can no longer handle what it is/was
they were training for?
I'm being rhetorical.
But Martin there are all sorts of justifications for ritual practice. One is
as a means of psychic defence -e.g., an alternative to heroin or booze.
Blocking out negative influences that are designed to impede your goal
complemented by meditation for the purposes of comprehending a particular
influence or concept. Formulizing the fruit thereof and finally bringing it
into various forms of actual manifestation.
I don't see anything wrong with that nor anything you've written which
alludes to it or an understanding thereof.
Whareatua
The control of self remains. That is a functional test every magician
can make.
MDHJWH Lets not snip things out of context.
I said "This is one of the fundamental problems with magick. I.e.:
Some magicians may of experienced an OOBE for example. But I have yet
to meet a magician/witch (myself included) who can voluntarily perform
an OOBE at will. For example: Every magical braggart I have met cannot
tell me what random Tarot is face up on the table in the next room.
Yet based upon my own experiences and the anecdotal reports I have
read, I believe that such a thing is possible. If someone can't even
OOBE to the room next door, talk of 'Working' in the astral is
deceitful nonsense in my opinion."
You MDHJWH asked "Is the astral in the next room?"
This is a sneaky question <g> but your point was a valid one, so i
replied thus..
Jean:"Of course not. To reply to your point, do you really expect to
fly if you can't crawl. Do you really expect to fly through, and work
the mutidimensions of the astrals worlds, if you can't even astral
project into the next room. We can imagine all sorts of things, and
Sight is not the same things as actually being there. Consious control
over our astral form is a prerequiste of working the astral worlds,
and this we can test here on the physical realm. Anything else is
pure fantasy."
In which stated that...
MDHJWH: "The rules applicable in any realm or universe are not
necessarily (some would claim necessarily not) applicable in another."
And i agree with your statement. Yet..the control of self remains and
that is a functional test every magician can make - especially in
terms of the example we are discussing above. Or are you suggesting
otherwise? If you have some additional insights to offer please do so.
LLL
Jean de Cabalis
nagasiva
re what is entailed in the 'serious practice of magic.'
nagasiva:
#># typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
#># rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
#># certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
#># attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
#># the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
#># deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
#># the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
Alexander Mulligan discerns castes of practice:
#> Ceremonial magick is regarded to be faux magick by those of us
#> who practice Natural Magick.
extravagant generalization.
#> ... the evidence: Most ceremonial magick practicioners can't
#> do anything but play the role.
criteria based on:
#> ...quality-of-life
an old religiomagical disputational feint whereby condition
of the magician is regarded as a reliable indicator of the
strength of the magician's power. this is denied by those
with a central focus on *humility*, explaining meanness of
appearance (poverty) as part of mystical disciplines, even
if these aren't regularized to stem egotism (Rulemakers).
#> which any valid magickal practice gives FIRSTLY.
natural magic's successes needn't be based on anything
ostentatious or self-serving. one might utilize natural
principles, the Doctrine of Signatures, Planetary or other
considerations without having the target of one's magic
be oneself. there is no requirement for egotism. the fact
that magic typically results in egotism reveals Alexander.
#> Very few of them can produce any evidence whatsoever....
socially-constructed; scientific methodologies must include
clear indicators conforming to hypotheses constructed as a
consensual knowledge-crafting, empirically, and in consort.
modern students of magic are often taught the value of
empiricism, but the peer review (outside some hierarch or
didactic relation) is usually downplayed. evidence for such
things as paranormal abilities and strange transnatural
phenomena are markedly absent from clinical experiments.
the modern intellectual *practicing* magician is more than
likely going to explain the results of magical operations
by a kind of 'probability influence' or 'mystical spirit-
development' than by siddhis like telekinesis and
telepathy and their kindred. these occupied the
participants occultism's 20th c. renaissance, but their
claims and dreams seem primarily based on story-telling.
#> that they can do anything that anyone else can't do.
not just doing things. doing it through the application
of symbolism to achieve a non-symbolic condition or
relation, changed or sustained as intended by the mage.
#> If they *can* do anything, it has nothing to do with
#> any rituals beyond their help in focusing one's
#> attention and upon the expectation (belief/spell)
#> of a certain result.
an amusing fugue (expectation/belief/spell)
#># in occult circles the evidence of 'serious practice' typically
#># revolves around the product or the cost of the engagement to the
#># occultist.
#> ...ceremonial magick is not serious magick because it is
#> based upon inaccurate concepts of what magick is and how
#> it works and can be used.
an interesting argument. ignoring spellings, one might posit
that ceremonial magic, being primarily theurgical, participates
in no overarching study of the field of magic as a whole for
purposes of mastering it. instead it stops short by dogmatic
adherence to cosmological and moral presuppositions.
in this way it might be characterized as 'not serious', but
even these are stretches of language and in part political.
#># physical science paradigm doesn't require that magick
#># be inessential or based on fallacies.
#>
#> Yes it does.... ...ask ["any real Scientist"] what they
#> think of magick such as you practice.
#> ...They are incompatible paradigms....
sociological and psychotherapeutic analyses of magic alone
justify physical science's potential to encompass magic.
if you don't think Anthropology is already doing something
in this line then I encourage you to look more closely.
#># physical science, for example, might allow in through the
#># back door a style of Natural Magic, for example, as long
#># as there are refinements on combinations between enculturation,
#># genetics, and magical styles to reach effective results.
(elaborating)
i.e. one's background, education, or genetic condition may have
roles to play in optimizing success at magical endeavours,
no matter the aims intended. the tradition of magic (along with
all its structural/integral components) combine with these and
may lend some success and others failure.
#># there may
#># be insufficient experimentation, for example, to have properly
#># examined and analyzed the methodology of magic before dismissing
#># it as proto-science or failed scientific enterprises.
cab...@snap.net.nz (Whareatua):
# ...The problem is that no where has a term of reference
# being defined for either science or magick.
this is in part always the problem in discussing magick in this
and other forums, as it relates to science, and is one of the
reasons (in reflection of repeated returns to termsets and how
these might impact description and theory on magic) that Frater
Nigris created "Liber Scire":
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/gnostik/lscire.tn
this develops in complete The Scientific Method (TSM) as it
relates to magic as understood by the practitioner. I'm in the
process of developing the correlate in The Artistic Method (TAM)
for continued examination of this aspect of the Art.
I understand that there are retrospective projections upon great
artists of the past so as to glorify their process and the folk
expansion of religious figures is such that fairly little is
left for history to examine any literal sense. what is required
is someone with a gifted artistic sense have the comprehension
of magic *and* art so as to expand on the terminology reflecting
off The Scientific Method (generating knowledge).
whereas TSM may produce in individual a cloud-castle integrity
with which the later research/associate must contend, unique
language making more obscrure what the faithful recorder has
provided in painstaking reflective detail, TAM should produce
some kind of actual ontological condition, event, or object,
however its experience may or may coincide within its process.
# For a quick term of reference, Magick largely exists on the
# symbolic and contemplative planes of experience;
only within mystical applications. many traditions of magic
(natural) function *only* on the sensory, mundane planes,
intending contagion-based, and sympathetic results pursuing
ordinary practical outcomes.
# whereas science generally exists on sensory planes
too restricted. modern science extends far beyond sensory
planes, into those dimensions beyond our senses. ;>
# of provable and verifiable phenomena.
check out Popper and his school as regards 'proof' and what
is 'verifiable' in science. the terms you are using are too
strong for critical scrutiny of scientific enterprises. the
issue of provability, disproof, confirmation, and truth are
philosophic (epistemological) and practical (information)
in their character, and can be politically-corrupted.
at base one must decide whether science can be faithfully
conducted in solo. while there is no absolute restriction
on it, coherent production of hypothesis and construction
of proper tests for disproof/confirmation are greatly
assisted by cooperative efforts amongst those with
similar or coincident knowledge-sets. disputing ignorants
will of course project their knowledge as superior before
a clear examination of the facts ever takes place.
one of the notions popular in occult communities is that
small groups may constitute 'peers': that resonance among
mages within their adventures may indicate structural
commonalities (e.g. the faith in Jungian 'archetypes')
or synchronicities allowing generalization and rarefaction
of more successful formulae of practical application. for
this reason Magical Records are probably comparable to a
kind of scripture, and those early Wiccans who called the
Book of Shadows the 'Wiccan Bible' were of faithful report.
# What too many scientists negate to realise, is that neither
# scientific test nor device is going to provide an analysis
# or interpretation of a work of art for example.
this was in part my reason for attempting to analyze the
structure of The Artistic Method. if you have some ideas
to add to Liber Scire (what should yield Liber Ars) that
might be used to understand how magic operates as art,
please discuss it here.
# Science simply cannot test a hypotheses of art,
it can if it is explicit and coherent. to a certain extent
this is the artistic KEY to scientific success: sufficient
skill in the construction of hypotheses for the purpose of
deductively deriving tentative conclusions from which new
hypotheses may be constructed for further tests and the
refinement of the theories involved. only oracular or the
augurial divinations prior to or in association with magic
truly have as their aim the generation of new knowledge.
where magic is concerned we're not really talking about
conceptual schemas any more. magic doesn't deal directly
in the trafficking of ideas so much as use ideas for the
purpose of causing indirect effects in rituals and spells.
the science of magic is more like the science of any art:
it examines the rudimentary theory which makes it possible,
under which it is taught or instructed by the masters, and
details the complete requirements of its practice/operation.
# and just as there are no empirical tests available for art,
cf. Pirsig and issues of education and art pertaining to
'Quality'. there are such tests which may measure aesthetics.
compare the treatment of the term 'religion'. we may be able to
identify quality even if we can't specify a formula for it. as
such, there may not only be tests for art but for *good* art.
# neither are there for magick.
if magic's results are as difficult to predict as finger-
painting, then the character of the results may be examined
(the experience of the mage, the psycho-dynamics of the
people involved, etc.). there are *always* scientifically-
examinable spectrums within any field of endeavour, whether
these constitute what are called 'weak' sciences such as
sociology or psychology (in which case the weakest element
will drift down to folklore and politics) or they include some
kind of metaphysics and 'probability-influence' which may be
examined outside the magical operation by the interested.
nagasiva
Alexander Mulligan
> mdh...@iprimus.com.au (MDHJWH) wrote in message news:<808df0f8.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>> cab...@snap.net.nz (Whareatua) wrote in message news:<c5684ff2.04082...@posting.google.com>...
>> and this we can test
>> > here on the physical realm. Anything else is pure fantasy.
>> >
>> The rules applicable in any realm or universe are not necessarily
>> (some would claim necessarily not) applicable in another.
>
> The control of self remains. That is a functional test every magician
> can make.
>
> MDHJWH Lets not snip things out of context.
>
> I said "This is one of the fundamental problems with magick. I.e.:
> Some magicians may of experienced an OOBE for example. But I have yet
> to meet a magician/witch (myself included) who can voluntarily perform
> an OOBE at will. For example: Every magical braggart I have met cannot
> tell me what random Tarot is face up on the table in the next room.
> Yet based upon my own experiences and the anecdotal reports I have
> read, I believe that such a thing is possible. If someone can't even
> OOBE to the room next door, talk of 'Working' in the astral is
> deceitful nonsense in my opinion."
>
Your point is largely valid, but perception in the 'astral' (first energy
body/plane) are not anywhere near as anchored in physical reality as it is
when filtered by the physical senses proper.
It's not as simple as being there in your physical body and it is hard to
*care* about what you cared about when you *were* in your physical body.
The tempatation to wander off into other realities or to abandon the first
for the second, less physical, energy body, is strong and then you are in
a seperate reality and can barely remember earthly life, much less remember
to find a playing card in a room on one of an infinite number of probable
earthly time-lines, all of which are equally real from that perspective.
Even the first 'astral' plane is a different reality that is very closely
related to physical reality. It is a precursor reality-stage, actually,
from one viewpoint and a valid one. This reality is a precursor-stage for
other realities too.
Remote-viewing is a better tool for stuff like looking at a playing card
in the next room. That involves sending a thought-form, not your 'astral'
body. The thought-form does go on existing after you abandon it, though,
as a sort ghost being. (No harm done and you already do it all the time
to a lesser degree and 'pre'-consciously. (A lot of 'memories' are actually
remote-viewing, but the past and future aren't fixed, so it can get confusing.
You can learn to send just your eyes, making it much more efficient, which
is what many remote-viewers strive to do. Or it can be a complete replica,
electro-magnetic, of your body that adepts can make visible and even physical.
Casteneda discusses this, calling the highly-energized thought-form the
"double". Bilocaton of different degrees.
endramble
[....]
nagasiva
e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
#> ...what the master magicians can do that the average
#> man or woman can't do by working with beliefs and
#> observation....
use symbols to indirectly effect change in phenomena.
#> Golden Dawn, Enochian, Goetia--no answers.
GD: mystical application
--------------------------------------
Enochian:
original Dee: spiritualism?
GD: mystical application
+ practical advantage?
--------------------------------------
Goetia: original Christians: deconditioning
grimoire character: practical advantage
modern: practical spirit-slaves (goetic);
mystical application
their answer in the case of "mystical application"
is that they are more mystically-active, in a
condition considered more spiritually-mature or
skilled in communing with spiritual authority.
in the case of practical advantage they will be
inclined to claim special secret information from
the agencies they have contacted, or power, or a
predictive prophesy obtained for contemplation.
to a degree their hypothesis will require some
coincidental axioms in order to test.
#> I've been trying to find some utility in such
#> elaborate practices, going as far as trying
#> some of them myself.
a goodly number of the ceremonial (hermetic)
magical practices are supposed to have gradual
and specialized repercussions, sometimes said to
require belief in them and their effectiveness.
thus 'trying some of them' may not be considered
sufficient exposure to see results, depending
on the duration of your exposure and the level
of expertise of your instruction/practice. at a
certain level 'dabbling' will be insufficient.
#> ...telling me that a Golden Dawn magician can do
#> Golden Dawn magick better than I can.
in a strict sense this is true. the dramatic and
technical ceremonial skills are developed by practice.
#> I suppose that's the best kind of answer one
#> can expect.
no, a better can be given considering what it is that
the speaker thinks are the actual results of their
disciplines, measurable or not, observed by the person.
if they think that these ceremonies/practices develop
or mature the spiritual condition of those who engage
them, for example, this may be examined over time. if
they describe merely *post-mortem* repercussions, such
as the development of some transphysical 'Body of Light'
supposed to make survival of death possible, then there
testing for it will become more difficult (impossible?).
cab...@snap.net.nz (Whareatua):
# ...a rhetorical question[:] 'Do you play a musical
# instrument'[?] The art and craft of magick is a
# bit like that.
this is a valuable question. there are science/theories
of music, as you make clear. few seem aware of these
kinds of theoretical pursuits within artistic fields who
are not artists themselves or who have looked into the
philosophy of art and science somewhat.
example:
# ...one ...studies the theory of music, the various
# musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc.
where there is a theory which is presented with it,
this is extremely valuable. with large instruments
which are extremely specialized like pianos this is
likely to become a part of the instrument delivery.
where drums and small whistles and whatnot there
be nothing accompanying the instrument other than
a manufacturer's mark (if that). theories of art
must be researched and discovered.
worse, for the researcher, different *cultures*
develop their sciences of art surrounding very
different knowledge-sets, cement some elements in
place which are actually variables, generalize
their particular flavour in contradistinction to
perceived 'competing' paradigms, and generally
cannot be considered entirely reliable to
reflect well traditions outside of themselves.
I am instructed that only Wizards, teaching the
True Art of Wizardry provided by the Hidden
Masters, can approach a purity of instruction
which will transcend the limitations and foibles
of conventional culture. most do not have this
kind of pedigree but instead represent themselves
as such and promote their dogmatic propaganda as
if they have proved it with strict criteria
specified in some other locale (we'll never find).
# A pianoist may even study the lives, motivations
# and creativity of other composers etc.
that is correct. the *careers* of magicians are
also part of the overall study of magic. that they
may have different names (learning these is part of
the curriculum of magic study), practical foci (each
may be regarded as an integrous whole to a point,
along with any attendant taboos and religious aims),
historical origins, and operational tools is part of
the challenge of holistic evaluation of the entirety,
much like learning the language of any culture whose
scripture one wishes to completely comprehend.
# ...the further you get into, the more enriched
# music becomes..
this is no necessary truth with regard to magic,
or with music, for that matter. that said, Wizards
should have this perspective in order to keep their
observations keen and refinements of knowledge sharp.
# magick is similar. It depends on how deep you
# want to go.
agreed, the superset of operation can be inclusive,
or it can remain constrained to artificial standards
such as is found in cults.
nagasiva
nagasiva
e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
# OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit.
you seem to mean one which produces only fantasy-results,
or consoles or enthuses the *artistic aesthetics* of those
who in some measure engage it, that its effective results
are those of experiencing the rites, performing them.
you mention no spiritual repercussions beyond these.
# I have no problem with that. Some people like ballet,
# some people like painting, some people like jazz,
# some people like ceremonial magick. No problem.
there is a greater authority associated with it, due to
its cosmological dimension and relation to the divine.
acting on behalf of the divinity enables one to condone
all manner of travesty inclusive of warfare and bloodshed.
it will therefore be more difficult to compare with ordinary
arts such as those you mention. exceptions are those which
are given official sanction or enshrined within sectors of
religion (Tea Ceremony, Sand Painting (incl. mandalas), etc.).
the secular may be distinguished by the diminished descent
of the artisanry of divinity and enthusiasm therewith.
the Creation doing the creating is inferior, the God is
like the Power Man, calling the shots for His purposes,
and people must conform thereafter given the cosmology.
do I believe that theurges harness divinity? some do,
and these are true magicians; supplicants merely pray.
# So whenever I'm doing ceremonial rituals, I'm working
# on my stagecraft skills, my theatrical repertoire, and
# my artistic coordination.
sounds like practice for statesmanship and courtesanry.
polishing performance and the mask of interface is a boon
from such gods as Mercury and those of the Crossroads.
star gods, seeking to harness, dominate and exploit Nature
for some transcendental aim seems heinously rogue to me,
so I like to get some notion of the overall cosmology from
which any particular grimoire proceeds.
spells from these orientations may have political or at
least social aims. it is likely that if they become at all
routine, they will have some ideals/instruction alongside.
matriculating orders such as the Goldawnians keep this
kind of knowledge-sideline going. Rosicrucians and other
Hermetic magicians do likewise. presumably doctrines are
considered potentially reconcilable (through legitimizing),
but how they ought be reconciled is not included in core
doctrines I've perused to date. some AA groups, for example,
indicate within a History Lection that the intention is
pancultural ceremonialism inspiring mass-transcendance --
a kind of aspiration to Neo-Platonic norms.
as such, leverage on instruction of all *approved* knowledge
would become the concern of the expanding gnostikultist.
# The complexity is starting to make sense now.
like keeping plates spinning
# ...the utility of the Goetia?
practical magic:
maybe the treasures have all been found? :>
mysticism:
integrative, psychoidal unitive transcendance, they say;
I don't know the data on success rates; but the
transgressive/thrillseeking nature of demon evocation
appears to be an extreme method to attain.
constructive context:
Christian/RCatholic? (1500s?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
general utility:
overall:
malignant at worst, irrascible and appealing at best;
spirits of The Lesser Key are corrosive magical beings
whose natures are better left to adepts and mystics.
in particular:
given the poor showing in the grimoire itself (its
rudimentary style in comparison with some others --
perhaps it simply isn't a refined and polished gem)
how its hierarchic flavour pans out, and the cautions
provided to the reader, it is unlikely that this text
will become, of its own, a major occult hit; as cursory]
examination of the text once more indicates boons that
the spirits are said to be able to bring to bear for
the exorcist (some quite fabulous):
01-makes you insible
02-teaches languages, can cause earthquakes
03-"of a Good Nature"; declares things Past and to Come
04-teaches liberal sciences
05-causes/cures diseases
...
08-"breaketh the Hidden Treasures open that
have been laid by the Enchantments of
Magicians"
45-"builds Towers, overthrow Great Stone Walls,
and make the Waters rough with Storms"
magical analysis
further notes: numerology/symbolism
the 72 listed spirits in the directory
are set into 7 planetary office levels
within the grimoire as below. my count
of them is as follows:
A(SOL-KINGS):9 09
B(VENUS-DUKES):23 23
C(JUPITER-PRINCES/PRELATES):7 07
D(LUNA-MARQUISES):15 15
E(MERCURY-PRESIDENTS):14 14
F(MARS-EARLS/COUNTS):10 10
G(SATURN-KNIGHTS):1 01
----
OFFICES 79
from the same document:
"These 72 Kings be under the Power of Amaymon,
Corson, Zimimay or Ziminiar, and Goap, who are
the Four Great Kings ruling in the Four Quarters,
or Cardinal Points [ed. note: These four Great Kings
are usually called Oriens, or Uriens, Paymon, or
Paymonia, Ariton or Egyn, and Amaymon or Amaimon.
By the Rabbins they are frequently entitled: Samael,
Azazel, Azael, and Mahazael.], viz.: East, West,
North, and South, and are not to be called forth
except it be upon Great Occasions; but are to be
Invocated and Commanded to send such or such a
Spirit that is under their Power and Rule, as is
shown in the following Invocations or Conjurations.
And the Chief Kings may be bound from 9 till
12 o'clock at Noon, and from 3 until sunset;
Marquises may be bound from 3 in the afternoon
till 9 at Night, and from 9 at Night till Sunrise;
Dukes may be bound from Sunrise till Noonday in
Clear Weather; Prelates may be bound any hour of
the Day; Knights may from Dawning of Day till
Sunrise, or from 4 o'clock till Sunset; Presidents
may be bound at any time, excepting Twilight, at
Night, unless the King whom they are under be
Invocated; and Counties or Earles any hour of the
Day, so it be in Woods, or any other places whither
men resort not, or where no noise is...."
--------------------------------------------------
"The Goetia: the lesser key of Solomon the King:
Lemegeton-Clavicula Salomonis Regis, book one;
tr. Mathers; ed. Crowley, secondarily H.Beta;
Samuel Weiser, Inc., 1995; p. 67.
==================================================
utility-demerit: complex timing
so it might be a bit complicated with all these
timing requirements. also, it appears that some of
the spirits take more than one office. counting
here I notice there are 79 *offices* assigned
herein. analyzing these:
SPIRIT PLANETARY ASSOCIATION (NOTES)
--------------------------------------------
01 S (SUN; BAEL, Runyon's Neopagan Lord; 29=Astaroth)
02 V (VENUS)
03 J (JUPITER; VASSAGO, Runyon's prophetic spirit)
04 L (LUNA)
05 M (MERCURY)
<snipping now throughout>
17 R (MARS)
21 M R
25 M R
27 L R
33 J M
45 S R
50 N(SATURN)
61 S M
--------^
these 6 are duplicated in the table within the
Lesser Key attributing Planetary Offices. this
means that there are
* 79 Offices
which are distributed unto
* 72 spirits
overseen by 4 Maharajas (Great Kings) of the Quarters
who are:
Amaymon, Corson, Zimimay/Ziminiar, and Goap
said to be:
"the Four Great Kings ruling in the Four Quarters"
says the editor (H.Beta, apparently, maybe Crowley),
which the same source says are equivalent to:
(EAST) Amaymon: Oriens/Uriens, Samael,
(WEST) Corson: Paymon/Paymonia, Azazel,
(NORTH) Zimimay/Ziminiar: Ariton/Egyn, Azael
(SOUTH) Goap: Amaymon/Amaimon, Mahazael
these kings are *INVOKED*, so their character ought to be
some indicator of the utility of the system to the mage.
if one is amenable to such invocations (who are these
spirits? where is their best descriptions?) then the aims
supposed at the selection of the magician may be achievable.
from whence do these equivalances/cardinalities derive?
Weyer? where are the character of these kings indicated?
# Or is it entirely a Romantic pursuit?
it is the artifice of foundation (history, contextual
descriptor despite the actuality, etc.) which is romantic.
the results are either presumed to be realistic, or
it is chalked up to a weakness or failure of the magician.
nagasiva
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired;
HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street addy to: cata...@luckymojo.com
Whareatua
> cab...@snap.net.nz (Whareatua):
> # ...a rhetorical question[:] 'Do you play a musical
> # instrument'[?] The art and craft of magick is a
> # bit like that.
>
> this is a valuable question. there are science/theories
> of music, as you make clear. few seem aware of these
> kinds of theoretical pursuits within artistic fields who
> are not artists themselves or who have looked into the
> philosophy of art and science somewhat.
absolutely
>
> example:
> # ...one ...studies the theory of music, the various
> # musical forms from classical, jazz and rock etc.
>
> where there is a theory which is presented with it,
> this is extremely valuable. with large instruments
> which are extremely specialized like pianos this is
> likely to become a part of the instrument delivery.
> where drums and small whistles and whatnot there
> be nothing accompanying the instrument other than
> a manufacturer's mark (if that). theories of art
> must be researched and discovered.
yes
>
> worse, for the researcher, different *cultures*
> develop their sciences of art surrounding very
> different knowledge-sets, cement some elements in
> place which are actually variables, generalize
> their particular flavour in contradistinction to
> perceived 'competing' paradigms, and generally
> cannot be considered entirely reliable to
> reflect well traditions outside of themselves.
yes this is often an issue
> I am instructed that only Wizards, teaching the
> True Art of Wizardry provided by the Hidden
> Masters, can approach a purity of instruction
> which will transcend the limitations and foibles
> of conventional culture. most do not have this
> kind of pedigree but instead represent themselves
> as such and promote their dogmatic propaganda as
> if they have proved it with strict criteria
> specified in some other locale (we'll never find).
Don't know.. perhaps.. abandoned my pursuit of purity long ago <g> ;-)
> # A pianoist may even study the lives, motivations
> # and creativity of other composers etc.
>
> that is correct. the *careers* of magicians are
> also part of the overall study of magic. that they
> may have different names (learning these is part of
> the curriculum of magic study), practical foci (each
> may be regarded as an integrous whole to a point,
> along with any attendant taboos and religious aims),
> historical origins, and operational tools is part of
> the challenge of holistic evaluation of the entirety,
> much like learning the language of any culture whose
> scripture one wishes to completely comprehend.
true
>
> # ...the further you get into, the more enriched
> # music becomes..
>
> this is no necessary truth with regard to magic,
> or with music, for that matter. that said, Wizards
> should have this perspective in order to keep their
> observations keen and refinements of knowledge sharp.
ok .. 'technically' you are correct, as you say it is not necessarily
true; however that is being a bit pedantic, overall as far as the
allusion to magick is concerned, it generally holds true.
> # magick is similar. It depends on how deep you
> # want to go.
>
> agreed, the superset of operation can be inclusive,
> or it can remain constrained to artificial standards
> such as is found in cults.
> nagasiva
- Jean de Cabalis
http://cabilis.topcities.com
MDHJWH
> this is no necessary truth with regard to magic,
> or with music, for that matter. that said, Wizards
> should have this perspective in order to keep their
> observations keen and refinements of knowledge sharp.
Knowledge without truth? How so?
>
> # magick is similar. It depends on how deep you
> # want to go.
>
> agreed, the superset of operation can be inclusive,
> or it can remain constrained to artificial standards
> such as is found in cults.
By inclusive are you hinting at an openess to all influence, and/or
much more optimisticly, and openess to influencing all?
Joseph Littleshoes
As usual Naga you write a very provacative post. You are almost too
good, in that i have to truncate your psots and reply to them in pieces,
too much of a good thing.
> 50040829 viii om
>
> e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
> # OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit.
>
> you seem to mean one which produces only fantasy-results,
> or consoles or enthuses the *artistic aesthetics* of those
> who in some measure engage it, that its effective results
> are those of experiencing the rites, performing them.
> you mention no spiritual repercussions beyond these.
Rember that book, "the romance of sorcery" by Sax Rohmar (iirc)
>
>
> # I have no problem with that. Some people like ballet,
> # some people like painting, some people like jazz,
> # some people like ceremonial magick. No problem.
>
> there is a greater authority associated with it, due to
> its cosmological dimension and relation to the
alleged
> divine.
> acting on behalf of the divinity enables one to condone
> all manner of travesty inclusive of warfare and bloodshed.
> it will therefore be more difficult to compare with ordinary
> arts such as those you mention. exceptions are those which
> are given official sanction or enshrined within sectors of
> religion (Tea Ceremony, Sand Painting (incl. mandalas), etc.).
>
> the secular may be distinguished by the diminished descent
> of the artisanry of divinity and enthusiasm therewith.
> the Creation doing the creating is inferior, the God is
> like the Power Man, calling the shots for His purposes,
> and people must conform thereafter given the cosmology.
>
> do I believe that theurges harness divinity? some do,
> and these are true magicians; supplicants merely pray.
>
> # So whenever I'm doing ceremonial rituals, I'm working
> # on my stagecraft skills, my theatrical repertoire, and
> # my artistic coordination.
>
> sounds like practice for statesmanship and courtesanry.
"courtesanry" ? perhaps you ment "for being a cortesian" prostituting
onself?
> polishing performance and the mask of interface is a boon
> from such gods as Mercury and those of the Crossroads.
>
> star gods, seeking to harness, dominate and exploit Nature
> for some transcendental aim seems heinously rogue to me,
> so I like to get some notion of the overall cosmology from
> which any particular grimoire proceeds.
Duality--
jl
Bassos
> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:2pcd31F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > "Rick" <psy...@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:Z_3Yc.965$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "Old Coyote" <OldC...@webmail.co.za> wrote in message
> > > news:bacaf0e0.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > It is funny how readily people decide that what they do is *the*
right
> > > thing to do.
>
> > > It's an interesting pattern that can be observed in many
> > > domains, usually when a choice of long-term consequence is made, then
> > > followed by substantial investment of time and/or resources/effort.
...
> > > It becomes something else again when people extend the attitude out to
> > everyone
> > > else.
>
> > Hmm, it seems to be the same thing.
> > Attack being the best defence and all.
>
> It's not the same thing though.
Thinking what you do is the right way is nonsensical in itself.
On some level we feel this to be true.
(we lack information, so all choices are based on limited input)
Having invested time and resources in this essentially nonsensical right
way,
making others conform to it is the attack which to me seems to be the
defence against this feeling of it not being absolutely a true right way.
> It's one thing to recognize (or choose) what
> is best for oneself to do then stick with it religiously.
I hammered about the *right* part.
Choosing some way for a different reason and sticking with it is a different
beastie.
> It's wholly another to start thinking it's the only way for every person
to do things.
When you're here considering other reasons for having chosen that way, say
aesthetics or somesuch, then agreed.
Imo the *right* way implies it to be the only way.
> > > That's perhaps a bit less generalized, but seems to be common enough
> > > when cosmological ideas come into play.
>
> > I think it comes a lot closer to home.
> > Everything anyone does which is thought to be right.
>
> Ideas on the cosmological scale are a special case.
Merely a difference in degree right ?
Turtles all the way down to the right way.
> That's because we all have a personal cosmology that essentially runs on
autopilot.
We all ?
You too ?
Me too ?
> I gave some suggestions in a recent thread about how a personal cosmology
might form.
Which was ok for a statistical average human.
They however don't exist.
Besides, this seems to come awfully close to a "they and us" thingy.
> Most people are, in a way, victims of their personal cosmology, primarily
> because it's not automatically subjected to every rational processes in
our
> arsenal.
It's like training to feel the flow of your blood.
> It takes a special effort to even question the responses our
> cosmological framework produces, let alone effect substantial changes in
the
> framework itself.
I disagree.
When you're on the grand adventure of walking the walk towards the creator,
you realize right from the start you know next to nothing.
So merrily we stride onwards, seeing wonder while in awe of creation.
There's no time for conclusions, cos right around the corner is a new valley
of never before seens.
Shoot beyond the crown and no attainment at all is possible, making the
wanting to accomplish go away too.
Plenty more room for enjoyment then.
Perhaps the later in life one starts, the more difficult it is.
> Magick, as near as I can tell, is one way of going about
> that kind of work.
The let's focus on this being possible and us doing that kind of work.
> > > > > It seems to me that if you intended to do anything
> > > > > productive or informative you would have provided some substantial
> > > > > alternative way of approaching/thinking/practicing magick by now;
>
> > > > Hey hold on, that's a pretty tall order. Perhaps a little beyond
> > > > the scope of a usenet post.
>
> > > I was responding to your statements from the perspective that it's
> > > inadequate to criticize a practice without offering a substantial
> > > alternative, or at least some basic examples of a counterpart.
Criticism
> > > alone tends to speak (to me) mostly of the poster's personality, and
> does
> > > little to promote the technical and scholarly discussion of magick.
>
> > Yes, agreed.
>
> > Now if only folks would discuss the technical and scholarly part of
> magick.
>
> I'm game.
>
> > What do you think about :
>
> > Acting with complete confidence is about acting with ones whole person ?
>
> Maybe that's so, but I may be thinking of it differently than you are.
May be ?
Likely :)
> To act with complete confidence would suggest there are no internal
conflicts
> regarding the action, everything in perfect harmony.
Yep.
And no worries about outcomes.
> That was essentially
> what I was discussing with Mika recently. If there's a conflict, or more
> than one potential responses to one situation, one action has to be chosen
> and any others suppressed.
Nope.
A suppressed something is disharmonious.
I regard the possible actions.
Let's say they present their case to me.
I then decide what we all will do and due to us all knowing that moving as
one is much to be prefferred over doing stuff while wanting to do something
else, we sing in unison and offer sacrifice to creation.
Works for lot's of stuff, training with doing the dishes :)
> That sort of thing wastes resources, because some
> resources have to be devoted to suppressing the actions not chosen.
And therefore it's not an act as described above.
> It's not too big a problem for Joe Sixpack in the course of living a
routine human
> life, but it is not acceptible to the magician, who we expect to do better
> than average.
Yeah, so you're saying you aren't capable of this moving with one's whole
being in one direction ?
Too much of the "on the other hand" business or what ?
> > And acting with ones whole person is about aligning thinking, feeling
and
> > acting.
>
> We tend to divide these things out as parts of ourselves, perhaps because
we
> are mentally capable of doing so and it makes talking and thinking about
> ourselves easier.
Here i refer to being capable of doing stuff against your will.
(dragging yourself along kicking and screaming seems an apt description)
> But those divisions really are arbitrary.
Not as much as some other divisions.
A thought may need feeling for it to exist.
When gotten down to it, a prick in one's arm is pretty different from a
prick in one's ego.
> Thought, emotion, and behavior are so intricately interactive and
interdependent that
> it makes as much sense to think of an undivided whole to begin with.
Sure.
And then we get practical and separate.
> The kinds of internal conflicts I'm alluding to above aren't between these
> essentially artificial components, but between differing patterns of
> responding that are triggered simultaneously under a given set of
> circumstances.
Talk about artificial constructs.
"differing patterns of responding" heh, you talk about that like it's a
thing.
> Ironing things out so that there is essentially only one pattern of
> responding to any one set of circumstances is essentially what the
practice
> of magick should do (according to my own, admittedly half-baked theory of
> magick).
Hmm.
I'd rather see no pattern at all.
They seem so restrictive.
> > All just restricted to the acts themselves.
>
> I'm not sure what that means.
Doing the dishes cos i want a clean house is different from enjoying the
feelings of the doing.
> > > > > As for the statement itself, there is ample evidence (from
> > anthropology,
> > > > > psychology, and neuroscience sources) to suggest that ritual is a
> > > > > typically human response to stress.
>
> > > > That seems like a very good description. However, I was being
specific
> > > > about ritual magick, rather than ritual in general.
>
> > > Okay, but it's reasonable that what is likely true of ritual in
general
> is
> > > relevant to ritual magick.
>
> > Well, doing the much dissed lbrp merely by moving and talking is much
> > different from adding feeling, pictures and 'awe'.
>
> > Check my description from some years back :
> >
>
http://www.google.nl/groups?selm=ab4a3572.0207251247.437479fc%40posting.goog
> > le.com&output=gplain
> > (don't mind the fuckup about the directions, it should be a cross, i
wrote
> > it down as shorthand, the file is on a different pc, explantions are of
> > course possible)
>
> Ritual magick seems to me to be an attempt to restructure the personal
> cosmology from the one we naturally get by living life in a highly rich
and
> often confusing environment to a wholly internally harmonious cosmology.
May be.
Too much goal for me.
Ceremony cos it's great.
Just enjoying the beauty.
That does have some interesting side effects, like the cosmology changes.
For getting stuff, we don't need ritual at all.
For not feeling the need to get stuff a lot more.
> It is training at the neural level, so all flavors of response are
affected
> when the rituals have their intended effects.
?
> That said, I think it's possible to do the rituals without them having
their
> intended effect.
Agreed.
> That probably has to do with a strongly entrenched pre-ritual cosmology.
I wouldn't know.
> The only tools I can think of that might get one past
> blockages of that sort are commitment and perseverance.
Yes.
I still think the most effective rituals are on those days where you get
almost physically sick from dreading doing it once again.
(effective in the sense of changing oneself, not for getting stuff)
And then the next day being surprised by the ease of it.
(up until the next dreading of course)
Alexander Mulligan
> 50040829 viii om 444
>
> re what is entailed in the 'serious practice of magic.'
>
> nagasiva:
> #># typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
> #># rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
> #># certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
> #># attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
> #># the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
> #># deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
> #># the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
>
> Alexander Mulligan discerns castes of practice:
> #> Ceremonial magick is regarded to be faux magick by those of us
> #> who practice Natural Magick.
>
> extravagant generalization.
>
No. It is not. Natural and Ceremonial Magick are based on two entirely
different concepts of what Magick is and how it works.
I read the rest of this article, but beyond your claim to humility, which
no one with real humility would ever make, it just didn't make any sense.
The typical ambiguous garbage that Ceremonial Magickians offer in lieu
of genuine Magickal insight.
MDHJWH
>
> overseen by 4 Maharajas (Great Kings) of the Quarters
> who are:
>
> Amaymon, Corson, Zimimay/Ziminiar, and Goap
>
> said to be:
>
> "the Four Great Kings ruling in the Four Quarters"
> says the editor (H.Beta, apparently, maybe Crowley),
> which the same source says are equivalent to:
>
> (EAST) Amaymon: Oriens/Uriens, Samael,
>
> (WEST) Corson: Paymon/Paymonia, Azazel,
>
> (NORTH) Zimimay/Ziminiar: Ariton/Egyn, Azael
>
> (SOUTH) Goap: Amaymon/Amaimon, Mahazael
.........and are you absolutely certain of their gender?
Alexander Mulligan
And this information is good for exactly what?
(besides wowing the peasants, I mean)
Nihilist
>
> e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
> # OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit.
>
> you seem to mean one which produces only fantasy-results,
> or consoles or enthuses the *artistic aesthetics* of those
> who in some measure engage it, that its effective results
> are those of experiencing the rites, performing them.
> you mention no spiritual repercussions beyond these.
I'm hoping Goetic work produces cool results. My experiments haven't
been successful, though (see thread "Discussing Magick: Utility of the
Goetia").
Perhaps I don't muster enough belief. However, I'm unaware of anyone
else demonstrating that the Goetic "demons" can do what they're said
to be able to do. That's unfortunate, but maybe there is some way to
get the results described.
I don't see anything wrong with regarding evocation as a Romantic
pursuit devoid of extraordinary results. There can be enjoyment in the
practice of evocation itself, much like with dancing, calligraphy,
archery, rollerblading, etc. All depends on the person.
Tom
"MDHJWH" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:808df0f8.04083...@posting.google.com...
Can we be absolutely certain of any of the qualities of such entities?
Whareatua
>
> e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
> # OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit.
>
> you seem to mean one which produces only fantasy-results,
> or consoles or enthuses the *artistic aesthetics* of those
> who in some measure engage it, that its effective results
> are those of experiencing the rites, performing them.
> you mention no spiritual repercussions beyond these.
Wouldn't you say that a Romantic pursuit can also extend to include
spiritual practices etc.. I would say it can :-)
[snip Down to Goetia]
I wrote in an earlier post "While the Goetia has been rather heavily
romanised, my own study of it is that it is likely a rather an
unworkable utility. In saying that however, I will state that I have
only superficial experience of the
Diabolic Rites - and thus i do accept that potentially a magician (or
witch) skilled in these areas could potentially manifest a coherent
mental production using the Goetia for example. If so then (I suspect)
the dichotomy of 'real and unreal' needs to be removed from the Goetia
in order for the magician/witch to establish that programmatic space
whence the magician/witch would work from. Upon doing that, perhaps
then it is feasible that the mental production of
the sort of cosmology/system within the Goetia could provide the
formation of the various forces within a ceremonial or astral
environment, however it is not the sort of system I would choice to
use."
Could you please share some additional insight or light on the above
Nagasiva.
MDHJWH
> > .........and are you absolutely certain of their gender?
>
> Can we be absolutely certain of any of the qualities of such entities?
Fools rush is where angels fear to tread.
MDHJWH
> nagasiva <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message news:<wvzYc.10986$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> > 50040829 viii om
> >
> > e_nih...@yahoo.com (Nihilist):
> > # OK, so magick really is a Romantic pursuit.
> >
> > you seem to mean one which produces only fantasy-results,
> > or consoles or enthuses the *artistic aesthetics* of those
> > who in some measure engage it, that its effective results
> > are those of experiencing the rites, performing them.
> > you mention no spiritual repercussions beyond these.
>
> I'm hoping Goetic work produces cool results. My experiments haven't
> been successful, though (see thread "Discussing Magick: Utility of the
> Goetia").
>
> Perhaps I don't muster enough belief.
Believing is seeing?
Gnome d Plume
wrote:
****All of the above pedantic puffery from a indigent peddler of
superstitious gee-gaws who firmly believes that the "Necronomicon" is
an authentic and valuable work. If you wonder why I don't wish to
participate in this psycho babble, the above is another good reason.
****
Gnome d Plume