Re: Magick
Tom
<mikel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1187447806.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
> posted in this Usenet group.
This observation tends to be made by people who have some oddball notion of
what magick is and are looking for someone, anyone, who will please, please,
please agree with them.
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Consult http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
Moderation Team at moder...@alt-magick-moderated.org
CoreyWhite
> Hi,
>
> It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
> a reading list to help you get started:
>
> Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
> Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
> William Gibson - Neuromancer
> Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
> Paul Reps - Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
> Calvin Pinchin - Issues In Philosophy
> R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
>
> I also recommend an essay by Aleister Crowley entitled "Duty", which
> you can find on Google.
>
> If you have any questions please contact me by email.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mike
>
> alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
> may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
> for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
They don't look like bad books really, considering how no one is
really reading the group who knows anything about magick.
Rufus Opus
> Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
New age twaddle, a waste of time for anyone with the slightest inkling
of the mithraic metaphor.
> Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
yawn.
> William Gibson - Neuromancer
fiction. Loved by chaos magicians. 'nuff said.
> Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
Nice interpretation of things, but really, not very practical. This is
the shit that resulted in the watering-down of the Western Mystery
Tradition to the point of Ravenwolf and Donald Michael Kraig.
> Paul Reps - Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
Never heard of it, and if I've never heard of it, it must be shit! ;-)
> Calvin Pinchin - Issues In Philosophy
> R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
Rod Stewart wrote magick books?
"Bring over some of your old Dionne Fortune"
> I also recommend an essay by Aleister Crowley entitled "Duty", which
> you can find on Google.
Have fun with that.
Tom
<mikel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1187628438....@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 20 Aug, 06:47, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> <mikelewi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1187447806.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
>> > posted in this Usenet group.
>>
>> This observation tends to be made by people who have some oddball notion
>> of
>> what magick is and are looking for someone, anyone, who will please,
>> please,
>> please agree with them.
>
Then your choice of words resulted in an undesireable first impression. It
remains to be seen whether that undesireable impression is also inaccurate.
Would you care to discuss something other than your opinion of who does or
does not know anything about magick? If so, is there a particular subject
in which you're interested?
Joseph Littleshoes
> Hi,
>
> It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
> a reading list to help you get started:
>
> Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
> R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
>
> you can find on Google.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mike
>
>
familiar with it, Book 124 "Of Eden and the Sacred Oak" to be of interest.
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib124.html
Though i am always amazed when any list of books on "Magick" does not
include Liber ABA Book 4.
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib4.html
Commonly called "Magick in Theory and Practice."
--
JL
.
Joseph Littleshoes
> <mikel...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187447806.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
>>posted in this Usenet group.
>
>
> This observation tends to be made by people who have some oddball notion of
> what magick is and are looking for someone, anyone, who will please, please,
> please agree with them.
>
A simple bow is sufficient "Tom" no need to grovel.
--
JL
Joseph Littleshoes
> On Aug 20, 12:35 am, mikelewi...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
>>posted in this Usenet group. If you are interested in magick here is
>>a reading list to help you get started:
>>
>>Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
>>Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
>>William Gibson - Neuromancer
>>Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
>>Paul Reps - Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
>>Calvin Pinchin - Issues In Philosophy
>>R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
>>
>>I also recommend an essay by Aleister Crowley entitled "Duty", which
>>you can find on Google.
>>
>>If you have any questions please contact me by email.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Mike
> They don't look like bad books really, considering how no one is
> really reading the group who knows anything about magick.
The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
Rufus Opus
> The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
That's the Tau. Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
the WMT with the EMT.
Thanks,
The Management
Tom
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187710233.9...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 5:42 pm, Joseph Littleshoes <jpsti...@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
>
> That's the Tau.
The Tao. The tau is a Greek letter.
Rufus Opus
> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187710233.9...@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 20, 5:42 pm, Joseph Littleshoes <jpsti...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
>
> > That's the Tau.
>
> The Tao. The tau is a Greek letter.
You know how management is. Can't tell a tao from a tau.
-R.O.
Douglas
Rufus Opus wrote:
> On Aug 20, 12:35 am, mikelewi...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>>William Gibson - Neuromancer
>
>
> fiction. Loved by chaos magicians. 'nuff said.
>
>
Heh, it really seems like you must have worked with or met some
of the worst of those involved in CM... many that I know
found Gibsons work a bore as do I.
But no surprise for someone stuck in their generalizations
about others.
-Douglas
Kisai
> On Aug 20, 5:42 pm, Joseph Littleshoes <jpsti...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
>
> That's the Tau. Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
> the WMT with the EMT.
The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical Tradition",
(whatever the heck that means). It's from a philosophical branch of
Taoism, which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold, live
forever, talk with spirits and many other things that people in the
"Western Magical Tradition" are trying to do.
Rufus Opus
> On Aug 21, 11:31 am, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 5:42 pm, Joseph Littleshoes <jpsti...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
>
> > That's the Tau. Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
> > the WMT with the EMT.
>
> The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical Tradition",
> (whatever the heck that means). It's from a philosophical branch of
> Taoism, which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold, live
> forever, talk with spirits and many other things that people in the
> "Western Magical Tradition" are trying to do.
Are you kidding me? You're saying the Tao is WMT?
And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions, not magical. Magick
is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
-R.O.
Kisai
> On Aug 22, 5:49 pm, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:31 am, Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 5:42 pm, Joseph Littleshoes <jpsti...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Magick that can be known is not the eternal Magick.
>
> > > That's the Tau. Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
> > > the WMT with the EMT.
>
> > The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical Tradition",
> > (whatever the heck that means). It's from a philosophical branch of
> > Taoism, which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold, live
> > forever, talk with spirits and many other things that people in the
> > "Western Magical Tradition" are trying to do.
>
> Are you kidding me? You're saying the Tao is WMT?
Negative. I'm saying that the Tao Te Ching receives a
disproportionate amount of attention from the students of the "WMT".
I'm also refuting the WMT/EMT diochotomy. It makes no sense at all on
where one draws lines.
>
> And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions, not magical. Magick
> is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
Muh... I don't believe in 'mystery schools', Rosicrucians, Knights
Templar, Sions of Priory, Illuminati, a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey
Oswald, nor magic being a result of them.
Tom
>
> And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions, not magical. Magick
> is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
"In my third year at Cambridge, I devoted myself
consciously to the Great Work, understanding thereby
the Work of becoming a Spiritual Being, free from
the constraints, accidents, and deceptions of
material existence. I found myself at a loss for
a name to designate my work, just as H. P. Blavatsky
some years earlier. "Theosophy", "Spiritualism",
"Occultism", "Mysticism", all involved undesirable
connotations. I chose therefore the name "MAGICK"
as essentially the most sublime, and actually the
most discredited, of all the available terms. I
swore to rehabilitate MAGICK, to identify it with
my own career; and to compel mankind to respect,
love, and trust that which they scorned, hated and
feared. I have kept my Word."
-- "Magick in Theory and Practice"
by Aleister Crowley (pages XI-XII) *03
"Magic is the highest most absolute and divine knowledge of natural
philosophy advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right
understanding of the inward and occult vertue of things, so that true agents
being applied to proper patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby
be produced; whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into
nature, they because of their skill know how to anticipate an effect which
to the vulgar shall seem a miracle." -- The Goetia of the Lesser Key of
Solomon
nagasiva
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com>:
>> And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions,
>> not magical. Magick is a subset of the mystery
>> schools of the west.
magic extends far beyond any single school, though
it may become the focus or emphasis of any one.
nagasiva luckymojo.com@nagasiva>
333
>> It has been a long time since anyone who knew
>> anything about magick posted in this Usenet
>> group.
there's more than one newsgroup involved.
>> If you are interested in magick here is
>> a reading list to help you get started:
>>
>> Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
New Age. great book, brief
>> Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
science. great book/theory
>> William Gibson - Neuromancer
fiction. great story. the whole of the Neuromancer
series by Gibson and its trode-heads and black ice
technology escapade is valuable for entertainment.
>> Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
symbolism, somewhat flawed by Jung's limited
and unsubstantiated approach.
>> Paul Reps - Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
Zen Buddhism popularized. a collection of koans.
Blyth might be more comprehensive and annotated.
generally Zen Buddhism isn't helpful to magic.
Zen Buddhism (along with other types of Buddhism)
doesn't feature a magical instruction or foster
magical practice in any overt sense. likely the
poster considers Zen Buddhist practice (what is
called 'meditation') to be helpful to Magick in
the same way that a reflection on (hatha) yoga
is utilized for this purpose in Crowley's text.
>> Calvin Pinchin - Issues In Philosophy
don't know this book. sounds like philosophy,
which is not necessary for magical practice.
>> R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
RJ Stewart's writing is the only within your
list above that is head-on occultism, to my
knowledge. it would be helpful to have
delineated how this text differs from
"Advanced Magical Arts" or any of the
number of other books he has published.
>> I also recommend an essay by Aleister Crowley
>> entitled "Duty", which you can find on Google.
sociopolitical and personal, not magic per se.
fits in with a study of Crowley's Magick (how
do Thelemites pronouce this word??).
Joseph Littleshoes <jpst...@isp.com>:
> If you like the essay on duty you might find,
> if you are not already familiar with it,
> Book 124 "Of Eden and the Sacred Oak"
> to be of interest.
> http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib124.html
thanks. in general i don't find Crowley's text to
be relevant to magic in a general sense but more
often to Magick in his own sense (mystical,
aligned to his particular peccadillos, etc.).
> Though i am always amazed when any list of books
> on "Magick" does not include Liber ABA Book 4.
> http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib4.html
weird ain't it? we might also mention "Magick
Without Tears" and the more recent "Revival of
Magick". subsequently we might also mention
"The Magick of Thelema" by Duquette, as well
as a helpful mention of Kraig's "Modern Magick".
> Commonly called "Magick in Theory and Practice."
not exactly. A+B+A = 1+2+1 = 4. "Liber ABA" is the
name for "Book Four" which incorporates all three
Parts of that text, of which "Magick in Theory and
Practice" or 'MiTaP' is only Part Three (it also
sometimes features a Part Four about Liber Al).
Weiser put out "Book Four: Parts One and Two"
at points and these are very helpful in both
magical and Magick-oriented expositions.
333
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired;
consider the "Question": Needleman -- The Heart of Philosophy
Miss Pixxie Styx
Hash: SHA1
mikel...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It has been a long time since anyone who knew anything about magick
> posted in this Usenet group. If you are interested in magick here is
> a reading list to help you get started:
>
> Richard Bach - Jonathan Livingstone Seagull
> Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
> William Gibson - Neuromancer
> Carl Jung - Man and his Symbols
> Paul Reps - Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
> Calvin Pinchin - Issues In Philosophy
> R.J. Stewart - Living Magical Arts
>
> I also recommend an essay by Aleister Crowley entitled "Duty", which
> you can find on Google.
>
> If you have any questions please contact me by email.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mike
>
> alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
> Consult http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
> may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
> for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
> Moderation Team at moder...@alt-magick-moderated.org
>
My mom had the Richard Bach book and the Carl Jung book which was my
favorite book in the house. How do those two books help you get started
in magick?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFG09kQhF7qg+eBJugRAnrkAKCMU1Zx4lxQaVVYMD7W1tMNScqnBQCffhbp
ySVtooF1N2eJRbkxgxImHu4=
=69QG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mika
>
> Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
> the WMT with the EMT.
In order to "attempt at syncretizing" two ideas, those ideas must be
opposing or at least must differ, by definition. So, what, exactly,
is the difference between the WMT and EMT? It seems to me that, for
example, the distinction between Taoist Internal Alchemy and Hermetic
is so minor that the two correspond rather effortlessly, with no
"attempt at syncretizing" necessary in order to relate the two.
Rufus Opus
> > > The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical Tradition",
> > > (whatever the heck that means). It's from a philosophical branch of
> > > Taoism, which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold, live
> > > forever, talk with spirits and many other things that people in the
> > > "Western Magical Tradition" are trying to do.
>
> > Are you kidding me? You're saying the Tao is WMT?
>
> Negative. I'm saying that the Tao Te Ching receives a
> disproportionate amount of attention from the students of the "WMT".
So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
> I'm also refuting the WMT/EMT diochotomy. It makes no sense at all on
> where one draws lines.
Sure it does. No one said we didn't get to be arbitrary.
> > And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions, not magical. Magick
> > is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
>
> Muh... I don't believe in 'mystery schools', Rosicrucians, Knights
> Templar, Sions of Priory, Illuminati, a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey
> Oswald, nor magic being a result of them.
Well, there really were "Mystery Cults" of Isis and Osiris in
Hellenistic times. There are mysterious artifacts that point to a rich
tradition of magickal lore found in the Greek and Roman Magickal
Papyri and Affixiones. The Dad Sea Scrolls record the history of the
Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness. There really were mystery
traditions and mystery schools, and they really left behind useful
bits of knowledge, like Pythagorus and his theorem.
Does that mean the Rosey Cross and all the subsequent forgeries that
wore their decaying rags were legit Mystery Schools? Beats the hell
out of me. I think they were made-up, but I just wasn't there when the
Isis cult was operating, so I don't know if it was based on something
real or equally made up.
If people then were like we are now, then chances are 99% of what they
learned in the Mystery Schools was bullshit.
That's the retroactive reflex property of Sturgeon's Law.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> > Please refrain from further attempts at syncretizing
> > the WMT with the EMT.
>
> In order to "attempt at syncretizing" two ideas, those ideas must be
> opposing or at least must differ, by definition. So, what, exactly,
> is the difference between the WMT and EMT? It seems to me that, for
> example, the distinction between Taoist Internal Alchemy and Hermetic
> is so minor that the two correspond rather effortlessly, with no
> "attempt at syncretizing" necessary in order to relate the two.
It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
difference between internal and external.
-R.O.
mika
>
>
> It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
> something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
> difference between internal and external.
It's impossible to remove something that isn't there. Keep trying
though, it's fun to watch.
Kisai
> On Aug 24, 10:25 pm, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical Tradition",
> > > > (whatever the heck that means). It's from a philosophical branch of
> > > > Taoism, which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold, live
> > > > forever, talk with spirits and many other things that people in the
> > > > "Western Magical Tradition" are trying to do.
>
> > > Are you kidding me? You're saying the Tao is WMT?
>
> > Negative. I'm saying that the Tao Te Ching receives a
> > disproportionate amount of attention from the students of the "WMT".
>
> So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
(mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
>
> > I'm also refuting the WMT/EMT diochotomy. It makes no sense at all on
> > where one draws lines.
>
> Sure it does. No one said we didn't get to be arbitrary.
Really? Is African magic WMT or EMT? How about Amerindian magic?
Australian? The Bible is from an Asiatic source, yet it's considered
a founding stone for WMT. Greeks practically live in Asia, have an
Egyptian influence, yet their philosophy is considered a founding
stone too.
People *say* WMT and EMT, but what they *really mean* is the dichotomy
between monotheistic vs. polytheistic peoples (I'm not sure what side
to put henotheistic peoples).
>
> > > And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions, not magical. Magick
> > > is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
>
> > Muh... I don't believe in 'mystery schools', Rosicrucians, Knights
> > Templar, Sions of Priory, Illuminati, a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey
> > Oswald, nor magic being a result of them.
>
> Well, there really were "Mystery Cults" of Isis and Osiris in
> Hellenistic times. There are mysterious artifacts that point to a rich
> tradition of magickal lore found in the Greek and Roman Magickal
> Papyri and Affixiones. The Dad Sea Scrolls record the history of the
> Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness. There really were mystery
> traditions and mystery schools, and they really left behind useful
> bits of knowledge, like Pythagorus and his theorem.
> Does that mean the Rosey Cross and all the subsequent forgeries
that
> wore their decaying rags were legit Mystery Schools? Beats the hell
> out of me. I think they were made-up, but I just wasn't there when the
> Isis cult was operating, so I don't know if it was based on something
> real or equally made up.
>
> If people then were like we are now, then chances are 99% of what they
> learned in the Mystery Schools was bullshit.
Oh, I know Mystery Schools exist. I just don't believe in them. I
believe in talented individuals. I believe in clubs, some with
"secret" knowledge or agendas. I believe in rubes and marks.
I don't believe that magic is a result of these "Mystery Schools".
Magic is a result of people trying to take some sort of control over
things that they have no control over. It's basic human nature, which
is why it endures.
> That's the retroactive reflex property of Sturgeon's Law.
>
> -R.O.
>
> alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
> Consulthttp://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/where you
> may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
> for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
> Moderation Team at moderat...@alt-magick-moderated.org
Rufus Opus
> On Aug 28, 1:23 pm, Rufus Opus wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
> > something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
> > difference between internal and external.
>
> It's impossible to remove something that isn't there. Keep trying
> though, it's fun to watch.
Just because you're blind to it doesn't mean it isn't there. But do
have fun watching someone who sees more to interact with than you.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> > So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
>
> It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
> translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
> (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
> understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT. He and his 19th-
century cohorts did a fine job mixing things together, but the WMT
goes back a wee bit longer than a hundred years, just like the rest of
Western civilization. This most recent spillage is being worked back
out of the system now by the people who have had a couple generations
to see the longterm effects of Fortune/Crowley/Mathers' mystical
interpretations of the Work in action.
> Really? Is African magic WMT or EMT? How about Amerindian magic?
> Australian? The Bible is from an Asiatic source, yet it's considered
> a founding stone for WMT. Greeks practically live in Asia, have an
> Egyptian influence, yet their philosophy is considered a founding
> stone too.
>
> People *say* WMT and EMT, but what they *really mean* is the dichotomy
> between monotheistic vs. polytheistic peoples (I'm not sure what side
> to put henotheistic peoples).
You're really not sure of a lot. Or maybe you are sure... sure wrong!
Both the East and West have what can be considered monotheistic and
polytheistic beliefs that worked their ways into their specific
mystery traditions. You just don't get the EMT/WMT thing at all.
> Oh, I know Mystery Schools exist. I just don't believe in them.
:rimshot:
Thanks, I'm here all week.
-R.O.
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 7:08 am, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 1:23 pm, Rufus Opus wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
>> > something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
>> > difference between internal and external.
>>
>> It's impossible to remove something that isn't there. Keep trying
>> though, it's fun to watch.
>
> Just because you're blind to it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Just because she doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean she's blind.
It might mean you're deluded.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 7:08 am, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
>>
>> It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
>> translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
>> (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
>> understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
>
> Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
> arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT.
Neither are you. Is that equally hard to believe?
The so-called "Western Mystery Tradition" is a collection of largely
unsubstantiated lore drawn from cultures all over the planet and woven into
an idiosyncratic pattern by occultists who were mostly contemporaries (and
often associates, at one time or another) of Crowley.
> He and his 19th-
> century cohorts did a fine job mixing things together, but the WMT
> goes back a wee bit longer than a hundred years, just like the rest of
> Western civilization.
No, the "WMT" was collected from lore which was selectively gleaned from
previous centuries and often badly distorted and misattributed. This
unreliable collection of myths, mistranslations, and miscellaneous tall
tales was not shaped into the "WMT" until the 19th Century by occultists who
merely imagined that their fanciful visions were shared by those who came
before.
Rufus Opus
> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188399846....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 28, 1:23 pm, Rufus Opus wrote:
>
> >> > It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
> >> > something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
> >> > difference between internal and external.
>
> >> It's impossible to remove something that isn't there. Keep trying
> >> though, it's fun to watch.
>
> > Just because you're blind to it doesn't mean it isn't there.
>
> Just because she doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean she's blind.
> It might mean you're deluded.
Oh, it's beliefs now, not statement of fact? Let's see:
"It's impossible to remove something that isn't there." = "It's
impossible to remove something I believe isn't there."
Whatever.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188400557.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
>
> >> It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
> >> translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
> >> (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
> >> understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
>
> > Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
> > arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT.
>
> Neither are you. Is that equally hard to believe?
>
> The so-called "Western Mystery Tradition" is a collection of largely
> unsubstantiated lore drawn from cultures all over the planet and woven into
> an idiosyncratic pattern by occultists who were mostly contemporaries (and
> often associates, at one time or another) of Crowley.
According to Tom? Maybe you're not aware, but Crowley et al were
working from the collections of manuscripts that had been donated to
the library. These collections preceded them by hundreds of years.
Their weaving together of the lore was only one instance of scholars
attempting to do so in the long history of the WMT. While Crowley is a
sacred cow, mostly I assume because he's so easy to quote form being
so recent, limiting yourself to his and his contemporaries'
commentaries on the Occult limits you to millenia of insight gleaned
from various other sources.
> > He and his 19th-
> > century cohorts did a fine job mixing things together, but the WMT
> > goes back a wee bit longer than a hundred years, just like the rest of
> > Western civilization.
>
> No, the "WMT" was collected from lore which was selectively gleaned from
> previous centuries and often badly distorted and misattributed. This
> unreliable collection of myths, mistranslations, and miscellaneous tall
> tales was not shaped into the "WMT" until the 19th Century by occultists who
> merely imagined that their fanciful visions were shared by those who came
> before.
Oh, you've never heard of Cornelius Agrippa? He wrote Three Books of
Occult Philosophy, which wove together the lore of the western mystery
tradition in the fifteenth century. If you get a chance, read the
translations (unless you read Latin, in which you can go to Bivio and
see the originals).
-R.O.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 1:11 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188400557.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
>>
>> >> It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
>> >> translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
>> >> (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
>> >> understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
>>
>> > Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
>> > arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT.
>>
>> Neither are you. Is that equally hard to believe?
>>
>> The so-called "Western Mystery Tradition" is a collection of largely
>> unsubstantiated lore drawn from cultures all over the planet and woven
>> into
>> an idiosyncratic pattern by occultists who were mostly contemporaries
>> (and
>> often associates, at one time or another) of Crowley.
>
> According to Tom?
According to verifiable evidence.
> Maybe you're not aware, but Crowley et al were
> working from the collections of manuscripts that had been donated to
> the library. These collections preceded them by hundreds of years.
This is where they found a lot of the largely unsubstantiated lore drawn
from cultures all over the planet, including Egyptian, Greek, and Oriental
works.
>> No, the "WMT" was collected from lore which was selectively gleaned from
>> previous centuries and often badly distorted and misattributed. This
>> unreliable collection of myths, mistranslations, and miscellaneous tall
>> tales was not shaped into the "WMT" until the 19th Century by occultists
>> who
>> merely imagined that their fanciful visions were shared by those who came
>> before.
>
> Oh, you've never heard of Cornelius Agrippa? He wrote Three Books of
> Occult Philosophy, which wove together the lore of the western mystery
> tradition in the fifteenth century.
Agrippa did not consider himself to be part of any "Western Mystery
Tradition". He was recruited posthumously by the 19th century occultists.
He's one of the sources for the largely unsubstantiated lore I've been
referring to.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 1:00 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188399846....@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 29, 7:08 am, mika <mika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Aug 28, 1:23 pm, Rufus Opus wrote:
>>
>> >> > It seems to me that there's little point in trying to differentiate
>> >> > something in a conversation that starts with someone removing the
>> >> > difference between internal and external.
>>
>> >> It's impossible to remove something that isn't there. Keep trying
>> >> though, it's fun to watch.
>>
>> > Just because you're blind to it doesn't mean it isn't there.
>>
>> Just because she doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean she's
>> blind.
>> It might mean you're deluded.
>
> Oh, it's beliefs now, not statement of fact?
It's very common for people to think that their beliefs are "statements of
fact". However, as you've acknowledged before, these alleged "statements of
fact" you've been making aren't actually verifiable by independent
observation.
Kisai
> On Aug 29, 7:08 am, Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not Western Mystery Shit.
>
> > It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'., and he attempted a
> > translation, so its part of the Western Mystery Shit. His
> > (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also partly based on his
> > understanding of the Tao Te Ching, so again, WMS.
>
> Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
> arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT. He and his 19th-
> century cohorts did a fine job mixing things together, but the WMT
> goes back a wee bit longer than a hundred years, just like the rest of
> Western civilization. This most recent spillage is being worked back
> out of the system now by the people who have had a couple generations
> to see the longterm effects of Fortune/Crowley/Mathers' mystical
> interpretations of the Work in action.
I agree with you, but like it or not, Crowley is very much part of the
WMT. If he says "Read this book, its important for understanding my
work." then *his interpretation of the book* (not the book itself) is
currently part of the WMT.
> > Really? Is African magic WMT or EMT? How about Amerindian magic?
> > Australian? The Bible is from an Asiatic source, yet it's considered
> > a founding stone for WMT. Greeks practically live in Asia, have an
> > Egyptian influence, yet their philosophy is considered a founding
> > stone too.
>
> > People *say* WMT and EMT, but what they *really mean* is the dichotomy
> > between monotheistic vs. polytheistic peoples (I'm not sure what side
> > to put henotheistic peoples).
>
> You're really not sure of a lot. Or maybe you are sure... sure wrong!
>
> Both the East and West have what can be considered monotheistic and
> polytheistic beliefs that worked their ways into their specific
> mystery traditions. You just don't get the EMT/WMT thing at all.
That's correct, I don't get false dichotomies at all. This is
probably due to my actually going over the Pacific ocean and visiting
Eastern countries, especially Thailand.
> > Oh, I know Mystery Schools exist. I just don't believe in them.
>
> :rimshot:
>
> Thanks, I'm here all week.
That's my joke, joker.
> -R.O.
>
> alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
> Consulthttp://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/where you
> may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
> for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
> Moderation Team at moderat...@alt-magick-moderated.org
This is moderated...ummm... FUCK!!!!
Rufus Opus
> Agrippa did not consider himself to be part of any "Western Mystery
> Tradition". He was recruited posthumously by the 19th century occultists.
> He's one of the sources for the largely unsubstantiated lore I've been
> referring to.
Agrippa would certainly have considered his work a compilation of the
WMT. Check his letter to Trithemius in the introduction of the Three
Books:
"Hence my spirit was moved, and by reason partly of admiration, and
partly of indignation, I was willing to play the Philosopher,
supposing that I should do no discommendable work, who have been
always from my youth a curious, and undaunted searcher for wonderfull
effects, and operations full of mysteries; if I should recover that
ancient Magick the discipline of all wise men from the errors of
impiety, purifie [purify] and adorn it with its proper lustre, and
vindicate it from the injuries of calumniators."
WTF are you getting at, Tom? You're not making sense. Are you trying
to say the phrase itself hadn't been coined in the 1400s? Is that what
this is all about, semantics? Lexicography? Etymology?
Good grief.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> I agree with you, but like it or not, Crowley is very much part of the
> WMT. If he says "Read this book, its important for understanding my
> work." then *his interpretation of the book* (not the book itself) is
> currently part of the WMT.
You have a point. I think it sucks. Most folks haven't got a 33rd of
his wit, humor, or experience.
Fortunately, we're far enough removed in time to see the cultural
influences he was operating under, and we've also lived long enough to
see the fruit of the GD interpretation of the WMT and their clumsy
attempts at syncretizing the EMT into the WMT. We, and the magicians
that follow us, will have the opportunity to put Crowley in his place
in time, alongside Eliphas Levi and Ed Kelley.
And then we can get back to the real magick of the West. With gun s
and lariots and horses...
> That's correct, I don't get false dichotomies at all. This is
> probably due to my actually going over the Pacific ocean and visiting
> Eastern countries, especially Thailand.
See, that's what getting more experience does to you, it goes and
fucks up your perspective by injecting truth into your theories.
Imagine what really doing the Magick of the West might do to the
magicians so adept in their parroting of Regardie's oath-breaking
publications.
-R.O.
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 4:35 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Agrippa did not consider himself to be part of any "Western Mystery
>> Tradition". He was recruited posthumously by the 19th century
>> occultists.
>> He's one of the sources for the largely unsubstantiated lore I've been
>> referring to.
>
> Agrippa would certainly have considered his work a compilation of the
> WMT.
An amusing speculation.
> Check his letter to Trithemius in the introduction of the Three
> Books:
>
> "Hence my spirit was moved, and by reason partly of admiration, and
> partly of indignation, I was willing to play the Philosopher,
> supposing that I should do no discommendable work, who have been
> always from my youth a curious, and undaunted searcher for wonderfull
> effects, and operations full of mysteries; if I should recover that
> ancient Magick the discipline of all wise men from the errors of
> impiety, purifie [purify] and adorn it with its proper lustre, and
> vindicate it from the injuries of calumniators."
"All the wise men". Not just the ones from Europe.
> WTF are you getting at, Tom? You're not making sense.
You haven't got the gist yet. That's all.
Rufus Opus
> "All the wise men". Not just the ones from Europe.
>
> > WTF are you getting at, Tom? You're not making sense.
>
> You haven't got the gist yet. That's all.
I think I'm beginning to, but it would help if you'd have the decency
to have a coherent stance at the outset.
You think of the West as only Europe? I was taught in high school
history classes that Western Civilization began in the Fertile
Crescent, and spread around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and
Europe. Islam is, in my understanding a religion of the West. The
"Middle East" is the birthplace of the West. The Mystery Traditions
that developed within the umbrella of the Western Civilization would
be WMT. The Sumerians, the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the
Persians, the Romans, the Turks, the Italians, French, British, and so
forth to the USA. The Huns, I'm not so sure of, but they're at least
cousines.
But the culture of India and China/Japan developed differently, and
the mysticism of their culture remained mostly separated from the West
until Theosophy grew like mushrooms on the graves of the victims of
the Imperial grip of the Europeans during the colonial times. China
and Japan were further separated. Marco Polo, for all his wonderful
stories of the East, was a prisoner of the royalty of the Far East for
years. There were instances of trade, as evidenced by the Caucasian
mummies found in China on the old Silk Road, but the mystical schools
don't show much in the way of migration of beliefs from East to West
until after the nineteenth century. The magickal practices of the
renaissance can be traced back to the Greek Magickal papyri, the
defixiones of the Romans, the astrology of the Persians, and the
temple practices (presumably, based on reports from Iamblichus) of the
Egyptians.
Out of the East, in my understanding, came Yoga, Prana, and the
mysteries of the Hindu beliefs, Taoism and the Chinese concept of
internal alchemy, and the Buddhist concept of transcendence. Shintoism
and Onmiyoji are more aligned with WMT practice than EMT. I don't know
if they descended from some proto-shamanic belief system in the far
East, or if they came from some interaction with the West.
Western Mysteries are generally characterized by an interaction with
divinity external to the individual, whether the individual is in a
monotheistic, polythiestic, or pantheistic belief system. Auras and
halos and such come from external interactions with whatever
manifestations of God you're partial to.
Eastern Mysteries seem to be characterized by an interaction with
divinity accessed within, an expression of the internal spiritual
processes of the EMT.
-Broad classifications here, lots of room for exceptions to be drawn.
-R.O.
Tom
> On Aug 29, 8:24 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "All the wise men". Not just the ones from Europe.
>>
>> > WTF are you getting at, Tom? You're not making sense.
>>
>> You haven't got the gist yet. That's all.
>
> I think I'm beginning to, but it would help if you'd have the decency
> to have a coherent stance at the outset.
I do, but since we don't share certain assumptions, what I'm talking about
seems incoherent to you. It violates your assumptions.
> You think of the West as only Europe? I was taught in high school
> history classes that Western Civilization began in the Fertile
> Crescent, and spread around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and
> Europe.
Civilization also spread east to the Orient, so we're talking about two
branches of the same tree with plenty of interaction along the way. Once
you start using stuff from the ancient past, you're no longer talking about
"Western" stuff. Magic is the lore of humanity, not just of the white guys.
Any attempt to cut out whole sections of learning due solely to geographical
or racial differences is just plain foolishness.
You're never going to get the whole picture if you refuse to look at all its
parts.
nagasiva
Rufus Opus:
>> Please refrain from further attempts at
>> syncretizing the WMT with the EMT.
LOL
mika [M]:
> In order to "attempt at syncretizing" two ideas,
> those ideas must be opposing or at least must > differ, by definition.
> So, what, exactly, is the difference between the WMT and EMT?
take up some wiki standards why don't you? for WMT i would point
toward the Matthews' "The Western Way" parts 1 and 2 as helpful
in coming to describe (/define) WMT/WET. it is extremely
simplistic to think that WMT/WET is inclusive in "the West"
and there is no single description that will allow us to
fashion convincingly a meaning for this new term "EMT".
termwars. get of
> ...for example, the distinction between Taoist Internal
> Alchemy and Hermetic is so minor
"Hermetic" is European, originally Middle Eastern after Geber
and others, i think, including Paracelsus and many others.
they aren't identical or extremely close. their metaphors
are at extreme variance and you would do well to explain
how it is that you think the differences are so minor.
> that the two correspond rather effortlessly,
can you point to a spot online or briefly sketch out some
pointers to their correspondences? I think this would be
very helpful if it can be constructed.
> with no "attempt at syncretizing" necessary in order
> to relate the two.
I disagree after some reflection on each over the course
of years. it is something which i have a great interest
in (their correspondences/matchings) and would encourage
you to flesh this hypothesis out somewhat.
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
abbrev key
WMT = Western Mystery Tradition/Western Magical Tradition
WET = Western Esoteric Tradition
EMT = Eastern Mystery Tradition(s!)
mika
> On Aug 29, 8:24 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "All the wise men". Not just the ones from Europe.
>
> > > WTF are you getting at, Tom? You're not making sense.
>
> > You haven't got the gist yet. That's all.
>
> I think I'm beginning to, but it would help if you'd have the decency
> to have a coherent stance at the outset.
>
Agrippa wrote "all the wise men", which includes people from all over
the world. *You* are the one who is limiting that category to
"Western" wise men, in order to claim your distinction between WMT and
EMT has its roots in Agrippa.
333
Kisai <Aristo...@gmail.com>:
>Rufus Opus <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com>:
>>Kisai <Aristos.Ki...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>>> The Tao Te Ching is not a handbook on the "Eastern Magical
>>>>> Tradition", (whatever the heck that means).
true, it appears to be a mystical manual quietist advice to the
individual in governments and at home. apparently there are
several editions/organizations of the text, which is in ancient
Chinese, and its authorship is legendized.
>>>>>> It's from a philosophical branch of Taoism,
I've heard this asserted before but am unsure of its sustainability.
usually this is described as the "chia" and "chiao" currents or
faces of Taoism (corrections welcomed!) and these are by those who
are to me somewhat untrustworthy (Western zealots) described as
completely distinct. by some other sources their integration is
explained (as in Schipper's "The Taoist Body" {1}, or Wong's
Shambhala Guide to Taoism {2}) without much emphasis on either
philosophy or religion as identifying.
>>>>>> which is full of folks trying to do magic, make gold,
>>>>>> live forever, talk with spirits and many other things
>>>>>> that people in the "Western Magical Tradition" are
>>>>>> trying to do.
perhaps the "Western Magical Tradition" as you have it here
are as artificially dividing out religion and philosophy or
magic and religion as are the Western(?) fomenters of
chia and chiao when attempting to put some variant on this
across to the rest of us. for example, Taoist sand diviners
worshipping Xiwangmu and deriving from Ko Hung methods of
alchemical advancement don't seem to be paying a heck of a
lot of attention to Lao Tzu or the Tao Teh Ching. why not?
>>>> Are you kidding me? You're saying the Tao is WMT?
>>
>>> Negative. I'm saying that the Tao Te Ching receives
>>> a disproportionate amount of attention from the
>>> students of the "WMT".
what this means is that those who have fashioned this
current (WMT) have the opinion that the TTC is mystical.
while this is substantiated, it isn't easily separable
from the folk magic portion of Chinese culture, just as
natural magic sources such as Agrippa aren't easily
separable from the mystical magic of Hermetic currents
in Western culture. such hard and fast distinctions
typically only obtain in analysis of certain cults
(religious groups) or mystical lineages/instructors.
>> So what? It's still Eastern Mystery shit. Not
>> Western Mystery Shit.
artificial and awkward, ignoring the shitty insult.
> It's on Crowley's reading list for the A.'.A.'.,
a good example of a facet of WET/WMT. spawning off of
the Golden Dawn, Crowley and George Cecil Jones
constructed the AA for mystical and occult aims. the
AA has now arguably fractionated into several strands.
Crwoley's reading list for this is usually said to
reside in "One Star in Sight" which is an appendix
to his "Liber ABA", or "Book Four", aka "Magick".
> and he attempted a translation,
false. he created an interpolation, which his zealots
describe as translation in order to escalate his
expertise (fraudulently). Crowley had no sound
knowledge of ancient Chinese and could never have
made a translation of its extant remains.
> so its part of the Western Mystery Shit.
it is relevant to his (pro-quietist, pro-mystical)
portion of the WET/WMT. syncretism appears to be an
important part of these WET/WMT trads, and this
appears to stem out of hellenization. we might even
argue that magic as it attempts to standardize and
shift to the forefront of social presentation becomes
syncretistic and simplifying of religious components
(Betz makes this point about Greco-Egyptian magicians
in early Christian contexts -- see one of my recent
posts on Christian magic and its hellenized syncretism).
> His (mis)conception of Yellow Magicians are also
> partly based on his understanding of the Tao Te Ching,
> so again, WMS.
that's all Crowley's terminology from his "Magick
Without Tears" (nobody else finds it valuable to
my knowledge, in its colour-scheme, and its connection
to race is too easily slipped into, so only those who
are Crowleyans and zealots tend to focus on it. I'd
suggest that the Yellow/White/Black magick trinity is
an indicator of the Crowleyan aspect of the WMT and
little more. defend it here if you like it so much.
>>> I'm also refuting the WMT/EMT diochotomy. It
>>> makes no sense at all on where one draws lines.
>>
>> Sure it does. No one said we didn't get to be arbitrary.
the discussion will helpfully resolve to explaining how
it has been that the terms 'Western' and 'Eastern' and
therefore 'Near Eastern' and 'Middle Eastern' labels
have been meant, by whom, and why they are at all
valuable to maintain in today's multicultural melange
with our growing ability to transport from place to
place and interfuse cultural currents.
> Really? Is African magic WMT or EMT? How about
> Amerindian magic? Australian? The Bible is from
> an Asiatic source, yet it's considered a founding
> stone for WMT. Greeks practically live in Asia,
> have an Egyptian influence, yet their philosophy
> is considered a founding stone too.
beautiful. you are helpfully pointing out the real
problems with these biased descriptors. instead of
"East/West" characters we should be talking about
something more grounded, geographically or culturally.
even that will eventually break down over time as
cultural currents interfuse, genetics spreads, and
the human family becomes more diverse and interwoven.
> People *say* WMT and EMT, but what they *really mean*
> is the dichotomy between monotheistic vs. polytheistic
> peoples (I'm not sure what side to put henotheistic
> peoples).
I *strongly* doubt this. my impression is that few have
any kind of complex understanding of it at all, and that
by and large the WET folx using these labels are
monolatrists attempting to syncretize everything
under a single system (after 777 or its like).
arguments for and against these "real meanings" would
be welcomed here. excellent topical focus!.
>>>> And it's Eastern and Western Mystery Traditions,
>>>> not magical.
term wars. semantics. I urge you all to suspend your
attempt at term control and simply flow with the
various usages, identifying what *you* mean as
succinctly as possible. this is why i append 'abbrev
key' fields at the end of my posts using them.
>>>> Magick is a subset of the mystery schools of the west.
in the case where "magick" is what Crowley created in his
innovation, then this is agreed. in the case where the term
"magick" is merely a common referent to occult (as compared
with stage) magic, this is simplistic and foolish. magic is
a facett of all cultures to my knowledge, and is not a
subset of any single time or people or place. study some
more archaeology, anthropology, and history please.
>>> ...I don't believe in 'mystery schools', Rosicrucians,
>>> Knights Templar, Sions of Priory, Illuminati, ....
>>> nor magic being a result of them.
your disbelief that magic was a result of these mystery
schools seems reasonable. they may have yielded mystical
and/or religious data, but their magic appears to be
relgiomystical in character if it exists at all and
it is not definitive. corrections welcomed.
>> Well, there really were "Mystery Cults" of Isis and
>> Osiris in Hellenistic times.
Angus and others have covered the mystery religions
(including and relating this to Christianity!) in some
great detail. there seems no doubt that they existed.
>> There are mysterious
>> artifacts that point to a rich tradition of [magical]
>> lore found in the Greek and Roman [Magical] Papyri
>> and [defixiones].
how do you believe that these are related to any
mystery school? is this a hellenistic syncretism?
consult my quotation of Betz in my other post about
how the magicians of these times were not familiar
with the original cultures they were interweaving.
>> The [Dead] Sea Scrolls record the
>> history of the Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness.
is that history? or legend? who are these "Sons"?
I had the impression that these were religious
documents, and therefore of questionable historicity.
(note: those who believe that the scriptures of the
world religions are historical documents only are
simplistic and not to be trusted -- the scriptures
are often cultural remnants, propaganda, legends,
folk tales, and poetry and other things all mixed
together into a kind of presentation soup).
>> There really were mystery traditions and mystery
>> schools, and they really left behind useful bits
>> of knowledge, like [Pythagoras] and his theorem.
there were Pythagoreans and Neopythagoreans,
Platonists and Neoplatonists. were all of them
"mystery schools"? or just "philosophical schools"?
how should we distinguish these from one another?
it is plain that a good deal of it wasn't magical,
but pertained to cosmology (as with the Pythagorean
vision of the world as composed of numbers) or math
(as with the Pythagorean Theorem), or philosophy
(as with the entire corpus known from Plato).
>> Does that mean the [Rosy] Cross and all the
>> subsequent forgeries that wore their decaying
>> rags were legit Mystery Schools? Beats the hell
>> out of me. I think they were made-up, but I just
>> wasn't there when the Isis cult was operating,
>> so I don't know if it was based on something
>> real or equally made up.
it is true that a batch of what is current or even
has come and gone were frauds of former times, and
distinguishing these one from another takes a great
deal of knowledge and time. occultists are famous
for constructing fraudulent rafts floating the
orientalism of the day as ancient revealed mysteries,
often displacing real data such as from contemporaneous
mystics whose tales and information may be only semi-
reliable in its (historical) content.
>> If people then were like we are now, then chances
>> are 99% of what they learned in the Mystery
>> Schools was bullshit.
agreed, but "bullshit" is not helpful in an evaluation
of function. it is far better to examine what the
data or knowledge did for the participants and explain
how they functioned as cognitive tools, in the sense
of explanatory cosmology, philosophical foundation,
or psycho-magical component (as what Gray and others
call a 'telismetic/telesmic image' if you like).
> Oh, I know Mystery Schools exist. I just don't
> believe in them. I believe in talented individuals.
> I believe in clubs, some with "secret" knowledge
> or agendas. I believe in rubes and marks.
>
> I don't believe that magic is a result of these
> "Mystery Schools". Magic is a result of people
> trying to take some sort of control over things
> that they have no control over. It's basic
> human nature, which is why it endures.
completely agreed. the mystery schools are by modern
"mystery school" (shadows of or reflections at best
of ancient forerunners) standards, not the generators
or fosterers of magical data/lore. their legends and
tale motifs may become some of the components of
(at least modern) magical exposition.
>> That's the retroactive reflex property of
>> Sturgeon's Law.
I have no idea what this means.
333
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
notes
1 - see
http://www.amazon.com/Taoist-Body-Kristofer-Schipper/dp/0520082249
Paperback: 273 pages
Publisher: University of California Press (March 19, 1994)
ISBN-10: 0520082249
ISBN-13: 978-0520082243
2 - see
http://www.amazon.com/Shambhala-Guide-Taoism-Guides/dp/1570621691
Paperback: 268 pages
Publisher: Shambhala; 1st ed edition (December 17, 1996)
ISBN-10: 1570621691
ISBN-13: 978-1570621697
abbrev key
WMT - Western Mystery Tradition/Western Magical Tradition-
WET - Western Esoteric Tradition
Kisai
> Western Mysteries are generally characterized by an interaction with
> divinity external to the individual, whether the individual is in a
> monotheistic, polythiestic, or pantheistic belief system. Auras and
> halos and such come from external interactions with whatever
> manifestations of God you're partial to.
>
> Eastern Mysteries seem to be characterized by an interaction with
> divinity accessed within, an expression of the internal spiritual
> processes of the EMT.
One would think this, but in my experiences of visiting a primarily
Theravedic Buddhist country, Thailand, where 95% of the people are
Theravedic Buddhist, it actually is not completely so. Folk religion
and folk magic pervades the country, prominently. About every kiosk
in every privately rented shop in their malls has a shrine to a
buddha,saint, past king, the present king, or a Hindu or Chinese diety
of some sort. I also spotted some shrines in corporate owned shops as
well.
There is also a habit of the populance to supplicate the spirits of
deceased holy monks for financial success and money! I have a manual
in my possession, written in Thai, which outlines methods for
supplicating various deceased monks for various things, just like in a
grimoire. This manual was given by a devout Buddhist, as well as an
amulet for one of the money attracting monks.
I would also remind the gentle reader that Thailand is a country that
has never been colonized by a Western nation.
mika
>
> mika [M] wrote:
>
> > that the two correspond rather effortlessly,
>
> can you point to a spot online or briefly sketch out some
> pointers to their correspondences? I think this would be
> very helpful if it can be constructed.
More words on the subject aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > with no "attempt at syncretizing" necessary in order
> > to relate the two.
>
> I disagree after some reflection on each over the course
> of years. it is something which i have a great interest
> in (their correspondences/matchings) and would encourage
> you to flesh this hypothesis out somewhat.
Perhaps you should spend more time practicing internal alchemy rather
than simply "reflecting" on the subject. If you have the experiences,
using any system, then the correspondences between systems become
glaringly obvious.
333
Rufus Opus <FrRedac...@gmail.com>:
>Crowley is not, although I know it's hard to believe, the final
>arbitrator of what *is* and what *is not* the WMT. He and his 19th-
>century cohorts did a fine job mixing things together, but the WMT
>goes back a wee bit longer than a hundred years, just like the rest of
>Western civilization. This most recent spillage is being worked back
>out of the system now by the people who have had a couple generations
>to see the longterm effects of Fortune/Crowley/Mathers' mystical
>interpretations of the Work in action.
<snip>
>Both the East and West have what can be considered monotheistic and
>polytheistic beliefs that worked their ways into their specific
>mystery traditions. You just don't get the EMT/WMT thing at all.
please elaborate as to your knowledge of this, who is and is not
involved with these, and how we might find data on them as
compared with anything else with which they may be mixed. these
terms/phrases aren't entirely obvious to the reader who has some
exposure to the entire field of occultism, so your clarification,
should you be willing to make it, may assist all of us. thanks.
333
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
nagasiva
"Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> to R.O.:
> I [have a coherent stance], but since we don't share
> certain assumptions, what I'm talking about seems
> incoherent to you. It violates your assumptions.
agreed. I can see this in your exchange.
> Civilization also spread east to the Orient,
from African origins, i suppose you mean, through
Harrappan or other civilizations, etc.
> so we're talking about two branches of the same
> tree with plenty of interaction along the way.
agreed. it quickly stops, with all the trade
routes, being just two branches. limitations
to spreading may arise due to sociopolitical
conflicts, warfare, etc.
> Once you start using stuff from the ancient
> past, you're no longer talking about "Western"
> stuff. Magic is the lore of humanity, not
> just of the white guys.
completely agreed. this is the problem of those
who try to foist the "magick derives from the
western mystery schools" hypothesis upon us all.
> Any attempt to cut out whole sections of
> learning due solely to geographical or racial
> differences is just plain foolishness.
this seems to have been in some measure the
interest of a goodly number of 19th and turn
of the 20th century occultists, who had
"root race" theories and hierarchic notions
of transphysical cosmology.
> You're never going to get the whole picture
> if you refuse to look at all its parts.
even then the problem is daunting. it must help
to have geographical and temporal referents at
least for the data which comes into being. the
standards of anthropologists could easily be
used, rather than "interpreted" as was done
in the last century by religion-constructors
and "reclaimers/revivalists" (Neopagans/etc.).
what might these be? which might be the best
to apply? I am barely familiar and hope to
identify these through time, for posterity,
to the occult community, which seems awash
in delusions and cultural bias.
one of the things which is helpful about the
Hermetic revival of the 19th century is that
a goodly number of them were trying to apply
a slightly less stratified standard to their
constructions, being at times more broad-
minded in perceiving what was to them alien.
the AA of Crowley and GCJones, for example,
in some of its documents, specifies a kind
of "unified magical theory" as an ideal,
even while it errs and gets lost in delusion.
we could examine this and other unified
theories of global magical import were we
at all interested in coming to a lexicon
which was sustainable and respectful of
all cultures from which we were drawing
in our syncretism.
nagasiva
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Absorbed
malarky would end when I escaped Google. And on this it actually says
it's not posted when it actually has. Anyway...
nagasiva wrote:
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> to R.O.:
>> I [have a coherent stance], but since we don't share
>> certain assumptions, what I'm talking about seems incoherent to you.
It violates your assumptions.
>
> agreed. I can see this in your exchange.
In my experience it's takes years to create some sort of shared diction
for debate. Misunderstandings happen continuously when you can't
understand the other's point or can't communicate your own. It seems
that agreeing on definitions is obligatory before real debate can begin,
as everyone has their individual quirks of language use.
And I am talking about face-to-face debating; in my brief experience,
it's even more difficult on Usenet. And I've completely ignored the fact
that people get insulted or are unwilling to truly question certain
beliefs, which are yet more barriers to real debate.
Rufus Opus
> For the love of God, I thought this "says it's posted but not posted"
> malarky would end when I escaped Google. And on this it actually says
> it's not posted when it actually has. Anyway...
>
> nagasiva wrote:
>
> In my experience it's takes years to create some sort of shared diction
> for debate. Misunderstandings happen continuously when you can't
> understand the other's point or can't communicate your own. It seems
> that agreeing on definitions is obligatory before real debate can begin,
> as everyone has their individual quirks of language use.
>
> And I am talking about face-to-face debating; in my brief experience,
> it's even more difficult on Usenet. And I've completely ignored the fact
> that people get insulted or are unwilling to truly question certain
> beliefs, which are yet more barriers to real debate.
Fuck you!
;)
-R.O.
Absorbed
> On Aug 31, 1:24 am, Absorbed <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For the love of God, I thought this "says it's posted but not posted"
>> malarky would end when I escaped Google. And on this it actually says
>> it's not posted when it actually has. Anyway...
>>
>> nagasiva wrote:
>>
>
>> In my experience it's takes years to create some sort of shared diction
>> for debate. Misunderstandings happen continuously when you can't
>> understand the other's point or can't communicate your own. It seems
>> that agreeing on definitions is obligatory before real debate can begin,
>> as everyone has their individual quirks of language use.
>>
>> And I am talking about face-to-face debating; in my brief experience,
>> it's even more difficult on Usenet. And I've completely ignored the fact
>> that people get insulted or are unwilling to truly question certain
>> beliefs, which are yet more barriers to real debate.
>
> Fuck you!
>
> ;)
People say that you are outspoken, but not by anyone that I know of. :)
alt.magick.moderated keeps censoring me, claiming I am posting binaries.
That's the last time I crosspost to there. I am not entirely sure why
nagasiva keeps adding it anyway. Is it to maintain the illusion that
someone actually reads it?
xiwangmu
"Eastern" and "Western" alchemies obviously correspond.
my experience is that they don't exactly match up. the
reply appears to be that it is "glaringly obvious".
any takers?
[M] mika <mik...@gmail.com>:
>> ...If you have the experiences, using any system, then the
>> correspondences between systems become glaringly obvious.
that should make your line-up of these Geber/European vs
Ko Hung/Chinese alchemies pretty easy to match up. I'm
noting your avoidance of this and attention to me instead.
mu
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@nagasiva ----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html --
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html --
-- http://dmoz.org/Bookmarks/B/boboroshi/ --
--------------------------------------------
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
mika
> I asked for substantiation that the symbolic systems of the
> "Eastern" and "Western" alchemies obviously correspond.
> my experience is that they don't exactly match up. the
> reply appears to be that it is "glaringly obvious".
> any takers?
I didn't say "the symbolic systems... obviously correspond", I said
"the correspondences between [these] systems become glaringly
obvious". You are focusing on trying to exactly match up a bunch of
symbols from different systems. I am talking about how the
experiential results of the different systems match up, regardless of
consistencies or inconsistencies in the symbolic frameworks.
> [M] mika <mika...@gmail.com>:
>
> >> ...If you have the experiences, using any system, then the
> >> correspondences between systems become glaringly obvious.
>
> that should make your line-up of these Geber/European vs
> Ko Hung/Chinese alchemies pretty easy to match up. I'm
> noting your avoidance of this and attention to me instead.
Oh, you want to play that game? Then I'm noting your avoidance of the
subject of practical experience and attention to throwing around a
bunch of word definitions instead.
xiwangmu
>> I asked for substantiation that the symbolic systems of the
[M] mika <mik...@gmail.com>:
> ...I said "the correspondences between [these] systems
> become glaringly obvious".
is there a way to showcase or reflect these correspondences?
> You are focusing on trying to exactly match up a bunch
> of symbols from different systems. I am talking about
> how the experiential results of the different systems
> match up, regardless of consistencies or inconsistencies
> in the symbolic frameworks.
thank you very much for clarifying your meaning. :)
[M] mika <mika...@gmail.com>:
>>>> ...If you have the experiences, using any system,
>>>> then the correspondences between systems become
>>>> glaringly obvious.
>>
>> that should make your line-up of these Geber/European
>> vs Ko Hung/Chinese alchemies pretty easy to match up.
> ...I'm noting your avoidance of the subject of
> practical experience
not having any practical experience with many of these
systems, i wonder how you arrive at this conclusion
and whether it is a syncretistic generalization with
no substance. thus my request for substantiation of
it through a call for expression reflecting the
correspondence that is being claimed.
> and attention to throwing around a bunch of
> word definitions instead.
that is not my interest. conventional language
is sufficient for my purposes. understanding your
actual assertion is my first order of business
therefore.
> how the experiential results of the different
> systems match up,
getting 2 individuals who are full-fledged
practitioners one from Eastern and one from
Western alchemical lineages/strata to post
their impressions of their experience of
their own and then impressions of the other
system would be the way to correlate this.
there are obvious compatabilities and
misfittings in the literature from each
that someone who is not involved could
also compare (which is what i usually do).
mysticism as a wider subject of study does
occasionally make mention of divergent
experiential results. those which apply to
"alchemy" strictly are
* transmutation of lead to gold (euro)
* transmutation of flesh to adamantine (china)
* transmutation of subjective experience or
'spirit' to a rarefied state (euro/china)
* fashioning of the Philosopher's Stone (euro)
* fashioning (and eating) of the the Pill
of Immortality (china),
and others.
> regardless of consistencies or inconsistencies
> in the symbolic frameworks.
the first that comes to mind is the supposed
result of transmuting to a body of adamantine
and joining with the Immortals or "shih" in
Taoist alchemy. do you think that this is the
same experience, for some reason, as having
obtained the Philosopher's Stone? does it
matter at all that the former ingests a
"Pill of Immortality" and the latter seeks
to "rarefy the Stone out of Black Matter"?
you're convinced that the net result to
all of these processes is the same?
if so, what convinces you of this? thanks.
mu
mika
> xiwangmu :
>
> >> I asked for substantiation that the symbolic systems of the
> >> "Eastern" and "Western" alchemies obviously correspond....
>
>
> > ...I said "the correspondences between [these] systems
> > become glaringly obvious".
>
> is there a way to showcase or reflect these correspondences?
Using words, with someone who has no practical experience? Doubtful.
> not having any practical experience with many of these
> systems, i wonder how you arrive at this conclusion
of course.
> and whether it is a syncretistic generalization with
It is not "syncretistic" because I am not attempting to reconcile
opposites. I do not consider these systems to be contradictory or
opposing. There is no need to generalize. Practical experience speaks
for itself.
> understanding your
> actual assertion is my first order of business therefore.
We'll see about that! (more below)
> > how the experiential results of the different
> > systems match up,
>
> getting 2 individuals who are full-fledged
> practitioners one from Eastern and one from
> Western alchemical lineages/strata to post
> their impressions of their experience of
> their own and then impressions of the other
> system would be the way to correlate this.
Not to an outside observer with no practical experience. Because, the
two individuals will naturally understand the correspondances between
their systems despite the insufficiency and inaccuracy of words due to
their experiential understanding, while the outside observer will get
hung up on intellectual trips like "syncretistic generalizations".
> > regardless of consistencies or inconsistencies
> > in the symbolic frameworks.
>
> the first that comes to mind is the supposed
> result of transmuting to a body of adamantine
> and joining with the Immortals or "shih" in
> Taoist alchemy. do you think that this is the
> same experience, for some reason, as having
> obtained the Philosopher's Stone? does it
> matter at all that the former ingests a
> "Pill of Immortality" and the latter seeks
> to "rarefy the Stone out of Black Matter"?
You're still talking about symbolic frameworks. You're not yet
grasping that I'm talking about the physical, spiritual and emotional
experiences that result from these operations. The words that are
used to describe the formula are irrelevant once the operation is
performed. For example, the practice of awakening the Tan Tien
corresponds with heating the Crucible to produce and circulate
Steam.
> you're convinced that the net result to
> all of these processes is the same?
You have this habit of generalizing what I write to suit your own
agenda. I did not say "the net result to all of these processes is
the same", but that there are correspondences between results.
I do, actually, believe the net result is *essentially* the same, but
I don't have the experience to back up any claims regarding "net
results". I have no interest in making definitive claims based on
intellectual speculation.
If you want to understand what I'm talking about, try doing some
practical work.
Rufus Opus
> You're not yet
> grasping that I'm talking about the physical, spiritual and emotional
> experiences that result from these operations. The words that are
> used to describe the formula are irrelevant once the operation is
> performed. For example, the practice of awakening the Tan Tien
> corresponds with heating the Crucible to produce and circulate
> Steam.
Which of these practices have you performed?
-R.O.