Misconsceptions About Magick
Relayer
> I'm planning on writing a series of articles for my site discussing (and
> clarifying) some common misconsceptions about magick that some people
> who are not pagan might have. I got the idea for this while talking to a
> (non-pagan) friend of mine online. I was doing a little research, and
> when my friend asked what I was doing, I replied, "Looking up a few
> things about magick" to which that friend replied, "I didn't know you
> were Wiccan."
>
> It's that kind of misconception I'd like to clear up, if I could, and I
> was wondering if anyone had some suggestions for the article(s). For
> instance, there may be some misconceptions that I wasn't aware of.
>
> If anyone's interested in reading my first draft for the first article,
> it can be found here:
> http://nightmare.explicitnoise.net/clarification.htm
>
> Thanks. :)
>
> ~Nightwish
Misconceptions? How about these :
Magick is supernatural.
Magick requires ritual and tools.
Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
Magick is hard to do.
You need to be born to it.
You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without practice).
Magick is EEEVIL.
Magick is inherintly perilous.
Magick is granted by Satan.
Catholic priests don't do magick. Well, attempt, anyway :o).
well, there's a start. is that the sort of thing you were looking for?
R.
Nightwish
Thanks! That's precisely what I was looking for. =)
Parse Tree
news:MgEKa.23838$R73.4035@sccrnsc04...
> Nightwish wrote:
> > I'm planning on writing a series of articles for my site discussing
(and
> > clarifying) some common misconsceptions about magick that some
people
> > who are not pagan might have. I got the idea for this while talking
to a
> > (non-pagan) friend of mine online. I was doing a little research,
and
> > when my friend asked what I was doing, I replied, "Looking up a few
> > things about magick" to which that friend replied, "I didn't know
you
> > were Wiccan."
> >
> > It's that kind of misconception I'd like to clear up, if I could,
and I
> > was wondering if anyone had some suggestions for the article(s). For
> > instance, there may be some misconceptions that I wasn't aware of.
> >
> > If anyone's interested in reading my first draft for the first
article,
> > it can be found here:
> > http://nightmare.explicitnoise.net/clarification.htm
> >
> > Thanks. :)
> >
> > ~Nightwish
>
No, it requires their existence though.
> You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without practice).
That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
Nightwish
I disagree with you on both counts, Parse. Perhaps you could explain why
you think that?
Parse Tree
news:dSKKa.11807$vx3.3...@kent.svc.tds.net...
> >
> I disagree with you on both counts, Parse. Perhaps you could explain
why
> you think that?
Well, as a theist I believe in a deity, and see it as necessary. The
debate would require a clear definition of magick, however.
Magick is a system like any other. It has it's analogies and whatever.
Doing the thing in question is really not required for the vast majority
of skills. One can know about chemistry without doing chemistry. One
can know about gay sex without having gay sex. Etc.
I'm leaving out more and more words, now. Must be the heat.
Relayer
Maybe *you* require their existence.
>>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without practice).
>
>
> That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick is a
complete and accurate understanding?
R.
Parse Tree
news:8wLKa.6501$OE2.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > >
> > I disagree with you on both counts, Parse. Perhaps you could explain
> why
> > you think that?
>
>
> Well, as a theist I believe in a deity, and see it as necessary. The
> debate would require a clear definition of magick, however.
>
> Magick is a system like any other. It has it's analogies and
whatever.
> Doing the thing in question is really not required for the vast
majority
> of skills. One can know about chemistry without doing chemistry. One
> can know about gay sex without having gay sex. Etc.
>
>
> I'm leaving out more and more words, now. Must be the heat.
Oops. The not wasn't supposed to be there after all.
It's too hot.
Parse Tree
No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are unwilling
to acknowledge it. That's why they view it as intelligent. Even if it
weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief of
magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
> >>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
practice).
> >
> >
> > That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
>
> Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick is a
> complete and accurate understanding?
It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic understanding of
magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate understanding.
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>> Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
>
>No, it requires their existence though.
This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
However, for an athiest, their opinions might be completely different
:).
If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
Bright be thy day in the sun,
Wintershard
wintershard.alt-religion-wicca.com
ARW Website at http://www.Alt-Religion-Wicca.com
Relayer
Hmm... comments, ARW?
> That's why they view it as intelligent.
I don't pretend to speak for ARW, but this would surprise me. I would
have thought more here see it as something more like a force of nature.
An example of a definition like that is found in the introduction to the
goetia:
"Magick is the Highest, most Absolute and most Divine Knowledge of
Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a
right understanding of the inward and occult virtue 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 skills, know how
to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem a miracle."
"Goetia of the Legemeton of King Solomon"
> Even if it
> weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief of
> magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
>
>
>>>>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
>
> practice).
>
>>>
>>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
>>
>>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick is a
>>complete and accurate understanding?
>
>
> It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic understanding of
> magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate understanding.
... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
R.
Wintershard
<rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
>> No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are unwilling
>> to acknowledge it.
>
>Hmm... comments, ARW?
Magick is a tool. Like many tools, the principles for using it
should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to magickal
energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water currents.
As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
Relayer
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:11:40 GMT, Relayer
> <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are unwilling
>>>to acknowledge it.
>>
>>Hmm... comments, ARW?
>
>
> Magick is a tool. Like many tools, the principles for using it
> should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to magickal
> energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water currents.
... or patriotism, or Beatlemania...
> As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
IMHO, it is *sometimes* useful.
R.
Wintershard
<rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
>> Magick is a tool. Like many tools, the principles for using it
>> should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to magickal
>> energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water currents.
>
>... or patriotism, or Beatlemania...
Quite true *grin*.
>> As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
>
>IMHO, it is *sometimes* useful.
Well, that's a relief. If it were always useful, then I'd have
people following me on what I was saying, and then a reputation would
ensue, and then I'd have to support it . . . ;)
The 9th Witch
"Wintershard" <n...@home.org> wrote in message
news:vk9nfvcuub831t4k5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:55:06 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
> >> Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
> >
> >No, it requires their existence though.
>
> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
> However, for an athiest, their opinions might be completely different
> :).
>
> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with whether or
not there is one.
T9W
Wintershard
<appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
>> However, for an athiest, their opinions might be completely different
>> :).
>>
>> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
>> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
>> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
>
>Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with whether or
>not there is one.
Of which I agree. However, do you equate magickal abilities to said
deity existing, or to something else?
For myself, I equate it to something else.
Relayer
> "Wintershard" <n...@home.org> wrote in message
> news:vk9nfvcuub831t4k5...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:55:06 -0400, "Parse Tree"
>><acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
>>>
>>>No, it requires their existence though.
>>
>> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
>>However, for an athiest, their opinions might be completely different
>>:).
>>
>> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
>>opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
>>the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
>
>
> Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with whether or
> not there is one.
>
> T9W
Really? Are you sure? Prove it!
:o)
R.
Relayer
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:09:31 GMT, Relayer
> <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Magick is a tool. Like many tools, the principles for using it
>>>should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to magickal
>>>energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water currents.
>>
>>... or patriotism, or Beatlemania...
>
>
> Quite true *grin*.
>
>
>>> As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
>>
>>IMHO, it is *sometimes* useful.
>
>
> Well, that's a relief. If it were always useful, then I'd have
> people following me on what I was saying, and then a reputation would
> ensue, and then I'd have to support it . . . ;)
<gggrrroooaaannn.......!>
R.
Parse Tree
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
> >> Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
> >
> >No, it requires their existence though.
>
> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
I'm not a deist. I'm a theist. A deist believes that a deity has no
involvement in the workings of the universe.
> However, for an athiest, their opinions might be completely different
> :).
Obviously.
> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
Belief in something isn't necessary for it to exist. If I stopped
believing in you, you'd still be here.
Belief is immaterial. Existence is all that matters.
Parse Tree
Remember the thread about magick being intelligent? It received no
response, and so I considered it tacit assent.
> "Magick is the Highest, most Absolute and most Divine Knowledge of
> Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
a
> right understanding of the inward and occult virtue 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 skills, know how
> to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem a
miracle."
I don't know why you're using a definition that requires the existence
of divinity.
> >>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
> >>
> >>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick is
a
> >>complete and accurate understanding?
> >
> >
> > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
understanding of
> > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
understanding.
>
> ... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
I don't view magick as anything different than mathematics or science.
It is its own formal system. Given the proper information as a starting
point, you can derive everything else. However, given incorrect
information, only practice can demonstrate its untruth. Doesn't change
the fact that with correct info, you can get it all right.
Parse Tree
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:11:40 GMT, Relayer
> <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
>
> >> No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are
unwilling
> >> to acknowledge it.
> >
> >Hmm... comments, ARW?
>
> Magick is a tool. Like many tools, the principles for using it
> should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to magickal
> energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water currents.
>
> As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent manner? How
is it that it retains intention?
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed deist.
>
>I'm not a deist. I'm a theist. A deist believes that a deity has no
>involvement in the workings of the universe.
Ah, my mistake.
>> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
>> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work for
>> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
>
>Belief in something isn't necessary for it to exist. If I stopped
>believing in you, you'd still be here.
>
>Belief is immaterial. Existence is all that matters.
Then, in order to prove that a deity is essential to magick, you
would have to prove the existence of said deity. Barring that, it is
mere conjecture.
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent manner? How
>is it that it retains intention?
That is a matter of the original binding of the spell in question.
Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the retaining lake in
place.
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:41:40 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
> >> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed
deist.
> >
> >I'm not a deist. I'm a theist. A deist believes that a deity has no
> >involvement in the workings of the universe.
>
> Ah, my mistake.
>
> >> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
> >> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work
for
> >> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
> >
> >Belief in something isn't necessary for it to exist. If I stopped
> >believing in you, you'd still be here.
> >
> >Belief is immaterial. Existence is all that matters.
>
> Then, in order to prove that a deity is essential to magick, you
> would have to prove the existence of said deity. Barring that, it is
> mere conjecture.
It is a provable hypothesis. However, the proof is beyond your
comprehension.
Parse Tree
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:51:28 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
> >So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent manner?
How
> >is it that it retains intention?
>
> That is a matter of the original binding of the spell in question.
> Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the retaining lake in
> place.
A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>> >So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent manner?
>How
>> >is it that it retains intention?
>>
>> That is a matter of the original binding of the spell in question.
>> Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the retaining lake in
>> place.
>
>A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my own
beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
Figinn
> "Relayer" <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote in message
> news:3OLKa.29220$e26....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > Parse Tree wrote:
> > > "Relayer" <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MgEKa.23838$R73.4035@sccrnsc04...
<snip original posting>
> > >>Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it requires their existence though.
> >
> > Maybe *you* require their existence.
>
> No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are unwilling
> to acknowledge it. That's why they view it as intelligent. Even if it
> weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief of
> magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
I obviously can't speak about most people's view of magick. However just to
chime in along with the rest:
I don't believe magick is a deity. Fundamentally I believe magick is an
orderly system of energy, cause and effect (not talking necessarily about
ethics or karma here) and the like. Please understand this is a rather
loose definition. I don't have the time nor is this the proper venue to
write a proper treatment.
Since my belief is that magick is a system, that system could exist under
several different frameworks or "creators" if you will. It could merely
just be how the world or perhaps the entire universe works, if there is no
creator deity of the system. It may simply *be*.
If there is a creator deity, it still could simply *be*. This would allow
for folks such as atheists to be able to interact with the system,
regardless of whether they acknowledge the true origin of the system.
To say that the magickal system requires the existence of deity would be
true if that deity indeed caused its origin at some point long ago or if
deity keeps the system running in some day-to-day manner.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, my opinion is also that the system exists
regardless of what beliefs particular folks have on its origin. Truth does
not cease to be merely because people don't see it or acknowledge it.
I do like the deist approach to some degree. I do not believe that deity
"interferes" with the universe as much as some other people do. The overall
system was created and tools to interact with that system (magickal or
otherwise) have been developed. I think much of the day-to-day existence of
the universe is left up to the inhabitants of said universe. Having said
that, I do believe that deity obviously has the ability to "interfere," can
do so whenever it chooses and has done and will continue to do so according
to its own unknown criteria.
Magick to me is a combination of known science with "unknown science." In
my own humble belief system, I believe that tuning into deity through
obtaining higher spirituality is crucial to interacting with the system at
the highest levels. Now to make me sound a little contradictory, I believe
it's highly possible (and even bloody likely) that higher spirituality can
be achieved *without* a belief in deity. This would be achieved by
attempting to breed harmony within the system. Yes I truly believe there is
a "hard coded" ethical component to the overall system of which magick is a
part. I wrote a brief treatment on what I believe to be the 5 key tenets of
spirituality a few months ago. Of those five, only one had anything to
directly do with deity ... that one was obviously "faith." The other four
could easily be achieved by even the most staunch atheist. In my opinion,
an atheist could "tune into deity" by how they live their daily lives.
Ok, I'm going to seriously stop here, as it's late and parts of that last
paragraph could launch this into another full blown ethical discussion. I
really shouldn't post this late at night.
Just my .02 ...
Figinn
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>> Then, in order to prove that a deity is essential to magick, you
>> would have to prove the existence of said deity. Barring that, it is
>> mere conjecture.
>
>It is a provable hypothesis. However, the proof is beyond your
>comprehension.
If it is provable, then it is not beyond comprehension. If you do
not believe that I am able to comprehend it, then I am sure that there
are others on this newsgroup who are quite apt to do so. If, on the
other hand, you are the only one who comprehends your logic, then that
tells a different story entirely.
Figinn
I don't believe in luck.
I played in an online Texas Holdem poker tournament tonight. I bet all my
chips on a hand that according to the odds, I would win 87% of the time.
Well don't you know it, I lost.
Was the other guy lucky? No. The deck had already been shuffled, the
seating positions already set. The cards were ready to come in exactly the
proper order.
I'm not saying I was fated to lose ... yet in that hand, I was in the 13%.
It happens. If anything, the guy was foolish in betting that much money on
a hand he had little chance of winning. More often than not, I will clean
his clock ... that's why I hope he's in the next tournament ... lol.
And in my opinion the concept of luck would have no place in an orderly
magickal system.
Figinn
Figinn
I for one would like to hear this proof. Please elaborate. You never know
what levels of comprehension might exist in this newsgroup.
Figinn
Gargoyle
The Original form of "magic" was for the purpose of self-exploration,
self-development, self-understanding, as well as non-self (which is also
self) paths of these things such as exploration and understanding of the
universe and how to make use of it for oneself, and for the furtherment of
higher consciousness and it's understanding, and blah blah blah. The
original formation of *alchemy* was an offshoot of these same aims but
using different techniques and methods. As time went on, magic devolved
more and more until we have we have stuff today like.... wicca being magic
and vice versa.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:08:38 GMT, Nightwish <nigh...@tds.net> wrote:
>I'm planning on writing a series of articles for my site discussing (and
>clarifying) some common misconsceptions about magick that some people
>who are not pagan might have. I got the idea for this while talking to a
>(non-pagan) friend of mine online. I was doing a little research, and
>when my friend asked what I was doing, I replied, "Looking up a few
>things about magick" to which that friend replied, "I didn't know you
>were Wiccan."
>
>It's that kind of misconception I'd like to clear up, if I could, and I
>was wondering if anyone had some suggestions for the article(s). For
>instance, there may be some misconceptions that I wasn't aware of.
>
>If anyone's interested in reading my first draft for the first article,
>it can be found here:
>http://nightmare.explicitnoise.net/clarification.htm
>
>Thanks. :)
>
>~Nightwish
>
Gargoyle, The Evil Mr. Peanut - >;)_~~~~~
Everyone here has the right to act however they wish and say whatever
they please....so long as it's in accordance with MY rules. Come to think
of it, I don't have any rules. hehehe
Nightwish
Relayer
Do you mean the "Is Magick Sentient" thread? I responded with
"Most of the time, I don't use that model..."
>>"Magick is the Highest, most Absolute and most Divine Knowledge of
>>Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by
>
> a
>
>>right understanding of the inward and occult virtue 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 skills, know how
>>to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem a
>
> miracle."
>
> I don't know why you're using a definition that requires the existence
> of divinity.
It doesn't. Maybe you are fooled by the term "Divine Knowledge"
>>>>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
>>>>
>>>>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick is
>
> a
>
>>>>complete and accurate understanding?
>>>
>>>
>>>It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
>
> understanding of
>
>>>magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
>
> understanding.
>
>>... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
>
>
> I don't view magick as anything different than mathematics or science.
> It is its own formal system. Given the proper information as a starting
> point, you can derive everything else. However, given incorrect
> information, only practice can demonstrate its untruth. Doesn't change
> the fact that with correct info, you can get it all right.
Can you learn Karate from a book, without training and drilling your
mind and body?
Neither your nor my analogy is perfect, but I do think the path of the
armchair magician lacks something. I know, I have been stuck there at times.
Do you practice magick, Parse? Or do you just read about it...
R.
The 9th Witch
Do you know magic exists? I do, yet many don't believe in it.
T9W
Wintershard
<appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with
>>>whether or not there is one.
>>
>> Really? Are you sure? Prove it!
>
>Do you know magic exists? I do, yet many don't believe in it.
Unfortunately, that reasoning leads to a circular argument of which
there is still no external, supporting proof of the claim that deities
exist.
The 9th Witch
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:39:34 -0500, "The 9th Witch"
> <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with
> >>>whether or not there is one.
> >>
> >> Really? Are you sure? Prove it!
> >
> >Do you know magic exists? I do, yet many don't believe in it.
>
> Unfortunately, that reasoning leads to a circular argument of which
> there is still no external, supporting proof of the claim that deities
> exist.
>
That wasn't the argument. The argument was if deities were necessary for
magic, and you made the point that one believes, one does not yet both work.
Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just as believing in something doesn't mean it does exist.
Existance and the belief in that existance do not go hand in hand.
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> "Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BfRKa.5505$v71....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Whether or not I'm in the minority has never concerned me very much :)
Figinn
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:42:19 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> > <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> >
> > >> >So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent manner?
> > >How
> > >> >is it that it retains intention?
> > >>
> > >> That is a matter of the original binding of the spell in
> question.
> > >> Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the retaining lake
> in
> > >> place.
> > >
> > >A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
> >
> > Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my own
> > beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
>
> luck?
Why would one choose to? What does one hope to accomplish by this?
Even if you believe in luck, why not specifically program your intent
towards an actual defined purpose? To me, sending out vague, unprogrammed
energy is a chief reason why spells appear to fail.
Figinn
Wintershard
<appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That wasn't the argument. The argument was if deities were necessary for
>magic, and you made the point that one believes, one does not yet both work.
>
>Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>Just as believing in something doesn't mean it does exist.
>
>Existance and the belief in that existance do not go hand in hand.
Unfortunately, the existence of deities is something which cannot
be proven by any means which are available today. In fact, for much of
history, a deity was described as something which could not be
comprehended. If that is the case, then believing or not believing in
a non-comprehensible, and thus non-practical, subject is moot to the
discussion of the practical uses and notions of magick.
It is akin to asking whether deities are or are not required in
order for existence to be. It matters not what the answer is, for
existence is.
Wintershard
<acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>> >A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
>>
>> Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my own
>> beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
>
>So you don't believe that someone can use magick to give someone 'good'
>luck?
The act of increasing someone's luck, whether it is possible or
not, means, then, that the function of luck is influenced by the
magickal energies, and not the other way around.
Wintershard
>> I believe you're in the minority, when it comes to luck, then.
>
>Whether or not I'm in the minority has never concerned me very much :)
Unless it has to deal with how much of a cut you're going to get of
the birthday cake. Especially chocolate cake, with orange glaze. Mmmm.
The 9th Witch
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:32:37 -0500, "The 9th Witch"
> <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >That wasn't the argument. The argument was if deities were necessary for
> >magic, and you made the point that one believes, one does not yet both
work.
> >
> >Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
> >Just as believing in something doesn't mean it does exist.
> >
> >Existance and the belief in that existance do not go hand in hand.
>
> Unfortunately, the existence of deities is something which cannot
> be proven by any means which are available today.
Not the point. The point was that believe or disbelieving in deities has no
bearing on whether they are or are not.
> In fact, for much of
> history, a deity was described as something which could not be
> comprehended. If that is the case, then believing or not believing in
> a non-comprehensible, and thus non-practical, subject is moot to the
> discussion of the practical uses and notions of magick.
>
> It is akin to asking whether deities are or are not required in
> order for existence to be. It matters not what the answer is, for
> existence is.
>
Parse believes that dieties are necessary. This has no bearing on whether or
not the deities exist, or whether or not they are necessary.
So, suppose Parse is correct. The deities still perform whatever Parse feels
they perform for the other party who does not believe they exist.
Suppose Parse is incorrect. Deities aren't necessary for magic, but they
still may or may not exist.
Suppose the other party is correct. Then deities are not only unnecessary
for magic, but also do not exist.
Suppose I believe that there is not a cat on my bed. Instead I believe Brad
Pitt is on my bed. What I believe has no bearing on what is actually on my
bed.
DAMN CAT!
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
>
> No, it requires their existence though.
In my experience it requires neither religion nor god(ess)/s.
P
>
> > You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
practice).
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
>
> No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they are
unwilling
it
> weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief of
> magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
I don't view it as deity or god.. If I did, I would have no problem in
acknowledging it.
>
> > >>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
> practice).
> > >
> > >
> > > That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
> >
> > Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick
is a
> > complete and accurate understanding?
>
> It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
understanding of
> magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
understanding.
Not necessarily true. For example, my own methods of conducting
workings have not, as far as I am aware, ever been put into writing.
I suspect this may be true for a number of others hereabouts. :-)
P
Phoenix
>
> > That's why they view it as intelligent.
>
would
> have thought more here see it as something more like a force of
nature.
I would have thought this too..
> An example of a definition like that is found in the introduction to
the
> goetia:
> "Magick is the Highest, most Absolute and most Divine Knowledge of
> Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations
by a
> right understanding of the inward and occult virtue 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 skills, know
how
> to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem a
miracle."
>
> "Goetia of the Legemeton of King Solomon"
>
> > Even if it
> > weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief of
> > magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
> >
> >
> >>>>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
> >
> > practice).
> >
> >>>
> >>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
> >>
> >>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick
is a
> >>complete and accurate understanding?
> >
> >
> > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
understanding of
> > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
understanding.
>
> ... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
Why do you see "a proper academic understanding" as necessary at all?
Magick was practiced, with success, by non-literate people for a long
time. It probably still is in some areas.
P
> R.
>
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Much like a segment of film, it retains whatever its creator puts into
it. :-)
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Neither does a working..
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:42:19 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> > <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> >
> > >> >So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent
manner?
> > >How
> > >> >is it that it retains intention?
> > >>
> > >> That is a matter of the original binding of the spell in
> question.
> > >> Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the retaining
lake
> in
> > >> place.
> > >
> > >A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
> >
> > Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my own
> > beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
>
'good'
> luck?
Good luck is too abstract a concept to be effectively used. When
someone sends "good luck", they are fleshing out the concept with
their own ideas of what good luck means. A working of that nature
operates more effectively when a more clearly defined concept is
incorporated.
P
Phoenix
Agreed.. I've just said as much in another reply.
P
> Figinn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
That makes two of us in the minority.. :-)
P
Phoenix
Nor me.. hehehe..
P
Phoenix
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:35:17 GMT, "Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
> >> I believe you're in the minority, when it comes to luck, then.
> >
> >Whether or not I'm in the minority has never concerned me very much
:)
>
> Unless it has to deal with how much of a cut you're going to get
of
> the birthday cake. Especially chocolate cake, with orange glaze.
Mmmm.
Heh!.. that has more to do with low cunning.. hehehe
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> unwilling
> > > to acknowledge it.
> >
> > Hmm... comments, ARW?
> >
> >
> > I don't pretend to speak for ARW, but this would surprise me. I
would
> > have thought more here see it as something more like a force of
> nature.
to
> the
> > goetia:
>
> response, and so I considered it tacit assent.
hehehee.. an assumption..
>
> > "Magick is the Highest, most Absolute and most Divine Knowledge of
> > Natural Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations
by
> a
> > right understanding of the inward and occult virtue 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 skills, know
how
> > to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem a
> miracle."
>
> I don't know why you're using a definition that requires the
existence
> of divinity.
>
>
> > >>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
> > >>
> > >>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick
is
> a
> > >>complete and accurate understanding?
> > >
> > >
> > > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
> understanding of
> > > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
> understanding.
> >
> > ... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
>
> I don't view magick as anything different than mathematics or
science.
> It is its own formal system. Given the proper information as a
starting
> point, you can derive everything else. However, given incorrect
> information, only practice can demonstrate its untruth. Doesn't
change
> the fact that with correct info, you can get it all right.
Why do you view it as a formal system? Maybe I'm not considering
formal in the same way as you. :-)
P
Figinn
"Phoenix" <phoe...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ib0La.96496$_w.54...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Agreed.
Figinn
Figinn
Very nice.
Figinn
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:41:40 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> > <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> >
> > >> This may be your own opinion, as you are a self-proclaimed
> deist.
> > >
has no
> > >involvement in the workings of the universe.
> >
> > Ah, my mistake.
> >
> > >> If both of you are able to perform magick regardless of your
> > >> opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would
work
> for
> > >> the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a
deity.
> > >
stopped
> > >believing in you, you'd still be here.
> > >
> > >Belief is immaterial. Existence is all that matters.
> >
> > Then, in order to prove that a deity is essential to magick,
you
> > would have to prove the existence of said deity. Barring that, it
is
> > mere conjecture.
>
> It is a provable hypothesis. However, the proof is beyond your
> comprehension.
That's an assumption on your part.. Present your proof, Parse. :-)
P
Phoenix
Be a bit careful when using phrases like, "While never using magick to
harm another person is a good idea", or it could come over looking too
fluffy. Many practitioners, myself included, could easily see "using
magick to harm another person" as a *very good idea*, in the right
circumstances.. :-)
P
"Nightwish" <nigh...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:anBKa.11443$vx3.3...@kent.svc.tds.net...
Phoenix
"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdgd61$sptun$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...> news:vk9nfvcuub831t4k5...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:55:06 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> > <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> >
> > >> Magick requires religion and/or belief in god(ess)/s.
> > >
> > >No, it requires their existence though.
> >
deist.
different
> > :).
> >
> > opinions, then that necessitates the question of why it would work
for
> > the atheist, even though you believe it works only with a deity.
>
whether or
> not there is one.
I take the view that deities are the constructs of human thought and
belief. As long as a single person, holds belief in the existence of
a specific deity, then that deity exists. I'd agree that the beliefs
of others play no part in the existence of another person's deities.
However, I wouldn't agree that effective magick depends, to any
degree, on the existence of such.. :-)
P
> T9W
Phoenix
"The 9th Witch" <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bdhufg$sjvo8$1...@ID-131540.news.dfncis.de...
heeeheeee... true, but along the same lines, if I find I can carve
wood without using a chisel, then it's reasonable to believe that a
chisel is not *essential* for carving wood.. :-)
P
Parse Tree
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:39:34 -0500, "The 9th Witch"
> <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Whether or not someone believes in a deity has nothing to do with
> >>>whether or not there is one.
> >>
> >> Really? Are you sure? Prove it!
> >
> >Do you know magic exists? I do, yet many don't believe in it.
>
> Unfortunately, that reasoning leads to a circular argument of which
> there is still no external, supporting proof of the claim that deities
> exist.
I made a thread about the proof. Only one poster expressed any interest
in it.
Parse Tree
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:10:42 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
>
> >> >A dam doesn't rely on abstract subjective concepts, like luck.
> >>
> >> Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my own
> >> beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
> >
> >So you don't believe that someone can use magick to give someone
'good'
> >luck?
>
> The act of increasing someone's luck, whether it is possible or
> not, means, then, that the function of luck is influenced by the
> magickal energies, and not the other way around.
Yes, and your point is? How does the magick know that giving a person
the unlikely hand of 4 aces is good, but giving them a similarly
unlikely hand that is low, is bad luck?
Parse Tree
Even if you are giving a specific outcome, you're not giving all the
information to achieve that outcome, are you? I mean, if that's the
case, then you should be programming a computer that is intelligent.
Parse Tree
I don't actually do 'good luck' workings, but it was just an example.
What about blessings? The same applies to them.
Parse Tree
Perhaps I'm wrong. I got the distinct impression that many here believe
in good luck, and blessings and whatnot.
Parse Tree
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:32:37 -0500, "The 9th Witch"
> <appalach...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >That wasn't the argument. The argument was if deities were necessary
for
> >magic, and you made the point that one believes, one does not yet
both work.
> >
> >Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
> >Just as believing in something doesn't mean it does exist.
> >
> >Existance and the belief in that existance do not go hand in hand.
>
> Unfortunately, the existence of deities is something which cannot
> history, a deity was described as something which could not be
> comprehended.
Not true! Only certain deities are described in that manner.
> If that is the case, then believing or not believing in
> a non-comprehensible, and thus non-practical, subject is moot to the
> discussion of the practical uses and notions of magick.
Not true, either.
> It is akin to asking whether deities are or are not required in
> order for existence to be. It matters not what the answer is, for
> existence is.
If deities are required for existence to be, and existence is, then
deities must exist as well. It's a simple application of modus ponens,
Wintershard.
Parse Tree
Well, I agree, somewhat. I don't think it requires religion, or the
worship or acknowledgement of them.
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
It doesn't. Didn't I just use the poker analogy yesterday?
Figinn
Parse Tree
First, I'm going to state that teaching is the same as learning from a
book, since there is nothing intrinsicly different between hearing
something and reading something.
However, if you're stating that you learned completely from practice,
then I don't dispute that possibility, either. You can use
experimentation to derive all of the laws of physics without any
previous knowledge of the subject. Does that suddenly make it
non-academic? I don't think so.
Parse Tree
A force of nature that acts in an exceedingly complex manner. You agree
that it's much more complicated than gravity, right?
Why is literacy necessary for academic understanding?
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I'm giving it more than asking for "good luck" that's for sure.
Figinn
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I don't do those either.
Figinn
Parse Tree
>
> "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 02:11:40 GMT, Relayer
> > > <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > unwilling
> > > >> to acknowledge it.
> > > >
> > > >Hmm... comments, ARW?
> > >
> > > should be acknowledged. However, accrediting intelligence to
> magickal
> > > energies is akin to doing the same with electrical or water
> currents.
> > >
> > > As asked, such is my belief. It may not hold true for others.
> >
> How
> > is it that it retains intention?
>
> it. :-)
A segment of film doesn't retain that, though. There is no objective
connection between artist and art. The painter is immaterial to what
the painting is.
Parse Tree
It was a reasonable assumption!
> > > >>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written texts.
> > > >>
> > > >>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of magick
> is
> > a
> > > >>complete and accurate understanding?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
> > understanding of
> > > > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
> > understanding.
> > >
> > > ... is a *necesarry component*, IMHO.
> >
> > I don't view magick as anything different than mathematics or
> science.
> > It is its own formal system. Given the proper information as a
> starting
> > point, you can derive everything else. However, given incorrect
> > information, only practice can demonstrate its untruth. Doesn't
> change
> > the fact that with correct info, you can get it all right.
>
> Why do you view it as a formal system? Maybe I'm not considering
> formal in the same way as you. :-)
A formal system like physics, or math? Well, if it's a force of nature,
and it doesn't behave on its own accord (which would mean that it's
intelligent), then it must be restricted to purely causal behaviour, and
thus very much a science.
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Either way, you haven't shown how magick is intelligent.
Figinn
Parse Tree
It's on google.
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Perhaps a pointer is in order then.
Figinn
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
In this discussion, what difference does it make if many here believe that
or not? Are you talking about your own beliefs or merely attempting to
preach to the choir?
Figinn
Parse Tree
Maybe. Well, while we agree on this, I'm sure there must be someone
else that does these general spells. People tease Talesin about his
curses, which implies that they believe in general sorts of things like
this.
Parse Tree
In dealing with magick and having it behave in a fashion that is useful,
it is necessary for it to be intelligent. If it is no different than a
computer, and people achieve such incredible results with their magick,
then it necessitates that it is able to 'think' on its own, somewhat.
Parse Tree
Proof of the Divine is the thread title. I'm too lazy to post a link.
Phoenix
Yes.. a pointer would be good.. :-)
P
> Figinn
>
>
The 9th Witch
Whereas I "believe" that each entity is the god/dess and center of its own
universe, therefore are very necessary to effective magic. Unfortunately, or
fortunately, none of these opinions or beliefs has bearing on whether or not
deities exist. We could all be correct, or all be wrong, or some of us
correct and some of us wrong. (the latter is, of course, most likely).
Parse Tree
Well, if they believe in good luck, then it supports the idea that they
believe magick is intelligent. Right? I didn't say that magick is
intelligent and that I believed such, only that a deity is necessary.
Since many people act as if magick is intelligent, then they view it as
a god, even if they won't admit it. Thus fulfilling my statement.
> Are you talking about your own beliefs or merely attempting to
> preach to the choir?
No, I'm just trying to see how someone could believe in magick without
the existence of some other forces that are intelligent.
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
You made a number of interesting threads.. Unfortunately, I didn't
have enough time to respond properly. What I'm saying is that I
didn't have time to enter into a full blown discussion and this made a
response pointless.. When you launch further threads, perhaps you
might limit the number.... launch them a couple at a time maybe? :-)
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Good luck is normally something that is perceived after the event and,
as a term, it's used very loosely. I may wish someone good luck, but
in doing so I am expressing verbal support, rather than initiating a
magickal working..
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I don't think either Figinn or myself, are categorically saying that a
general spell wont work. Just that it's results are likely to be tres
unreliable, due to the generality of its content. At best there will
be watered down, or unexpected results... at worst it could produce a
completely opposite effect from that which was desired. It has to be
remembered that a win of $10 is not necessarily good luck, when there
are much larger prizes at stake it could easily be said that the
person was unlucky not to have won more. :-)
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I suspect you could be surprised what a segment of film might retain..
:-)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, "The painter is
immaterial to what
the painting is", perhaps you could clarify?
P
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I fail to understand your motivation in this discussion then. Are you
merely being argumentative?
>People tease Talesin about his
> curses, which implies that they believe in general sorts of things like
> this.
I have little desire to converse with Talesin about much of anything.
Figinn
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:42:19 -0400, "Parse Tree"
> > > > <acc...@domain.extension> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> >So you're saying that magick never acts in an intelligent
> > manner?
> > > > >How
> > > > >> >is it that it retains intention?
> > > > >>
> > > question.
> > > > >> Even years after creation, a damn can still hold the
retaining
> > lake
> > > in
> > > > >> place.
> > > > >
luck.
> > > >
> > > > Just as the energies of magick do not. Again, I speak of my
own
> > > > beliefs of magical energies here, as you yours.
> > >
> > > So you don't believe that someone can use magick to give someone
> > 'good'
> > > luck?
> >
> > someone sends "good luck", they are fleshing out the concept with
> > their own ideas of what good luck means. A working of that nature
> > operates more effectively when a more clearly defined concept is
> > incorporated.
>
> I don't actually do 'good luck' workings, but it was just an
example.
> What about blessings? The same applies to them.
Yes, I'd say the same applies to blessings, in fact I'd say this
applies to magick in general. I don't like good luck or blessings
myself, but do occasional workings where a more specific form of help
is concerned.
P
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Please connect the dots for people who have difficulty following your logic.
I don't think that would necessarily be the case.
>I didn't say that magick is
> intelligent and that I believed such, only that a deity is necessary.
Which you still have yet to discuss.
> Since many people act as if magick is intelligent, then they view it as
> a god, even if they won't admit it. Thus fulfilling my statement.
Those "many people" either are not interested in this discussion or
disagree, it would seem.
> > Are you talking about your own beliefs or merely attempting to
> > preach to the choir?
>
> No, I'm just trying to see how someone could believe in magick without
> the existence of some other forces that are intelligent.
I have already addressed this possibility. You did not respond to it.
Figinn
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Hogwash. Magick doesn't think, nor is it intelligent in my opinion.
You appear to sit on the fence on many of these discussions. In one part of
the thread, magick is a science which requires an academic approach. In
another, magick requires deity. In another, magick is intelligent on its
own.
Please pick one and we can discuss further.
Figinn
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
I'm looking at academic understanding as that knowledge, which is
gained from reading books. From this viewpoint, literacy would seem
to be a necessity. Perhaps you are seeing academic understanding in a
different light?
P
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Typically I would say I'm too lazy to bother. In this case, I will make an
exception. Let's revisit your opening comments:
I read the entire thread. In it is opinion. Not proof.
While I may believe that certain points are valid, they are still opinion.
For every point you make, there is an equally intriguing counter.
Figinn
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Even if
> > it
> > > weren't intelligent, most people here have a pantheistic belief
of
> > > magick as god, whether they acknowledge it or not.
> >
problem in
> > acknowledging it.
> >
> > >
> > > > >>You can understand it just by reading about it (ie without
> > > practice).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written
texts.
> > > >
> > > > Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of
magick
> > is a
> > > > complete and accurate understanding?
> > >
> > > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
> > understanding of
> > > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
> > understanding.
> >
> > workings have not, as far as I am aware, ever been put into
writing.
> > I suspect this may be true for a number of others hereabouts. :-)
>
> First, I'm going to state that teaching is the same as learning from
a
> book, since there is nothing intrinsicly different between hearing
> something and reading something.
I'm assuming you mean being taught is the same as learning from a
book?
If this assumption is correct, then I have to disagree. If you read
something in a book and don't fully understand it, you are left to
your own devices. If you are being taught something and don't
understand it, then you have the recourse of questioning your tutor.
> However, if you're stating that you learned completely from
practice,
> then I don't dispute that possibility, either. You can use
> experimentation to derive all of the laws of physics without any
> previous knowledge of the subject. Does that suddenly make it
> non-academic? I don't think so.
Perhaps, at this point, I should ask how you are defining academic?
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
>
> Well, I agree, somewhat. I don't think it requires religion, or the
> worship or acknowledgement of them.
Good.. we agree somewhat.. :-)
P
Phoenix
Can I ask how you would describe such entities, T9W?
> Unfortunately, or
> fortunately, none of these opinions or beliefs has bearing on
whether or not
> deities exist. We could all be correct, or all be wrong, or some of
us
> correct and some of us wrong. (the latter is, of course, most
likely).
Yes, most likely.. :-)
P
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
Just an observation, but I'd look on calling for help from an outside
intelligence, as being more prayer than magick.
P
Phoenix
I too made an exception, not that I intend to make a habit of doing
so. :-)
I agree, there are some interesting points made, but nothing that
would stand up as proof.
Perhaps you have more proof that you would like to put forward for our
consideration, Parse?
Bear in mind that I don't intend to Google a second time.. :-)
P
Figinn
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > >
> > > No, it requires their existence though.
> >
>
> Well, I agree, somewhat. I don't think it requires religion, or the
> worship or acknowledgement of them.
I agree as well.
If religion is humanity's interpretation of deity, then that interpretation
can be wrong (and I'm sure it is in many cases) and that deity would still
exist. Same with acknowledgement of a deity.
However ... you still have not provided any proof yet.
Figinn
Phoenix
"Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> >
> > "Parse Tree" <acc...@domain.extension> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Most people here view magick as a deity, even if they
are
> > > unwilling
> > > > > to acknowledge it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That's why they view it as intelligent.
> > > >
I
> > would
> > > > have thought more here see it as something more like a force
of
> > > nature.
introduction
> > to
> > > the
> > > > goetia:
> > >
no
> > > response, and so I considered it tacit assent.
> >
> > hehehee.. an assumption..
>
> It was a reasonable assumption!
>
> > > > >>>That's true, Relayer. You must have some badly written
texts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Are you asserting that a purely academic understanding of
magick
> > is
> > > a
> > > > >>complete and accurate understanding?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on how you define magick. A proper academic
> > > understanding of
> > > > > magick is the only way to have a complete and accurate
> > > understanding.
> > > >
> > >
> > science.
> > > It is its own formal system. Given the proper information as a
> > starting
> > > point, you can derive everything else. However, given incorrect
> > > information, only practice can demonstrate its untruth. Doesn't
> > change
> > > the fact that with correct info, you can get it all right.
> >
> > Why do you view it as a formal system? Maybe I'm not considering
> > formal in the same way as you. :-)
>
> A formal system like physics, or math? Well, if it's a force of
nature,
> and it doesn't behave on its own accord (which would mean that it's
> intelligent), then it must be restricted to purely causal behaviour,
and
> thus very much a science.
Ahh.. I see... you're wanting it to be a science? I see this type of
formality as a closed system. A system where it's only necessary to
apply a set of rules, to obtain a predictable result. Your comments
elsewhere suggest you have little respect for the arts..
I don't think magick is a science. I definitely look on it as an art,
perhaps a whole series of arts, as is suggested by results obtained
using a diverse selection of methodologies. Of course, there are
similarities in known methodologies. These similarities could be
suggestive of the existence of rules, but these would appear to be far
more elastic in nature than anything that would be applied to physics
or mathematics.
A force of nature? hmmmm.. it's one of those things that's very
difficult to satisfactorily define, within the bounds of existing
language. I think it does behave mainly on its own accord, but I'm
not sure that this endows it with intelligence. Having said that, it
seems to be benign and perhaps has intelligence outside of what we
might describe as such.
I find it to be delicately balanced and, to a degree, this balance
makes it easier to create a ripple.
P
j11
I have to admit, I'm rather interested in this response. How can there no
connection between painting and artist? Did the painting suddenly appear?
I've certainly heard the argument that the marble (or whatever medium)
*knows* the form it should take, but it doesn't achieve that on its own.
And of course the film retains what the creator put into it, if done
correctly.
Which, I suppose, could take us back to the original "vague wishes of good
luck" vs "specific workings of magick."
j11