Occultism and Anti-Occultist Rhetoric
nocTifer
from occultism and posted a screed about how
the occult was horrible and bad to the below
forum. I responded with the following letter. :)
Orig-To: Spiritual...@yahoogroups.com
50061003 x! om also sent to the author
not all of us are familiar with the practical dimensions
of the occult, per se, and so i would like to point out
what [the author] is struggling *against* so that we can
see where your points are debatable and in error (a kind
of exploration of the mistakes of theocrats). I will
ignore his general theology as misplaced and proceed.
# I beg anyone who is reading this to turn
# from the occult and its practices.
the occult is easily divided by practice into 2 observable
dimensions: magic and divination. the rest of the practical
aspects of occultism usually extend outside of occultism
per se into religion or spirituality, psychicism, or some
application of a theoretical construct (e.g. philosophy).
therefore, someone who argues that the occult should
be turned from is asking that people stop doing magic
and divination, generally.
# ...God loves you and obviously you are "thirsting" for
# something....
and so the supposition begins. the first is a deity, the second
is the motivation for engaging occult activities or ideas. the
God is easily identified by the cultic marker language, in this
case a conservative Christian by citation of "The Bible". while
there are such anti-occultists in Christianity, it is important
to point out that there are also many Christian magicians and
diviners. magic and divination make key appearances in Jewish
and Christian scripture, and, while the majority is folklore
and religious are duped into taking it for history, it is not
the case either that the Jewish or Christian deity may be taken
only to forbid occult arts OR that those who take up interest
in occultism want something more (the 'Gateway Action' or
'Slippery Slope Addiction' theory of anti-occultism).
# ...if you seek to know the truth try looking in God's word,
# the Bible.
in fact this text and its relatives are used for magic and
for occultism fairly regularly. the Psalms, for example,
are used by folk magicians and Jewish witches to change the
world (often for the better, but not always), while the
text itself is used for bibliomancy (called 'sortilege' by
Roman Catholics in their proscription), often by traditional
methods such as the insertion of a key between the pages,
consulting it thricely and then settling upon a reading
divination, and many more.
'the truth' is another religious axiom which posits that
some coveted theological and ethical exposition is the
be-all and end-all Answer and Solution to all queries. it
is arrived at by comparison of one's experiences to some
set of expressions and, if matching in character and in
condition, ratifying it for all time by non-empiricists.
where you can settle on your truth this may be in fact
helpful to you in divination or magic.
# ...take a look at the facts about [The Bible]....
these are disputed and off-topic, largely, for this forum.
my *opinion* aligns with Alan Dundes and his "Holy Writ as
Oral Lit" detailing the reasons why The Bible should be
received as *folklore* and little else, based on his long
studies as a folklorist and the identifying earmarks of
folklore as compared with historical accounts. by his
assessment the variation and redundancy confirms that the
text had *oral form* prior to being written down, and was
therefore of a character of folklore even if it had some
basis in fact (e.g. "the historical Jesus" of the
participants of the Jesus Seminar, which see, especially
Robert M. Price, also of Lovecraftian fame!).
# ...2,000 predictive prophecies ....
prophecy is a very interesting phenomenon and art, isn't it?
how does prophecy work? is it a form of divination? if it
is not, then is this because of the source of the data, or
its character? when Tarotsters or other diviners sometimes
speak of 'fortune-telling' (shifting out of some kind of
'reflection' or 'tuning' mode), how is this any different
than prophecy? is fortune-telling personal whereas prophecy
pertains to social systems and governmental bodies,
churches, and religious authority in general? the fiction
of Frank Herbert (the Dune series) displays some wonderful
'what ifs' about prophecy and how it might be used/abused.
# Why is the occult such a horrible evil?
it isn't necessarily employed for any harmful end.
in fact, it may be far superior to religion in
general as it empowers individuals to take up the tools
of spirituality themselves and to depend less upon
hierarchs and theocracies to establish justice and to
take care of personal business. magic can enhance one's
internal composition, help one to develop as a person,
and to come to grips with one's true feelings and what
role we should have in the way the world works. the
consultation with an Oracle can be a transformational
act, and divination generally can be both personally
and socially supportive in the development of social
relations and interdependence using reflection.
# <cosmological suppositions, Christian, omitted>
almost any cosmological hypothesis can be used to
support and engage occultism. there are certain
favourites amongst occultists, and some of these
actually do include monotheism and the hierarchies
of conservative religion such as from where this
individual comes. at times magic is concealed and
described differently or ignored as 'helping one
to help oneself', or deriving from the God as a
form of theurgy (as with Transubstantiation and
reciting traditional prayers to effect particular
aims, and possibly the Laying On of Hands).
# ...God, however, takes extreme offense at it....
# ...the greater a person's participation in the
# occult, the greater its effect on him....
there is some reason to believe that occultism
is assisting in manners which are injurious to a
thoughtless and pablum practice of religion. for
this reason it is logical to accept some forms of
inversion alongside occult pursuits. some flash
the badge of Tarot as 'The Devil's Picturebook',
for example, in this pursuit, and yet use it
primarily for helpful and informative aims.
# ...The occult... tears this glorious [to God]
# calling right out of our grasp. It lowers us....
there are many arguments about the proper purpose
and procedure for magic amongst theurges. often
spellcasting will be rejected by these people
as either worthless or coercive and therefore
something which should be avoided as a problem.
that said, there are as many or more who use
magic to achieve mystical aims -- some prefer to
adhere to mysticism exclusively as their purpose.
# ...we cannot go after both God and the occult.
there are exciting conversion stories, such as
about the Buddhist Milarepa black magician who
'repented' and became a popular mystic instead,
or any number of similar Christian and Muslim
harrowing tales. and yet there are also 'saints'
of occult arts, like Saint Cyprian. why occult
arts and sciences cannot be used to pursue
religious or spiritual endeavours is seldom
supported aside from quaint moral rule or
conservative proscription. in fact, we may
USE occult disciplines to pursue our deity.
# IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS [PLEASE] ASK!
ok.
what do you think magic *is*?
how can you or would you like
to distinguish magic from
psychic powers, for instance?
what do you think divination *is*?
how can you or would you like to
distinguish divination from
prophecy?
have you ever practiced these
things yourself, or are you
ignorant about them and
informing us about something
with which you have no
experience?
does your religious body ever
pray, and if so, do they think
that these prayers will bring
some kind of result? do you have
very special prayers designated
for specific and known desires?
do you ever use the Psalms, or
immersion with Hyssop, anointing
with Holy Oil, or even a verbal
banishing like 'Get thee behind
me, Satan!'? if so, why do you
think that these are ok, but
whatever you regard as
occultism is not ok?
thanks. :)
nocTifer
--
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
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
From field mungled, approved nonetheless.
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
Tom
"nocTifer" <yronwode.c...@b.mail.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4522c6b4$0$34490$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2 observable
> dimensions: magic and divination. the rest of the practical
> aspects of occultism usually extend outside of occultism
> per se into religion or spirituality, psychicism, or some
> application of a theoretical construct (e.g. philosophy).
> therefore, someone who argues that the occult should
> be turned from is asking that people stop doing magic
> and divination, generally.
I've tried to find exceptions to these two categories, but so far I haven't
come up with any. Has anyone else?
Of course, as you suggested somewhat obliquely, prayer itself could also be
considered magical or divinatory. If one prayed for God's intercession in
some worldly or spiritual matter, it could be construed as magic, even if
the request was as vaguely expressed as "send your blessings to so-and-so".
If one simply wanted to ask for some sign as to how one should make some
decision, that would be divination.
What else do people pray for?
nocTifer
nocTifer:
>> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2
>> observable dimensions: magic and divination. the
>> rest of the practical aspects of occultism usually
>> extend outside of occultism per se into religion
>> or spirituality, psychicism, or some application
>> of a theoretical construct (e.g. philosophy).
>> therefore, someone who argues that the occult
>> should be turned from is asking that people
>> stop doing magic and divination, generally.
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
> I've tried to find exceptions to these two
> categories, but so far I haven't come up
> with any.
exceptions i've seen people insert were covered
in that original missive. things which come to
mind now are mediumship (spiritualism), and
siddhis (powers). arguably the trance-possessory
practice of mediumship is neither magic *nor*
divination, though it (along with psychicism
and mystical attainment) are often classed
as part of the occult. one might say that
mediumship is a form of divination, by
virtue of the fact that it derives information
from without rather than issuing forth
manipulation (as through symbol-rituals)
to change the cosmos intentionally. and yet it
isn't always information that is sought, so
much as communion with the being channelled.
> Has anyone else?
much theory is outside the bounds, of course,
some religions practice a theurgy which they do
not wish to call magic, and they develop special
names for its operation and attest its uniqueness
(the danger and heresy of Simony is well-known).
crypto-magic is probably the proper reference.
> Of course, as you suggested somewhat obliquely,
> prayer itself could also be considered magical
> or divinatory.
the character of the prayer may be important as
to whether it is magic. if it is expected that
the deity will comply with one's direction, then
it is magic (the deity is as i understand it a
symbol of manipulation, used like a dollbaby,
but if it is an entreatise to a higher being,
a request and pleading, it is getting a friend
to help and may be at best theurgy, unless
otherwise symbolized as part of the rite,
being simply petition to a larger force.
> If one prayed for God's intercession in some
> worldly or spiritual matter, it could be
> construed as magic, even if the request
> was as vaguely expressed as "send your
> blessings to so-and-so".
that's a directive. the less forceful the
operation the more questionably magical it
would be. say i did a ritual to show my god
the situation. my interest is not that the
god should take action, but that She would
concentrate Her attention at that location
on my behalf, as a priest, i suppose, of
the god's power. I have the wand of the god,
as it were, or may be considered this as
such a theurge.
> If one simply wanted to ask some sign as
> to how one should make some decision,
> that would be divination.
omens and signs from the divine for sure,
and if requested, this confirms its action
as a practice per se (rather than simply
seeing one without having been looking).
> What else do people pray for?
rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
all kinds of things.
nocTifer
--
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
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Bassos
"nocTifer" <yronwode.c...@b.mail.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4522c6b4$0$34490$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> from occultism and posted a screed about how
> the occult was horrible and bad to the below
> forum. I responded with the following letter. :)
Insanely elaborate, as usual.
> Orig-To: Spiritual...@yahoogroups.com
>
> 50061003 x! om also sent to the author
>
> not all of us are familiar with the practical dimensions
> of the occult, per se, and so i would like to point out
> what [the author] is struggling *against* so that we can
> see where your points are debatable and in error (a kind
> of exploration of the mistakes of theocrats). I will
> ignore his general theology as misplaced and proceed.
Hmm, pretending to *know* the thing someone else is struggling against is
kinda hubris.
> # I beg anyone who is reading this to turn
> # from the occult and its practices.
>
> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2 observable
> dimensions: magic and divination.
Well, that is, if we would all follow *your* definitions.
Btw, what is magic, and what is divination, and how are they different ?
<rest of post snipped due to far too many words>
catherine yronwode
>
> 50061004 x!
>
> nocTifer:
> >> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2
> >> observable dimensions: magic and divination. the
> >> rest of the practical aspects of occultism usually
> >> extend outside of occultism per se into religion
> >> or spirituality, psychicism, or some application
> >> of a theoretical construct (e.g. philosophy).
> >> therefore, someone who argues that the occult
> >> should be turned from is asking that people
> >> stop doing magic and divination, generally.
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
> > I've tried to find exceptions to these two
> > categories, but so far I haven't come up
> > with any.
>
> exceptions i've seen people insert were covered
> in that original missive. things which come to
> mind now are mediumship (spiritualism), and
> siddhis (powers). arguably the trance-possessory
> practice of mediumship is neither magic *nor*
> divination, though it (along with psychicism
> and mystical attainment) are often classed
> as part of the occult.
Calling trance-possession "occult" is only common
among folks in whose cultures trance/possession
is UNcommon. This religions in which this is a
feature are sometimes grouped with "occultism"
in popular books on magic. As more and more
democratic communication is achievwed via the
internet, we find that people who practice these
religions are NOT expecting to be labelled
"occultists" nor are they content to be labelled
as such by outsiders.
Example: Aleister Crowley adjured his students to
study "the wanga" and "Obeah." The former is the
regional name for a folk-magical packet (like a mojo
bag or conjure hand) that is associated with the
trance/possession religion of Voodoo in French-
speaking Haiti and derives from West African beliefs
and practices; the latter, is a regional synthesis
of Conjo African magic and trance/possession religion
with Christian Protetsant religion that developed in
English-speaking Jamaica.
Thelemites who were online circa 10 years ago used
to regularly post here asking for direction in how
they could learn Obeah -- but they no longer do so,
for there are plenty of Jamaican sites covering the
intricacies of Obeah -- and most modern Thelemites
realize that Crowley was simply seeking to inject a
sort of exoticism into his works when he mentioned
them -- and that he even mis-defned them.
Do either of you see prophesy as distinct from
divination? I do -- and know that others do.
> > What else do people pray for?
>
> rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
> all kinds of things.
They may even pray to become prophets?
cat yronwode
Joseph Littleshoes
>
>
> Do either of you see prophesy as distinct from
> divination? I do -- and know that others do.
I don't, technically i think they are the same phenomena. However,
tying a paint brush to a donkeys tail to have it paint "sunset over the
adriatic" is technically a prize winning painting, but it is not what
would be recognized as the result of study, practice and work.
I think a person may be in such a situation in life, a situation of such
intensity that the ability to predict the future becomes so much a part
of the cultural milieu that it is called prophecy, and can happen
spontaneously as the result of cultural stresses, and yet the same
process, the synaptic and intuitive or inspirational aspect of
cultivating divination is IMO the same as that of prophecy. And the
difference is not only one of degree but also of cultural receptivity
(or rejection) of the prophet.
Of course various orthodoxy's, especially the monotheistic variety make
a very distinct division, but such a thing is beyond my experience, how
one person can claim to have god speaking through them and another is
having demons possess them is just illogical IMO, i understand it as a
rhetorical or propaganda tool but philosophically either this is a
process and a phenomena that is inherent in the human animal and
susceptible to cultivation by all peoples of whatever belief system or
"God" is a lot more perverse than i give her credit for.
---
JL
Tom
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:45269F03...@luckymojo.com...
There are practices used by occultists which are also used by people who do
not think of themselves as occultists. Most of the practices and beliefs in
the occult repertoire are borrowed from some non-occult source.
I don't see why trance mediumship would not be classifiable as magick,
though. It looks like straightforward evocation of spirits to me, which is
a classic magical operation. The siddhi powers are exactly the sort of
abilities which are associated in lore with magical powers. Opening locks.
Finding treasure. Levitation. Telepathic domination. Altering the size and
shape of the body. Alchemical transformations. Astral projection. Just
calling them by a different name doesn't mean they're no longer the same
thing.
>> > Of course, as you suggested somewhat obliquely,
>> > prayer itself could also be considered magical
>> > or divinatory.
>>
>> the character of the prayer may be important as
>> to whether it is magic. if it is expected that
>> the deity will comply with one's direction, then
>> it is magic (the deity is as i understand it a
>> symbol of manipulation, used like a dollbaby,
>> but if it is an entreatise to a higher being,
>> a request and pleading, it is getting a friend
>> to help and may be at best theurgy, unless
>> otherwise symbolized as part of the rite,
>> being simply petition to a larger force.
Lots of magical operations acknowledge that the results are dependent upon
what "the universe" or "God" or whatever thinks is best. IN this prayer is
no different. LIke in the occult, there is a general belief among
Christians that the more potent and adept ("holier" or "more godly") the
person saying the prayer, the more likely it is to be granted. That's the
belief that creates the role of the faith healer, for example.
>> > If one prayed for God's intercession in some
>> > worldly or spiritual matter, it could be
>> > construed as magic, even if the request
>> > was as vaguely expressed as "send your
>> > blessings to so-and-so".
>>
>> that's a directive. the less forceful the
>> operation the more questionably magical it
>> would be.
The operations of magick do not always depend upon overpowering the entity
one wishes to influence. It often depends on understanding what that power
is inclined to do, its values and priorities, just as prayer is more
effective when they pray-er knows how to appeal to God in a pleasing and
appropriate way. The Lord's Prayer and the Prayer of Jabez as two examples
of prayers that purport to express a right understanding of God's
motivations and the proper attitude of the pray-er, and are thus widely
thought of as more powerful or more effective than others.
>> > If one simply wanted to ask some sign as
>> > to how one should make some decision,
>> > that would be divination.
>>
>> omens and signs from the divine for sure,
>> and if requested, this confirms its action
>> as a practice per se (rather than simply
>> seeing one without having been looking).
>
> Do either of you see prophesy as distinct from
> divination? I do -- and know that others do.
Of course some people do. Some people also don't see prayer as magic.
People make all kinds of subtle and subjective distinctions between things
and not everyone agrees that those distinctions are valid. Personally, I'm
flexible. It's all in how you prefer to define your terms and what
assumptions you choose to make.
>> > What else do people pray for?
>>
>> rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
>> all kinds of things.
>
> They may even pray to become prophets?
Transformations, good fortune, and special knowledge. What else do people
do magic for?
catherine yronwode
>
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote
> > nocTifer wrote:
> >> > What else do people pray for?
> >>
> >> rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
> >> all kinds of things.
> >
> > They may even pray to become prophets?
>
> Transformations, good fortune, and special
> knowledge. What else do people
> do magic for?
Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
or partake of the Divine. I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
but some folks say that they think that is ALL that magic is good for or
should be used for, and that they consider a typical magical spell, such
as for love or spiritual cleansing, to be antithetical to their
"correct" employment of magical knowledge.
cat yronwode
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>> Transformations, good fortune, and special
>> knowledge. What else do people
>> do magic for?
>
> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
> or partake of the Divine.
Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the Divine. Very good
fortune.
> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
Some folks don't feel the need, that's true. Most folks, actually.
> but some folks say that they think that is ALL that magic is good for or
> should be used for, and that they consider a typical magical spell, such
> as for love or spiritual cleansing, to be antithetical to their
> "correct" employment of magical knowledge.
They sure do. Not most folks, though.
Meltdarok
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:45286CCA...@luckymojo.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> Transformations, good fortune, and special
>>> knowledge. What else do people
>>> do magic for?
>> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
>> or partake of the Divine.
>
> Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the Divine. Very
good fortune.
>
>> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
>
Please explain how this works in a non geo-centric environment, such as
the one that we are now aware that we exist in today. What may be
different if you tried the same magic working 880 galaxies down and 674
galaxies over?
Or does the fact that there is much, much more that just this speck of
dust we call Earth enter into consideration at all?
> Some folks don't feel the need, that's true. Most folks, actually.
>
>> but some folks say that they think that is ALL that magic is good for or
>> should be used for, and that they consider a typical magical spell, such
>> as for love or spiritual cleansing, to be antithetical to their
>> "correct" employment of magical knowledge.
>
> They sure do. Not most folks, though.
> 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
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Jason
"Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SL7Wg.39540$QZ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
As Cat's unconscious testament dictates, and as long as we're generalizing
here, most occultists, or rather, those who delude themselves believing they
have a flair for the occult, in the name of self-preservation, are in
essence self-flagellating self-defeatists grossly uneducated in principle
though highly specialized, occult foundations, and in being so are socially
parasitic. Such people serve no other purpose other than signifying and
propagating stagnation, and thus, decay.
"Divinity" to me simply implies more, if not all, space inhabited "there's
room for hair-splitting) and special rights to mold that space to the whim
or the magician. The more space that's inhabited, the more far-reaching the
effects of hir own magic, but never mind all of that for the time being.
There are two evident factoids presented in this thread by Cat: a) she's a
proponent of operating as an occultist only within a fraction of space that
she considers not to be "Divine", b) she missies the mark in juxtaposing
Tom's simplistic occult rhetoric pertaining to "special knowledge", and its
obvious place within and relation to the confines of a specific quadrant of
inhabitable space, and c) unknowingly disqualifies herself as being ignorant
of, and incompetent to take part in any meaningful way, the most rudimentary
arguments front and center in modern, or for than matter, historic
occultism.
She's a bottom-feeder with no other talent than lying to herself and others
that she's not such But the Cat's out of the bag now, isn't it. If Cat's
plan was to admit being an ignorant occult dabbler, well, she's made her
point. If not, though, then she's still not all that bright.
Joseph Littleshoes
Of course everything anyone writes has a self revelatory, biographical
aspect that can not be escaped. You can only write about what you know
about. From the postion you occupy vis a vis yourself.
>
> "Divinity" to me simply implies more, if not all, space inhabited "there's
> room for hair-splitting) and special rights to mold that space to the whim
> or the magician. The more space that's inhabited, the more far-reaching the
> effects of hir own magic, but never mind all of that for the time being.
> There are two evident factoids presented in this thread by Cat: a) she's a
> proponent of operating as an occultist only within a fraction of space that
> she considers not to be "Divine", b) she missies the mark in juxtaposing
> Tom's simplistic occult rhetoric pertaining to "special knowledge", and its
> obvious place within and relation to the confines of a specific quadrant of
> inhabitable space, and c) unknowingly disqualifies herself as being ignorant
> of, and incompetent to take part in any meaningful way, the most rudimentary
> arguments front and center in modern, or for than matter, historic
> occultism.
As above, Jason, such statements reveal more about the writer than the
intended target.
>
> She's a bottom-feeder with no other talent than lying to herself and others
> that she's not such But the Cat's out of the bag now, isn't it.
You have made this clear about yourself Jason, why you would want to re
- emphasize the paucity of your intellectual speculation is probly just
a need for the attention you have not been receiving lately.
As "nanny" points out even bad behaviour gets attention even if it is
not the type of attention that is desired.
If Cat's
> plan was to admit being an ignorant occult dabbler, well, she's made her
> point. If not, though, then she's still not all that bright.
You make it too easy Jason, thus rather boring to point out to you,
again and again, the fundamental flaw in what passes for reasoning in
your febrile consciousness.
---
JL
>
>
Meltdarok
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:45286CCA...@luckymojo.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> Transformations, good fortune, and special
>>> knowledge. What else do people
>>> do magic for?
>> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
>> or partake of the Divine.
>
> Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the Divine. Very
good fortune.
>
>> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
>
Please explain how this works in a non geo-centric environment, such as
the one that we are now aware that we exist in today. What may be
different if you tried the same magic working 880 galaxies down and 674
galaxies over?
Or does the fact that there is much, much more that just this speck of
dust we call Earth enter into consideration at all?
> Some folks don't feel the need, that's true. Most folks, actually.
>
>> but some folks say that they think that is ALL that magic is good for or
>> should be used for, and that they consider a typical magical spell, such
>> as for love or spiritual cleansing, to be antithetical to their
>> "correct" employment of magical knowledge.
>
> They sure do. Not most folks, though.
> 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
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
duplicate?
Meltdarok
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> news:45286CCA...@luckymojo.com...
>> Tom wrote:
>>>
>>> Transformations, good fortune, and special
>>> knowledge. What else do people
>>> do magic for?
>> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
>> or partake of the Divine.
>
> Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the Divine. Very good
> fortune.
>
>> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
>
Please explain how this works in a non geo-centric environment, such as
the one that we are now aware that we exist in today. What may be
different if you tried the same magic working 880 galaxies down and 674
galaxies over?
Or does the fact that there is much, much more that just this speck of
dust we call Earth enter into consideration at all?
> Some folks don't feel the need, that's true. Most folks, actually.
>
>> but some folks say that they think that is ALL that magic is good for or
>> should be used for, and that they consider a typical magical spell, such
>> as for love or spiritual cleansing, to be antithetical to their
>> "correct" employment of magical knowledge.
>
> They sure do. Not most folks, though.
>
> 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
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
catherine yronwode
>
> Tom wrote:
> > "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> > news:45286CCA...@luckymojo.com...
> >> Tom wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Transformations, good fortune, and special
> >>> knowledge. What else do people
> >>> do magic for?
> >> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join with, understand,
> >> or partake of the Divine.
> >
> > Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the Divine. Very good
> > fortune.
> >
> >> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
>
> Please explain how this works in a non geo-centric environment, such as
> the one that we are now aware that we exist in today. What may be
> different if you tried the same magic working 880 galaxies down and 674
> galaxies over?
>
> Or does the fact that there is much, much more that just this speck of
> dust we call Earth enter into consideration at all?
Well, since i don't use magic to "join with, understand, or partake of
the Divine," the fact that there are lots of galaxies has not too much
intersection with my use of magic.
To draw an analogy: i stay home pretty much of the time, and i am very
familiar with the rose bushes on my property, and i want them to grow
and prosper. I know there are other rose bushes, elsewhere in the world,
and i hope they propser too -- but i don;t go out watering them or
weeding around them.
I think good thoughts about all the folks who may exist in all those
other galaxies, and that's about it, but i am not out there trying to
help them win the solar lottery.
cat yronwode
catherine yronwode
>
> those who delude themselves believing they
> have a flair for the occult, in the name of self-preservation, are in
> essence self-flagellating self-defeatists grossly uneducated in principle
> though highly specialized, occult foundations, and in being so are socially
> parasitic. Such people serve no other purpose other than signifying and
> propagating stagnation, and thus, decay.
I get the impression you are flinging a bunch of negative terms into the
cauldron of your mind, stirring well, and then pouring the result out
into the newsgroup.
> "Divinity" to me simply implies more, if not all, space inhabited "there's
> room for hair-splitting) and special rights to mold that space to the whim
> or the magician. The more space that's inhabited, the more far-reaching the
> effects of hir own magic, but never mind all of that for the time being.
Okay, that's your definition of "Divinity." Thanks for sharing.
My personal definition of divinity includes time as well as space.
So there we are.
> There are two evident factoids presented in this thread by Cat:
I presented no factoids.
(Factoid: Something resembling a fact, e.g. an invented fact that is
taken to be true because of its appearance in print.)
The rest of your post deleted without comment, because it is nothing
more than your customary rant about me, demonstrating once again the
continuance of your mental illness.
cat yronwode
Joseph Littleshoes
> Jason wrote:
> As Cat's unconscious testament dictates, and as long as we're
> generalizing here, most occultists, or rather, those who delude
> themselves believing they have a flair for the occult, in the name of
> self-preservation, are in essence self-flagellating self-defeatists
> grossly uneducated in principle though highly specialized, occult
> foundations,
Well that don't make sense. Bad sentence construction, im not sure what
you mean.
> and in being so are socially parasitic.
Only when applied to "occultism" or do we say the same thing about any
one 'specialized' (which seems to me to contradict you're preceding
statement) in anything?
> Such people serve no other purpose other than signifying and
> propagating stagnation, and thus, decay.
>
Like attracts like, which explains even if it does not excuse your
metaphorical resemblance to a big pile of shit.
WE HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE ANCIENT TIMES
--------------
With all the clarity of dreams
the rank and file and the baby blue,
deep and strong straight and true
the boots march forward in time
wood and leather
club and shield
across the battle field
with all the clarity of dreams
the blood so red
the grass so green
The sky so blue
when last we seen
knights in armour
(in England's green and pleasant land)
same old season
Same old crime
we have not changed since ancient times.
---
JL
Tom
"Joseph Littleshoes" <jpst...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:4529EA0F...@isp.com...
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>
>> As Cat's unconscious testament dictates, and as long as we're
>> generalizing here, most occultists, or rather, those who delude
>> themselves believing they have a flair for the occult, in the name of
>> self-preservation, are in essence self-flagellating self-defeatists
>> grossly uneducated in principle though highly specialized, occult
>
> Well that don't make sense. Bad sentence construction, im not sure what
> you mean.
According to my reading, he says that most occultists, perhaps excluding
himself, are deluding themselves about the supposed power they are wielding.
This delusion is induced because of the occultists' fear of being victimized
by people who wield other kinds of power.
That seems to be one point.
Another seems to be that, while occultists study occultism assiduously, he
feels that they know very little about anything else.
I don't quite get how that connects to self-flagellation, self-defeat, and
social parasitism. That sounds like a little tangental name-calling.
> WE HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE ANCIENT TIMES
We certainly will change quite a bit pretty soon. We've started tinkering
with our DNA.
nagasiva
nagasiva:
>>>> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2
>>>> observable dimensions: magic and divination....
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
>>> I've tried to find exceptions to these two
>>> categories, but so far I haven't come up
>>> with any.
the attempt depends on a broad understanding of
both such that they incorporate some if not all
of what was previously categorized as either.
an example of a controversial fold-in would be
astrology, which i integrate to divination. an
example of a controversial exclusion would be
psychic powers, which i relegate to a category
all its own.
nagasiva:
>> exceptions i've seen people insert were covered
>> in that original missive. things which come to
>> mind now are mediumship (spiritualism), and
>> siddhis (powers). arguably the trance-possessory
>> practice of mediumship is neither magic *nor*
>> divination, though it (along with psychicism
>> and mystical attainment) are often classed
>> as part of the occult.
catherine yronwode <c...@luckymojo.com>:
> ...religions in which [trance-possession] is
> a feature are sometimes grouped with "occultism"
> in popular books on magic.
popular books on magic are usually not reliable
in terms of their categorization or widespread
knowledge. i find it far more helpful to compare
and contrast the lexicon of practitioners with
that of academics (Bonewits with Kieckhefer, for
example; the former *and* the latter have tried
to achieve a general understanding of magic and
generalize across the field to understanding).
> As more and more democratic communication
> is achieved via the internet, we find that
> people who practice these religions are NOT
> expecting to be labelled "occultists" nor
> are they content to be labelled as such
> by outsiders.
what people are labelled as by outsiders will
vary in accuracy depending upon how functional
the labelling and categorizing goes in making
the labels and their application. there is for
this reason something helpful to be gleaned by
reference to sociology (/anthropology) and its
usage of terms.
whether someone is perceived to practice
whatever is thought to be 'occultism' is
likely the most common motivation for the
use of the term 'occultist'. in some cases
they will be accurate, and in others they
will not. how people use terms is always a
target of those who seek to wrangle, but
in attempting to argue for a most efficient
lexicon, my aim is to disregard the social
implications and utility of spreading names.
thus if someone practices magic or divination
as a *primary* aspect of their activities,
then i assess that they are an occultist.
if they are religious who occasionally use
divination or magic for their purposes,
then they are not occultists per se.
Tom:
>>> If one prayed for God's intercession in some
>>> worldly or spiritual matter, it could be
>>> construed as magic, even if the request
>>> was as vaguely expressed as "send your
>>> blessings to so-and-so".
>>
>> that's a directive. the less forceful the
>> operation the more questionably magical it
>> would be. say i did a ritual to show my god
>> the situation. my interest is not that the
>> god should take action, but that She would
>> concentrate Her attention at that location
>> on my behalf, as a priest, i suppose, of
>> the god's power. I have the wand of the god,
>> as it were, or may be considered this as
>> such a theurge.
>>
>>> If one simply wanted to ask some sign as
>>> to how one should make some decision,
>>> that would be divination.
>>
>> omens and signs from the divine for sure,
>> and if requested, this confirms its action
>> as a practice per se (rather than simply
>> seeing one without having been looking).
>
> Do either of you see prophesy as distinct from
> divination? I do -- and know that others do.
I don't have enough knowledge about what is
actually DONE in order to prophesy/prophesize.
is Nostradums a prophet? if not, why not? let's
get some notion of what the minimum requirements
are for the activity under our belts before
attempting to understand its relation to magic
or to divination. that is how i'm proceeding to
evaluate all of these things (their practical
form). care to explain what you know about how
it is done by the various prophetic religious?
Islam tried to put a cap on it for all time.
>>> What else do people pray for?
>>
>> rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
>> all kinds of things.
>
> They may even pray to become prophets?
indeed, as well as carpenters, fishers of
men, and insurance salespeople. :)
nagasiva
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
nagasiva
sri catyananda:
>> Calling trance-possession "occult" is only common
>> among folks in whose cultures trance/possession
>> is UNcommon. This religions in which this is a
>> feature are sometimes grouped with "occultism"
>> in popular books on magic. As more and more
>> democratic communication is achievwed via the
>> internet, we find that people who practice these
>> religions are NOT expecting to be labelled
>> "occultists" nor are they content to be labelled
>> as such by outsiders.
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
> There are practices used by occultists which are
> also used by people who do not think of themselves
> as occultists. Most of the practices and beliefs
> in the occult repertoire are borrowed from some
> non-occult source.
----------
practices: magic and divination
by definition (mine) these are not borrowed, but
are intrinsic to it. methods may be the issue.
--------
beliefs: various
I'm not sure about that one. there are certain
prevalences, but in general i do agree with
you, particularly as the rise of science gives
occultists language with which to describe
what it typically includes (as after Mesmer
and the various 'energies', 'fluids',
and other beliefs interwoven amongst
magicospirituality).
> I don't see why trance mediumship would not
> be classifiable as magick, though.
methods would be important to identify here.
trance-mediumship may be a supercategory that
transcends strict methodology and in that
case sometimes magic will be used and at
other times it will be something else
that is used to achieve the same effect.
> It looks like straightforward evocation
> of spirits to me, which is a classic
> magical operation.
that'd be INvocation, typically. I know the
consolidation of terminology is something we
are ourselves grappling with, but 'in' and
'e' seem somewhat plainspoken to me.
in any case the reason that it could be
disputed as a classified magical type is
that it doesn't obviously include symbolism,
though we could easily argue that the god's
image is the symbolism meant to reconcile
the apparent diversity between mage/deity.
that the aim is intentional (communion or
occlusion) seems evident, and so a good deal
of possible objection seems based on an
interpretation of the event(s) in question.
> The siddhi powers are exactly the sort of
> abilities which are associated in lore with
> magical powers.
agreed, the lore is common and attendant to
the theory otherwise (cosmology, ethics,
etc.) which is para-magical.
> Opening locks. Finding treasure.
an aim.
> Levitation.
an effect.
> Telepathic domination.
an activity supposing the usage of psychic
powers.
> Altering the size and shape of the body.
presumably glamour spells and the like.
the method is different than the effect.
> Alchemical transformations.
an effect of a type of magic (alchemy).
> Astral projection.
a socket-wrench from the toolset of the
mage using it. is it used in magic? yes.
is it magic itself? not without more.
> Just calling them by a different name
> doesn't mean they're no longer the
> same thing.
in an examination of methodology, so as
to taxonomically differentiate, coagulating
things together is confusing without a reason
for doing it beyond traditional affiliations
of mind. let's draw out how their methodology
is the same or similar (magic) before coming
to accept them as such.
unless there is some reason to suspend strict
termsets for these things (i suspect that the
primary one is, to date, obfuscation and some
good bit of opinionatedness), then there is
an over-riding reason to suggest and consider
some, using what we find valuable: clearer
communication.
>>>> Of course, as you suggested somewhat obliquely,
>>>> prayer itself could also be considered magical
>>>> or divinatory.
>>>
>>> the character of the prayer may be important as
>>> to whether it is magic. if it is expected that
>>> the deity will comply with one's direction, then
>>> it is magic (the deity is as i understand it a
>>> symbol of manipulation, used like a dollbaby,
>>> but if it is an entreatise to a higher being,
>>> a request and pleading, it is getting a friend
>>> to help and may be at best theurgy, unless
>>> otherwise symbolized as part of the rite,
>>> being simply petition to a larger force.
>
> Lots of magical operations acknowledge that the
> results are dependent upon what "the universe"
> or "God" or whatever thinks is best.
that is correct, it is a theurgic caveat, a kind
of safeguard against unintended or improper
results of our actions.
> IN this prayer is no different.
prayer which asks but does not direct is in fact
different, since it *only* asks, but doesn't have
some kind of compelling motive communicating
intention to the god or saint or whathaveyou.
> LIke in the occult, there is a general belief
> among Christians that the more potent and
> adept ("holier" or "more godly") the person
> saying the prayer, the more likely it is to
> be granted....
agreed, this is a cosmological presupposition
within which magic may be employed.
>>>> If one prayed for God's intercession in some
>>>> worldly or spiritual matter, it could be
>>>> construed as magic, even if the request
>>>> was as vaguely expressed as "send your
>>>> blessings to so-and-so".
>>>
>>> that's a directive. the less forceful the
>>> operation the more questionably magical it
>>> would be.
>
> The operations of magick do not always depend
> upon overpowering the entity one wishes to
> influence.
agreed. potency is not a determinate delineator.
forcefulness or directedness feeds the notion
that *intention* is being employed, which was
and is an element of all magic to my knowledge.
eliminate intention and it is the god who does
the magic.
> It often depends on understanding what that
> power is inclined to do, its values and
> priorities, just as prayer is more effective
> when they pray-er knows how to appeal to God
> in a pleasing and appropriate way. The Lord's
> Prayer and the Prayer of Jabez as two
> examples of prayers that purport to express
> a right understanding of God's motivations
> and the proper attitude of the pray-er, and
> are thus widely thought of as more powerful
> or more effective than others.
yes, and to the extent that the god may be
*relied upon to respond to the form of the
prayer in a positive manner*, so is what is
being described a spell. to the extent that
a god has ultimate determinacy and impetus
to create the conditions being asked for,
so is the method prayer without magic,
theurgy rather than thaumaturgy. that this
distinction is UNDERSTOOD is more important
to me than whether or not it is agreed upon.
>>>> If one simply wanted to ask some sign as
>>>> to how one should make some decision,
>>>> that would be divination.
>>>
>>> omens and signs from the divine for sure,
>>> and if requested, this confirms its action
>>> as a practice per se (rather than simply
>>> seeing one without having been looking).
>>
>> Do either of you see prophesy as distinct from
>> divination? I do -- and know that others do.
>
> Of course some people do. Some people also
> don't see prayer as magic.
some forms of prayer are not, some are.
S M * God make this happen.
P A
E G * Please God make this happen.
C I P
T C R * God fix this problem.
R A
U Y * God help me solve this matter.
M E
R * This is a problem, God.
at some point it transcends directives and
become simply informing the deity of the
conditions which obtain. prior to that it
is an ambiguous request for assistance,
and prior to that a directive to the god
to take particular action. the earlier part
of this list is most clearly magic, as i
see it, whereas the latter is most clearly
prayer of some kind without magical aspect.
> People make all kinds of subtle and
> subjective distinctions between things
> and not everyone agrees that those
> distinctions are valid. Personally,
> I'm flexible. It's all in how you
> prefer to define your terms and what
> assumptions you choose to make.
to get somewhere i find it necessary to
establish a functional and methodological
lexicon for discussion of the subject. if
you know of any cohesive sets designed by
anyone else that you like, let me know. I
have in fact pointed to numerous exponents
such as anthropologists and role-playing
game designers as exemplary and consistent.
>>>> What else do people pray for?
>>>
>>> rain. spouses. good lotto # picks.
>>> all kinds of things.
>>
>> They may even pray to become prophets?
>
> Transformations, good fortune, and
> special knowledge. What else do
> people do magic for?
anything under the sun which needs change
or requires preservation.
nagasiva
nagasiva
nocTifer:
>> not all of us are familiar with the practical dimensions
>> of the occult, per se, and so i would like to point out
>> what [the author] is struggling *against* so that we can
>> see where your points are debatable and in error (a kind
>> of exploration of the mistakes of theocrats). I will
>> ignore his general theology as misplaced and proceed.
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl>:
> ...pretending to *know* the thing someone else
> is struggling against is kinda hubris.
when it is stated so plainly and there is reason to think
that the after-effect of the fly-by is disregarded (i.e.
flat-out propaganda), the opportunity for the injection
of substance presents itself.
>># I beg anyone who is reading this to turn
>># from the occult and its practices.
>>
>> the occult is easily divided by practice into
>> 2 observable dimensions: magic and divination.
>
> ...if we would all follow *your* definitions.
in discussion with me that is going to be the case
as long as you have nothing better to suggest. :)
> ...what is magic,
the manipulation and use of symbolism to effect
intended conditions (change or preservation) at a
remove from any conventional cause manipulated
(what might be termed 'symbolic probability
steering').
> and what is divination,
the use of symbolism to derive information or
communications from a particular oracle or the
cosmos at large within the specific semantic
set engaged (e.g. runes, tarot cards,
ouija board bits, body bumps, natal
chart components, etc.).
> and how are they different ?
magic intends a specific effect, or a general
movement toward some condition, whereas
divination seeks to derive a reflection or
categorical and informative bit of data from
an oracle or from the cosmos *as* oracle.
whereas divination seeks to answer,
magic seeks to achieve.
nagasiva
Tom
"nagasiva" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:452ac224$0$34555$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> 50061009 x!
>
> nagasiva:
>>>>> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2
>>>>> observable dimensions: magic and divination....
>
> "Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
>>>> I've tried to find exceptions to these two
>>>> categories, but so far I haven't come up
>>>> with any.
>
> the attempt depends on a broad understanding of
> both such that they incorporate some if not all
> of what was previously categorized as either.
> an example of a controversial fold-in would be
> astrology, which i integrate to divination. an
> example of a controversial exclusion would be
> psychic powers, which i relegate to a category
> all its own.
We might want to consider that "psychic power' is more an explanation of the
processes of magic and divination than actually being a magical or
divinatory act.
nagasiva
>Meltdarok:
>> Tom:
>>> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com>:
>>>> Tom:
>>>>> Transformations, good fortune, and special knowledge.
>>>>> What else do people do magic for?
>>>>
>>>> Some folks tell me that they do magic in order to join
>>>> with, understand, or partake of the Divine.
>>>
>>> Spiritual transformation. Special knowledge of the
>>> Divine. Very good fortune.
>>>
>>>> I personally don't use magic for that purpose,
>>
>> Please explain how this works in a non geo-centric environment, such as
>> the one that we are now aware that we exist in today. What may be
>> different if you tried the same magic working 880 galaxies down and 674
>> galaxies over?
>>
>> Or does the fact that there is much, much more that just this speck of
>> dust we call Earth enter into consideration at all?
>
> Well, since i don't use magic to "join with, understand, or partake of
> the Divine," the fact that there are lots of galaxies has not too much
> intersection with my use of magic.
and not all of us are pantheist or Deist mystics.
nagasiva
nagasiva
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
>"nagasiva" <yronwode.com@nagasiva>:
nagasiva:
>>>>>> the occult is easily divided by practice into 2
>>>>>> observable dimensions: magic and divination....
"Tom" <askper...@comcast.net>:
>>>>> I've tried to find exceptions to these two
>>>>> categories, but so far I haven't come up
>>>>> with any.
>>
>> the attempt depends on a broad understanding of
>> both such that they incorporate some if not all
>> of what was previously categorized as either.
>> an example of a controversial fold-in would be
>> astrology, which i integrate to divination. an
>> example of a controversial exclusion would be
>> psychic powers, which i relegate to a category
>> all its own.
>
> We might want to consider that "psychic power' is
> more an explanation of the processes of magic
yes, often it comes to function as metaphysics for
those without a clear notion of the 'language' of
magic.
> and divination than actually being a magical or
> divinatory act.
if anything it is usually classed divinatory
because that is more easily demonstrated.
nagasiva
Bassos
"nagasiva" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
> 50061009 x!
>
> nocTifer:
>>># I beg anyone who is reading this to turn
>>># from the occult and its practices.
>>>
>>> the occult is easily divided by practice into
>>> 2 observable dimensions: magic and divination.
>>
>> ...if we would all follow *your* definitions.
>
> in discussion with me that is going to be the case
> as long as you have nothing better to suggest. :)
How about performance art without goals but the performance itself ?
Not an occult thingy ?
>> ...what is magic,
>
> the manipulation and use of symbolism to effect
> intended conditions (change or preservation) at a
> remove from any conventional cause manipulated
> (what might be termed 'symbolic probability
> steering').
Where does conventional begin ?
Is altering your own mindset still conventional ?
What about one's own bodily chemistry ?
What about changing one's own actions so precisely the correct actions are
taken for the intended goal ?
(no remove from conventional cause, but the choosing of the right actions
coming through something other than reasoned choice)
>> and what is divination,
>
> the use of symbolism to derive information or
> communications from a particular oracle or the
> cosmos at large within the specific semantic
> set engaged (e.g. runes, tarot cards,
> ouija board bits, body bumps, natal
> chart components, etc.).
I suppose that 'communications' is used quite flexible here ?
(including dreams, visions, pathwork and such)
Where would you put a vision whose content is not readily available for
recollection, but which has altered yourself ?
>> and how are they different ?
>
> magic intends a specific effect, or a general
> movement toward some condition, whereas
> divination seeks to derive a reflection or
> categorical and informative bit of data from
> an oracle or from the cosmos *as* oracle.
The mere assumption of a godform, without asking information, nor intending
any specific result, would that be more magic, or more divination ?
> whereas divination seeks to answer,
> magic seeks to achieve.
That is pretty clear, thanks.
Joseph Littleshoes
Hmmm...hadn't considered that, i was reminiscing more about cultural
heritage than genetics.
--
JL
OK
>
>>
>
> the character of the prayer may be important as
> to whether it is magic. if it is expected that
> the deity will comply with one's direction, then
> it is magic (the deity is as i understand it a
> symbol of manipulation, used like a dollbaby,
> but if it is an entreatise to a higher being,
> a request and pleading, it is getting a friend
> to help and may be at best theurgy, unless
> otherwise symbolized as part of the rite,
> being simply petition to a larger force.
>
conceptual toy? Like treating a deity like a doll baby is the same thing
as treating it like a conceptual toy?!
>
>> If one prayed for God's intercession in some
>> worldly or spiritual matter, it could be
>> construed as magic, even if the request
>> was as vaguely expressed as "send your
>> blessings to so-and-so".
>>
>
> that's a directive. the less forceful the
> operation the more questionably magical it
> would be. say i did a ritual to show my god
> the situation. my interest is not that the
> god should take action, but that She would
> concentrate Her attention at that location
> on my behalf, as a priest, i suppose, of
> the god's power. I have the wand of the god,
> as it were, or may be considered this as
> such a theurge.
>
>
new to this group, but not to magic.
>> If one simply wanted to ask some sign as
>> to how one should make some decision,
>> that would be divination.
>>
>
> omens and signs from the divine for sure,
> and if requested, this confirms its action
> as a practice per se (rather than simply
> seeing one without having been looking).
>
Bassos
"OK" <O...@nospamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:yiC2h.566$7F3...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Can one practice magick without signs, and if so, what is this called?
It is called <roll drums>
Action.
OK
please help me, thanks.
ok
catherine yronwode
>
> Bassos wrote:
> > "OK" <O...@nospamsnet.net> wrote in message
> > news:yiC2h.566$7F3...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >> Can one practice magick without signs, and if so, what is this called?
> >>
> >
> > It is called <roll drums>
> >
> > Action.
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> i subscribed. i am sorry i am dumb. what do you mean by this message?
> please help me, thanks.
> ok
The message means that your post was run pst a software program called
STUMP that reads the posts for obscene and derogatory words and rejects
all posts containig those words, then checks the sender name against the
names of people who are "suspicious" because the software has logged
them as posters known to have sent rejected posts in the past -- and, if
no bad things are found, posts the messsge to usenet. This is called
"robo-moderation."
cat yronwode
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
moderation
OK
Meltdarok
There were no such words, it's just that the robot let you know that it
is doing its job for this Newsgroup.
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: moderation
>
> 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
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
OK
the harshness I received from one member of this group, I am going to
unsubscribe and move my discussion solely to the moderated group. Thanks.
>
>
>> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: moderation
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
catherine yronwode
>
> Meltdarok wrote:
> >
> > There were no such words, it's just that the robot let you know that
> > it is doing its job for this Newsgroup.
> I know, I meant what words does it consider derogatory? Well considering
> the harshness I received from one member of this group, I am going to
> unsubscribe and move my discussion solely to the moderated group. Thanks.
Well, i can't post the words that are blocked at alt.magick.modertaed,
'cause if i did, the robo-moderation program would reject the post --
but basically the words on the list are the most common and typical
racial, political, and mental-acuity terms that are used as put-downs by
schoolyard bullies; in short, they are words and phrases that are not
essential in conversations that deal with the technical, scholarly, or
practical aspects of magic, occultism, or spiritual practices.
cat yronwode