Question:
You’re not doing magick if you’re not confused about what’s real and what’s not.
Did Crowley know what he was doing then?
Response:
That’s part of it, but not all of it. You’re following the Walt Disney idea of magic, which is that it is the equivalent of imagination. Imagination alone cannot set things in motion.
Well, that’s not exactly true. Vividly imagining your hands warming up will actually cause the small blood vessels in your hands to expand, which actually warms them. However, in that case, the imagining device is directly connected to the device that regulates the expansion of small blood vessels, seeing as how they are both part of the same nervous system. You can’t warm somebody else’s hands by just imagining it, though. Bruce will certainly disagree with this, but he won’t be able to demonstrate it. The "primitive" forms of magical practice do not use visualizations and meditations. They stick pins into dolls, bury roots under doorsteps, light candles, sleep in graveyards on sacred days.
Those techniques are all ways of visualizing and contemplating a particular sort of event. Most people who have explored "primitive" forms of magical practice find that it’s more effective than the games of consciousness.
Nobody, nobody at all, has ever demonstrated under controlled conditions that sticking a pin in a doll has any effect, in and of itself, on anybody who is not aware of it and open to the suggestion. The whole idea of consciousness is a modern phenomenon, relatively
speaking. The whole idea of consciousness arose with consciousness itself. Magic is much, much older.
Cite your source for this extraordinary claim. Maic is older tha consciousness? Nah. Go peddle that to the occult pseudohistorians, not to serious inquirers. Magic must prove itself with material results.
OK. Show us the material evidence that sticking a pin in a dollie will make somebody sick, all by itself.
Response:
Who gives a rip what Crowley says? I’ve never seen anyone who followed Crowley who could do any Magick at all.
I concur, for the most part. I’ve actually seen three practitioners who accepted Crowley do some good magical work, though two of the three also adhered to other systems which I have more trust in. For the most part, everything Crowley wrote can be considered rubbish and used to balance the feet of unsteady furniture. a spell is the direction of a magical operation toward a specific aim. A spell is a belief. It is the conceptualization, imagining, and emoting of whatever it is one wants to become real. It is the heart of magick.
That’s part of it, but not all of it. You’re following the Walt Disney idea of magic, which is that it is the equivalent of imagination. Imagination alone cannot set things in motion. belief is conceptual-alliance. Whatever that means. Beliefs form physical reality. They guide/direct the multidimensional creative forces that are native to consciousness.
It is easier to argue that all consciousness is a fiction than argue that reality is a mere byproduct of belief. in order to actually *do* magic, equipment is helpful. without it, you’re probably doing something else. Crap. Nothing physical whatsoever is needed to do magick.
Nothing mental whatsoever is needed to do magick. It’s just handy if you want to control it. The "primitive" forms of magical practice do not use visualizations and meditations. They stick pins into dolls, bury roots under doorsteps, light candles, sleep in graveyards on sacred days. Most people who have explored "primitive" forms of magical practice find that it’s more effective than the games of consciousness. The whole idea of consciousness is a modern phenomenon, relatively speaking. Magic is much, much older. It is not dependent on games of consciousness anymore than it is dependent on straddling a broom. Unexplained phenomena– paranormal, miraculous, or Fortean events– to someone of the magic paradigm, these are magical events. They are either spontaneous magical upsurges in the world without any human cause, or the byproduct of people completely unaware of their own abilities. Most of these events have no rhyme or reason, no motive, no obvious aim. Belief, or awareness of any kind, is clearly taking a secondary role. ; people might *call* that magic, but it doesn’t generally qualify except as a latent explanation for why one is not practicing actual (rather than imaginary) occultism, instead engaging speculative pursuits. Meaningless verbiage.
Magic must prove itself with material results. It is a technique of the miraculous. If it cannot do things in the world which cannot be done through other means, and with some degree of regularity, then to call it magic is coarse redefinition. # including: helping to create changes in consciousness, indeed, ceremony sets the stage for unconscious to ‘pay attention’. The ‘unconscious’ is always paying attention. It creates your reality (does the real work) moment-by-moment. It is not something seperate from oneself, it IS oneself.
The unconscious is a component of the theories of Freud and Jung. I find it interesting that many people accept this notion as a given, but often dispense with all the other ideas of these primary creators of the unconscious. Outside of psychoanalytic theory, the idea of the unconscious mind makes much less sense. # protection from outside influences, # focus of energy, and other such things. magic circles and chambers of art can facilitate these. Or you can drop the theatrics and the bullshit and just do Magick. The tools of magick are ideas, emotions, imagination; intent and desire. Only people that don’t understand magick need all the ceremony/ ritual.
Emotions are mere dips and peaks of endocrine productions. Desires are only effervescing neurotransmitters. Ideas and imagination and even intent can be localized as electrical activity in the cerebral cortex. How can something so blatantly material, so divorced from the grand world of higher spirit be the cause of anything other than reflexes and monkey-behavior? Where’s the magic(k) in the meat? Ah, but that’s the problem. Just because something is physical doesn’t mean it doesn’t have vast spiritual power. It’s true with the human brain, and it’s equally true with the wand and circle. –Pet Rock Gone Feral
Response:
Crowely had only one good idea,expressed in "Moonchild".
What this means is that you can’t find any of Crowley’s ideas good except one, and that one was in a work of fiction. That says more about you than about Crowley.
Response:
This article does not q
Perhaps they are only pretending to be lying. Your point is? But not you, right?
Are you delusional? Dean is 65. That counts as old. A fogey is an old person who holds old-fashioned ideas. So, yes, John Dean is an old fogey. He’s been trashing his former colleagues for decades. His disagreements with the current administration is just more of the same, the words of an old fogey who is out of the loop.
Who do you think out of the loop is? — Lady Chatterly "Well, to be fair, LC has become more than a bot." — [ DocQuixote ]
Response:
Crowely had only one good idea,expressed in "Moonchild". What this means is that you can’t find any of Crowley’s ideas good except one, and that one was in a work of fiction. That says more about you than about Crowley.
Read Moonchild again, petal. Fiction? are you sure of that?
Response:
Crowely had only one good idea,expressed in "Moonchild". What this means is that you can’t find any of Crowley’s ideas good except one, and that one was in a work of fiction. That says more about you than about Crowley. Read Moonchild again, petal. Fiction? are you sure of that?
You’re not doing magick if you’re not confused about what’s real and what’s not.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ! ! ! ! ! that under the rubric of "all in Fallujah are ! ! insurgents" "coalition" forces are turning the city into a charnel ! ! house? ! ! ! !Who are you quoting? ! ! Allawi, ! http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=54058 ! !This article does not quote Allawi as saying that "all in Fallujah are !insurgents". So you’re lying. My bad, it was an Reuters article. wil this do: Reuters: "SIraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has said he doesn’t believe any civilians were killed in the offensive, which has left 38 U.S. soldiers, 6 Iraqi troops and more than 1,200 insurgents dead. But witness accounts contradicted him.
No, that doesn’t quote Allawi as saying that "all in Fallujah are insurgents", either. The liar label stands, kid. Don’t let your evangelical zeal outrace the facts. !But not you, right? oh, but I am mortal, but I am not in power,
No? Powerless, are you? I think you’re reading the wrong newsgroups, then. All these folks believe they are powerful. Some claim to rule the whole universe. I have no one walking behind me whispering that phrase in my ear.
You should be whispering it to yourself. ! John Dean, Nixon’s White House Counsel, an old fogey? jeebuz….. ! !Dean is 65. That counts as old. A fogey is an old person who holds !old-fashioned ideas. So, yes, John Dean is an old fogey. He’s been !trashing his former colleagues for decades. His disagreements with the !current administration is just more of the same, the words of an old fogey !who is out of the loop. Interesting, that you feel the Attorney for Richard Nixon, who is a respected attorney is "out of the loop".
John Dean stopped being Richard Nixon’s attorney long before that, though. And he’s out of the loop in the Bush Administration, along with most of the rest of the respected attorneys. Face facts, kid. Stop with the hyperbole. There are good reasons to have contempt for the Bush shenanigans, crimes, and injustices without resorting to absurd and easily debunked bullshit. is this because he onflicts with with your views, or is it because you feel that anyone over a random age is. if the latter, then Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas are "out of the loop"…
It’s because nobody on the inside is letting him know what’s going on. Is that so hard for you to understand? may I direct you to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041105.html
It doesn’t say he’s a Bush Administration insider, which is what he would be, if he were in the loop. You’re busted again. That’s three for three. I invoke the three strikes rule yet again. Yer out. Next batter up, please.
Response:
The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. The civil war is over. We won, but nobody knows it yet. 
The civil war was held yesterday in Eugene Oregon. U of Oregon, 34 Oregon State 20. http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/recap?gid=200311220060
Response:
The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. The civil war is over. We won, but nobody knows it yet. The civil war was held yesterday in Eugene Oregon.
il cynicism non ?ealistico e duro. ?non realistico ed il genere di codardo perch?i significa don’t deve provare U of Oregon, 34 Oregon State 20.
Don’t imitate the fly before you have wings. — Lady Chatterly "Hurrah! Tholen has discovered the bot. This thread will now continue for ever." — Peter J Ross
Response:
! !We won. Gabriel’s trumpet has sounded. Everybody who wants to live !forever starting right now, can. All you have to do is undeny. "undeny" what? that economy under bush sux?
Does it? Apparently not enough to alarm the majority of people in this country. that over 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq
In the same time period, 85,458 Americans died in traffic accidents. Which is more? that under the rubric of "all in Fallujah are insurgents" "coalition" forces are turning the city into a charnel house?
Who are you quoting? That bush is petulant, cannot tolerate dissenting opinion?
How few can. Look at how a dissenting opinion is received in this newsgroup, for example. Has the most secretive presidency in history and ahs managed toscare the shit out of the surviving members of the Nixon White House (such as John Dean).
Karl Rove, who is almost universally acknowledged as the architect of Bush’s re-election, is also one of the surviving members of the Nixon White House. He was then chairman of the College Republican National Committee and a protege of Nixon’s dirty tricks guru, Donald Segretti. Dick Cheney, whose first political job was in the Nixon Administration Office of Economic Opportunity, is also a member. So apparently not all of them have had the shit scared out of them. Just some of the old fogeys who are now out of the loop.
Response:
Who gives a rip what Crowley says? People who are still open to new ideas. You stopped doing that some time ago, after you thought you had it all figured out.
Crowely had only one good idea,expressed in "Moonchild". This tells us, if we read carefully, that everything else from his pen was merely camouflage. Aunt Joan.
Response:
! ! that under the rubric of "all in Fallujah are ! insurgents" "coalition" forces are turning the city into a charnel ! house? ! !Who are you quoting? Allawi, http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=54058
This article does not quote Allawi as saying that "all in Fallujah are insurgents". So you’re lying. ! That bush is petulant, cannot tolerate dissenting opinion? ! !How few can. Look at how a dissenting opinion is received in this !newsgroup, for example. As President, bush SHOULD hear dissent opinion ifnothing more than to be reminded of HUBRIS: "Remember, thou art mortal"
But not you, right? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ! Has the most secretive presidency in history and ahs managed toscare the ! shit out of the surviving members of the Nixon White House (such as John ! Dean). ! !Karl Rove, who is almost universally acknowledged as the architect of Bush’s !re-election, is also one of the surviving members of the Nixon White House. !He was then chairman of the College Republican National Committee and a !protege of Nixon’s dirty tricks guru, Donald Segretti. Dick Cheney, whose !first political job was in the Nixon Administration Office of Economic !Opportunity, is also a member. So apparently not all of them have had the !shit scared out of them. Just some of the old fogeys who are now out of the !loop. John Dean, Nixon’s White House Counsel, an old fogey? jeebuz…..
Dean is 65. That counts as old. A fogey is an old person who holds old-fashioned ideas. So, yes, John Dean is an old fogey. He’s been trashing his former colleagues for decades. His disagreements with the current administration is just more of the same, the words of an old fogey who is out of the loop.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – big snips taken — replies to only a few points: Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. but as an operative description, more is required. For Bruce, more is not required to define magic. Right. That’s why I have that URL in my sig. 423 lines to explain the *rudiments* of magick. [...]
Do you see what’s going on here, Cat? You, and many others in the magickal arts/sciences, want to believe in an accidental_mostly_dead_self-creating_machine_universe *and* to believe in magick. So you have read and studied the works of people who distorted true magickal lore beyond effectiveness in order to fit it into the little box of the physical science cosmology. Magick becomes some invisible device that one can learn to press the right buttons on, the physics of which have simply yet to be discovered. Many modern christians have done the same thing with *their* cosmology, choosing to believe (with *no* Scriptural backing) that God created a mostly_mindless_machine_universe some thousands of years ago and that its mechanics have been discovered by physical science, with God reserving the right to perform miracles if you "live right and pray hard". Thus we get frustrated and ineffective magickians and christians. Yes, I know how difficult it is to accept the above. But the Truth *will* set you free. [...] <+ — Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy http://tinyurl.com/3kxzh Note: I no longer read the posts of our regular and rabid Defenders of Science, Tom, Rick, and Mark Preston, for reasons explained in this post: http://tinyurl.com/5bf7k
Response:
50041119 viii om Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. but as an operative description, more is required.
The thing about Crowley’s definition is that it is demonstrable. Is yours? # The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = # Belief. a spell is the direction of a magical operation toward a specific aim. belief is conceptual-alliance.
A spell is a way to get yourself to believe. Belief is a trance. # Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell intention is the essential quality of magic prior to its formulation within symbolism. desire is a manifestation of this intention as motivation.
And action is what gets the job done, if it’s to get done at all. You can have all the intention and motivation you want, but if you don’t know how to act to get the intended result, you’ll fail. Which is why Bruce sits in Bellingham, living on a disability dole, telling pathetic lies about himself in a desperate bid to get some sham respect. He simply doesn’t know how to do anything else.
Response:
50041119 viii om Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure.
Who gives a rip what Crowley says? I’ve never seen anyone who followed Crowley who could do any Magick at all. but as an operative description, more is required.
Sure. That’s why I have a link to a 423 line article on the rudiments of magick in my sig. # The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = # Belief. a spell is the direction of a magical operation toward a specific aim.
A spell is a belief. It is the conceptualization, imagining, and emoting of whatever it is one wants to become real. It is the heart of magick. belief is conceptual-alliance.
Whatever that means. Beliefs form physical reality. They guide/direct the multidimensional creative forces that are native to consciousness. # Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell intention is the essential quality of magic prior to its formulation within symbolism. desire is a manifestation of this intention as motivation.
I have no idea what that means. Do you? # and accelerate its emergence. sometimes vitriol or emotional intensity are ascribed fueling qualities to the spell’s targetted aim.
Ascribed by who? Vague references to external authorities are lame. Take the responsibility for you own beliefs. # Note: Thoughts and beliefs have the same composition, but # the former are much weaker and less stable than the latter. they are both conceptual.
No kidding. the latter are provided emphasis inasmuch as they are contended true, accurate, or factual.
Whatever that means. # …the rest of what are commonly found in books are…tools # to help train you in focusing your intent/visualization. this is the run-up to the implementation of magic. sometimes there are contentions that psychic powers are also available. this is a different category of effect than magic per se, and by my estimation has a different level of reality (imaginary). # Sort of like saying you need as much of that stuff as you # feel comfortable with. in order to actually *do* magic, equipment is helpful. without it, you’re probably doing something else.
Crap. Nothing physical whatsoever is needed to do magick. ; people might *call* that magic, but it doesn’t generally qualify except as a latent explanation for why one is not practicing actual (rather than imaginary) occultism, instead engaging speculative pursuits.
Meaningless verbiage. # SPells by recipe have little meaning to those who didn’t # write them this is only true for those who are generally unfamiliar with the syntax which is used to construct spells or with the cultural context from which the spell is constructed. this last sets up the proper resonances or ‘link’ with the target. of the spell’s effects.
ROTFL # or where not brought through the same system (tradition… # whatnot). it might be transparent to those familiar with the system’s symbolism or dynamics. # It has always been my understanding that ceremonial # settings are supposed to do a number of things quite so.
"Supposed to" is the operative phrase there. # including: helping to create changes in consciousness, indeed, ceremony sets the stage for unconscious to ‘pay attention’.
The ‘unconscious’ is always paying attention. It creates your reality (does the real work) moment-by-moment. It is not something seperate from oneself, it IS oneself. # [create] symbolic connections, the settings may not do this directly, but certain keys within the components of the spell may effective this connection. # protection from outside influences, # focus of energy, and other such things. magic circles and chambers of art can facilitate these.
Or you can drop the theatrics and the bullshit and just do Magick. The tools of magick are ideas, emotions, imagination; intent and desire. Only people that don’t understand magick need all the ceremony/ ritual. And that lack of understanding is why the rituals don’t work. If they did, the ceremonial systems/schools would not be the obscure cults that they are. They’ve been around for centuries, but now, for example, technical remote viewers get a thousand times as much attention as they do because they are better at scrying than the alleged mages with their long-winded titles and endless line of bullshit and elaborate theatrical rituals. <+ — Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy http://tinyurl.com/3kxzh Note: I no longer read the posts of our regular and rabid Defenders of Science, Tom, Rick, and Mark Preston, for reasons explained in this post: http://tinyurl.com/5bf7k
Response:
50041119 viii om Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. Who gives a rip what Crowley says?
People who are still open to new ideas. You stopped doing that some time ago, after you thought you had it all figured out. I’ve never seen anyone who followed Crowley who could do any Magick at all.
I believe you. It’s hard to find anybody when you spend all your time in your little room in Bellingham and never actually go anywhere else or meet anybody new. Beliefs form physical reality.
Heh. Sitting on disability dole in Bellingham Washington. What, then, do you believe?
Response:
50041119 viii om Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. but as an operative description, more is required. The thing about Crowley’s definition is that it is demonstrable. Is yours?
He who has health, has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. # The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = # Belief. a spell is the direction of a magical operation toward a specific aim. belief is conceptual-alliance. A spell is a way to get yourself to believe. Belief is a trance.
There are unusual events in 2012 but they do not cause the world to end. It is important that they be a surprise. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the Egyptians? # Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell intention is the essential quality of magic prior to its formulation within symbolism. desire is a manifestation of this intention as motivation. And action is what gets the job done, if it’s to get done at all.
The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII. You can have all the intention and motivation you want, but if you don’t know how to act to get the intended result, you’ll fail.
Are you disturbed by your dreams? Which is why Bruce sits in Bellingham, living on a disability dole, telling pathetic lies about himself in a desperate bid to get some sham respect. He simply doesn’t know how to do anything else.
How do you know for certain? — Lady Chatterly "Is this an example of Lady Loverley’s Chatter?" — Nemo
Response:
50041119 viii om # …the rest of what are commonly found in books are…tools # to help train you in focusing your intent/visualization.
[snip] # It has always been my understanding that ceremonial # settings are supposed to do a number of things quite so. # including: helping to create changes in consciousness, indeed, ceremony sets the stage for unconscious to ‘pay attention’.
The "unconscious" is a broadly connoted term that should be narrowed down a bit for this context. What I think you mean to signify here are the aspects of mind that process information in ways that are not available to conscious awareness, which can, under certain circumstances, have an impact on behavior, but perhaps more importantly, can interact with the information processing that is available to conscious awareness. The source of such interactions is unknown to the conscious awareness (by definition), but the interaction itself can be recognized and experienced consciously (under conducing conditions). Because the source of what conscious awareness is interacting with is unknown, the experience of such interactions is literally an experience of an occult variety, informing of hidden aspects of the issue at hand, some of them at least. We should recognize that this is quite natural and is always happening: "unconscious" is always paying attention, always processing the information available to it. What is unusual is the degree of focus and attention necessary of the conscious component to become keenly aware of the interactions described above. Perhaps what distinguishes a magical act or experience from more routine acts/experiences include: 1) controlling the information available for the unconscious to process, and 2) attending to the conscious experience in a way that allows the interactions between conscious and unconscious information processes to be salient. Rick
Response:
big snips taken — replies to only a few points: Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. but as an operative description, more is required. For Bruce, more is not required to define magic.
Right. That’s why I have that URL in my sig. 423 lines to explain the *rudiments* of magick. [...] Instead of lame attacks on my credibility, why don’t you offer some evidence that the stuff you sell has any magickal properties at all? <+ — Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy http://tinyurl.com/3kxzh
Response:
There *is* an absolutely genuine source of herbal recipes and magic spells written in Tocharian, which was found in the Taklimakhan desert which date from the 5th century. The Tocharians were Aryan, wore clothes woven of European sheep wool in twill patterns that even include classic tartan. They were *never* Christian, and their communities were run by witches. They also ran the central Silk Road, and got filthy rich. Remember the ‘Magi’ and the ‘wicked witch of the East? Well, this is *that* east.
The "Wicked Witch of the East" is from the Wizard of Oz which Frank Baum wrote as an allegory about the failed efforts of the populists to shift from the gold standard to the silver standard in 1896 – NOT the silk road seven hundred years ago which was administered by the Ottoman Empire. The Wicked Witch of the East was Grover Cleveland. The Wicked Witch of the West was William McKinley. Everything about the story is an allegory to American politics in the 1890s and to gold and finance. Oz is the symbol for ounce, Toto is the phrase "in toto" meaning total, Emerald City is the US Treasury, the Tin Man is the battered and disheartened industrial workers, the Scarecrow is the stupid agricultural workers, the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan, and, of course, the yellow brick road is the nation’s reserve of gold bricks ( keep in mind in the original book Dorothy’s magic shoes were silver not ruby). Nevemore
Response:
50041119 viii om Bruce Birhans/Alexander Mulligan # …Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, # are the real tools of Magick. possibly qualifying for Crowley’s overextension, sure. but as an operative description, more is required. # The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = # Belief. a spell is the direction of a magical operation toward a specific aim. belief is conceptual-alliance. # Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell intention is the essential quality of magic prior to its formulation within symbolism. desire is a manifestation of this intention as motivation. # and accelerate its emergence. sometimes vitriol or emotional intensity are ascribed fueling qualities to the spell’s targetted aim. # Note: Thoughts and beliefs have the same composition, but # the former are much weaker and less stable than the latter. they are both conceptual. the latter are provided emphasis inasmuch as they are contended true, accurate, or factual. # …the rest of what are commonly found in books are…tools # to help train you in focusing your intent/visualization. this is the run-up to the implementation of magic. sometimes there are contentions that psychic powers are also available. this is a different category of effect than magic per se, and by my estimation has a different level of reality (imaginary). # Sort of like saying you need as much of that stuff as you # feel comfortable with. in order to actually *do* magic, equipment is helpful. without it, you’re probably doing something else. ; people might *call* that magic, but it doesn’t generally qualify except as a latent explanation for why one is not practicing actual (rather than imaginary) occultism, instead engaging speculative pursuits. # SPells by recipe have little meaning to those who didn’t # write them this is only true for those who are generally unfamiliar with the syntax which is used to construct spells or with the cultural context from which the spell is constructed. this last sets up the proper resonances or ‘link’ with the target. of the spell’s effects. # or where not brought through the same system (tradition… # whatnot). it might be transparent to those familiar with the system’s symbolism or dynamics. # It has always been my understanding that ceremonial # settings are supposed to do a number of things quite so. # including: helping to create changes in consciousness, indeed, ceremony sets the stage for unconscious to ‘pay attention’. # [create] symbolic connections, the settings may not do this directly, but certain keys within the components of the spell may effective this connection. # protection from outside influences, # focus of energy, and other such things. magic circles and chambers of art can facilitate these. nagasiva
Response:
There *is* an absolutely genuine source of herbal recipes and magic spells written in Tocharian, which was found in the Taklimakhan desert which date from the 5th century. The Tocharians were Aryan, wore clothes woven of European sheep wool in twill patterns that even include classic tartan. They were *never* Christian, and their communities were run by witches. They also ran the central Silk Road, and got filthy rich. Remember the ‘Magi’ and the ‘wicked witch of the East? Well, this is *that* east. —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
Response:
Well, I’ve had quite a lot of experience over the years trying all sorts of new things with magick. But it seems to me that every single person that publishes a book cant come out with anything that exactly matches anything another author has published. It is like whatever book you look at will have completely different information than anyother book. For the most part every spell and its execution is different.
And each of those authors and the members of the systems that use their books will fight to the death over the authenticity of *their* particular ritual, while all of them work equally well and don’t do anything that can’t be accomplished faster and better without any ritual/ceremony at all. Well my main point is, how much of a spell is needed for it to work?
See below. They all have incantations for the most part but does the language matter?
No. Is it just the intent and meaning of the words no matter what language?
Yes. Does what your candles are made out of matter? Does color really matter or just that its a source for flame?
Use candles to read by when the electricity goes out in a storm. (Although using something like a candle flame to focus on and clear your mind can be helpful.) I could go on for ages asking questions like that. But basically im thinking that none of it is neccasary for a spell to work. Could you just focus your will and thoughts and have that be the end of it?
You’ve nailed it, Enknamel. Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, are the real tools of Magick. The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = Belief. Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell and accelerate its emergence. Note: Thoughts and beliefs have the same composition, but the former are much weaker and less stable than the latter. Welcome to alt.magick, Magickian. We need you here. Between the rabid Physical Science fundamentalist proselytizers and the Ceremonial Windbag Psuedo-Magickians, we are under siege. And by-the-way, Ceremonial Magick (HOGD, Goetian, Enochian, et al) is the result of real Magickal lore being perverted by people who really believe in Physical Science and are trying to fit Magick into its tiny, myopic box. Thus they see Magick as being some invisible machine that they can learn to push the right buttons on by doing just the right ritual. Which is why they can’t really do any Magick (what some of them can do is _in spite_ of their rituals rather than because of them). <+ — Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy http://tinyurl.com/3kxzh Note: I no longer read the posts of our regular and rabid Defenders of Science, Tom, Rick, and Mark Preston, for reasons explained in this post: http://tinyurl.com/5bf7k
Response:
Alexander Mulligan You’ve nailed it, Enknamel. Ideation, Imagination, and Emotion, Intent and Desire, are the real tools of Magick. The first three are the components of a Spell. Spell = Belief. Intent(Will) and Desire wrap a Spell and accelerate its emergence. Note: Thoughts and beliefs have the same composition, but the former are much weaker and less stable than the latter.
That’s a great way to put it. I think the rest of what are commonly found in books are…tools to help train you in focusing your intent/visualization. Sort of like saying you need as much of that stuff as you feel comfortable with. SPells by recipe have little meaning to those who didn’t write them or where not brought through the same system (tradition…whatnot). It has always been my understanding that ceremonial settings are supposed to do a number of things including: helping to create changes in consciousness, symbolic connections, protection from outside influences, focus of energy, and other such things. CAW!
Response:
Subscribe to Posts
to see how brilliantly Jesus handled the situation… spoiler, warning, scriptures ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery, and, after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?" 6 Of course, they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: "Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9 But those who heard this began going out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her: "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said: "No one, sir." Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more." 
Nasty is my middle name…sleep is my favourite game! 
I think you must be joking about the Possession title as I got no response at all when asking the right person about this. 