 |
Re: Real Magic 3 - Parapsychology
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Chade <...@newsguy.com
On 11 Jun, 18:50, mika <...@gmail.com
In medieval times larger settlements in Europe were often built on
higher ground, as it is more defensible. The most productive farming
tended to happen on low-land areas. The story goes that 'high' magic
was generally practiced in towns where the more educated people were
where as 'low' magic was practiced on low ground by peasants.
So people doing high magic could speak Latin, study books, use ink and
parchment and so on. Low magic was simpler, not necessarily used by
stupid people, just people with more basic resources.
One could argue that high magic tended to have more spiritual aims,
more time on their hands after all, but there was no shortage of
'high' magic done for material gain. Just as there was probably some
low magic done to help people become more in touch with the world.
Of course in the modern west most people can both read and afford
books. And have the leisure to indulge in spiritual practices that is
open to those who have a choice over what to eat for dinner. Which was
the background for the neo-pagan re-construction, now a largely
spiritual movement. (Although of course bookshop shelves groan under
'teen witch recipie books', (Roast with plenty of garlic).)
Still, IMHO the mainstream of western magic can still be divided in to
two styles.
Sure, but I don't think there's anything in real magic that we can
discuss that will trigger cries of 'you can't tell me I'm not a real
priestess'.
Do tell.
Perhaps.
Having practiced the LBRP for a while I can relate to your account,
although I wouldn't describe in in quite the same terms.
Well, you gave a account of your experience above, using terms like
'saw' which are easy to relate to and make your meaning clear. If you
had used terms like "mentally superimposed visualisation" you would
have dodged using an reference to an external sense, albeit in single
quotes, but I think don't your account would have been quite as easy
to relate to.
|
censorship
[18 Jun 2008]
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:50:37 -0100, "mary cain" <marycain49@bells outh.net
From: "David...
Cantu" <dczed@comcast.ne tSubject: important info
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 12:5...
|
Re: Real Magic 3 - Parapsychology
[17 Jun 2008]
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Chade <chade@newsguy.co m
On 11 Jun, 18:50, ...
mika <mika...@gmail.co m
In medieval times larger settlements in Europe were often built...
|
THE PEDOPHILIA OF MOHAMMED THE PROPHET WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG AND IT ALWAYS...
[17 Jun 2008]
anal rape is always anal rape. i mean, people try to defend the
pedophilia of Mohammed (ie...
ie: islamic prophet), saying 'it's the
culture' or words to that effect. well, anal rape is...
|
| More... |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT), mika <...@gmail.com
That's an interesting story, whether or not it's historically
accurate. Either way, it has no relevance today. Why perpetuate a
meaningless distinction, other than to fuel one's own egotistical
territorial pissing?
Exactly. So distinguishing between high/low magick is more about
defining one's image than explaining the nature of the actual work one
is doing. "MY magick involves HEBREW and LATIN" "OH YEAH? MY magic
is NATURAL and more in touch with the EARTH" blah blah fucking blah.
Not really. For example, where would you put something like chaos
magick? Developed from so-called 'high magick' theories yet stripped
down to 'low magic' structure and trappings and such?
Tell what? What more needs to be said? Magick is not a religion and
can be completely separated from any religious belief. The 'dividing
line' between magick and religion is crystal clear, any intersection
of the two depends on the individual, not on the system of magick
itself. I thought you already understood this. If you didn't, you
know less about magick than it seems.
I wouldn't describe it in quite the same terms today as I did last
week.
Anyway, how would you describe your experience doing the LBRP?
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT), Kisai <...@gmail.com
On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, mika <...@gmail.com
I disagree with this remark. To the modern American, the division
appears crystal clear. To a person born before scientific thought,
the difference really isn't that clear at all. Ancient peoples used
magic as a way to interact with the world. It isn't clear at all
whether a religious ritual to cause the Nile to flood is religion or
magic.
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:41:48 -0700 (PDT), mika <...@gmail.com
On Jun 17, 1:55 pm, Kisai <...@gmail.com
Before scientific thought, magick didn't exist. Magic may have, but
not magick.
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Kisai <...@gmail.com
On Jun 17, 4:41 pm, mika <...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, but I don't adhere to Thelemic dogma.
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Chade <...@newsguy.com
On 17 Jun, 19:06, mika <...@gmail.com
Your not confusing etymology with definition are you? As I said above,
I'm using the terms as shorthand for two different magic styles; more
abstract and less abstract.
Horses for courses.
Chaos magic has interested me not one whit. From your one sentence
description above it sounds like the symbolism used in the actual work
isn't that abstract. Does it involve speaking foreign?
Do you consider magick to be a subset of magic?
Magick is magick in and of itself. Systems of magick, or religion, are
attempts to organise experiences which may include magick. Not
arbitrators of what is, or isn't, magick.
My experience can vary depending on the mood I start in, so I take a
few moments deep breaths before I start to put myself in a calm and
positive state of mind. The qabbalistic cross starts by giving me a
quiet sense of focus. As I charge each pentagram I 'feel' each
element. For instance, air buffets my skin, yet somehow also blows
through me both energising me and blowing away rubbish. After a moment
the element retreats back the way it came, leaving me 'changed'. At
the invocation of the archangels I 'feel' the elements on all sides
of me, awe at the vast presence about me outside the circle and a
'blessing' from the archangels all at the same time. The cross focuses
me again. I then take a few moments to simply be in the circle.
Practicing regularly the sense I get, and take away, is a of clean
space about me. The only thing I can liken it to is the 'distance'
when you look back on stuff that seemed important at the time but you
now know was out of proportion, combined with feeling of looking at
things in clear physical light.
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:20:23 -0400, Alexandra Ceelie <...@geemail.com
It just means what is suitable for one person in one situation may be
unsuitable for another in another situation.
In other words... You choose the horse... according to the course you
are going to take.
(This message is brought to you by the letter "G" - hehe)
=^..^=
Xandra
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:01:04 -0700, "sarchasm" <...@yahoo.com
"Chade" <...@newsguy.com
Ironically, that's just about what chaos magicians would say, (they might
tack "chaos" onto the front of your circular description, however).
Interestingly, in order for the practicioners of systems of magic(k) or
religions to determine what experiences may, (or may not), include magick
wouldn't the system/religion have some criteria for this? If they do not,
how would they know magick from not-magick? If they do, aren't such
criteria a means by which they arbitrate what is or, isn't considered to be
magick?
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:53:30 -0700, "Tom" <...@comcast.net
"sarchasm" <...@registered.motzarella.org...
The term "magick", coined by Crowley, has a very specific meaning.
From "Magick in Theory and Practice":
**************************
My former work has been misunderstood, and its scope limited, by my use of
technical terms. It has attracted only too many dilettanti and eccentrics,
weaklings seeking in "Magic" an escape from reality. I myself was first
consciously drawn to the subject in this way. And it has repelled only too
many scientific and practical minds, such as I most designed to influence.
But
MAGICK
is for
ALL.
I have written this book to help the Banker, the Pugilist, the Biologist,
the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the Mathematician, the
Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul --- and all the rest --- to
fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her own proper function.
Let me explain in a few words how it came about that I blazoned the word
MAGICK
upon the Banner that I have borne before me all my life.
Before I touched my teens, I was already aware that I was THE BEAST whose
number is 666. I did not understand in the least {XI} what that implied; it
was a passionately ecstatic sense of identity.
In my third year at Cambridge, I devoted myself consciously to the Great
Work, understanding thereby the Work of becoming a Spiritual Being, free
from the constraints, accidents, and deceptions of material existence.
I found myself at a loss for a name to designate my work, just as H. P.
Blavatsky some years earlier. "Theosophy", "Spiritualism", "Occultism",
"Mysticism", all involved undesirable connotations.
I chose therefore the name.
"MAGICK"
as essentially the most sublime, and actually the most discredited, of all
the available terms.
I swore to rehabilitate
MAGICK,
to identify it with my own career; and to compel mankind to respect, love,
and trust that which they scorned, hated and feared. I have kept my Word.
But the time is now come for me to carry my banner into the thick of the
press of human life.
I must make
MAGICK
the essential factor in the life of
ALL.
In presenting this book to the world, I must then explain and justify my
position by formulating a definition of
MAGICK
and setting forth its main principles in such a way that
ALL
may understand instantly that their souls, their lives, in every relation
with every other human being and every circumstance, depend upon
MAGICK
and the right comprehension and right application thereof.
I) DEFINITION.
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with
Will.
(Illustration: It is my Will to inform the World of certain facts within my
knowledge. I therefore take "magickal weapons", pen, ink, and paper; I write
"incantations"---these sentences---in the "magickal language" ie, that which
is understood by the people I wish to instruct; I call forth "spirits", such
as printers, publishers, booksellers and so forth and constrain them to
convey my message to those people. The composition and distribution of this
book is thus an act of Magick by which I cause Changes to take place in
conformity with my Will.)
In one sense Magick may be defined as the name given to Science by the
vulgar.
**************************
Magick is for all. It is not the province of some sort of elite, either by
study or by access to paranormal powers. It is a simple fact of human
existence. We all cause change to occur in conformity to our will. This is
a basic point. Education and practice can affect the extent of the changes
we can cause, how well they conform to our will, but the basic fact is that
all aware beings use magick all the time. We don't need to know anything
about it in order for it to operate in every intentional act we perform.
Isaac is not talking about "magick". Isaac is talking about "magic".
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:22:46 -0700, "sarchasm" <...@yahoo.com
"Tom" <...@comcast.net
Coined or reclaimed? Either way, Crowley's system of magick does arbitrate
that "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity
with
Will" and can be applied to any change specifically attributed to Will.
That either makes everything magickal or, implies certain subtle differences
separate changes which are not in conformance with Will from those which
are.
Yes, we all can cause changes in comformity to will but, calling all such
changes "magick" merely broadens the definition into a generality. That's
apparently Crowley's intent but, occults the methods by which change to
caused by such generalisation.
A sort of 'magickal socialism' for the masses where any sort of method
causes change in conformity with will, eh?
Subconscious will?
Yes, the "k" distinguishes the two in this discussion.
|
|
|