Well we've always got Franz Bardon, Kenneth Grant and Michael Aquino for starters

In my search for modern day information and/or instruction on Magick I ran across a website called magick.me where Jason Louv (who lives in Los Angeles) gives instruction in Magick.
This had me thinking. Aren’t we working with “old code” by not having updated materials on the subject? Are there other materials that I am unaware of? It seems that a lot of the books on the subject are very old world/secret society with information and rituals dating back to the dark ages?

So how and why would illumination differ for a medieval European citizen compared to e.g. a modern American? This Louv character seems to be more of an essayist/cultural commentator than someone able enough to give practical instructions.

He's apparently teaching people about yoga;

You'll get a solid grounding in the true theory and practice of meditation. One caveat: I'm not a guru, I'm only a teacher. To make serious progress after learning the basics, you will likely have to make contact with people who have actually become enlightened through meditation (try here and here) and who are able to guide students long term. But start with this class, and you'll be well on your way to walking the true, eternal, undying road of yoga.

Not surprisingly he seems to be fond of Genesis P-Orridge who is a magick by numbers sort of teacher.

I tend to think of Chaos Magic types as being denizens of Thelema's dropout class. Perfect for the ADD generation.

I tend to think of Chaos Magic types as being denizens of Thelema’s dropout class.

Stop the presses!! David/dom has said something that is actually sort of witty?!?

One wonders if this is a case of the stopped clock being witty twice a day, or if we can actually expect more of this sort of thing from the young lad?

As to the OT: Note that this Louv charges money for magick instruction; caveat emptor.

@ignant666

Jason Louv had a ridiculously low priced special to access all his courses for a month for I think $12 at one point so I signed up. I'm not against paying for things. I almost felt guilty taking him up on that offer.

Jason has written several books and writes for magazines and blogs also. I'd like to see more from him.

@sonofthoth

I'm behind on my reading but perusing and trying to gather more info. Thanks for the tip on Franz Bardon I'm now checking out his work. I already have a lot of Israel Regardie and i'm aware of Lon Milo DuQuette of course. My reading is slow and comprehension is low but slowly improving. Kenneth Grant is very far out for me from what i've read. But I do have his book Remembering Aleister Crowley. I appreciate his compiling and editing much of Aleister's volumes.

@dom

Aleister did a lot to explain and demystify his work in books like Magick Without Tears and Magick in Theory & Practice. I'd just like to see more innovation and experimentation and modernization by new authors who aren't dead. Short of attracting Tony Robbins types promoting $3000 Magick Weekend seminars with 5000 attendees waving magic wands shouting "Do What Thou Wilt!" I would like to see more written about the subject and would encourage it. Modern usage in plain English. I think Jason Louv does a pretty good job of this. I'm not up on the who's who who's in/who's out clicks of modern day Thelema/Chaos/OTO. =0)

One wonders if this is a case of the stopped clock being witty twice a day, or if we can actually expect more of this sort of thing from the young lad?

Don't know how to take that.

In my search for modern day information and/or instruction on Magick I ran across a website called magick.me where Jason Louv (who lives in Los Angeles) gives instruction in Magick.
This had me thinking. Aren’t we working with “old code” by not having updated materials on the subject?

All of these modern guys (the one's worth their salt that is) will have worked through Crowley's Liber E and Liber O http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/index.htm which are free online. I think if you work through those documents you will then have adequate real experience to know which writers on magic are full of shit...and why.

Interesting. I just received an email announcing a new book by Jason Louv on Magick. I was under the impression he was focused more on his crypto currency bitcoin courses these days. Looks like it's being released in April. This is good news. I'd like to see more books by knowledgeable people still living. Congrats to Jason.

This is a book I will read:

John Dee and the Empire of Angels:
A Massive New Book on Enochian Magick From Jason Louv

Hey!

It's my great pleasure to announce to you the release of my new book: "John Dee and the Empire of Angels," published by Inner Traditions. This is my Magnum Opus, and it's now available for pre-order.

This is a *massive* book. It tells the story of John Dee, Edward Kelly and their mind-bending sessions contacting Enochian angels. These are the sessions from which the core of modern magick originated—and the core of modern history itself.

Along the way, I cover over 500 years of the secret occult history of the world. We explore the birth of Qabalistic magick in the Medici city states 500 years ago, the 20th century Enochian experiments of Aleister Crowley and Jack Parsons, how magick has shaped our present world, and what the Apocalypse truly is.

This is *the* definitive book on the occult—the best possible book I could write, uncovering layers upon layers of reality, revealing the shocking plans of the Enochian angels, and showing you the big picture of what Western magick actually is (and what reality is!). I've spent nearly every waking hour of the last three years pouring everything I've got into this book—blood, sweat and tears. That's because I had to write the book I always wanted to read: The book that explains EVERYTHING.

This is a hardcover book, full of beautiful full-color imagery and occult schematics, totaling almost 600 pages. It will be in bookstores everywhere in April—but I'm letting you know about it first.

I've built a great Web site to show you the book, where you can read excerpts, get extra content and order the book so you're one of the exclusive few to get it when it drops. Check it out at the link below:

John Dee and the Empire of Angels

This is the most important thing I've ever done, and I can't wait for you to get your hands on it!

– Jason

https://johndee007.com/

Thanks for the link.

This looks like a truly outstandingly bad book, based on reading the material offered on his promo site. "Esoteric Protestantism" indeed!

How can anyone possibly take this idiot seriously? The fact that his huckstering includes both this "occult" tosh, and the bitcoin scam, tells all one needs to know. He is a con-artist in it for the money.

@ignant666

Calm down Reilly full moon is not for two weeks..

I usually like to read a book first before giving it a scathing review.

As for that word, IDIOT, that you use so liberally...hmmm...Shiva used it recently too..

As the founder and president of Idiot Synonymous, a 12 Step Program for Idiots, i've found that those with the most acute cases of idiocy often go undetected for years. It's not easy to tell someone that they may have a problem...and it's often best to wait for folks to ask for help...but in extreme cases, a calm discussion with a certified professional and/or intervention with loved ones present can begin to address the issue.

https://twitter.com/idiotsynonymous/status/529603396836130817

elitemachinery: I did read all that Louv posted; it is inane enough that i won't be reading more of his work in future, and quite sufficient to allow me to conclude he is a con-man and idiot.

You do realize that virtually all that is written and said about "esoteric"/"occult"/"metaphysical' topics is produced by persons who are either con-men, or delusional persons, or a bit of both, right?

That AC is one of the few exceptions (though he certainly had his con-man and delusional sides) is what keeps us reading his work.

@elitemachinery

I usually like to read a book first before giving it a scathing review.

Don't we all. Since the book has yet to be published, it's clear that ignant666 is commenting on the blurb for the book, not the book itself, which is fair enough. Although there are of course exceptions, often the quality of a book is in inverse proportion to the hype. It's possible to say something to promote a book without it coming across as a satirical piece from 'Private Eye'.

@dom said:

Perfect for the ADD generation.

Guilty.

@ignant666 said:

You do realize that virtually all that is written and said about “esoteric”/”occult”/”metaphysical’ topics is produced by persons who are either con-men, or delusional persons, or a bit of both, right?

I'm a skeptic by default and really have not taken on many teachers in my life. But I've had a few teachers that were serious cats. One of them being Edwin Steinbrecher.

Israel Regardie wrote the forward for Edwin's book. And Edwin wrote an intro for one of Israel Regardie's books. He told me some cool stories about Mr. Regardie including one of how he finally got Israel's birth data after years of it being top secret classified information (Israel was a Scorpio.)

Edwin was Faye Dunaway's astrologer and worked regularly with all the Coppola's until his death and all through the Apocalypse Now period as he was good friends with Francis & Ellie Coppolla since UCLA in mid-60's. He knew them before they were married.

Edwin was a serious cat. People took him and his work seriously. He worked with thousands of clients. He was also a good friend of mine besides being my teacher in metaphysics, astrology and meditation. We dropped acid and ecstasy many many times and he initiated me into some crazy sex magick stuff that I didn't really like and frankly found to be a pain in the ass!

I was on the board of directors of his organization for 17 years.

Name dropping aside, I felt like I was in good company with Edwin. He was a well respected author and astrologer among other things. Maybe it's a being from Los Angeles thing, but Jason strikes me as an okay guy. I've seen more than a few scammy new age types growing up in Los Angeles and he doesn't strike me as one at all. But hey I could be wrong.

I don't see any other young people doing anything similar or even in the same realm. Not a lot of folks writing about Magick or offering to teach it these days. This is Magick 2.0. Jason is a young guy who himself seems to have had some good teachers and I can forgive him for trying to make a few bucks off his $500 Bitcoin course and various reasonably priced Magick courses..or if he oversells his work a bit with big words...hell, he lives in Los Angeles (I do not) and that city is damn expensive. The fact that I spent a whole $12 to peruse his online Magick courses for a month doesn't bother me one bit. I will be buying his new book and see for myself if it's any good.

As for Bitcoin being a scam. Well there is a lot of scams going on in Bitcoin as we speak. Price manipulation, theft, fraud and zero regulation. It's a scammers paradise. Not that anything like this ever happens in the "real world."

If I had a million dollars I probably wouldn't spend it on Bitcoin...but I am very bullish on crypto and it's future and as such recently built a few linux computers that mine crypto (not Bitcoin) and add hash power to the network. These machines make me a nice bit of crypto currency each month mining crypto coins for the cost of electricity. I trade for cash or pay bills and services directly using crypto that I mined on these computers. It quite literally pays my rent and liquor bill. Not bad for an IDIOT!

Maybe you should read Jason book before judging it. He is a fairly new author. He's pretty young guy but seems to know his shit. I think he will be contributing some nice things in the future and get this...he's still alive!

Looks like Jason Louv's book received favorable reviews from a fair number of people including Ramsey Dukes and Lon Milo Duquette.

Lon:

... Jason Louv's work succeeds, with breathtaking thoroughness, to tell this amazing and true magical tale...

Ramsey Dukes:

This is the first book I've seen where Dee's angelic magic is neither discussed in isolation, nor dismissed as an eccentric sideline, but recognized as a key part of Dee's philosophy and political influence right up to the present day. I only wish I had found a book like this when I first became interested in John Dee.

Golly, well, now that Louv has been endorsed by the author of BLAST Your Way to Megabuck$ with my SECRET Sex-Power Formula, and How to See Fairies: Discover your Psychic Powers in Six Weeks, it would be simply churlish to call him a huckster and scam artist.

Anyone have details on how Louv demonstrates Dee's "political [emphasis added] influence right up to the present day"? This seems like a demonstrably false, and totally nutty, claim. Will he do a promo appearance for the new book on InfoWars?

Snell's statement that the book does this makes me even surer this book is utter crap than i was before i read his blurb.

If i see a book endorsed by two (c)OTO members, i am more likely to conclude the author is himself a (c)OTO member than to conclude it is a good book. Favorably blurbing your pals' & co-religionists' books (so they will return the favor and give your book a blurb) is so common in publishing it has a name: "logrolling".

Don't forget, ignant666, that this book purports not only to explain Dee's [impossible] present day political influence, but EVERYTHING else as well. I'll happily join your camp in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a moron a moron. Only a moron, after all, would describe John Dee as "the foremost scientific genius of the 16th century" or as "having laid the foundations of modern science". Both of these claims are indisputably false. For one thing, the foundations of modern science weren't laid until the 17th century, as any schoolboy worth his weight ought to know. Some books needn't be read in order to be dismissed outright.

(smh) tough crowd here at Lashtal...ha!

I didn't post here to promote Jason Louv but do appreciate that he is continuing writing about and teaching Magick. I'd like to see more of this from him and others.

@ignant666 said:

Golly, well, now that Louv has been endorsed by the author of BLAST Your Way to Megabuck$ with my SECRET Sex-Power Formula

THIS might be the book i've been looking for! 😉

@soz an endorsement by Lon Milo would hold some weight for me. He was another friend of Israel Regardie and strikes as very knowledgeable in his lectures and writings. I didn't know that he and Jason were friends. Perhaps it's a west coast thing?

I think if Jason Louv and Lon Milo DuQuette were "in it for the money" they may have chosen the wrong profession.

Judging by the reaction to my suggestion that Magick 2.0 should become a thing, and where these reactions originate from, it'd be safe to say that if Magick 2.0 ever materializes that it will come from the la la land of the West Coast, where everyone who's anyone sees fairies on a daily basis.

"The West is the best. Get here, we'll do the rest" - The Doors

"I must either die or get to California." - Aleister Crowley (Perdurabo)

Funny how Israel Regardie ended up in California too all those years ago...living in the hills above Los Angeles, dropping acid with young admirers of his work that would visit his home. California was a thing there for a while back in the 60's. Perhaps it's residents will stoke another revival?

@arthuremerson said:

"I’ll happily join your camp in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a moron a moron. Only a moron, after all, would..."

Well sir, you should know.

I always get nervous when people start throwing around big words like idiot and moron. Kinda like when someone uses the word "fag" too much. Kinda make you wonder. And arguing about the merits of a book that no one has read does occur to me as a bit "moronic" and "idiotic."

If any of you would like to speak to a counselor or attend a group introduction I can arrange an Id-Sy meeting in your area.

Until Jason Louv and Lon Milo DuQuette team up to write "Magick 2.0 - The 21st Century Guide To Magick for the A.D.D. Generation" I will continue to study my Crowley books and seek out new information as it becomes available.

I'm especially curious about Jason's claim that this book explains EVERYTHING. No one has ever offered to explain EVERYTHING to me, including his claim that he will explain what the Apocalypse is all about. Given my claim to be the "One True Beast" I think this is something I should read.

Thanks for the suggestion of Franz Bardon. Another dead guy but his work looks worthy of study.

-das Tier

@elitemachinery

And arguing about the merits of a book that no one has read does occur to me as a bit “moronic” and “idiotic.”

No-one's "arguing about the merits of a book that no one has read" (though presumably Snall and DuQuette had read it prior to their endorsements). It's the publicity that has caught the attention. Jason did not have to describe it in the way that he did in his blurb. I mean, a book that purports to explain EVERYTHING . . . Nothing wrong with being ambitious, I suppose.

What really did it for me was when i saw some sucker fan-boying Louv last year and providing a YouTube lecture link. On watching it I could tell that this guy Louv just wants a book selling career and isn't really interested in what he purports to be interested in. In the said video he gives his take on Liber AL's "Every man and woman is a star" which...wait for it... is about how modern ADD teenagers all have their own Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and are becoming their own little movie stars.

@dom said:

..In the said video he gives his take on Liber AL’s “Every man and woman is a star” which…wait for it… is about how modern ADD teenagers all have their own Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and are becoming their own little movie stars.

correction: "Every man and every woman is a star."

or as I like to say:

"Everyman and EVERY woman is a star."

Isn't it terrible that a young writer like Jason Louv would desecrate the sacred text of Liber AL with such a suggestion? We the elite, the upper-class in the hierarchy of enlightenment shall have our say about this no? He seems to suggesting that any damn Joe Blow could be a star, a sovereign individual, a God. Terrible, just terrible.

Unfortunately, kids today are going to "Do What Thou Wilt" with the sacred texts, leaving us old guys to the dust.

"Running on Empty"

Richard Wolstencroft talks about his films The Last Days of Joe Blow and The Second Coming - Volume 1

youtube.com/watch?v=UBmQb03WLjY

@elitemachinery who said

correction: “Every man and every woman is a star.”
or as I like to say:
“Everyman and EVERY woman is a star.”
Isn’t it terrible that a young writer like Jason Louv would desecrate the sacred text of Liber AL with such a suggestion? We the elite, the upper-class in the hierarchy of enlightenment shall have our say about this no? He seems to suggesting that any damn Joe Blow could be a star, a sovereign individual, a God. Terrible, just terrible.
Unfortunately, kids today are going to “Do What Thou Wilt” with the sacred texts, leaving us old guys to the dust.

No sensible person here appears to care how old Louv is. An idiot could be 99 or 19 and still spout garbage. You appear to be attributing wisdom to him by dint of his age. Face it, you're just a fan-boy of this schmuck. Have you even checked out Crowley's Liber O and Liber E?

By the way this from Louv's blurb of the Dee book;
So why have we never heard of this crucial figure in the history of science and geopolitics? Because Dee spent the second half of his career attempting to construct a religious and scientific method for contacting angels. With the help of a disreputable, criminal psychic named Edward Kelley, he succeeded

Note who this is aimed at. People who don't know who John Dee was. Lol. Crucial figure in science. Yeah sure, move over Cavendish, Newton and Lavoisier....oh wait that was the century after Dee.

With the help of a disreputable, criminal psychic named Edward Kelley, he succeed

So Kelley was disreputable and criminal.....like the term 'disreputable' fails to cover the 'criminal' aspect. Ha.

It's clear that Louv is attempting to seize the opportunist to appeal to gullible idiots of a particular age-bracket (ahem, no names mentioned) hence his whole marketing bait-angle of "new book on magic for the modern audience" type of spiel. It's more embarrassing than loathsome.

@dom said:

An idiot could be..

Hmm, there we go again those big words. Sounds like you might need a meeting?

and:

It’s clear that Louv is attempting to seize the opportunist to appeal to gullible idiots of a particular age-bracket (ahem, no names mentioned)

As card carrying member of Id-Sy since 2010 I take no offense.

Note that Cavendish and Lavoisier were more than a century after Dee.

Anyway, yeah thanks and that "opportunist" is a typo. Yeah i'm also an idiot....however setting myself up as a magic teacher for so many $$$s would raise my idiocy to an even higher power, mathematically speaking. Dee was a mathematician and never really a scientific experimenter. He instead became more bogged down with "looking for the secrets of nature" via trance mediums, gullibility and astrology. Maybe you could email your hero and ask him to explain his error by posting on this site.

Magick 2.0 is now a thing...i guess Jason must have liked the idea?

https://podcast.magick.me/ep-101-magick-me-2-0-the-story-so-far-the-road-ahead/

Posted by: @arthuremerson

Don't forget, ignant666, that this book purports not only to explain Dee's [impossible] present day political influence, but EVERYTHING else as well. I'll happily join your camp in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a moron a moron. Only a moron, after all, would describe John Dee as "the foremost scientific genius of the 16th century" or as "having laid the foundations of modern science". Both of these claims are indisputably false. For one thing, the foundations of modern science weren't laid until the 17th century, as any schoolboy worth his weight ought to know. Some books needn't be read in order to be dismissed outright.

On this, I'll happily correct you, that the foundations of modern science was being laid by the Muslims in the 11th/12th century just prior to the rise of the Ottoman Empire. They were advancing in ways we'd never seen before in the history of human civilization. If they had lasted longer down that path (during their peak of political and intellectual strength), then they would have beaten Europe to an industrial revolution, 7/8 whole centuries before Europe. 

On Louv, I liked his Dee book a lot. 

However his Magick.me I find is so ironic, given the 'do it yourself, for free' kind of model in the Chaos Magick context Louv comes out of.

Crowley was all about "give everything to the public", Chaos Magick was about "don't even get any proper materials, use what is around you", whereas Louv is trying to build up a big paywall university-style 'here's how you do this or that', which is like a downgrade from both. 

Posted by: @fraterihsan

Crowley was all about "give everything to the public", Chaos Magick was about "don't even get any proper materials, use what is around you"

Crowley also recommended the "things around you" method. After both myself (long ago) and my wife (a couple decades later) destroyed or otherwise returned our instruments to the Earth, in the ceremony that has not been revealed (too much), we found that we had to rely on the AC "campfire on K2" method (of using common things as magickal lamps and blasting rods.

Posted by: @elitemachinery

Magick 2.0 is now a thing...i guess Jason must have liked the idea?

https://podcast.magick.me/ep-101-magick-me-2-0-the-story-so-far-the-road-ahead/

Louv, is that the clown who said that 'Every man and woman is a star' means that modern teens have their own Tiktok accounts?  

Posted by: @fraterihsan

Posted by: @arthuremerson

Don't forget, ignant666, that this book purports not only to explain Dee's [impossible] present day political influence, but EVERYTHING else as well. I'll happily join your camp in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a moron a moron. Only a moron, after all, would describe John Dee as "the foremost scientific genius of the 16th century" or as "having laid the foundations of modern science". Both of these claims are indisputably false. For one thing, the foundations of modern science weren't laid until the 17th century, as any schoolboy worth his weight ought to know. Some books needn't be read in order to be dismissed outright.

On this, I'll happily correct you, that the foundations of modern science was being laid by the Muslims in the 11th/12th century just prior to the rise of the Ottoman Empire. They were advancing in ways we'd never seen before in the history of human civilization. If they had lasted longer down that path (during their peak of political and intellectual strength), then they would have beaten Europe to an industrial revolution, 7/8 whole centuries before Europe. 

Fair enough, though I suspect our disagreement lies in an equivocation on the meaning of "foundation" in this context. I had in mind a rather narrow notion of foundation. Imprecisely, I had in mind in my statement above a more or less strictly univocal understanding of nature, man's relationshp to it, the best means whereby he can come to obtain knowledge of it, and which irrevocably changed the way in which the pursuit of that knowledge was practically carried out. The epistemological, metaphysical, and methodological crucible from which contemporary science emerged seems to me to be firmly rooted in the 17th century -- vividly expressed in the works of Bacon and Descartes (and others). I'm aware of arguments against this, but I admit I don't find them compelling. Of course we can see the foundations of modern science slowly accrue out of the intellectual pursuits of human kind since the ancient Greeks. On this view it seems to me modern science has many foundations. Islam played a major role I agree, particularly when their works were translated and brought to European culture. But Islam understood nature very differently from the way it would come to be understood in the 17th century European milieu which succeeded unifying a notion of science which has now been adopted by every culture since which seeks to pursue science. In any case, what a culture may have done is immaterial to historical considerations -- no possibly-occuring Islamic industrial revolution matters in the least.

Muzaffar Iqbal (president of center for Islamic sciences in Canada) has an excellent paper, Islam and Modern Science: Formulating the Question in which he denies Islamic notions of science had any outsized influence on modern/contemporary science, which he considers a uniquely Western phenomenon rooted partly in the rejection of Islamic metaphysics. It's a fairly long, but excellently argued paper, I'm happy to recommend, if you're interested.

All best,

æ

Edit: cleared up some redundancies. 

Posted by: @fraterihsan

Crowley was all about "give everything to the public", Chaos Magick was about "don't even get any proper materials, use what is around you", whereas Louv is trying to build up a big paywall university-style 'here's how you do this or that', which is like a downgrade from both. 

But Crowley also suffered from extreme bouts of poverty at times...which was a very painful lesson...so perhaps there's another way? I have nothing against people making money off the material if they expose people to good content and instruction. Or can interpret and decipher the vast amount of obscure and dated materials which might not make sense to new eyes nowadays. Results may vary, but Jason is no doubt making money. Good for him.

Posted by: @elitemachinery

For selfish reasons it would be nice if I had a book to read called Magick 2.0 written by westerners with experience and knowledge. Someone who is not afraid to take Magick out of the 19th Century.

Not a book but a $197 online course. I got my wish, sort of...

Is that Magick?!

Posted by: @david-dom-lemieux

Louv, is that the clown who said that 'Every man and woman is a star' means that modern teens have their own Tiktok accounts?  

McMagick 2.0..."Every twit and every twat is a Tiktok star"

Posted by: @elitemachinery

But Crowley also suffered from extreme bouts of poverty at times...

Yeah before the rise of modern Trade Unionism (true democracy) there was no welfare state so most were in poverty not just aspirational ale-company wastrel-heir dumb asses .   It was the norm in AC's lifetime.   

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

we can see the foundations of modern science slowly accrue out of the intellectual pursuits of human kind since the ancient Greeks.

That's what I was thinking as I watched the definitions unfold back and forth through the centuries. 80% of modern medical and scientific terminology is Greek. The other 19% is Latin, with 1% hybrid.

The I asked myself, "What about China?" Hmm. The oldest book in our present historical cycle in the Shang Han Lun, a text on herbal medicine. From that same era, we have the Nei Ching Su Wen, known as The Yellow Emperor's Canon of Acupuncture ... circa 2875 BC. Both of these books remain the foundation for everything that followed. They are both required reading (and memorization) for licensing examinations. The Chinese invented gunpowder, rockets, and drilled well 800-ft deep with hardened bamboo drills.

Yet, despite all the miracles, they fell behind the West during the Manchu occupation of the throne (c. 1644-1910 [?]). Then, in the 50s, they started duplicating Western toys (never mind the trademarks) and selling them dirt cheap. The profits from that were put into atomic bombs, rockets, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and endless plastic do-dads that fill shelves everywhere. They sent their brights to Western schools to study our version of Greek science, whose parts are still named in Greek.

Modern science is the result of a gradual spectrum over time. Let us each look at our own lives. At what age or year did I become "modern?" Off hand, I'd say age 23, because I shifted into self-sustaining adulthood (sort of). This would be comparable to the 17th century.

Another says, "Screw you! I became modern at 13 when I had sex and got a tattoo." A third says, "Help me Lord, but I became modern when I started using Arabic numbers when I was 6, but since I'm Jewish, the QBL got tossed in very early." Forget the QBL - this would be the 11th century out sandland way.

After these three gunas get their say, along comes the fourth, who says, "I was born in Greece, speak ancient and modern Greek, use Arabic numbers, and teach QBL at the Hebrew University. I also manufacture gunpowder on the side. So WTF are you guys doing here?"

Posted by: @elitemachinery

but Jason is no doubt making money. Good for him.

I have no objection to money-makers. Like you, I might take mental exception to frauds or certified/judged activities ... but I certainly won't step in physically to stop it. See Liber 333 - Ch 88 "Gold Bricks."

However, such folks, according to The One Star Scripture, are not (no longer) members of the A.'.A.'. (no more or never was).

Posted by: @elitemachinery

Is that Magick?!

Every act is a Magickal act.

After that, we have High Magick and Low Magick and Black Magick and Stage Magick. Maybe some other -icks. These are multiple choice answers to your question.

Posted by: @elitemachinery

"Every twit and every twat is a Tiktok star"

I see we have come to the End of the Line on the downward spiral into dys-aster. Surely, now at the bottom of the ride, the car will begin to ass-end again.

Posted by: @thearthuremerson

Posted by: @fraterihsan

Posted by: @arthuremerson

Don't forget, ignant666, that this book purports not only to explain Dee's [impossible] present day political influence, but EVERYTHING else as well. I'll happily join your camp in calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a moron a moron. Only a moron, after all, would describe John Dee as "the foremost scientific genius of the 16th century" or as "having laid the foundations of modern science". Both of these claims are indisputably false. For one thing, the foundations of modern science weren't laid until the 17th century, as any schoolboy worth his weight ought to know. Some books needn't be read in order to be dismissed outright.

On this, I'll happily correct you, that the foundations of modern science was being laid by the Muslims in the 11th/12th century just prior to the rise of the Ottoman Empire. They were advancing in ways we'd never seen before in the history of human civilization. If they had lasted longer down that path (during their peak of political and intellectual strength), then they would have beaten Europe to an industrial revolution, 7/8 whole centuries before Europe. 

Fair enough, though I suspect our disagreement lies in an equivocation on the meaning of "foundation" in this context. I had in mind a rather narrow notion of foundation. Imprecisely, I had in mind in my statement above a more or less strictly univocal understanding of nature, man's relationshp to it, the best means whereby he can come to obtain knowledge of it, and which irrevocably changed the way in which the pursuit of that knowledge was practically carried out. The epistemological, metaphysical, and methodological crucible from which contemporary science emerged seems to me to be firmly rooted in the 17th century -- vividly expressed in the works of Bacon and Descartes (and others). I'm aware of arguments against this, but I admit I don't find them compelling. Of course we can see the foundations of modern science slowly accrue out of the intellectual pursuits of human kind since the ancient Greeks. On this view it seems to me modern science has many foundations. Islam played a major role I agree, particularly when their works were translated and brought to European culture. But Islam understood nature very differently from the way it would come to be understood in the 17th century European milieu which succeeded unifying a notion of science which has now been adopted by every culture since which seeks to pursue science. In any case, what a culture may have done is immaterial to historical considerations -- no possibly-occuring Islamic industrial revolution matters in the least.

Muzaffar Iqbal (president of center for Islamic sciences in Canada) has an excellent paper, Islam and Modern Science: Formulating the Question in which he denies Islamic notions of science had any outsized influence on modern/contemporary science, which he considers a uniquely Western phenomenon rooted partly in the rejection of Islamic metaphysics. It's a fairly long, but excellently argued paper, I'm happy to recommend, if you're interested.

 

All best,

æ

Edit: cleared up some redundancies. 

The 17th century was not a tabula rasa, many of the "great" thinkers of that era were reading translations and works derived from what the Muslims had already done in the 11th/12th century. Your idea about science also seems to be rather Scientism than Science, science is not an ideology. Also I don't know why you would think that one specific Muslim with a particular religious agenda would sway actual history on the matter. 

Muzaffar might not like Science, and you might not like Islam, but Muslims still created the foundations of Science as we've come to designate the word. Nobody before the Muslims were doing "Science", even if elements were laid out by the Greeks (and to a lesser extent, by the Indians). Nothing that the 17th century "greats" were doing were particularly special or radical either, in hindsight. Irreligion isn't important. It was more in the 18th-20th century were actual radical things developed, things that, again, the Muslims in the 11th/12th centuries were on the cusp of doing so far before.