Crowley is not the ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Crowley is not the author of Liber AL

Page 6 / 25

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Crowley also thought that THE EQUINOX would be preserved for its literary content rather than its esoteric content, so he used the literary content as a trojan horse for the esoteric content.

I think history has demonstrated that he had it exactly backwards.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Erwin" wrote:
"Poelzig" wrote:
It is amazing to me that just because a few scattered ideas once thought nuts were subsequently confirmed by science, that some think every far-fetched idea in circulation is a scientific fact waiting to happen.

Well, those are the lengths that people have to go to these days in order to maintain a tenuous grasp on their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. Every tiny little smidgeon of hope can be pressed into service, most perniciously of all: "nothing is certain!"

Seems like you go to great lengths yourself. Like using the umbrella branding term 'goblins' as a gloss for paranormal phenomena. I find it derogatory and disrespectful to practitioners.

I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Yes, Crowley certainly wished to be remembered, (as I believe he should be), and the words of Liber AL definitely pandered to him accordingly, appealing to that desire in him. This does not devaluate the message, of course, but it does inspire the messenger. Also, those 'promises' to him have not turned out be empty, he is remembered. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
"Poelzig" wrote:
It is amazing to me that just because a few scattered ideas once thought nuts were subsequently confirmed by science, that some think every far-fetched idea in circulation is a scientific fact waiting to happen.

Well, those are the lengths that people have to go to these days in order to maintain a tenuous grasp on their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. Every tiny little smidgeon of hope can be pressed into service, most perniciously of all: "nothing is certain!"

Seems like you go to great lengths yourself. Like using the umbrella branding term 'goblins' as a gloss for paranormal phenomena. I find it derogatory and disrespectful to practitioners.

I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.

Difference being WMDs are something that actually exist in the world.

I'm sure his overwhelming evidence would have been less convincing had he been arguing that Saddam had an army of goblins or a Vulcan Death Ray.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Poelzig, I feel that what zardoz is trying to express is that your reference to "goblins" (and the numerous references to "goblins" that seem to suffuse this thread) implies a view of magical/mystical experiences as....illusory and/or absurd. The word is also -I believe- being used rather disingenuously. I may be wrong however.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Actually Erwin was using the term goblins to refer specifically to discarnate intelligences. I was replying to someone responding to Erwin.

I don't have a problem with people exploring different states of consciousness (without drugs), having visions or whatnot, provided they don't permanently sacrifice whatever rationality or "common" sense they may have possessed. My only problem is when they ascribe objective existence or exaggerated significance for other people to their personal inner experiences.

For example: I don't have a problem with Crowley hearing voices, seeing shadows, and having an experience that some seemingly discarnate intelligence dictates the text of AL to him. Whether this account of the event is sincere or not, My only problem is with him or anyone else asserting the objective existence of what was a hallucination or visionary state, or asserting that his inner experience or "transmitted" message is of universal significance, when the meat of it is less significant than much work by himself or others that is generated in a straightforward manner by thinking and writing.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimeting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project.

Kids, you too can do this at home! 😉


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
 
"Erwin" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
If there was some effect caused by radio waves that was observable before radio waves were detected, it would be rational to assert that something might be there, we just don't know what it is.

In other words, nobody was claiming to be able to send radio messages before radio waves were discovered. Anybody who did start to claim to be able to send radio messages would be able to demonstrate the existence of something very easily, for the very good reason that if they couldn't, they'd have no grounds for claiming to be able to send radio messages. They'd be able to say, "look, I press this button, and a noise comes out over there, and it does it every single time I press this button". Anybody would be able to confirm that.

(Sorry I haven't responded to your previous post, not enough time, but it's more fun to ride the wave anyway 🙂 )

I think a more apt analogy would be with sight. Suppose the Magickal theory of the Universe is true (I dunno, roughly, that the material world is a drop in some sort of far vaster ocean of other types of being) then it might be the case that our perceptions of it are distributed more or less like the first glimmerings of sight were distributed: the first glimmerings of sight, evolutionarily-wise, were mere light sensitive patches.

Which means, the species would have had a bell-curve distribution of "ability to vaguely sense something looming". A few would have been virtuosos, a few lack the ability entirely. And then over time the bell curve would shift along the effectiveness axis, and the mechanisms get more sophisticated. From "ability to vaguely sense something looming", you get a distribution of "ability to distinguish a direction from which it's looming", etc., etc.

My position is that if the Magickal theory is true, and if it represents something like a "magick sensitive patch" in the brain (or rather, in terms of the Magickal theory, in the "higher energy" matrix the brain is a sub-field in), then what you'd have is a similar bell-curve, probably not very far along the developed axis.

IOW, if Magick is true I think the situation could be analogous to the beginnings of sight. Some people are overreaching in both their empirical claims and their theory-building - they're making out that they can see, when all they've got is light-sensitive patches - and really only a few have even a vague ability to "tune into" the whateveritis. But people often puff themselves up and think they know more than they know.

There are various "systems" of Magick in the world, and they sometimes look very different, yet they are all recognisably Magickal. They all have this bigger story in which the world we sense is part of a bigger, and, in some novel (Magick-sensitive-patchy) way, cognisable whole. It could be either that we are dealing with something nascent, or that these systems are all fragments of a previously higher-developed, but now devolved ability. That is also compatible with the evidence (i.e. people believing in this stuff more in the past because they actually did experience it more in the past).

Lots of options anyway. I can easily see how Magick could be real, and the situation be exactly as it is now, with there being only scant anecdotal evidence for it. (As an aside, I'm helped along in this kind of conjecture by the fact that I've investigated stuff about "qi" or "chi", and found that to have extremely practical effects and yet perfectly biomechanical roots - only in ways that are only just beginning to be explored in a scientific way. And the "qi" stuff also involves weird feelings and sensations.

Certainly, a lot of people do seem to be "working something up" as AC put it - it's more fevered imagination than anything that could possibly be construed as external. But the fact AC tags this, shows he thought there was a difference between this and something real.

Another thing is, I'm actually more interested in the phenomenon - I just wouldn't be as uninterestedly dismissive as you are. I think you're being unwise (the "weather eye" thing). Even if most of the people here are delusional, then in my preferred (oops! 🙂 ) nondual materialistic theory, their delusion is at least interesting (e.g. there's the aforementioned consisistency and cohesiveness about all these "sightings" - why?); and we all know from neurology (cf. Oliver Sacks) and cognitive science generally (cf. any Daniel C. Dennett book), that knowing how something is going wrong often tells you a lot about how it actually works.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimeting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project.

Kids, you too can do this at home! 😉

By the same token, if something expresses a sound world view and effective personal philosophy, such as the Law of Thelema, it doesn't matter much to me where it came from. In fact, preoccupation with the source often detracts or distracts from efforts to put the message into practice in every day life.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
Difference being WMDs are something that actually exist in the world.

I'm sure his overwhelming evidence would have been less convincing had he been arguing that Saddam had an army of goblins or a Vulcan Death Ray.

And you know with absolute certainty that supernatural phenomena does not?

You missed my point which is that 'overwhelming evidence' can be overwhelmingly, and in this example, monumentally wrong. To put faith in the absolute certitude of 'evidence', like the American government did in 2002, can lead to tragic results.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
Crowley also thought that THE EQUINOX would be preserved for its literary content rather than its esoteric content, so he used the literary content as a trojan horse for the esoteric content.

I think history has demonstrated that he had it exactly backwards.

By the way, here's another thing that's sometimes be a bit backwards in my opinion (MWT, comparing Magick and Yoga):

"I must however point out that in the course of my instruction I have given continual warnings as to the dangers of this line of research. For one thing there is no means of checking your results in the ordinary scientific sense. It is always perfectly easy to find a subjective explanation of any phenomenon; and when one considers that the greatest of all the dangers in any line of research arise from egocentric vanity, I do not think I have exceeded my duty in anything that I have said to deter students from undertaking so dangerous a course as Yoga."

I think he also says somewhere that there's a great danger in Yoga that the practitioner will invoke Zeus, thinking it is himself, and having his ego grow as big as that of John Holmes.

"Isn't it ironic, don't you think..." - AM


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

To respond to the original question: to me, it makes no difference nor detracts from the claims of authorship to put Crowley's name on the cover of Liber Legis.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2003
 

To respond to the original question

Zardoz! You're getting off topic! 😆

Seriously, I should add: I agree completely. There's no problem here.

🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
To respond to the original question: to me, it makes no difference nor detracts from the claims of authorship to put Crowley's name on the cover of Liber Legis.

LOL Oh, that. I think Alastrum is correct that it is just a convenience to the retail bookselling operation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
I'm also not convinced that it is "belief" in most cases. Based on direct experience of actual breathing humans making these kind of assertions and corroborating it with the rest of their demonstrated personality traits it is more often than not posturing or an ad hoc identity prop rather than really doing anything or exploring anything of any real consequence.

Well, I've avoided alluding to that so far in order to avoid accusations of bias, but I think you're absolutely right. I've been dealing with people and their claims at face value as much as possible in this thread, but I share a more than sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of people making this kind of assertion are not actually deluding themselves as much as they are just making a lot of silly shit up. You can see this pretty clearly on several threads where somebody makes a silly claim, and then people start chiming in with more ridiculous ones, each claim progressively more outrageous than the last, with everybody congratulating each other on how divinely mystical, occult and wizard-like they all are. I think some people seem to think it's expected of them to voice outrageously absurd tales of fantastic personal exploits from time to time, in order to keep the group feel-good factor going if nothing else, since that's apparently what they think occultists are supposed to experience. Little different from these folks who go to revival meetings and deliberately start flailing around pretending to speak in tongues in order to avoid letting the side down.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
I don't have a problem with people exploring different states of consciousness (without drugs), having visions or whatnot

Yes, that would be a matter of personal choice, with or without drugs, although I would not advocate illegal conduct on a semi-public website such as this -mostly out of an interest in protecting the website.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I don't think that "purely imaginary" is the only alternative to your materialist view of "actually".

I'd be interested to hear what you think the other alternatives might be for things which are not "actually existing".

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
FYI, the following percentage of US citizens believe in these "paranormal" occurences.

I was talking specifically about "invoking demons" and communing with "praeternatural intelligences". A vast number of people do not believe in such things, but I'm not going to quibble with you over exactly how many in the world that is (other than to point out that quoting statistics for what is possibly the most creduluous nation in the world may not be entirely sporting). That a great many other people believe a great many other silly things, I'll happily grant you.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Yathaniel" wrote:
I can't calculate a percentage, but the work I have done, seems to have been successful to a degree far beyond coincidence.

As genuinely well-intentioned advice, you want to be wary of calculations like this. It's not just a question of how unlikely "coincidence" might be, but also how unlikely your alternative explanation might be. If your alternative explanation is even more unlikely, then coincidence is still your best option. You may also be completely missing an entirely separate option. That the variety of life arose through instantaneously through "chance" is extremely unlikely, but this never made the idea of a creator god anything other than even more unlikely than that, even at the time. Unfortunately, until Darwin came along, nobody knew of a third option they could pick instead.

The point being, you can't just default to "coincidence or goblins".


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4135
 
"Erwin" wrote:
The point being, you can't just default to "coincidence or goblins".

He wasn't. That is your caricature.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
Seems like you go to great lengths yourself.

I have no cherished beliefs I'm trying to hold on to. I think you're engaging in a little wishful thinking, here.

"zardoz" wrote:
Like using the umbrella branding term 'goblins' as a gloss for paranormal phenomena. I find it derogatory and disrespectful to practitioners.

Frankly, good. I know there is a widely held and politically correct view that beliefs should be "respected", that belief - in and of itself - is something worthy of "respect". I disagree. I think belief - in it's "asserting claims in the absence of reasonable evidence, or in the face of contrary reasonable evidence" sense - is altogether not something worthy of respect, but something worthy of contempt and even ridicule. I agree with Los that, on the whole, the influence of belief on society and individuals is harmful to wellbeing and that it's better to discourage it than to encourage it. I further note with interest that all these individuals who profess to "respect everyone's beliefs" seem to have no issue at all with not respecting my view that their belief is worthy of contempt and ridicule. Far be it from me to suggest that they're only interested in "respecting everyone's beliefs" when it suits them.

It frankly beggars belief - excuse the phrase - that in 2009 people can seriously assert in public that they evoke, talk to, and successfully obtain personal favours from demons and then act all surprised when people don't "respect" that. That shows a really serious disconnect with reality.

"zardoz" wrote:
I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.

Yet now you've accepted the evidence to the contrary, presumably. So when are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't getting any less overwhelming - that goblins don't exist? Is the implication that you only trust "overwhelming evidence" when it already conforms to your preconceived ideas about what's what?


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

“For example: I don't have a problem with Crowley hearing voices, seeing shadows, and having an experience that some seemingly discarnate intelligence dictates the text of AL to him. Whether this account of the event is sincere or not, My only problem is with him or anyone else asserting the objective existence of what was a hallucination or visionary state, or asserting that his inner experience or "transmitted" message is of universal significance, when the meat of it is less significant than much work by himself or others that is ……..”

“BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimenting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project. enerated in a straightforward manner by thinking and writing.”

Poelzig,
In referencing the above, in referring to Mr. Crowley,
I would think---that if he really were 666---then it would totally invalidate most of your argument (as well the arguments of others) insinuating that he had messianic delusions, and that he/and/ or his message, lacks for universal significance.

Furthermore, if 666 is a tangible reality, (and I do not mean the vilifying denotation as found in the Bible)---then if that tangible reality of 666 has not been proven so already, it certainly will be so.

And so far as any such proofs are concerned,
---since we are so early into the Aeon of Horus,
I guess we will just have to wait a tad before we can “scientifically” arrive at a valid assessment as to whether or not 666 was indeed Aleister Crowley---and if his Magick is true to those claims.

Also take into account, that if there really is such a thing as reincarnation,
we have all the time in the world to see this Glorious Legacy of our work brought to fruition and ultimate success in at least one of our lifetimes!
(smile emoticon goes here)

I really do not think that any Thelemites
having experienced the reality of Thelema’s Magick
---are getting their knickers in a twist upon learning that some folk dismiss such possibilities as poppycock---or Goblin-de-gook!

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4135
 
"Erwin" wrote:
I further note with interest that all these individuals who profess to "respect everyone's beliefs" seem to have no issue at all with not respecting my view that their belief is worthy of contempt and ridicule.

Au contraire, they probably respect your view as much as you do theirs.

By the way, what's this obsession with goblins you have?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Lots of options anyway. I can easily see how Magick could be real, and the situation be exactly as it is now, with there being only scant anecdotal evidence for it.

I feel many people are starting to lose focus on the real issue, here.

When the argument from design was shattered by Darwin, those Christians who were able to accept it merely pushed their claim a little further back, and said that God could have kickstarted evolution. If and when we can demonstrate that life can easily arise from inert matter, I suspect those claims will just get pushed back a little more, until "God" becomes something that just started the Big Bang or whatever theory we have then, and then everything "proceeds naturally according to God's plan".

What is happening here is that as new evidence comes along, God's job becomes smaller. The claims are altered in order to take account of the new evidence. You can always find a way go back just a little bit further and find a place for "God." But, by doing so, you are left with a very, very different type of god that the one you started with. Yet, with this ever shrinking opening, people seize on that "God might still be there" hope and use it to believe in the same old interventionary creator god they had in the first place.

In the same way, as this discussion proceeds, and points are dealt with in more detail, the claims are getting smaller (and, before you mistake me, I know that you haven't personally been making any grand claims), to what people are really only discussing now which is what you have above - "Magick could be real".

But let's remember where this came from. People are not just asserting that "magick could be real" - they are asserting not only that it is, but that they employ it daily to achieve what can only be described as "miraculous effects". Whether magick "could be real" is really a drop in the ocean, here - the fact is that people assert that they are reliably able to accomplish various supernatural feats which would have a very marked and a very detectable influence on the physical world.

If somebody claims they can "evoke a demon to physical appearance", I really couldn't give a stuff if "magick could be real" - for that particular claim, as far as I'm concerned they either stick a video camera up before their next evocation and post the results to youtube for everyone else to see, or they just can't do it, and they're either deluded or lying through their teeth.

These theoretical issues are distracting from the point at hand. If these claims continue to get smaller and smaller, then there is inevitably going to come a point where these people and me can agree on something. What's going to happen at that point is that they're going to cry "great!" and use that tiny remaining little claim (which by that point will have obviously ceased to be any kind of supernatural claim at all, if I'm agreeing with it) and go right back to (falsely) support with it their beliefs that they can reliably influence the physical world through demonic evocation, or whatever other claim to observable supernatural power they happen to be entertaining.

I'm prepared to entertain philosophical discussions of this type in their own right, but nobody should expect me to get distracted by them. Regardless of what "could be true", regardless of whether there is "absolute certainty" of anything, people are making supernatural claims that, if true, would be easily demonstrable and easily detectable by anybody, today. No amount of ruminating about the remaining scientific gaps where "magick might lie" is going to get people away from the fact that they are making supernatural claims which, if true, they could easily demonstrate, but which they can not in fact demonstrate.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
Another thing is, I'm actually more interested in the phenomenon - I just wouldn't be as uninterestedly dismissive as you are.

On this particular point, you and I appear to be talking about very different types of claim.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
Even if most of the people here are delusional, then in my preferred (oops! 🙂 ) nondual materialistic theory, their delusion is at least interesting (e.g. there's the aforementioned consisistency and cohesiveness about all these "sightings" - why?);

With this, I have no quibble.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Au contraire, they probably respect your view as much as you do theirs.

Which will be exactly what I said. So what's this "au contraire" all about?

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
By the way, what's this obsession with goblins you have?

I don't have an obsession with goblins, if only for the very good reason that goblins don't exist. What's this obsession with aliens, time capsules and tentacles that you have, Michael?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2003
 

What's this obsession with aliens, time capsules and tentacles that you have, Michael?

Yeah, Michael. What's up with THAT? I really can't understand at all...

😆


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It frankly beggars belief - excuse the phrase - that in 2009 people can seriously assert in public that they evoke, talk to, and successfully obtain personal favours from demons and then act all surprised when people don't "respect" that. That shows a really serious disconnect with reality.

It shows a serious disconnect with your reality which seems quite narrow, tight and rigid. Goetic magick does work, btw, but it's far better for people like you to believe that it doesn't.

"erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.

Yet now you've accepted the evidence to the contrary, presumably. So when are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't getting any less overwhelming - that goblins don't exist? Is the implication that you only trust "overwhelming evidence" when it already conforms to your preconceived ideas about what's what?

I don't know what's happening in Iraq. The general consenus seems to be that there aren't any WMDs there.

I'm extremely underwhelmed by your overwhelming evidence. The fact of no widely accepted documentation is only evidence that the occult is occult especially to those who only think about it and don't actually try it. Your game rule and rigid belief that Magick needs to conform to logic and popularly held notions of consenual reality in order to work seems patently wrong. . It is kind of comical that you make up rules about the criteria for the existence of magickal realms and entities with apparently no practical experience.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

“For example: I don't have a problem with Crowley hearing voices, seeing shadows, and having an experience that some seemingly discarnate intelligence dictates the text of AL to him. Whether this account of the event is sincere or not, My only problem is with him or anyone else asserting the objective existence of what was a hallucination or visionary state, or asserting that his inner experience or "transmitted" message is of universal significance, when the meat of it is less significant than much work by himself or others that is ……..”

“BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimenting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project. enerated in a straightforward manner by thinking and writing.”

Poelzig,
In referencing the above, in referring to Mr. Crowley,
I would think---that if he really were 666---then it would totally invalidate most of your argument (as well the arguments of others) insinuating that he had messianic delusions, and that he/and/ or his message, lacks for universal significance.

Furthermore, if 666 is a tangible reality, (and I do not mean the vilifying denotation as found in the Bible)---then if that tangible reality of 666 has not been proven so already, it certainly will be so.

And so far as any such proofs are concerned,
---since we are so early into the Aeon of Horus,
I guess we will just have to wait a tad before we can “scientifically” arrive at a valid assessment as to whether or not 666 was indeed Aleister Crowley---and if his Magick is true to those claims.

Also take into account, that if there really is such a thing as reincarnation,
we have all the time in the world to see this Glorious Legacy of our work brought to fruition and ultimate success in at least one of our lifetimes!
(smile emoticon goes here)

I really do not think that any Thelemites
having experienced the reality of Thelema’s Magick
---are getting their knickers in a twist upon learning that some folk dismiss such possibilities as poppycock---or Goblin-de-gook!

Love is the law, love under will.

So basically you are saying "If all the nonsense is true, you'd be wrong" and "those who believe in it don't care if you don't."

Someone catch me, I feel faint. 😯


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

The analogy to WMDs in Iraq fails on every level.

The United States presented bad evidence to the world and fooled some people into thinking that there really were WMDs there.

When we actually examined the situation, we found no evidence of WMDs. The reason we now reject the claim that WMDs are there is because of a lack of evidence.

Similarly, the reason people reject the claims of the supernatural is because of a lack of evidence.

Let's go back to the idea kidneyhawk mentioned earlier -- Grant's proposal of testing occult claims in double-blind conditions. If this has actually been done, I would be interested in knowing the results.

If not, what kind of test could be designed?

Let's design a test and carry it out. In fact, let's carry out several of them. What kind of test would any of you propose? Remember, it has to be double-blind and permit no room for interpretation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Am I hallucinating or has the assertion "Most people believe in some form of the supernatural" actually been presented as an argument more than once in this thread?

Most people believe in any number of erroneous ideas.

If you are indexing truth or quality by popularity you may as well turn your mind off, believe in Jesus and just watch television.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
Goetic magick does work, btw, but it's far better for people like you to believe that it doesn't.

So post a video to youtube showing me one of the demons you've evoked to physical appearance. Until then, you can continue to make your bizarre and spurious claims until you're blue in the face, it's not going to count for anything with me.

"zardoz" wrote:
I'm extremely underwhelmed by your overwhelming evidence.

I'm not remotely surprised. People who make claims based on fantasy instead of evidence generally don't tend to place much importance on evidence.

"zardoz" wrote:
Your game rule and rigid belief that Magick needs to conform to logic and popularly held notions of consenual reality in order to work seems patently wrong.

I acknowledge that considering magick to work purely because you baselessly assert that it does makes it much easier for you to maintain your silly beliefs. As I've said, I don't expect people with this kind of absurd and contemptible attitude to listen to any sense, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Poelzig,
If you want to call it nonsense, no sweat.
The Work goes on!
Yes, like it or not, part of Thelema’s heritage is abundantly rich with Magick!
The really Great events manifested through it, are brought about in secret,
by those who are rewarded for their work with success at seeing the materialization of their will made manifest.
Those who fail at first, continue nevertheless---until victory is attained over all interior and exterior hindering factors.
And once one has proven the “reality’ of Magick to thine own “true” self, there is no need
to prove such an accomplishment to others. What purpose would it serve?

For that matter, there really is no need to even “believe” it works!
So belief in the “reality” of magick (and even low grade sorcery) is not at all necessary for it’s ultimate success.
Those who have never tried it, due to disbelief, should not at all be discouraged by their lack of belief—thinking it will not work; they need only “play” at it---as though the ceremonial ritual is a little play they are putting on. Let them believe it is superstitious nonsense! By all means.
Once having preformed their ritual (which others would make sport of) let them strive with all their might and longing---to prevent the purpose of the ritual---from happening!
.

P.S. If you feel faint, it would be best to open a window and let some air in,
Unless-- you think some kind of, dare I say it,
Goblin! Is going to jump up at you
Screaming like a banshee, the moment you open the window.
Look out your window Polezig!
What do you see?

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for the condescending lecture o mystical wizard of elfland.

Forget for a moment that most points I put forth in this thread about "discarnate intelligences" doesn't automatically negate other aspects of so-called "magick" - I would still not drag it down the the level of uncritical children doing rituals then waiting for the check to come in. Being intimately familiar with AC's writings, he wouldn't either. Save it for your D&D meetup. In the meantime google an online style manual and work on composing complete coherent sentences and paragraphs, it may even have a clarifying effect on your thought processes.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Alastrum" wrote:
I have absolutely no idea how "magick" works, and I don't pretend to know. All I know is, I've done some particular actions and some particular results have followed, results that I'm fairly sure, all things considered, would not have occurred had I not done those actions.

Then provide your evidence.

"Alastrum" wrote:
I suspect the same is true for all those who continue doing magick: "success is your proof".

There you go - provide evidence of your "success" that you think "proves" it. Let's all check it out, and see if we agree with your standards.

"Alastrum" wrote:
IOf course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works.

What absolutely cringeworthy piffle. "It only works if you believe it works." That might just be the dumbest and flakiest thing I've read in this entire thread.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 461
 
"Alastrum" wrote:
Of course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works. It's Erwin's loss really, that he can't (or won't) do this. My world is far more interesting, and fun, than his.

Wow. Just... wow.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

IAO131


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 375
 

Poelzig,
If my post seemed condescending, I apologize. It was not meant in any way to be mean-spirited.

Do not be so quick to criticize the “childish” method I gave, which perhaps lacked for
a proper explanation in the haste of my hurry..

In all seriousness, it will indeed---work!
So long as they do not attempt anything of an exceedingly mean or negative nature, there should not be any problems.
For instance, suppose they have tried every method possible to find an out of print book,
and have had no luck whatsoever; let them compose a ritual dedicated to their obtaining this book ---“knowing” that said book will not come their way through the ritual.
Remember, this is meant for those who truly Do Not Believe that ANY magick, works!

I admit, that the consequences of the magick working might be tragic, (though not by any means necessarily so) in getting them the book. So I reiterate—this method is only of use to those who
1. honestly and truly think that “all” forms of magick are bunk.
2. thoroughly disrespect those who engage in it..
3. have a proper grasp and knowledge of magical theory and methods.
Their purpose in doing things this way, should be to actually “prove” that no thing can come of it.
This “childish” method I have proposed, is not for children, but rather for intelligent skeptics, who are indeed well versed in magical literature---yet truly believe that the claims made in such literature cannot possibly work.
Now, knowing full well that if the magick does indeed work, they will get the object of their intent—through either a positive, or a negative means of manifestation....
and “fear” working the ritual armed with this knowledge, then it means they do actually “believe” that the success of the ritual is quite possible.
If they are resolute in their belief that the ritual must needs fail,
yet are fully equipped with the knowledge and details of magick,
knowing full well how everything has to be worded “just right”---then I would urge them by all means to test my procedure.
I repeat, this method is for those who are convinced that “all forms of Magick” are
foolish, ineffectual, and otherwise worthless.

Good night, to all.

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

KING FELIX


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1908
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
Am I hallucinating or has the assertion "Most people believe in some form of the supernatural" actually been presented as an argument more than once in this thread?

93!

You might refer this to my little wikipedia list. This list was clearly described as a little argument against Erwin's saying, that 6 billion people are on his side in his crusade against stupid occultists. It was never meant, and I never said so, that it somehow proves the existence of the supernatural. This crusade stuff was anyhow just a little fun.

So, if you referred to this list as an argument for the supernatural like Erwin obviously also does and even "grants me this hapiily", you were hallucinating just like him.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
scarobminor
(@scarobminor)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 10
 

I'm reminded of a quote by Austin Spare -

"We are dimensionally caged but nothing stops us looking through the bars..... Imagination has fewer bars than reasoning"


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1908
 
"Erwin" wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what you think the other alternatives might be for things which are not "actually existing".

93, Erwin.

I thought I did so. Would you deny your mind exists? No, I guess. But can I have dinner with it? No, I am sure. It exists, without being a physical object (or the physics have not been found yet). Also it can not be described as "imaginary". Since praeterhuman messages (I am not talking about goblins) are purely information, they might exist. If you know of a theory showing that the mind is simply a physical object or even have photographs, please let us know about it.

The same with goblins. I would say that their "being seen" very well might be simply "imaginary", but the cause of seeing them, might not and it is not a "scientific fact" that their sightings are always a product of the wishful thinking of the people who see them, though in many cases it probably is. Somewhere on the net somebody phrased it like this:"The question is whether there is another way of bringing mental phenomena into a unified conception of objective reality, without relying on a narrow standard of objectivity."

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Erwin" wrote:
"zardoz" wrote:
Goetic magick does work, btw, but it's far better for people like you to believe that it doesn't.

So post a video to youtube showing me one of the demons you've evoked to physical appearance. Until then, you can continue to make your bizarre and spurious claims until you're blue in the face, it's not going to count for anything with me.

Take your own advice, Erwin and pay better attention. I said goetic magic works. I didn't claim to evoke a demon to physical appearance.

"zardoz" wrote:
I'm extremely underwhelmed by your overwhelming evidence.
"Erwin" wrote:
I'm not remotely surprised. People who make claims based on fantasy instead of evidence generally don't tend to place much importance on evidence.

My statement is based on personal experience personally experienced. This blind faith in external evidence is not that much different than having a blind faith in Jesus. I've demonstrated the fallibility of your sacred cow, evidence.

"zardoz" wrote:
Your game rule and rigid belief that Magick needs to conform to logic and popularly held notions of consenual reality in order to work seems patently wrong.

I acknowledge that considering magick to work purely because you baselessly assert that it does makes it much easier for you to maintain your silly beliefs. As I've said, I don't expect people with this kind of absurd and contemptible attitude to listen to any sense, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of.

The extent of your argument is namecalling, a sign of desperation and of just how shallow your assertions are. You are presenting no information.

My approach is agnostic, I find rigid, inflexible beliefs limiting and try to avoid them. I don't invest faith in what people say, but prefer to verify things for myself. Any assertion I make is based on my experience. You have indicated no experience with magick yourself apart from reading books. Your comments possibly apply to some fringe areas of magick but you are unqualified and too inexperienced to speak for the whole field.

"But first are you experienced?
have you ever been experienced...."
- Jimi Hendrix


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Los" wrote:
The analogy to WMDs in Iraq fails on every level.

Then you didn't get it. The analogy demonstrates the fallibilty of evidence and of how many rational people can be duped by it.

"Reality is what you can get away with"
- Robert Anton Wilson


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4135
 
"Poelzig" wrote:
Thanks for the condescending lecture o mystical wizard of elfland.

Condescending?

😯

Crikey. Perhaps you should go back and look at some of your recent posts in this thread, still so slick with the spittle of contemptuous invective that it's a wonder none us have slipped and broken a leg.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"sonofthestar@Gmail.com" wrote:
Poelzig,
If my post seemed condescending, I apologize. It was not meant in any way to be mean-spirited.

Do not be so quick to criticize the “childish” method I gave, which perhaps lacked for
a proper explanation in the haste of my hurry..

In all seriousness, it will indeed---work!
So long as they do not attempt anything of an exceedingly mean or negative nature, there should not be any problems.
For instance, suppose they have tried every method possible to find an out of print book,
and have had no luck whatsoever; let them compose a ritual dedicated to their obtaining this book ---“knowing” that said book will not come their way through the ritual.
Remember, this is meant for those who truly Do Not Believe that ANY magick, works!

I admit, that the consequences of the magick working might be tragic, (though not by any means necessarily so) in getting them the book. So I reiterate—this method is only of use to those who
1. honestly and truly think that “all” forms of magick are bunk.
2. thoroughly disrespect those who engage in it..
3. have a proper grasp and knowledge of magical theory and methods.
Their purpose in doing things this way, should be to actually “prove” that no thing can come of it.
This “childish” method I have proposed, is not for children, but rather for intelligent skeptics, who are indeed well versed in magical literature---yet truly believe that the claims made in such literature cannot possibly work.
Now, knowing full well that if the magick does indeed work, they will get the object of their intent—through either a positive, or a negative means of manifestation....
and “fear” working the ritual armed with this knowledge, then it means they do actually “believe” that the success of the ritual is quite possible.
If they are resolute in their belief that the ritual must needs fail,
yet are fully equipped with the knowledge and details of magick,
knowing full well how everything has to be worded “just right”---then I would urge them by all means to test my procedure.
I repeat, this method is for those who are convinced that “all forms of Magick” are
foolish, ineffectual, and otherwise worthless.

Good night, to all.

Love is the law, love under will.

The discussion was about the non-existence of discarnate intelligences - not about burning candles to get that rare copy of Llewellyn's MAGICK FOR RETARDS.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"Poelzig" wrote:
Thanks for the condescending lecture o mystical wizard of elfland.

Condescending?

😯

Crikey. Perhaps you should go back and look at some of your recent posts in this thread, still so slick with the spittle of contemptuous invective that it's a wonder none us have slipped and broken a leg.

I could handle condescending if he were making a really strong argument against something really stupid I may have said, but that was not the case. Instead it was a vapid and condescending rehash of "magick works, really, it does, those who know, know." I'm wondering why he didn't go the extra millimeter and call me a "muggle."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I thought I did so. Would you deny your mind exists? No, I guess. But can I have dinner with it? No, I am sure. It exists, without being a physical object (or the physics have not been found yet). Also it can not be described as "imaginary". Since praeterhuman messages (I am not talking about goblins) are purely information, they might exist. If you know of a theory showing that the mind is simply a physical object or even have photographs, please let us know about it.

I really don't know how you expect me to respond to this. I'm no doctor, and I'm no mind scientist, but even I know that the amount of evidence that the mind is physical is overwhelming. Look at all the studies of brain-damaged patients which show the mind gets affected in predictable ways. Look at these devices they're inventing which can detect brain activity in ways that people can control computer interfaces with their thoughts. Really, there's mountain and mountains and mountains of evidence. The fact the nobody has "photographed a mind" is stunningly irrelevant.

As I said before, the mind may not exist as an object separate to the thoughts and emotions etc which are normally said to inhabit it, but this is as irrelevant as the fact that colour is "created by perception" is to the redness of a rose, or to the fact that the physical body is not an "object" at all, just a big collection of subatomic particles.

Your response also says nothing at all about what kind of existence something that is not "actually existing" might have other than an imaginary one.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
The same with goblins.

No, it's not the same with goblins. The effects of the mind, whatever it is, can be reliably detected, even if we don't know much about how it actually works. The effects of goblins cannot. Again, what the thing actually is is merely a diversion. Both minds and goblins are expected to have definite observable effects on the physical world. We can detect the effects of the mind; we never detect the effects of goblins, because they aren't there.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I would say that their "being seen" very well might be simply "imaginary", but the cause of seeing them, might not and it is not a "scientific fact" that their sightings are always a product of the wishful thinking of the people who see them, though in many cases it probably is. Somewhere on the net somebody phrased it like this:"The question is whether there is another way of bringing mental phenomena into a unified conception of objective reality, without relying on a narrow standard of objectivity."

And that's gobbledigook and wishful thinking. "Unified conception of objective reality" really only means "including imaginary things".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"zardoz" wrote:
Take your own advice, Erwin and pay better attention. I said goetic magic works. I didn't claim to evoke a demon to physical appearance.

You appear to be using an extremely idiosyncratic definition of "works".

But, no matter, I'm all for striving for precision.

Why don't you tell us, precisely, exactly what you think it is that "goetic magick" is intended to do, then we can discuss whether or not it "works". If it's not evoking demons to physical appearance, what exactly do you think it is? After all, if you assert that it "works", you must be able to describe what it's trying to do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conduct that assessment.

"zardoz" wrote:
My statement is based on personal experience personally experienced.

No, it isn't. It's based on personal experience rationally interpreted, and rationally interpreted badly, at that. We've been through this.

"zardoz" wrote:
This blind faith in external evidence is not that much different than having a blind faith in Jesus.

If it's based in evidence, it's not "faith".

"zardoz" wrote:
I've demonstrated the fallibility of your sacred cow, evidence.

Then you're arguing against yourself. Nobody, certainly not me, has ever claimed that evidence is "infallible". In fact, several times I've gone out of my way to state that it isn't. But however fallible it is, basing claims on it is still infinitely better than basing claims on sheer fantasy, which is the alternative.

"zardoz" wrote:
I don't invest faith in what people say, but prefer to verify things for myself.

No, you don't. If you eschew evidence and claim that your magick doesn't have to conform to such a silly thing as "logic", then you're not "verifying" diddly squat. You're just making a lot of silly shit up.

And, once you've explained what you think "goetic magick" is trying to accomplish and how you've "verified" that it does that, we'll be able to see this for ourselves right here.

"zardoz" wrote:
Any assertion I make is based on my experience. You have indicated no experience with magick yourself apart from reading books.

Nobody has any experience with "magick" in the supernatural sense, because there is no such thing. Just like nobody has any "experience" with goblins. The "experience" you're talking about is experience in making up a lot of stories about it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"IAO131" wrote:
"Alastrum" wrote:
Of course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works. It's Erwin's loss really, that he can't (or won't) do this. My world is far more interesting, and fun, than his.

Wow. Just... wow.

Since this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society, I'd be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at "belief" being necessary for magick to "work", rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did.

I think some people here have been reading too many Wicca manuals written for teenaged girls.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 1908
 
"Erwin" wrote:
And that's gobbledigook and wishful thinking. "Unified conception of objective reality" really only means "including imaginary things".

93!

No, it doesn't. What you are proposing is that the mind and mental processes are imaginary things and non-existent. And existence might be more than "actual existence".

Although I agree that the mind seemingly needs a brain to be comprehended, there is absolutely no overwhelming evidence for either one of the two possibilities: (a) that the mind is a seperate thing from the brain, or (b) just the aggregated functions of the brain. Concerning your mentioning of scientific research on the functions of the mind, I would even argument that most scientists agree that no machine will ever be able to comprehend anything, and therefore will never be able to really imitate a mind. I can't understand how you can say that it doesn't objectively exist, as long as we do not know even a little WHAT it is. As long as you insist on "objective existence" as the game rule, of course, we won't come nearer to the discussion. But then, you are simply one of the bunch of objectivists out there, and this is not the only school of thought. It might be helpful (although I do not seek to convert you) to access the topic beginning with "Aiwass was actually not a part of AC, so what could he have been? Are there any possibilities not conflicting with ALL theories that he was a discarnate intelligence?" You might find out that there are serious theories out there, that such a thing is possible, and then you might want to question your belief that you are always on truth's side. And objectivity requires a definition of truth. You got it? (got the definition I mean)

"Erwin" wrote:
The effects of the mind, whatever it is, can be reliably detected, even if we don't know much about how it actually works. The effects of goblins cannot.

Which of course would be nonsense when, for example, Liber AL might be just a text coming from a goblin.

"Erwin" wrote:
The fact the nobody has "photographed a mind" is stunningly irrelevant.

But you are constantly whining for a photograph of a goblin...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4135
 

Dear Los,

93

Thank you for your considered response. There's just a couple of points I'd like to take up.

What you appear to be inferring, no matter how polite your language, is that by undertaking mystical and magical work, I am thereby of a continuum with the murderers of abortion doctors, the opposers of stem-cell research, those who send in suicide-bombers, the religious fanatics who intend to convert us all at knife-point, etc etc etc.

Let me draw another analogy. The scientific achievements in splitting the atom also produced the nuclear bomb that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The discovery and harnessing of electricity has also given us the electric chair, weapons of torture, etc. There are many things that have beneficial effects but which can also be used in harmful, malevolent ways. Does this mean that to use them in any way is wrong? No, of course not. I daresay the surgeon whose operating theatre is powered by electricity would find it extraordinary to be likened to a torturer, on the grounds that both of them used electricity. Similarly, I find your insinuation - that my magical working somehow categorises me with those who wish to bring about the Umma, or those who murder abortion doctors, or those who oppose stem-cell research - equally absurd.

"Los" wrote:
I'm not out to convince most people here that the supernatural isn't real.

Perhaps you need to convince yourself. There's clearly no such thing; everything is within nature. However, there is nature, and there is our understanding of it. The latter has developed over hundreds and thousands of years, and will continue to develop; in the course of this, our understanding of reality will continue to change. It's debatable, of course, whether we shall ever reach a full understanding. It's also debatable, of course, to what extent we can ever know reality, given that everything we know about it is a construct within consciousness.

"Los" wrote:
I'm writing this for those "on the fence." I want people new to Thelema to know that it's ok to be rational and not accept supernatural beliefs.

This is somewhat patronising of you. People are quite capable of making up their own minds. You have, so why do you think that others can't too? Or have you somehow got more backbone than most?

93 93 / 93

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Erwin" wrote:
Since this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society, I'd be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at "belief" being necessary for magick to "work", rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did.

It's not quite 'belief', but there's this from Book 4:

In the straightforward or "Protestant" system of Magick there is very little to add to what has already been said. The Magician addresses a direct petition to the Being invoked. But the secret of success in invocation has not hitherto been disclosed. It is an exceedingly simple one. It is practically of no importance whatever that the invocation should be "right". There are a thousand different ways of compassing the end proposed, so far as external things are concerned. The whole secret may be summarised in these four words: "Enflame thyself in praying."

This is Qabalistically expressed in the old Formula: Domine noster, audi tuo servo! kyrie Christe! O Christe!

The mind must be exalted until it loses consciousness of self. The Magician must be carried forward blindly by a force which, though in him and of him, is by no means that which he in his normal state of consciousness calls I. Just as the poet, the lover, the artist, is carried out of himself in a creative frenzy, so must it be for the Magician.

Can you - do you - maintain 'constant scepticism' even while inflamed in prayer? How's that working out for you?


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 25
Share: