Discussion:
Enochian Magick Revisited
(too old to reply)
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-24 19:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Finally, after about of a week of trying and failing to get some
straight answers in plain English from the Enochian folks, I
have learned that their current theory and practices are based
upon attempts to recreate the reported scrying experiences of
one person, whose name is not Enoch.
Not so. Dr. Dee, who developed the system utilized the services of
several scryers, of whom Edward Kelly was the most successful ... and
the most notorious.
How is that "not so"?
Enoch is a person mentioned in the Book of Genesis in the Jewish
Tanach who was said to communicate directly with heavenly beings.
Isn't that nice. It also says in the Old Testament that God smiled
upon men who sold their daughters into slavery and required men
to kill their wives if they wove two kind of fibers into a single
garment.

I don't regard the rightings of psychopaths to be reliable sources.
John
Dee specifically stated that his own system of holding communion with
heavenly entities was be superior to the Hebrew system.
I'm sure he did.
He thus
appropriated the name of Enoch
Warning bells go off in any reasonable person's head when someone names
them self after one of the nutbags in the Old Testament.

Which isn't even a Christian document: Jesus wasn't born then.
and also the tripartite division of the
Hebrew alphabet for his angelic language,
Woo-woo to the max. Just who do you think is impressed by crap like
that?
making him, in my opinion,
one of many magical Christians who appropriate elements of Jewish
magic and mysticism and then claim to side-step Judaism while yet
retaining its supposed spiritual benefits.
Okay.
Apparently, the Enochians would have us believe [...] that elaborate
and arcane training and study and ritual are needed, and that they have
some kind of exclusive license to convey and train these abilities.
Is that unfair? I don't think so.
It seems unfair to me, in that it untrue.
No. It isn't.
1. No course of "training" is offered.
Then why are the Enochians always looking down their noses at people
and refusing to give straight answers because "we don't have their
intensive training and experience in the mysteries" ? (paraphrased)
John Dee, the man who
devised the Enochian magic system was a polymath astrologer,
mathematician, scholar -- his best known scryer (Edward Kelly) was a
criminal who simply had the ability to see visions in a crystal.
A lot of people see visions all the time. They often contradict each
other. Often.
Dee
did not have that ability and no amount of training inculcated it in
him.
That's because he was using the lame Enochian system.
He used other scryers before Kelly. None of them were "trained."
The ability to sky is therefore taken in Enochian magic to be some
sort of inherent spiritual "gift."
It's an inherent human ability, available to all.
2. There is no "study" needed except for those who wish to study
Dee's methodology. Dee himself did not "study," nor did Kelly. They
merely sat down as scryer and recorder.
Then why are the Enochians always looking down their noses at people
and refusing to give straight answers because "we don't have their
intensive training and experience in the mysteries" ? (paraphrased)
3. The ritual is anything but "elaborate and arcane." The needed
materials, as Geoffrey James makes clear, are a small table, a block
of wax and a graver to inscribe it, a cloth, some wooden disks, paints
and brushes, and a 2-inch diameter crystal ball.
Then why are the Enochians always looking down their noses at people
and refusing to give straight answers because "we don't have their
intensive training and experience in the mysteries" ? (paraphrased)
All the rest of the
stuff that the Golden Dawn and O.T.O. added (huge rafts of gematria,
Egyptian god forms, tables of perfume correspondences, tables of
Indian chakra equivalents, the Jewish Tree of Life diagram, et cetera
ad absurdum) have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Dee's Enochian
magic.
Now *that* does not surprise me a bit.

Nothing physical is necessary to do scrying, otherwise known as "remote-
viewing" by those of us who prefer plain English.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
Like I said, not even the Enochians agree about what Enochian
Magick is, so I am not sure why you think that anyone is going
to take *your* word for it.

All you have done, really, is just add to the tons of bullshit that
are flying around about Enochian, which is basically all there is to it.

Woo-woo mumbo-jumbo based upon some egomaniacal egghead's interpretations of
the alleged remote-viewing experiences of a serious criminal in the distant
past.

Thanks Cat. You have made my case for me in spades.

I do trust your judgement over that of any of the Mighty Enochian Mages that
hang out here.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-24 19:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Apparently, the Enochians would have us believe [...] that elaborate
and arcane training and study and ritual are needed, and that they have
some kind of exclusive license to convey and train these abilities.
Is that unfair? I don't think so.
It seems unfair to me, in that it untrue.
Heptarchia.
1. No course of "training" is offered. John Dee, the man who
devised the Enochian magic system was a polymath astrologer,
mathematician, scholar -- his best known scryer (Edward Kelly) was a
criminal who simply had the ability to see visions in a crystal. Dee
did not have that ability and no amount of training inculcated it in
him. He used other scryers before Kelly. None of them were "trained."
The ability to sky is therefore taken in Enochian magic to be some
sort of inherent spiritual "gift."
2. There is no "study" needed except for those who wish to study
Dee's methodology. Dee himself did not "study," nor did Kelly. They
merely sat down as scryer and recorder.
If that isn't naive I don't know what is. John Dee had, allegedly, one of
the most thorough occult libraries of his time afforded to him by virtue of
being an Astrologer to the British Throne; and many of John Dee's own
created magics resemble if not out right mimic Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa
von Nettesheim's magics, of which were of course very much influenced by
Kabbalah. To allude John Dee lived his life without any occult learning and
suddenly woke up one day and said to himself "I need a scryer", is pretty
ridiculous.
As the story goes after many years of despising the Queen and becoming bored
with his astrology job John Dee would come home to his secret library bought
with a portion of wealth of Monarchial England. By the time he quit his job
as an Astologer and decided to fashion a working, he was quite versed in
"correspondances", Kabbalah, and at least a few, though unnamed, so far as I
know, evocative magics; which can be evicenced in the very first Spirit
Action. He didn't however have the means to test visions and it sure did
mess things up a bit for him.
3. The ritual is anything but "elaborate and arcane."
There isn't an ascribed ritual save the Orations in Heptarchia but the
temple furnishings themselves as decribed by the Angels are very eleborate,
and symbolic -- "arcane".
The needed
materials, as Geoffrey James makes clear, are a small table, a block
of wax and a graver to inscribe it, a cloth, some wooden disks, paints
and brushes, and a 2-inch diameter crystal ball. All the rest of the
stuff that the Golden Dawn and O.T.O. added (huge rafts of gematria,
Egyptian god forms, tables of perfume correspondences, tables of
Indian chakra equivalents, the Jewish Tree of Life diagram, et cetera
ad absurdum) have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Dee's Enochian
magic.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
I would correct your insensitive dealings with very precious, angelic
instructed modes of temple piece furniture creation as per the Spirit
Actions in the MSS., but I'd be wasting my time. The above from you is
crude, contradictory in how presented in the MSS. and in some places utter
fabrication.
In closing I'd like to mention you had done a better job describing the
widely known rudiments of Enochia than were I to do the same in Hoodoo, for
example, but you might want to actually buy the source MSS. and study them
should you wish any thing more practical from Enochia than general coffee
table conversations.
Except for the wee problem that there is very little there but fodder
for coffeeshop and usenet bullshit.
Told you, Cat.

These folks won't let themselves be pinned down. If they do they lose
the mystique that only they imagine they have.

The rest of us just dive for our shovels when they show up.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Jason Dean Scott
2004-07-24 19:39:45 UTC
Permalink
& so he continues. Do your own work. I'm not here so others may steal my
thoughts for profit and/or notoriety. All who are familiar with the
material, genuinely, will agree with me in silence; if not, I'll be called
on it, generally, so as to direct attention where need be. So far this
hasn't happened so all's well that ends well apparently.

Cat Yronwode in her amateur Enochia expose was acting mouth-piece and
talking-head for her husband, who, has admitted in the past frequently
enough to note he doesn't know how to approach the Enochian material. Any
clarity soever in matters Enochian here, has already been established in
allusion by Cat's husband, Bryan Yronwode, will be intellectually stolen
from Usenet's authors and directly delivered in what he unethically refers
to as "Ooze Files." You are their gimp in their thievery agenda.

Have a dick in your mouth.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Apparently, the Enochians would have us believe [...] that elaborate
and arcane training and study and ritual are needed, and that they have
some kind of exclusive license to convey and train these abilities.
Is that unfair? I don't think so.
It seems unfair to me, in that it untrue.
Heptarchia.
1. No course of "training" is offered. John Dee, the man who
devised the Enochian magic system was a polymath astrologer,
mathematician, scholar -- his best known scryer (Edward Kelly) was a
criminal who simply had the ability to see visions in a crystal. Dee
did not have that ability and no amount of training inculcated it in
him. He used other scryers before Kelly. None of them were "trained."
The ability to sky is therefore taken in Enochian magic to be some
sort of inherent spiritual "gift."
2. There is no "study" needed except for those who wish to study
Dee's methodology. Dee himself did not "study," nor did Kelly. They
merely sat down as scryer and recorder.
If that isn't naive I don't know what is. John Dee had, allegedly, one of
the most thorough occult libraries of his time afforded to him by virtue of
being an Astrologer to the British Throne; and many of John Dee's own
created magics resemble if not out right mimic Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa
von Nettesheim's magics, of which were of course very much influenced by
Kabbalah. To allude John Dee lived his life without any occult learning and
suddenly woke up one day and said to himself "I need a scryer", is pretty
ridiculous.
As the story goes after many years of despising the Queen and becoming bored
with his astrology job John Dee would come home to his secret library bought
with a portion of wealth of Monarchial England. By the time he quit his job
as an Astologer and decided to fashion a working, he was quite versed in
"correspondances", Kabbalah, and at least a few, though unnamed, so far as I
know, evocative magics; which can be evicenced in the very first Spirit
Action. He didn't however have the means to test visions and it sure did
mess things up a bit for him.
3. The ritual is anything but "elaborate and arcane."
There isn't an ascribed ritual save the Orations in Heptarchia but the
temple furnishings themselves as decribed by the Angels are very eleborate,
and symbolic -- "arcane".
The needed
materials, as Geoffrey James makes clear, are a small table, a block
of wax and a graver to inscribe it, a cloth, some wooden disks, paints
and brushes, and a 2-inch diameter crystal ball. All the rest of the
stuff that the Golden Dawn and O.T.O. added (huge rafts of gematria,
Egyptian god forms, tables of perfume correspondences, tables of
Indian chakra equivalents, the Jewish Tree of Life diagram, et cetera
ad absurdum) have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Dee's Enochian
magic.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
I would correct your insensitive dealings with very precious, angelic
instructed modes of temple piece furniture creation as per the Spirit
Actions in the MSS., but I'd be wasting my time. The above from you is
crude, contradictory in how presented in the MSS. and in some places utter
fabrication.
In closing I'd like to mention you had done a better job describing the
widely known rudiments of Enochia than were I to do the same in Hoodoo, for
example, but you might want to actually buy the source MSS. and study them
should you wish any thing more practical from Enochia than general coffee
table conversations.
Except for the wee problem that there is very little there but fodder
for coffeeshop and usenet bullshit.
Told you, Cat.
These folks won't let themselves be pinned down. If they do they lose
the mystique that only they imagine they have.
The rest of us just dive for our shovels when they show up.
<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Rhyanon
2004-07-25 13:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Wow, another victim of the yroningborgs. Is there no limit to their thievery
and lies?
Post by Jason Dean Scott
& so he continues. Do your own work. I'm not here so others may steal my
thoughts for profit and/or notoriety. All who are familiar with the
material, genuinely, will agree with me in silence; if not, I'll be called
on it, generally, so as to direct attention where need be. So far this
hasn't happened so all's well that ends well apparently.
Cat Yronwode in her amateur Enochia expose was acting mouth-piece and
talking-head for her husband, who, has admitted in the past frequently
enough to note he doesn't know how to approach the Enochian material. Any
clarity soever in matters Enochian here, has already been established in
allusion by Cat's husband, Bryan Yronwode, will be intellectually stolen
from Usenet's authors and directly delivered in what he unethically refers
to as "Ooze Files." You are their gimp in their thievery agenda.
Have a dick in your mouth.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Apparently, the Enochians would have us believe [...] that elaborate
and arcane training and study and ritual are needed, and that they
have
Post by Alexander Mulligan
some kind of exclusive license to convey and train these abilities.
Is that unfair? I don't think so.
It seems unfair to me, in that it untrue.
Heptarchia.
1. No course of "training" is offered. John Dee, the man who
devised the Enochian magic system was a polymath astrologer,
mathematician, scholar -- his best known scryer (Edward Kelly) was a
criminal who simply had the ability to see visions in a crystal. Dee
did not have that ability and no amount of training inculcated it in
him. He used other scryers before Kelly. None of them were "trained."
The ability to sky is therefore taken in Enochian magic to be some
sort of inherent spiritual "gift."
2. There is no "study" needed except for those who wish to study
Dee's methodology. Dee himself did not "study," nor did Kelly. They
merely sat down as scryer and recorder.
If that isn't naive I don't know what is. John Dee had, allegedly, one
of
Post by Alexander Mulligan
the most thorough occult libraries of his time afforded to him by
virtue
Post by Jason Dean Scott
of
Post by Alexander Mulligan
being an Astrologer to the British Throne; and many of John Dee's own
created magics resemble if not out right mimic Heinrich Cornelius
Agrippa
Post by Alexander Mulligan
von Nettesheim's magics, of which were of course very much influenced by
Kabbalah. To allude John Dee lived his life without any occult
learning
Post by Jason Dean Scott
and
Post by Alexander Mulligan
suddenly woke up one day and said to himself "I need a scryer", is
pretty
Post by Alexander Mulligan
ridiculous.
As the story goes after many years of despising the Queen and becoming
bored
Post by Alexander Mulligan
with his astrology job John Dee would come home to his secret library
bought
Post by Alexander Mulligan
with a portion of wealth of Monarchial England. By the time he quit
his
Post by Jason Dean Scott
job
Post by Alexander Mulligan
as an Astologer and decided to fashion a working, he was quite versed in
"correspondances", Kabbalah, and at least a few, though unnamed, so
far
Post by Jason Dean Scott
as I
Post by Alexander Mulligan
know, evocative magics; which can be evicenced in the very first Spirit
Action. He didn't however have the means to test visions and it sure did
mess things up a bit for him.
3. The ritual is anything but "elaborate and arcane."
There isn't an ascribed ritual save the Orations in Heptarchia but the
temple furnishings themselves as decribed by the Angels are very
eleborate,
Post by Alexander Mulligan
and symbolic -- "arcane".
The needed
materials, as Geoffrey James makes clear, are a small table, a block
of wax and a graver to inscribe it, a cloth, some wooden disks, paints
and brushes, and a 2-inch diameter crystal ball. All the rest of the
stuff that the Golden Dawn and O.T.O. added (huge rafts of gematria,
Egyptian god forms, tables of perfume correspondences, tables of
Indian chakra equivalents, the Jewish Tree of Life diagram, et cetera
ad absurdum) have nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Dee's Enochian
magic.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
I would correct your insensitive dealings with very precious, angelic
instructed modes of temple piece furniture creation as per the Spirit
Actions in the MSS., but I'd be wasting my time. The above from you is
crude, contradictory in how presented in the MSS. and in some places
utter
Post by Alexander Mulligan
fabrication.
In closing I'd like to mention you had done a better job describing the
widely known rudiments of Enochia than were I to do the same in
Hoodoo,
Post by Jason Dean Scott
for
Post by Alexander Mulligan
example, but you might want to actually buy the source MSS. and study
them
Post by Alexander Mulligan
should you wish any thing more practical from Enochia than general
coffee
Post by Alexander Mulligan
table conversations.
Except for the wee problem that there is very little there but fodder
for coffeeshop and usenet bullshit.
Told you, Cat.
These folks won't let themselves be pinned down. If they do they lose
the mystique that only they imagine they have.
The rest of us just dive for our shovels when they show up.
<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-24 21:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Well Dr. Dee's work is widely known and was / is widely available
(evenamazon has some).
So, no need for pre-digestion, second hand sources, or filtration
then.
I do not know the writer personally of course, but her presence
Happy days,
Gianna
Thanks for that vote of confidence regarding my reading
ability. :-)
As i stated at the outset, i read the material with one
intent only, to take up Bruce / Alexander's challenge
regarding the writing of a 100 word or less definition of
Enochian magic, which he said had not been done. I do not
claim anything more than that i wrote a definition of the
proper length.
cat yronwode
You are forgetting the two subsequent addendums.

:-)

But it was a very nice job, and I have saved those posts in
my Enochian docs directory.

Much appreciated.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-24 22:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Finally, after about of a week of trying and failing to get some
straight answers in plain English from the Enochian folks, I
have learned that their current theory and practices are based
upon attempts to recreate the reported scrying experiences of
one person, whose name is not Enoch.
Not so. Dr. Dee, who developed the system utilized the services
of several scryers, of whom Edward Kelly was the most successful
... andthe most notorious.
How is that "not so"?
Because you called it "the reported scrying experiences of
one person" and more than one scryer was involved.
Okay. Technically right, but this has no bearing on the validity of the
Enochian system.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
and also the tripartite division of the
Hebrew alphabet for his angelic language,
Woo-woo to the max. Just who do you think is impressed by crap like
that?
That is not woo-woo. No spiritual claims need be understood
in that statement.
What do you call "angelic language"?
The tripartite division of the Hebrew alphabet is just a
Hebrew description of the Hebrew alphabet. By comparison, in
English orthography we have "consonants" and "vowels" and
even "diphthongs." In Hebrew the alphabet is divided into
three types of letters.
Okay.
My point was that Dee specifically called his angelic
language superior to Hebrew (then widely considered to be a
sacred language suited to the invocation and evocation of
Jewish spirit entities by Jews and Christians alike), yet
the language he devised or reported upon (as the case may
be) was based in Hebrew linguistic structure.
*Alleged* "angelic language". Whether beings such as he describes
even exist is doubtful.

There certainly are no demons anywhere that haven't been created
by those gullible enough (in the final analysis) to believe in them.

This fact alone is enough to make me doubt *anything* that Dee
says.
As for who i think is interested? Well, that's not for me to
say. I merely reported on something that *i* found of
interest.
It is interesting to know what motivates these Enochians.

The system is *academically* interesting.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
making him, in my opinion,
one of many magical Christians who appropriate elements of Jewish
magic and mysticism and then claim to side-step Judaism while yet
retaining its supposed spiritual benefits.
Okay.
My interest in Dee's use of Hebrew linguistic paradigms even
as he was claiming superiority to the Hebrew language
derives from my broader interest in how magicians belonging
to a dominant social class in a dominating culture tend to
appropriate the magic and religion of subjugated, despised,
and dominated peoples.
That is interesting. Off the top of my head, I would say that
they know they are missing something important and intuitively
sense that aspects of the worldview of the 'natives' are more
accurate, and thus more effective, than the one they were born
into.
Two further examples will suffice: 1)
Aleister Crowley, having published quite a lot of
anti-Jewish propaganda, appropriated material from the
Jewish Kabbalah.
He sure did. But that's because there is a lot of good stuff
in the Kabbalah. He had little choice. His common sense over-rode
his bigotry.

Abacadabra: With the Word I Create. (phonetic Hebrew)

(I love that :-)

2) Aleister Crowley, having published quite
a lot of anti-Negro and Coloured propaganda, urged his
followers to study Obeah -- a Jamaican system of magical
practice that derives from African religious and magical
principles.
Didn't know *that*.

Do you know anything more about Obeah? I have heard the term.

Related to so-called "voodoo" isn't it?
Post by Alexander Mulligan
1. No course of "training" is offered.
Then why are the Enochians always looking down their noses at
people and refusing to give straight answers because "we don't have
their intensive training and experience in the mysteries" ?
(paraphrased)
That has not been my experience. I have met at least three
people online who claim to practice Enochian magic -- David
R. Jones, Jason Dean Scott, and Michael McKinney. Each is a
person of quite different character -- but none has claimed
to me that "their intensive training and experience in the
mysteries" exempts them from giving "straight answers" to
questions about Enochian magic in this public venue.
Oh yes they do. Just check the last week's posts from them.

(Don't know about Michael McKinney, though. Just the other two.)
If you
know of such posts, please provide a link to the google
archive. I can stand to be corrected.
Don't see how you missed them.

Beyond that, these fellows just drip with elitist arrogance.

One of them even has special knowledge given to him by some
entity that he was made to promise to keep secret.

Just ask him.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Nothing physical is necessary to do scrying, otherwise known as
"remote-viewing" by those of us who prefer plain English.
"Scrying" is a good old English word as well. The use of a
scrying tool such as a crystal ball, as in Enochian magic,
or a mirror, as in Paschal Beverly Randolph's system of
clairvoyance, is commonplace. Generations of mages have
found these tools useful. That you claim not to need tools
is all well and good for you, but it appears to me to be
over-reaching to make such claims on behalf of other people.
If they believe they need them, then they need them.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo and Blues Lyrics --------- http://www.luckymojo.com/blues.html
Later,

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-25 01:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Technically right, but this has no bearing on the
validity of the Enochian system.
I was only speaking "technically" and made no further claims. :-)
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Alexander Mulligan
and also the tripartite division of the
Hebrew alphabet for his angelic language,
Woo-woo to the max. Just who do you think is impressed by crap like
that?
That is not woo-woo. No spiritual claims need be understood
in that statement.
What do you call "angelic language"?
"'I don't call it anything,' said Frankie Lee with a smile...'"
-- Bob Dylan
ROTFL
Post by Alexander Mulligan
My point was that Dee specifically called his angelic
language superior to Hebrew (then widely considered to be a
sacred language suited to the invocation and evocation of
Jewish spirit entities by Jews and Christians alike), yet
the language he devised or reported upon (as the case may
be) was based in Hebrew linguistic structure.
*Alleged* "angelic language". Whether beings such as he describes
even exist is doubtful.
I sense your doubt.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
There certainly are no demons anywhere that haven't been created
by those gullible enough (in the final analysis) to believe in them.
I read what you wrote. You express yourself clearly.
I cannot say that i agree, but i am willing to tolerate your worldview
without mockery or contradiction.
Not that you have any choice accepting it.

And as long as mockery and contradiction lead to intelligent discourse,
I have no problems with it at all.

It is also very useful in counteracting caca del toro :-)

[that better?]
Post by Alexander Mulligan
This fact alone is enough to make me doubt *anything* that Dee
says.
My doubts about Dee's claims spring from other causes and do not
entirely devolve upon what he said. I can enumerate these doubts, if
you wish.
That would be interesting.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
As for who i think is interested? Well, that's not for me to
say. I merely reported on something that *i* found of
interest.
It is interesting to know what motivates these Enochians.
The system is *academically* interesting.
I agree with both statements above. I am also interested in knowing
what fruits the study and practice of Enochian magic has born in the
lives of those who became deeply involved in it.
Good one. Essential. There are surely some, though none that cannot
be acquired without their system, and probably much more efficiently.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
My interest in Dee's use of Hebrew linguistic paradigms even
as he was claiming superiority to the Hebrew language
derives from my broader interest in how magicians belonging
to a dominant social class in a dominating culture tend to
appropriate the magic and religion of subjugated, despised,
and dominated peoples.
That is interesting. Off the top of my head, I would say that
they know they are missing something important and intuitively
sense that aspects of the worldview of the 'natives' are more
accurate, and thus more effective, than the one they were born
into.
That is one possibility. Another, not mutually exclusive, possibility
is that they feel a measure of guilt for the harm their forbears have
done, and by exalting the non-political cultural beliefs of those whom
they have disempowered, they seek to subtly redress the balance
without rocking the political boat. Consider the children of
generations of American land-owners who are interested in Native
American spirituality.
Very closely related here is the way that the Catholic Church, for
example, particularly in Central and South America, adopts the *facade*
of the 'native' religion, but guts the substance of it, replacing
it with the basic beliefs of Catholicism. Very effective. Sneaky as
hell.

I am not sure that you aren't mistaking aspects of this for your
"appropriation" above.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Aleister Crowley, having published quite
a lot of anti-Negro and Coloured propaganda, urged his
followers to study Obeah -- a Jamaican system of magical
practice that derives from African religious and magical
principles.
Didn't know *that*.
---------------------------------------
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Subject: Crowley and African Magic/Religion (was Obeah and Wanga)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc, talk.religion.newage,
alt.thelema, alt.religion.orisha, alt.lucky.w,
alt.magick.folk
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Date: 2000/02/20
$ This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law.
$
$ My scribe Ankh-af-na-khonsu, the priest of the princes,
$ shall not in one letter change this book; but lest there
$ be folly, he shall comment thereupon by the wisdom of
$ Ra-Hoor-Khu-it.
$
$ Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga;
$ the work of the wand and the work of the sword;
$ these he shall learn and teach.
$
$ He must teach; but he may make severe the ordeals.
$
$ The word of the Law is [ThELEMA].
$
$ Who calls us Thelemites will do no wrong, if he look
$ but close into the word. For there are therein Three
$ Grades, the Hermit, and the Lover, and the man of Earth.
$ Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Liber Al vel Legis" or "Liber CCXX", Aleister Crowley;
verses 35-40.
_______________________________________________________
http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/220al.txt
Will do. No java I hope. Thanks.

Isn't that from "Magick in Theory and Practice"?
----------------
(Thanks. siva!) The "wanga" Crowley refers to above is a spell,
usually a magical spell tied in a bag, much like a mojo bag in the
USA.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Do you know anything more about Obeah? I have heard the term.
----------------
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Subject: Re: What's Obeah magick?
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic, alt.magick
Date: 2003-08-10
Obeah is the African derived folk magic of Jamaica. It is
quite similar to African American hoodoo folk magic in the
USA and contains similar inclusions of European folk magic.
Like hoodoo, obeah is based in Central African rather than
West African cultural practices, having developed among
people of the Kikongo language group of what is now the
Congo and tangent nations such as Angola.
Unlike hoodoo, obeah contains no inclusions of North
American Native herbology; its herbalism component derives
from Caribbean Native herb lore.
----------------
Hope that helps. :-)
Very interesting.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Related to so-called "voodoo" isn't it?
Obeah derives from Central African cultures -- from people in the
Kongo / Bantu language group. It is almost identical to hoodoo in the
USA, which is also Central African in origin.
Voodoo, on the other hand, is practiced in Western Africa, especially
in Benin, which is a Fon language speaking nation, and where it is the
state religion. Voodoo also has developed a derivative and
Catholic-syncretic form in Haiti.
The deities, beliefs, and cultural values of these two cultures are
not all that close. Their gods are different in names and appearances
and are represented by differing symbol-systems.
There are similarities -- and it is safe to say that Obeah and Voodoo
are more closely related to one another than either one is to
Taiwanese Buddhism -- but that's only to be expected when cultures are
geographically tangent to one another.
In Africa the knowledge that they are different systems is quite
clear. But in the Americas, although neither derived from the other,
they have been confused with one another because their adherents, who
were brought to the Americas as slaves. were forcibly made to mingle
with one another and were generally perceived as a uniform "black"
group of people by outsiders.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
none has claimed
to me that "their intensive training and experience in the
mysteries" exempts them from giving "straight answers" to
questions about Enochian magic in this public venue.
Oh yes they do. Just check the last week's posts from them.
(Don't know about Michael McKinney, though. Just the other two.)
If you
know of such posts, please provide a link to the google
archive. I can stand to be corrected.
Don't see how you missed them.
Do you have a link?
Be simpler to just repost them. I use a 'local' newsserver that has
hundreds of thousands of back posts cached.

Don't really see the point, though. If you can't see it, then you
can't.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
"Scrying" is a good old English word as well. The use of a
scrying tool such as a crystal ball, as in Enochian magic,
or a mirror, as in Paschal Beverly Randolph's system of
clairvoyance, is commonplace. Generations of mages have
found these tools useful. That you claim not to need tools
is all well and good for you, but it appears to me to be
over-reaching to make such claims on behalf of other people.
If they believe they need them, then they need them.
It is possible to chew one's way through a tree and thus fell it, but
many people prefer to use an axe.
Not an accurate analogy. We are not talking about manipulating matter.
It is possible to make all of one's
clothes from fibers of the field and forest, but many people prefer to
sew ready-woven cloth -- and some just buy their polyester pant suits
off the rack.
Ibid. But you are missing the fact that *someone* is doing the work.
I hope this focus on the tools of scrying does not reopen old
newsgroup conflicts about solar power versus distributed electricity.
Huh?
Perhaps we can leave each other some respectful room for freedom of
expression.
No one is preventing anyone from posting anything. Only those that
refuse to examine and honestly discuss their claims get hassled by
me.
Cordially,
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice - http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
:-) I will check out your website, Cat. Been a while. Sure hope it
is textmode browser accessible. My very indirect connection to the
internet makes downloading images slow indeed.

You *do* use the <IMG SRC="..." ALT="[..]"> tag?

Thanks for the great info.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-25 05:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Mike made an "oops" in Enochian and he's "paranoid"; same thing happens to
me and I'm "mentally ill". Wonderful. Makes perfect sense; you even have my
"silly papers" to prove to the world I'm crazy, or so you'll drudge up my
dark days in Usenet. The same shit happens to everyone who actually walks
the path, poser. Bitch the crazy thing's been stale for a few years now,
yeah?
I guess you gave up on trying to make people belive that you could
punish them with your alleged magick.

It's a step in the right direction, at least.

Honestly, you're the first Adept I've ever met that can do such a
good job of imitating a rotten little kid.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-25 05:06:27 UTC
Permalink
I can give a flying rat's ass what you think of me, cunt. Slander and gossip
is all you have. How about getting me out of your head, eh, 'o want-to-be
powerful witch bitch? Can you? Are you so weak that you'll allow me, a
petty, mentally ill man like me stay in THAT FUCKING ROT head of yours
spinning for as long as I post here? I mean what the fuck? Do you dream
about fucking me too. You obsessed freaks are WACK.
Kill-file me, I'll still call you on your bull-shit, dumb ass.
Is there an echo in here?

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-25 06:02:55 UTC
Permalink
I can give a flying rat's ass what you think of me, cunt. [etc.]
That lability is a liability. I just enjoyed your funny-serious post
about Seth cult programing and and the anti-Eno, thought how
interesting a writer you can be -- and then opened this post to find
you'd gone all wacko on me.
Surprise! :-)
cat yronwode
LMAO :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------


ATTENTION !! ATTENTION !!

Official announcement from the SETH CULT HEADQUARTERS FOR WORLD DOMINATION

(which doubles as a greenhouse)

YOU WILL SUBMIT -- RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Do you think we jest? Foolish mortals!

Beware! We have experts in the use of the Comfy Chair and the Soft Pillow !!


<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-25 06:41:42 UTC
Permalink
In alt.magick, Jason Dean Scott wrote:

[....]






Jason! Find your center! Anchor yourself firmly in the Present reality
first. Examine the the world around you with all of your senses. Breathe
deeply and regularly. Concentrate.

Then, close your eyes and look within, beyond your beliefs. Feel the
deep creative energies within yourself without judgement. Seperate your-
self from your beliefs/concepts. They are *not* you. You are the being
that *has* beliefs.

There are no standards here but your own feelings.

Let go and experience the motion and vitality of your own Being.

Your existence is Blessed and there is nothing in the universe or beyond
that has the power to alter this fact.
nocTifer
2004-07-28 02:34:05 UTC
Permalink
50040727 viii om

Tom:
#> What do you think these Enochian scryers are actually seeing when they say
#> they see angels?

"Gianna Stefani" <***@j-b.org>:
# I cannot know that beacuse I did not see what they saw, and have no
# particular view on what it might have been, or if in fact they saw anything
# at all - perhaps they saw patterns in a crystal which they interpreted as
# being angels, or as a 'message' sent by an angel. (I wrote that in the past
# tense because it was easier of me.)

what are you interacting with, as a pagan? how do these differ from the
religious entities others interact with?

# However, to answer indirectly is not so difficult.
# It appears that in general, people only see things in which they believe, or
# that they 'want' to see (which does not imply fabrication). Some unrelated
# examples of what I mean here ...

does this undermine pagan religion too, to use explanations like this?

# When someone experiences a 'vision' of the virgin Mary they tend to be
# christian and almost certainly of the catholic variety. Muslims tend not to
# see Jesus. Persons exhibiting stigmata generally (if not always) display
# marks in the positions erroneously depicted in paintings and statues, and
# not in the correct places.

there's even still debate about 'correct places', amusingly enough.

# My point however is that having never been a christian (or jewish or muslim)
# I have never believed in the various aspects of that religious strand.

ditto from where I stand.

# Therefore I would contend that in my opinion, angels do not exist.

the logic doesn't necessarily follow. you might think that angels are just
some misunderstood spirits willing to be stand-in authorities for those
who want a Top-Down hierarchy.

# I further think that my attempting to take up a magickal art which 'involves'
# these non-existent angels would on the one hand be slightly pointless,

that would depend entirely on what you thought the art was for.

# and on the other hand be ineffective in any event.

why do you believe that? especially if belief is all that is determining the
results, why wouldn't you be able to believe anything and do anything and
want to attain a particular result and therefore achieve it regardless of
what you used to try it?

# I am aware that traditional christian teaching states that the deities in
# which I might believe are equally unreal and are 'false gods' so I would not
# imagine a christian wanting or being able to take part in forms of
# divination or magick which I may think are perfectly 'normal'.

Christians vary, some are not institutionally-allied.

# As I have said, I make no case for or against the practice as undertaken by
# others, nor do I claim to follow the only 'real' religion - I follow that
# which I believe to be true (as I presume does everyone else) ... I merely
# said it would not be practicable for myself, given my beliefs (or the lack
# thereof), to indulge myself therein. It would be a bit like walking a dog
# which I did not have.

if magic is the activity of doing things with unseen agents and it doesn't
matter if the agents are real, then it might not be important whether you
believed in the reality of that with which you were interacting. this was
in part why I mentioned the value of Discordians and their fabrications of
gods out of cartoon characters, famous individuals, or their own minds.

what are the minimal requirements for engaging magical pursuits? belief is
in some way necessary? as you lay it out, this does make some sense (since
as you have it belief is what makes the results), but if the function and
form do not necessarily cohere to what is believed, then something else
may be a determining factor (such as the combination of worshipper or
mage and the objects of worship/involved with the magic).

y
r B
o l b
n e e
w s a
o s s
d e t
e d !
***@nagasiva
nocTifer
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-28 12:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by nocTifer
why do you believe that? especially if belief is all that is determining the
results, why wouldn't you be able to believe anything and do anything and
want to attain a particular result and therefore achieve it regardless of
what you used to try it?
That sounds to me like 'am I prepared to believe I am a daffodil if doing so
would get me a result that I wanted' ..... now the problem with that is that
I do not believe I am a daffodil and if I say I do then I will know I am
pretending ... i.e. lying to myself. So no, I would not do that ... I have
more respect for myself.
Post by nocTifer
if magic is the activity of doing things with unseen agents and it doesn't
matter if the agents are real, then it might not be important whether you
believed in the reality of that with which you were interacting. this was
in part why I mentioned the value of Discordians and their fabrications of
gods out of cartoon characters, famous individuals, or their own minds.
Interesting - does it not matter if the agents are real ? Are you
suggesting here, in simple terms, that if I were to pray to Saint Herbet of
Hindustan for some favour, he would grant it even though he never existed as
a human, is not a saint, and so does not have any 'powers' to grant my
request?
Post by nocTifer
what are the minimal requirements for engaging magical pursuits? belief is
in some way necessary? as you lay it out, this does make some sense (since
as you have it belief is what makes the results), but if the function and
form do not necessarily cohere to what is believed, then something else
may be a determining factor (such as the combination of worshipper or
mage and the objects of worship/involved with the magic).
I think that the beilief of the practitioner is required. As I hope I have
made clear, if a believer in Enochian and its bases performs something
correctly, I (and the practitioner) would expect it to work. But if I, a
non-believer, tried it (and why would I when I don't believe it) I would
not expect it to work (and neither would the Enochian practioner I think).
Tom
2004-07-28 21:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by nocTifer
why do you believe that? especially if belief is all that is determining
the
Post by nocTifer
results, why wouldn't you be able to believe anything and do anything and
want to attain a particular result and therefore achieve it regardless of
what you used to try it?
That sounds to me like 'am I prepared to believe I am a daffodil if doing so
would get me a result that I wanted' ..... now the problem with that is that
I do not believe I am a daffodil and if I say I do then I will know I am
pretending ... i.e. lying to myself. So no, I would not do that ... I have
more respect for myself.
Not enough for yourself, and too much for your current beliefs.

Wisely was it written by a fool, "Convictions cause convicts."
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by nocTifer
if magic is the activity of doing things with unseen agents and it doesn't
matter if the agents are real, then it might not be important whether you
believed in the reality of that with which you were interacting. this was
in part why I mentioned the value of Discordians and their fabrications of
gods out of cartoon characters, famous individuals, or their own minds.
Interesting - does it not matter if the agents are real ?
What does "real" mean?
Post by Gianna Stefani
Are you suggesting here, in simple terms, that if I were to pray to
Saint Herbet of Hindustan for some favour, he would grant it even
though he never existed as a human, is not a saint, and so does
not have any 'powers' to grant my request?
If your wish is granted, could the existence of St. Herbert still be
questioned? Or is it called into question only when the wish is *not*
granted?
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by nocTifer
what are the minimal requirements for engaging magical pursuits? belief is
in some way necessary? as you lay it out, this does make some sense (since
as you have it belief is what makes the results), but if the function and
form do not necessarily cohere to what is believed, then something else
may be a determining factor (such as the combination of worshipper or
mage and the objects of worship/involved with the magic).
I think that the beilief of the practitioner is required.
Is belief necessary for non-magical operations?
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-28 21:22:32 UTC
Permalink
"Tom" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:WHUNc.1374$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<snip>

So, finally reduced to playing with words eh, and it could have been such
fun.

(-:

Gianna
Tom
2004-07-29 06:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
<snip>
So, finally reduced to playing with words eh, and it could have been such
fun.
You playfully snipped out all the words, If that's not playing with them,
what is? And what could be more reductionistic than snipping out everything
and arguing with a self-created void?

I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real' mean?"

Lots of people have problems with that question, since the answer has to do
with what they believe, rather than anything that they can actually do to
test it.

You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout your beliefs
at one another. When you agree, you smile, when you disagree you frown.
And that's as far as any conversation ever goes with you.
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-29 07:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
<snip>
So, finally reduced to playing with words eh, and it could have been such
fun.
You playfully snipped out all the words, If that's not playing with them,
what is? And what could be more reductionistic than snipping out everything
and arguing with a self-created void?
I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real' mean?"
Lots of people have problems with that question, since the answer has to do
with what they believe, rather than anything that they can actually do to
test it.
You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout your beliefs
at one another. When you agree, you smile, when you disagree you frown.
And that's as far as any conversation ever goes with you.
Says someone who couldn't prove that *his* beliefs were true if his
life depended on it.

You claim to be different from us, but you are not. You just have
different beliefs and stand on a different mountain. Yours is more
crowded, but numbers mean nothing in such matters. A million people
can be just as wrong or right as a single individual.

As for me, I do not frown when people don't agree with me.

I couldn't care less what people believe. I am not responsible for their
beliefs, only my own.

And I take *noones* mere word for anything.

What does "real" mean? Whatever I experience is real. Period. Anything
else is hearsay.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Tom
2004-07-29 17:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
<snip>
So, finally reduced to playing with words eh, and it could have been such
fun.
You playfully snipped out all the words, If that's not playing with them,
what is? And what could be more reductionistic than snipping out everything
and arguing with a self-created void?
I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real' mean?"
Lots of people have problems with that question, since the answer has to do
with what they believe, rather than anything that they can actually do to
test it.
You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout your beliefs
at one another. When you agree, you smile, when you disagree you frown.
And that's as far as any conversation ever goes with you.
Says someone who couldn't prove that *his* beliefs were true if his
life depended on it.
Gee, it looks as if Bruce has forgot about his killfile.

Here Bruce expresses the unprovable belief that I hold unprovable beliefs.
Caught in his own trap.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
You claim to be different from us, but you are not.
Here Bruce expresses his unprovable belief that I have claimed that I am
different from "us". whoever that might be. Might it be the members of his
invisible commune that steals Briuce Burhans internet connection to post
stupid contnetious nonsense like this post? Is it that "us" he's talking
about?
Post by Alexander Mulligan
You just have different beliefs and stand on a different mountain. Yours
is more
Post by Alexander Mulligan
crowded, but numbers mean nothing in such matters. A million people
can be just as wrong or right as a single individual.
Bruce stands on his mountain and frowns at those who don't agree with him.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
As for me, I do not frown when people don't agree with me.
You're doing it right now, Bruce.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
I couldn't care less what people believe.
You sure get testy about something you don't care about.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
And I take *noones* mere word for anything.
Of course not. To do that, you'd have to do something other than stand on
your mountaintop shouting your beliefs at everyone and frowning when others
disagree.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
What does "real" mean? Whatever I experience is real. Period. Anything
else is hearsay.
Then the explanations you give yourself about what you experience are
hearsay. What you tell me about your beliefs is hearsay. Everything you
say about reality is hearsay. No one should believe you because no one
should take anyone's word for anything. No one should pay the slightest
attention to anything you say.
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-29 19:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
<snip>
So, finally reduced to playing with words eh, and it could have been
such
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
fun.
You playfully snipped out all the words, If that's not playing with
them,
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
what is? And what could be more reductionistic than snipping out
everything
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
and arguing with a self-created void?
I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real'
mean?"
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Lots of people have problems with that question, since the answer has
to do
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
with what they believe, rather than anything that they can actually do
to
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
test it.
You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout your
beliefs
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
at one another. When you agree, you smile, when you disagree you frown.
And that's as far as any conversation ever goes with you.
Says someone who couldn't prove that *his* beliefs were true if his
life depended on it.
Gee, it looks as if Bruce has forgot about his killfile.
I don't killfile people, Thomas. I just ignore their posts until I feel
that it's time to check them out again.

Everyone changes. Sooner or later.
Post by Tom
Here Bruce expresses the unprovable belief that I hold unprovable beliefs.
Caught in his own trap.
I am not concerned with this "proof" nonsense that you *believe* is so
important.

You have expressed many beliefs in your numerous posts, all of them "un-
provable".

Such as your belief that "proof" is important, and all of the beliefs that
make that one seem reasonable to *you*.

I am not guessing here. I *perceive* that you hold unprovable beliefs.

You are the one that thinks you hide behind these word games. They don't
fool me.

No. I am not going to search through the archives for specific examples.
These sophomoric word games that you get off on, and seem to actually
believe accomplish something worthwhile, are not my cup of tea.

Have a day. I see little point in reading any more of this.

If you don't like what I have to say, Thomas?

Feel free to eat shit.

But don't expect me to read the shit that comes out of your mouth.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
mika
2004-07-29 23:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Here Bruce expresses the unprovable belief that I hold unprovable beliefs.
Caught in his own trap.
I am not concerned with this "proof" nonsense that you *believe* is so
important.
You have expressed many beliefs in your numerous posts, all of them "un-
provable".
Such as your belief that "proof" is important,
It seems to me that Tom only requests "proof" when people claim to
know "the truth" or "fact" or perhaps when people draw objective
conclusions from subjective experiences. Otherwise, it's not clear
whether or not he thinks proof is important, or even necessary.
Tom
2004-07-30 00:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by mika
It seems to me that Tom only requests "proof" when people claim to
know "the truth" or "fact" or perhaps when people draw objective
conclusions from subjective experiences.
Not even then. I ask for evidence, not proof. "Proof" is whatever
convinces you. It may be evidence or it may be something else.

If someone claims to have proved something, I may ask them what they believe
constitutes proof, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as
demanding that someone "prove" some claim.
Asiya
2004-07-30 05:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
I ask for evidence, not proof. "Proof" is whatever
convinces you.
Don't you get tired of saying that?
--
Asiya
**********
http://www.asiya.org/
Tom
2004-07-30 05:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Asiya
Post by Tom
I ask for evidence, not proof. "Proof" is whatever
convinces you.
Don't you get tired of saying that?
It seems that some people need to hear it again and again or they fall back
into their old delusions about me demanding "proof".
mika
2004-08-02 15:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Not even then. I ask for evidence, not proof. "Proof" is whatever
convinces you. It may be evidence or it may be something else.
If someone claims to have proved something, I may ask them what they believe
constitutes proof, but I don't think that's quite the same thing as
demanding that someone "prove" some claim.
Good point. Thank you for the clarification. Or for correcting me. Whichever.
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-30 17:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by mika
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Here Bruce expresses the unprovable belief that I hold unprovable beliefs.
Caught in his own trap.
I am not concerned with this "proof" nonsense that you *believe* is so
important.
You have expressed many beliefs in your numerous posts, all of them "un-
provable".
Such as your belief that "proof" is important,
It seems to me that Tom only requests "proof" when people claim to
know "the truth" or "fact"
That's what I said. He believes in that "proof" nonsense. What he calls
"proof" is based upon what the *thinks* he knows to be true about the
nature of reality.
Post by mika
or perhaps when people draw objective
conclusions from subjective experiences.
That concept, the division of experiences into objective "real"
and subjective "unreal" is a concept that I don't even recognize as valid,
yet he does.
Post by mika
Otherwise,
You are dismissing those *unprovable* assumptions about the nature of reality
as merely "otherwise".
Post by mika
it's not clear
whether or not he thinks proof is important, or even necessary.
To you.

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Tom
2004-07-30 23:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by mika
It seems to me that Tom only requests "proof" when people claim to
know "the truth" or "fact"
That's what I said. He believes in that "proof" nonsense.
Mika is incorrect, as you are. I don't ever ask for "proof".
Post by Alexander Mulligan
What he calls "proof" is based upon what the *thinks* he
knows to be true about the nature of reality.
Proof is whatever convinces you. Asking for "proof" is simply a ploy,
because, if you're not convinced, it isn't "proof".

You ask for proof, Bruce. I do not. I ask for evidence and it appears you
have none for your assertion about what you think I believe.
Tom
2004-07-30 00:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Everyone changes. Sooner or later.
Yes. Not only everyone, but everything they believe. For instance, you
won't always believe what you believe now.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Post by Tom
Here Bruce expresses the unprovable belief that I hold unprovable beliefs.
Caught in his own trap.
I am not concerned with this "proof" nonsense that you *believe* is so
important.
Then why diod you bring up the notion of "proof" in the first place? I
certainly didn't. I have never demanded proof of anything. You have,
though, repeatedly. Of the two of us, I think you are the one most
concerned with "proof".
Post by Alexander Mulligan
You have expressed many beliefs in your numerous posts, all of them "un-
provable".
So you believe.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Such as your belief that "proof" is important, and all of the beliefs that
make that one seem reasonable to *you*.
Heh. This claim is such a blatent lie that you yourself are clearly aware
of it.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
No. I am not going to search through the archives for specific examples.
Of course not. You know full well you couldn't back that claim up with
evidence from anything I actually said. There's no point in trying to find
evidence to support a claim that you know is a bald-faced lie.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
Have a day. I see little point in reading any more of this.
Of course not. You simply want to tell a lie then run for cover before you
have to admit you haven't one iota of factual support for it.
Post by Alexander Mulligan
But don't expect me to read the shit that comes out of your mouth.
You're mixing your metaphors.
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-29 09:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real' mean?"
happy to - 'real' means that which a person truly and honestly believes to
exist.
'absolutely real' means that this does or does not exist regardless of a
person's opinion thereon.
Post by Tom
Lots of people have problems with that question, since the answer has to do
with what they believe, rather than anything that they can actually do to
test it.
I have no problem with it.
Post by Tom
You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout your beliefs
at one another. When you agree, you smile, when you disagree you frown.
And that's as far as any conversation ever goes with you.
You think ? Ah well ...... never mind

Gianna
Tom
2004-07-29 17:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
I take it you don't want to answer the question, "What does 'real' mean?"
happy to - 'real' means that which a person truly and honestly believes to
exist.
So you think that whatever you believe is what's real. Have you ever been
surprised, Gianna? Ever been dissappointed because things didn't go as you
believed they would? How is that possible if what you believe is what's
real?
Post by Gianna Stefani
'absolutely real' means that this does or does not exist regardless of a
person's opinion thereon.
How do you know what doesn't exist?
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
You religious people stand on different mountaintops and shout
your beliefs at one another. When you agree, you smile, when
you disagree you frown. And that's as far as any conversation
ever goes with you.
You think ? Ah well ...... never mind
Gianna stands there frowning.
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-29 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
So you think that whatever you believe is what's real. Have you ever been
surprised, Gianna? Ever been dissappointed because things didn't go as you
believed they would? How is that possible if what you believe is what's
real?
It is what is real for me....and no, not often (to the other questions)
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
'absolutely real' means that this does or does not exist regardless of a
person's opinion thereon.
How do you know what doesn't exist?
I don't, nor did I say I did.....I merely attempted to define 'absolutely
real'.
Post by Tom
Gianna stands there frowning.
As I can't see me doing that, I think it is unreal, not least because you
made that up (:

Gianna
Tom
2004-07-30 00:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
So you think that whatever you believe is what's real. Have you
ever been surprised, Gianna? Ever been dissappointed because
things didn't go as you believed they would? How is that possible
if what you believe is what's real?
It is what is real for me....and no, not often (to the other questions)
No wonder you're so easily bored. No surprises, no disappointments...

You should get out more. Take a risk or two.
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
How do you know what doesn't exist?
I don't, nor did I say I did.....I merely attempted to define 'absolutely
real'.
What's "absolutely real" is indeterminate. Why define it any further? Why
define it at all?
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
Gianna stands there frowning.
As I can't see me doing that, I think it is unreal, not least because you
It's an image. It reflects a truth. By all means avoid it. It might
disturb you.
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-30 09:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
It is what is real for me....and no, not often (to the other questions)
No wonder you're so easily bored. No surprises, no disappointments...
You should get out more. Take a risk or two.
What's "absolutely real" is indeterminate. Why define it any further?
Why
Post by Tom
define it at all?
It's an image. It reflects a truth. By all means avoid it. It might
disturb you.
LOL
enjoy your sadness, it is likely to last (;
Tom
2004-07-30 14:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
It is what is real for me....and no, not often (to the other questions)
No wonder you're so easily bored. No surprises, no disappointments...
You should get out more. Take a risk or two.
What's "absolutely real" is indeterminate. Why define it any further?
Why
Post by Tom
define it at all?
It's an image. It reflects a truth. By all means avoid it. It might
disturb you.
LOL
enjoy your sadness, it is likely to last (;
What leads you to conclude that I am sad? Now, I understand that some
people are under the impression that the only happiness to be had is by
believing in their particular religion. Is that what you mean?
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-30 14:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
LOL
enjoy your sadness, it is likely to last (;
What leads you to conclude that I am sad? Now, I understand that some
people are under the impression that the only happiness to be had is by
believing in their particular religion. Is that what you mean?
No ... but they have my sympathy.
Boss Schmidt
2004-07-30 20:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
Post by Gianna Stefani
It is what is real for me....and no, not often (to the other
questions)
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by Tom
No wonder you're so easily bored. No surprises, no disappointments...
You should get out more. Take a risk or two.
What's "absolutely real" is indeterminate. Why define it any further?
Why
Post by Tom
define it at all?
It's an image. It reflects a truth. By all means avoid it. It might
disturb you.
LOL
enjoy your sadness, it is likely to last (;
What leads you to conclude that I am sad? Now, I understand that some
people are under the impression that the only happiness to be had is by
believing in their particular religion. Is that what you mean?
*PLONK* !!
nagasiva
2004-07-28 21:47:05 UTC
Permalink
50040728 viii om

thanks, Gianna, for entertaining my questions. much appreciated.

"nocTifer" <***@nagasiva>:
#> if magic is the activity of doing things with unseen agents and it doesn't
#> matter if the agents are real, then it might not be important whether you
#> believed in the reality of that with which you were interacting. this was
#> in part why I mentioned the value of Discordians and their fabrications of
#> gods out of cartoon characters, famous individuals, or their own minds.

"Gianna Stefani" <***@j-b.org>:
# Interesting - does it not matter if the agents are real ?

this (what is 'real' and how does it affect magic?) is the
central issue here, yes.

# Are you suggesting here, in simple terms, that if I were to pray to
# Saint Herbet of Hindustan for some favour, he would grant it even
# though he never existed as a human, is not a saint, and so does
# not have any 'powers' to grant my request?

compare "Saint Expedite".

the point is that "real" has a number of valences which are not being
considered in any depth. they might be "real" in the sense that they
are intelligences in human consciousness but not outside of that.
they might be "real" in that they are thoughtforms created over
decades by hundreds of people but never lived and never had any
reality outside of these minds. they may be "real" in the sense
of some aspect of an individual's consciousness or spirit that is
well-named and identified but not extended outside an individual.

#> what are the minimal requirements for engaging magical pursuits?
#> belief is in some way necessary? as you lay it out, this does make
#> some sense (since as you have it belief is what makes the results),
#> but if the function and form do not necessarily cohere to what is
#> believed, then something else may be a determining factor (such as
#> the combination of worshipper or mage and the objects of
#> worship/involved with the magic).
#
# I think that the belief of the practitioner is required.

belief-driven. this seems a widely-believed cosmology. :>
it's also amusingly self-circumscribed.

# As I hope I have made clear, if a believer in Enochian
# and its bases performs something correctly, I (and the
# practitioner) would expect it to work. But if I, a
# non-believer, tried it (and why would I when I don't
# believe it) I would not expect it to work (and neither
# would the Enochian practioner I think).

as you think it's belief-*driven*, you would not, of course,
attempt it, because you'd expect it to fail on account of
your not making it happen by belief. if you didn't *believe*
(humorously enough) that belief was the driver behind function,
then you may well think it valuable to experiment, try it out,
check to see if there really *was* something into which one
might connect through rituals, shewstones, tables, or whatever.

y
r B
o l b
n e e
w s a
o s s
d e t
e d !
***@nagasiva
nagasiva
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-28 22:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by nagasiva
50040728 viii om
thanks, Gianna, for entertaining my questions. much appreciated.
most welcome
Post by nagasiva
the point is that "real" has a number of valences which are not being
considered in any depth. they might be "real" in the sense that they
are intelligences in human consciousness but not outside of that.
they might be "real" in that they are thoughtforms created over
decades by hundreds of people but never lived and never had any
reality outside of these minds. they may be "real" in the sense
of some aspect of an individual's consciousness or spirit that is
well-named and identified but not extended outside an individual.
I used real in the sense of the practitioner genuinely believing that the
thing (being, whatever) exists ... not in the absolute sense of it existing
or not. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth, as
someone (me) once said.
Post by nagasiva
as you think it's belief-*driven*, you would not, of course,
attempt it, because you'd expect it to fail on account of
your not making it happen by belief. if you didn't *believe*
(humorously enough) that belief was the driver behind function,
then you may well think it valuable to experiment, try it out,
check to see if there really *was* something into which one
might connect through rituals, shewstones, tables, or whatever.
If I did not believe that which I do believe, I would quite probably try
that, if only for the hell of it (:
But possibly we both missed my point here (?)
I would not try it because I disbelieve in it ..... I am open minded to many
things in which I do not actively believe .... I could try those on a 'try
before you buy' basis ... what I cannot do is try things in which I actively
disbelieve.

example (for my benefit if not yours) of the three possibilities (not two)

I drink from the cold water outlet because I believe the water will be cold.
I do not drink from the hot water outlet because I disbelieve the water will
be cold.
I am willing to experiment with drinking from unmarked water outlets becaue
they may very well be cold, and in any case, always worth a try.

Gianna
Kevin Jones
2004-07-31 09:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gianna Stefani
Post by nagasiva
50040728 viii om
thanks, Gianna, for entertaining my questions. much appreciated.
most welcome
Post by nagasiva
the point is that "real" has a number of valences which are not being
considered in any depth. they might be "real" in the sense that they
are intelligences in human consciousness but not outside of that.
they might be "real" in that they are thoughtforms created over
decades by hundreds of people but never lived and never had any
reality outside of these minds. they may be "real" in the sense
of some aspect of an individual's consciousness or spirit that is
well-named and identified but not extended outside an individual.
I used real in the sense of the practitioner genuinely believing that the
thing (being, whatever) exists ... not in the absolute sense of it existing
or not. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth, as
someone (me) once said.
Post by nagasiva
as you think it's belief-*driven*, you would not, of course,
attempt it, because you'd expect it to fail on account of
your not making it happen by belief. if you didn't *believe*
(humorously enough) that belief was the driver behind function,
then you may well think it valuable to experiment, try it out,
check to see if there really *was* something into which one
might connect through rituals, shewstones, tables, or whatever.
If I did not believe that which I do believe, I would quite probably try
But possibly we both missed my point here (?)
I would not try it because I disbelieve in it ..... I am open minded to many
things in which I do not actively believe .... I could try those on a 'try
before you buy' basis ... what I cannot do is try things in which I actively
disbelieve.
example (for my benefit if not yours) of the three possibilities (not two)
I drink from the cold water outlet because I believe the water will be cold.
I do not drink from the hot water outlet because I disbelieve the water will
be cold.
Though you err in that disbelief. If the heater isn't working, then the
water from the hot water tap will be cold. If the Mrs has just used all the
hot water to have a bath, then the water coming from the hot water tap will
be cold. And if neither of those are true, and there is hot water in the
cistern, the water in the pipes will still be cold; it will therefore take
time for hot water to run through the pipes to the tap, during which period
cold water comes out.
Post by Gianna Stefani
I am willing to experiment with drinking from unmarked water outlets becaue
they may very well be cold, and in any case, always worth a try.
But that wouldn't tell you if they were always going to be cold. It might
after all be a non-functional hot water system; come along tomorrow, after
the plumber has been, and you'll get a different result.

Kevin
Gianna Stefani
2004-07-31 09:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Jones
Post by Gianna Stefani
example (for my benefit if not yours) of the three possibilities (not two)
I drink from the cold water outlet because I believe the water will be
cold.
Post by Gianna Stefani
I do not drink from the hot water outlet because I disbelieve the water
will
Post by Gianna Stefani
be cold.
Though you err in that disbelief. If the heater isn't working, then the
water from the hot water tap will be cold. If the Mrs has just used all the
hot water to have a bath, then the water coming from the hot water tap will
be cold. And if neither of those are true, and there is hot water in the
cistern, the water in the pipes will still be cold; it will therefore take
time for hot water to run through the pipes to the tap, during which period
cold water comes out.
All beliefs have the capacity to be incorrect - that is why they are
*beliefs* and not *facts*.
Believing something does not make it so - thank you for helping confirm my
point.
Post by Kevin Jones
Post by Gianna Stefani
I am willing to experiment with drinking from unmarked water outlets
becaue
Post by Gianna Stefani
they may very well be cold, and in any case, always worth a try.
But that wouldn't tell you if they were always going to be cold. It might
after all be a non-functional hot water system; come along tomorrow, after
the plumber has been, and you'll get a different result.
Again, that is exactly my point .... being open minded ... willing to try
something.
Thanks for that.
Alexander Mulligan
2004-07-28 23:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by nagasiva
50040728 viii om
[....]
Post by nagasiva
#> what are the minimal requirements for engaging magical pursuits?
#> belief is in some way necessary? as you lay it out, this does make
#> some sense (since as you have it belief is what makes the results),
#> but if the function and form do not necessarily cohere to what is
#> believed, then something else may be a determining factor (such as
#> the combination of worshipper or mage and the objects of
#> worship/involved with the magic).
Mages do not worship anything. We are into personal power and worth, not
handing these on a platter to some real or imaginary 'higher being' that
already has plenty of both. Beliefs are critical. Always. Whether you
believe they are or not.

:-)
Post by nagasiva
#
# I think that the belief of the practitioner is required.
belief-driven. this seems a widely-believed cosmology. :>
it's also amusingly self-circumscribed.
Right. *Your* beliefs are facts, but the beliefs of *others* are
merely 'amusingly self-circumscribed' ideas.

Where have I heard that before? Ah yes:

The rallying call of the fundamentalist-fanatic.

My turn to be amused...

[....]

<+>
--
Bells Ring Under Cerulean Ecstasy
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...