Magic

really? like not one answer to this?

I dunno man magic is only real if you're a schitzoid so yeah...

>>19545827


>for the impatient anon that doesn't understand most people work on tuesdays

https://butlincat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/advanced-magick-for-beginners-alan-chapman.pdf

read this and call us in the morning.

Why? " Not sure where I will be heading with this yet"

>>19546106

like I said don´t really know what my goals are with magic.

I have like no agenda. Thats what I meant by it

This is a slow board chill out.
Theres usually a Magick general thread.
With mega links with an entire database of literature, also a discord

>>19546093
thanks will do

Yeah but why? Not your goal. Y ou dont need goal. Just why?

>>19546122

you mean like why I want to get into magic?

seems like an interesting topic and like I said I experienced some paranormal interdimensional stuff so yeah... it´s kind of like well if thats true then why not give magic a try could be something worth giving a shit about

No. Just why. Why do you need?curiosity? Nobody want open the door un this case. If u expérience thé nothing, or other things... Why do u need? Tell me. Why do y ou need?

>>19546157
I don´t need I just want to

Im french sorry for my poor english.i will not help u. U dont know why u need. But i just give u this. Follow your gardian. Hé know why.u dont need anythings. Who will u call? What will u ask? What spell use forme nothing? Follow tour own way. Use both dark and white to help.good bye

>>19546217
thanks

>>19546217
i want power, money, women

>>19546110
That's an awkward fit, then. Ceremonial magic is intensely goal-oriented. It's like saying "I want to get into building stuff" without having any idea what you want to build. Without knowing what you want to build, nobody can answer questions about materials, time frames, tools, locations, styles or anything else.

The beginning and the end is about your will. Sort that out.

>>19545827
>>19538039

meh.

Fine.

Here.

http://www.workofthechariot.com/

>>19545827
you interested in chaos?
upside: incredibly easy and unrestricted.
downside: fucking unpredictability

>>19547070
It's like people don't even know what "Chaos Magick" means anymore

>>19546234
You'll just get voices, attention and annoyed
>>19546068
Is pretty much spot on, your brain needs to be different

>>19546068
not schizoid, schizophrenic you retarded degenerate

>>19547073
magic unbound by the appearances of order that accumulated over the centuries.

>>19547134
Where's that definition from?
They almost called Chaos magick "Results Magick"...Oh how less Discordian would have been the result!

>>19547147
the final test of understanding is to explain a thing in your own words.

i understand that discordianism in not intrinsically connected to chaos magic.
however, as a discordian, i chose that as the context within which to explain chaos magic.

if you don't like that context, i can give it to you differently.
chaos magic is the result of the application of the techniques of experimentalism and scientific inquiry to the practice of magic.

>>19547222
trips confirm.

>>19545827

Perennial Suggestion: Secret Teachings of All Ages

Find the style(s) that get your dick hard and then read more on them.

>>19547231
I actually agree with this. Regardless of what path you end up choosing, reading Manly P. Hall's numerous cute paperback "Treatises" is a great idea.

>>19547222
>scientific inquiry
What magicians do does not even resemble the scientific method in the slightest degree lmao. And I say this as a magician. You can blame Blavatsky for that one. The 19th century occult was obsessed with respectability and saw science as the golden ticket. The Theosophists started dressing up Buddhism and Western occultism in "scientific" language and everyone else followed suit.

It doesn't make magic scientific anymore than I could make myself a wolf by wearing a furry tail. It's a cringe worthy ruse that didn't fool anybody other than the occultists themselves, ironically.

Magic is a worthwhile study, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're doing science. There's a reason why universities don't offer occult studies as part of their physics programs.

>>19547381
>Bottom
There's a difference between "doing science" or "making magic scientific" but "using the methods of science in the field of occult study." Whether or not people today are actually doing this does not mean it cannot, or has not, been done. Why do you think ALL the A.'.A.'. curriculum ends exercises with things like "record your results and compare your findings to those of others."

>>19547434
I'm a Thelemite and know all about the A.'.A.'. Crowley was obsessed with making magick a household word and chased the Theosophists nuts big time. It drove him up the wall to see Theosophists making in roads into polite society where his system was unable to. They did it by making their system sound scientific, so he tried to do the same. Crowley fetishised science the same as all other 19th century occultists, but if you read his diaries you'll discover that he had almost no engagement at all with any scientific field. He was most familiar with popular science figures (see the excellent book Netherwood). It would be like somebody today saying their religious system was founded on science, but the only scientist they were familiar with was Neil Degrasse Tyson and the only scientist literature they read was I Fucking Love Science memes. This isn't an exaggeration, it's a pretty good parallel actually.

Recording your results doesn't make what you're doing scientific. Thelema doesn't use the methods of science at all. You can do what I did and show that material to an actual practicing scientist and ask them what they think. I gave Bereshith to a mathematician once in college hoping he'd find in it a gem of mathematical applications in an occult context. He laughed at it the next day as gibberish.

Applying the methods of science would be more like hypothesizing a precise phenomenon, like "make a Hershey bar appear in this bowl" or "reduce the temperature in this controlled room to 55°F" and doing a ritual to make it happen. When the ritual failed, change one single variable and do it again. Repeat until Hershey bar or chilly room. Nobody does that. Would you hazard a guess as to why?

>>19547381
how to science 101:
have an idea
figure out a way to test the idea
test the idea
if the test says you were wrong, change your idea
repeat ad infinitum

the twits who cover their magic in pseudoscientific jargon are not behaving scientifically.
the chaos mages who test their beliefs via experimentalism are.

remember: secular materialism is unfalsifiable and, therefore, holds no place in science.

>>19547475
>a material positivist with no knowledge of the mysteries whatsoever said Qabalah was gibberish
Color me shocked
>Anon claims to be a Thelemite
As laughable as "femanon here"

>>19547475
>actual practicing scientist
Like, perhaps, an innovative Rocket Scientist? Or a Political science major with a lifetime's experience in psychological warfare? Or an eminent psychologist?

>>19547475
>>19547554
Or an internationally renowned military strategist, whose art is a science unto itself.

File: gcjones.jpg (492KB, 849x1200px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 849x1200px

>>19547554
Or a chemist with patents in-use?

>>19547475
>polite society where his system was unable to
You mean like the Earl of Tankerville?

Or like the wives of business magnates like Pauline Pierce?

You mean artists like Mary Dempsy?

Poets like Jeanne Foster?

>>19547537
He didn't comment on the qabalah. He said the math, particularly the large equation Crowley gives to "prove" 0=2, was gibberish. Have you read Bereshith? It's Crowley's "mathematical" explanation of Buddhist metaphysics with a "scientific" explanation of the Goetia. It is only very remotely related to the Qabalah via his reference to qabalistic zero. And I am a Thelemite. What do you want, a picture of the stélé in my bedroom? Book collection? What? I've been practicing for over a decade.

>>19547554
You are referring to Normal Mudd and Jack Parsons and the like >>19547599 and JFC Fuller. Have you read the Agapé Lodge letters? Parsons' interest in Thelema wasn't scientific and his experiments in jet propulsion were fairly crude. He wasn't a theoretical physicist by any means. Mudd was ejected from his post at the university where he taught because his connection to Thelema trashed his scholarly reputation. Neither he nor CF Russell produced any innovations in mathematics at all through their study of Thelema. They're not even footnotes in the field. And Fuller wasn't drawn to Thelema for any resemblance to science either.

>>19547646
Guy, you're wasting your time on this damage control. If you think Crowley's contemporaries all thought he was a gentleman and a scholar, then you haven't read any biographies of him nor any newspaper coverage of the time. He was famous, certainly, but not respected. He was an exciting and mysterious figure, not regarded as a serious thinker. Don't take my word for it. Read his diaries and letters and see for yourself the gnashing of teeth over failing to gain the popular traction he thought he was due. Womanizing other people's wives and selling tall tales to an impressionable trust fund brat are not the same thing as being welcome in polite society. Read the testimonies of people who met him, not just his friends.

This is so frustrating. I think Crowley is extremely important and his work is critical to understanding the will, but not because it's scientific or respected or popular. It's none of those things. You people trying to suggest otherwise are really missing the point of it all. When you fight tooth and nail to argue that it's scientific, what you're really doing is saying "science has the power, and I want science to give some of that power to magick." You've already lost the fight by conceding to forces that are anti-magical. Magick has the power. Magick defines the terms. When you borrow other people's terms, you give them the power and deny it to yourself.


>>19547491
In what way is the theory of magic falsifiable?

>>19547726
>Have you read Berashith?
Yes I have. Have you? Because you don't seem to understand what it is, like, at ALL
>"I am a Thelemite"
>AND I AM FEMANON!!!!!11!!!!111

>>19547730
>"let me construct a man of straw that we may deconstruct him together"

>>19547726
>Guy, you're wasting your time on this damage control.
Excuse me for knowing a wee bit about the historicity of Thelema myself. But my assertion isn't that his contemporaries approved; it's that inroads were made where you claim none were found.

>Have you read the Agapé Lodge letters?
Sure have, I keep the Yorke Microfilms in the library.

>Parsons' interest in Thelema wasn't scientific
Then why do we have indication of correcting variable mistakes after he took the Oath of the MT under Smith?

>his experiments in jet propulsion were fairly crude.
So JATO didn't get patented and sold by government contractors? We're not still using the pentacle press in solid rocket calendars?

>>19547726
As a matter of fact, all of Crowley's unpublished diaries are available to download for free over in /omg/ so yeah, the people you are talking to MAY have read a page or two more than your so highly-regarded self.

>>19547740
>So JATO didn't get patented and sold by government contractors?
Interestingly enough, it's come to light that Jack T. Chick, of Chick publications, used to make the illustrations in the sales adverts to fed. manufacturers for JATO systems, in a beautiful collision of synchronicity.

Also, fwiw, I have plenty of criticisms of Crowley, particularly in facets of his scholarship and personality.

>>19547759
>have plenty of criticisms of Crowley, particularly in facets of his scholarship and personality.

B-but I have seen them! those are thoughtful and well-informed! Get that shit outta here!

>>19547735
You can disagree, but my summation of the essay clearly shows I've read it. You're being an ass because you have no arguments to offer.

>>19547739
t. Brainlet.
If science is the ultimate arbiter of legitimacy and truth, wherein lies the keys to power: science or magick? When you obsess over magick being scientific, you're ceding to science. Engaging with magick reveals the was in which science is NOT the arbiter. If you haven't figured that out, then you're not an occultist. You're a hobbyist and collector at best.

>>19547740
The claim was that the Theosophists succeeded in gaining respectability where Crowley failed and that's a fact. Look at the impact Theosophists had in the development of Indian independence, for example. One of the largest libraries of occult literature in the world is maintained by Theosophists in Amsterdam. Theosophy was a big fucking deal for a long time in a way Thelema was never even close to and still has a larger global presence than Thelema does. That's not an indictment of Thelema, mind you, but it's something that Crowley was very much aware of and fixated on. Nobody who has read his letters, diaries, and biographies would dream of suggesting otherwise. You might as well argue up is down.

I didn't say Parsons wasn't a scientist. I said that wasn't what drew him to Thelema, which is what was being tacitly suggested by an anon, as if his participation made magick scientific by proxy. It's an idiotic argument. How many Christian scientists have there been in history? Is Christianity scientific now?

You can patent the results of crude work. He worked out of his garage.

>>19547746
Maybe they have, but that would surprise me since they seem unfamiliar with Crowley's jealousy of Theosophy.

>>19547764
2:40 or so

https://youtu.be/0vnA--XfMFE

>>19547783
Ohh so you actually know what we do, how we do, and why we do it? OK good, I was worried that you were really straw manning us for a moment

>>19547783
You don't understand that Crowley was using Qabalah to "prove" that 0=2, do you? Or why it's laughable that you base your opinion of the essay on what a mathematician had to say about it?

File: view.jpg (61KB, 622x361px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 622x361px

>>19547783
>He worked out of his garage.

>While Caltech's Clark Blanchard Millikan immediately rebuffed them, Malina's doctoral advisor Theodore von Kármán saw more promise in their proposal and agreed to allow them to operate under the auspices of the university's Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory (GALCIT).

>For extra money he manufactured nitroglycerin in their home, constructing a home laboratory on their front porch.

Pic related was GALCIT headquarters.

>>19547810
Where did Parsons die?

>>19547801
If you think Crowley wrote that essay trying to convince qabalists that math was nifty instead of trying to convince mathematicians that qabalah, Buddhism, and magick were nifty, you're deluded.

>>19547843
Jack died at home, in an explosion.

>>19547843
>Where did Parsons die?
He'd never not had a home lab.
IIRC at the time of death he was still on payroll as an expert witness for explosives cases, helping to develop factories in Mexico.

>>19547843
>If you think Crowley wrote that essay trying to convince qabalists that math was nifty instead of trying to convince mathematicians that qabalah, Buddhism, and magick were nifty, you're deluded.
Which is why it was published in a poetry collection under the subtitle "an essay on ontology"?

>>19547795
What are you even trying to argue? You seem mad in the way somebody is mad when their clay feet get exposed.

Can you tell me one thing where you think science is wrong and magick is right? And I mean, you would argue with a scientist over it?

I think a certain type of person gets drawn to magick for the wrong reasons. Maybe someone didn't have the money for college, maybe they weren't smart enough, maybe both. What does that occult offer you? You can earn "degrees" practicing "the methods of science" in a "field of study" with complicated technical jargon. What just such a person find speaking in these things? We know from social scientists (lmao) that people look to religion to compensate for things they can't get in real life. Do you think the occult is exempt from this?

The "magick is science!" stuff is a trap.

>>19547861
Q.E.D. A guy mixing chemicals in drums in his garage is an example of somebody doing crude work, in my book. I feel confident in that, so I'm not going to keep arguing it.

>>19547865
I didn't say Parsons didn't know jack about jet propulsion. I said he did crude work out of his home and that his affiliation with magick doesn't make magick scientific by proxy. Nothing you've said disputes that.

As for Berashith, gee, it's almost like Crowley couldn't get it published in any journals, so he threw it into one of his self-published poetry books. This is like somebody publishing through Lulu and you citing such a book as an example of serious, respected scholarship. Tell me you're not buying what you're trying to sell me.

The aim of the essay was to give an "explanation" of occult concepts in mathematical and scientific terms and, thereby, vindicate the occult as a legitimate field of study. Use some critical thinking. Who would the audience for such an essay be? Why would he write it? What does it imply about the relationship between science and magick and where the power of legitimization lies?

>>19547915
Well I WAS arguing that you had constructed a straw man by declaring what we think and why we act a certain way, without actually even knowing who you're talking to. Because I gave up on the "Crowley didn't have experience in any legitimate science" because every time someone puts out a solid rebuttal you move the goalposts. Now I'm just arguing that you can't even smell the bullshit you're excreting from your mind..

>>19547915
Well, given the subtitle and his circulation in 1902, my guess would be "Ontologists".

Did both you and your physics buddy just utterly miss the part in the essay, after the bit about roots, where he says "Yeah no the equation that I listed is fantastical BS, it's just an illustration of the underlying irrationality of treating infinitude as an object"?

>>19547939
So you were merely pretending to be retarded. Got it.

Nobody has refuted my claim, btw. Crowley had an incomplete undergraduate education in chemistry. That's it. As far as he got. So, as I said, he had almost no experience in hard science. He followed popular science, like newspaper coverage of Einstein's general theory of relativity and the like. If there were loads of examples from his writings proving he was involved in hard science, somebody would've posted them by now. There are none.

This is part of a larger pattern, too. For anyone familiar with philosophy, Crowley had a fairly rudimentary understanding of that as well. Erdmann's History of Philosophy was included in his A.'.A.'. reading list, and if you read it you'll recognize immediately that it's the sole source for the majority of Crowley's philosophical ideas and knowledge. This was a text he almost certainly encountered at Trinity College during his college years, as it was a common textbook at the time. It's telling that Crowley's summaries of some philosophers' ideas, such as Kant's, much more closely resemble what is said in Erdmann than what is said in any work of Kant's. Here again, we have an example of somebody with an interest in a field, but only a novice level experience with it, largely reliant on summaries and simplifications of the source material.

Again, getting caught up in this stuff is a trap. Don't focus on the window dressing Crowley used to try and sell magick. Focus on magick itself.

>>19547981
>my guess would be "Ontologists"
That's a neat bit of sophistry.

And it was a math buddy. A physicist would also object to 0=2, but for different reasons.

And you're misquoting the essay. He never says his equation is BS. He says it's PROOF. He also gives "logical" proof after that and "proof by exclusion." He thinks these things prove in absolute, logical, mathematical terms his theory of the nature of the universe (which is basically the Buddhist theory of the universe).

>>19545827
reddit occult is a good place to start.

>>19546234
>power money women
you dont wish for happiness?

>>19545827
>So I want to get into magic/spells and stuff.
>Not sure where I will be heading with this yet.

Go away. It's not for you.

>>19548014
>He never says his equation is BS

"So also my equation, fantastic as it may seem, has a perfect and absolute parallel in logic. Thus: let us convert twice the proposition...[long propositional illustrations]"

>He thinks these things prove in absolute, logical, mathematical terms his theory of the nature of the universe
Well, in any case at all, they didn't pan out.

>which is basically the Buddhist theory of the universe
I'd argue that's a facile interpretation of both Buddhism and Crowley when we can find Sahaja and Samarasa in the Star Sapphire, the preparation of Cakes of Light, and the Mysteries of OTO VII through X.

>>19548014
>Erdmann's History of Philosophy was included in his A.'.A.'. reading list, and if you read it you'll recognize immediately that it's the sole source for the majority of Crowley's philosophical ideas and knowledge
HAHAHahahaha, oh fucking wow.

Maybe go through the Yorke microfilms sometime, they're in the Occultism & Magick thread, under A.'.A.'.>Crowley>Yorke Microfilms of the Warburg Collection to see exactly how extensively his notation on public books cite sources like Fichte or Schelling or Russell or any number of others.

That's of course if we utterly ignore materials like Gospel of St. Bernard Shaw.

What is magic?

File: maj01.jpg (95KB, 350x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 350x600px

dumbass question but how do i become more like this guy? how do i bridge the world of spirits and the world of humanity? what steps do i take after practicing meditation daily? how do i become more psychic

>>19548182
Next step is developing psychosis.

>>19548061
>fantastic as it may seem
That is, it may seem fantastic, but it's really not. More sophistry on your part.

>they didn't pan out
Precisely the point of my anecdote with the mathematician. Q.E.D.

>facile interpretation of both Buddhism and Crowley
Please. Crowley was deep in his Buddhist phase in 1902 and Berashith was a product of that infatuation.

>cite sources
Are you familiar with the diary entry, I believe circa 1923 and published in the Tunisia diaries collection Skinner put out, what Crowley laments that he lifted citations from other people's books and dropped them into his own to make his writings seem more studied than they really were? He admits it himself. He basically did what students today do, going to Wikipedia for information, then just copying the citations at the end of the wiki article to make it look like they studied the source material. Crowley was obviously an avid reader and I'd never deny it, but if you think his understanding of Hegel, Kant, Descartes, Berkeley, etc. wasn't lifted straight out of Erdmann's, then I can only assume you haven't read Erdmann's.

It really sucks that so many Thelemites have their heads up their asses about this stuff and think they're special snowflakes. No surprise that you're a tripfag here. You'd love IAO131 if you aren't actually him.

>>19548224
>You'd love IAO131 if you aren't actually him.
I really don't like the dude, but whatever, you win, I'm just a pathetic sophist who doesn't know what they're talking about. Congrats.

File: 1444271827931.png (73KB, 241x228px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 241x228px

>>19548232
>Ape bent the knee

>>19548232
THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGIN'

>>19547730
magic holistically is not falsifiable.
some possible results suggest that magic is real.
it is theoretically impossible to have a result that conclusively proves magic does not exist.
for science, a conclusive positive is impossible, but negatives MUST be conclusive.

however, within the context of magic, hypothesis can be developed and tested.
therefore, it is possible to approach magic from a scientific standpoint.

example:
hypothesis: this ritual absolutely needs incense burning in order to function.
experiment: attempt said ritual without incense
result supporting hypothesis: ritual does not work.
result conclusively disproving hypothesis: ritual works despite lack of incense.


when dealing with non-falsifiables, all you can do is pick one to believe.
the modern default is secular materialism. (among science people at least)
i choose to reject that belief system because the second law of thermodynamics is depressing.
i would seriously want to kill myself if i chose to believe it is absolute.
magic and chaos are viable alternatives and more fun.

>>19548232
don't be so hard on yourself, even the best of people cant be right every time.
being wrong once does not mean you are pathetic.
indeed, the intellectual honesty to acknowledge those rare instances where you are at fault shows high character.

>>19548224
i beg of thee, take up a trip of thine own.

>>19551509
>even the best of people cant be right every time.
I mean, it's not like this is a futile conversation in which goalposts have been moved at every point while our new friend pinballs from weak justification to weak justification for assertions which are CLEARLY refuted by my Yorke Microfilm collection (going so far as to include links and references to texts Crowley mentions that aren't "History of Philosophy"), right?.

Obviously, a diary entry (From Skinner's awful edit job, again I'd encourage one to go through the Yorke Microfilms) in which Crowley describes the normative collation and synthesis of information in academic pursuits as something anyone *could* do is a lamentation of his own inadequacy despite it being the exact process undertaken by: Agrippa, William James, Levi, Kurt Rudolph, etc.

May 30th be bitches about artificial extension of memory via books of reference.

June 3rd he bitches about texts being for inadequate for Samadhi.

The only reference to philosophy I'm finding is a footnote about epistemology.

Three references to lamentation, which are not related, no reference to his "own writing" but LOTS of complaining about the Comment and letters.

No immediately obvious reference to inflation of sources at any mention of "The Comment" which is the object of the diary.

So how about we get a date on that entry and we can compare it to the other passages of self criticism and neurosis, ironic and tongue-in-cheek or not, littered in the materials.

>>19551492
>for science, a conclusive positive is impossible
Pffffffff
>choosing not to believe something because it would be depressing
Not going to make it. Magick has much more depressing things to teach you than physics.

>>19551509
Tripfags are cancer. I'm not using one.

>>19551765
There hasn't been any moving goal post. You keep misquoting me and the source material. Correcting you when you go astray isn't moving the goal posts. It's putting the posts back where they belong.

For example, I never said Erdmann's History of Philosophy was the only book Crowley ever read. Your attempt to make me defend such a claim is a textbook straw man. I said his understanding of philosophy as espoused by Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, and others consisted almost entirely of what is found in Erdmann's. This is based on his summaries of these philosophers' work and what is found in said History. You attempted a counterargument that made no engagement with the claim whatsoever and instead tried to establish your point by saying Crowley referenced lots of books in his writings. That's true, he did, but that doesn't disprove my claim. Moreover, Crowley admitted that he borrowed quotes from other people's work and dropped them into his own for the sake of appearances, which further undermines the credibility of your already shaky counterargument. That's how we got here, no goal posts moved.

As for the diary entry, I was mistaken. It's not from 1923, but from 1920, July 26 to be exact:

>I have pretended all my life to be a scholar; my books are studded with quotations; I've fooled the world, made even the wary think me master of Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, Persian, Greek, and a score of literatures; the fact is, even my French, the sole tongue not my own which I can talk and read and write at all with any courage or correctness, is like the map of Africa at Burton's birth! Most of my quotes are not from the original but sly-filched from English writers who have used them.

Unrelated, but here's a fun one for the /pol/ crowd that occurs a few pages earlier in The Magical Record of the Beast 666, page 207, July 5, 1920:

>I shall not expect the tyrants to hand up bouquets on the stage, not until Time has honoured me beyond their cavil, and they think it better policy to prove that the 'great poet', the 'master' has been woefully misunderstood, that he was a True Christian; advocated prohibition and chastity and the 14-hour-day; loved home, hymn-books, and hypocrisy; believed in banking, conscription, newspaper education, progress, and the Bible; and doted on Dickens, democracy, and decency; demanded state-slavery, the vote, and the suppression of pleasure; bent his head to authority, his back to labour, and his knee to the Jew.

>>19552487
>Democracy dodders. Ferocious Fascism, cackling Communism, equally frauds, cavort crazily all over the globe. They are hemming us in.
~O.M.

>>19552473
>>I have pretended all my life to be a scholar; my books are studded with quotations; I've fooled the world, made even the wary think me master of Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, Persian, Greek, and a score of literatures; the fact is, even my French, the sole tongue not my own which I can talk and read and write at all with any courage or correctness, is like the map of Africa at Burton's birth! Most of my quotes are not from the original but sly-filched from English writers who have used them.

1) Anyone with a modicum of Greek or Hebrew understanding calls out AC's deficiencies as Regardie did, often and loudly. He's not fooled the world because the world caught his poor constructions, long long ago. Nobody with a pair of braincells to rub together actually thinks he mastered these languages, or even some of these philosophies, especially with the difference of time.

2) I still see how this is ANY different from the collators he's citing from, who themselves synthesized from disparate sources - again see James, Agrippa, Levi, Rudolph, Westcott, Schoppenhauer, Blavatsky, etc.

3) You still have yet to address the blatant fact of the marginalia in typescripts, manuscripts, letters, diaries, and drafts of the Yorke Microfilms of the Warburg collection, the vast majority of which has not been published by dogshit editors like Breeze and Gunther and Wasserman, (and Skinner), but are available at the OP of the "Occultism & Magick" thread, which indicate a MUCH deeper familiarity with his source concepts than "ripped from History of Philosophy", with a few folders actually gathering links to and copies of materials referenced, particularly when it comes to operative psychology.

>>19552493
>93

Word.

>>19552487
I BELIEVE in the Hag he's quoted as saying something along the lines of 'I advocate for an anarchy close to the state of pre-christian Celts'.

>>19552540
There's this'n from MWT on Progress:

>“Anyhow, all that I really want you to get into your head “sunning over with little curls” is that Progress demands Anarchy tempered by Common Sense, and that the most formidable obstacle is this Biology.

File: df1253cbf20adb66d0ec365a047adcd2.png (84KB, 846x504px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 846x504px

>>19552556
>>19552540
HERE it is, it was in MWT a few letters away:

>>>(Nietzsche may be regarded as one of our prophets; to a much less extent, de Gobineau.) Hitler's "Herrenvolk" is a not too dissimilar idea; but there is no volk about it; and if there were, it would certainly not be the routine-looving, uniformed-obsessed, law-abiding, refuge-seeking German; the Briton, especially the Celt, a natural anarchist, is much nearer the mark. Britons will never get together about anything unless and until each one of them feels himself directly threatened.

>>19552528
1) Not relevant to the conversation, but it's interesting to see how quickly you went from "Crowley never pretended to be an expert" to "well sure he tried, but he failed so it doesn't count!"

2) It refutes your contention that Crowley was a scholar on the basis of the many citations found in his work. He tricked people (you?) into thinking he was more familiar with primary materials than he really was by borrowing quotes provided by other authors writing on these subjects. That does not mean he wasn't a reader. Obviously, he had to steal from somebody! It doesn't mean he wasn't smart, either. It means he cheated with the intention of making people think he was smarter and more scholastic than he really was, which was what I claimed in the first place. I can't spell it out any more plainly than he did in his own words. It's there in black and white for him who has eyes to see.

3) I said earlier in the thread that Crowley was an avid reader. There's nothing for me to address here. Stop shilling your shitty general.

The sad thing is, you're trying to defend Crowley on this front as if his work's value would be diminished if it were discovered that it wasn't as scholarly and scientific as he presented it to be. I think his work is valuable in spite of his subterfuge on these fronts. Magick isn't powerful because it's scientific (it's not) and Crowley isn't important because he was a genius scholar (he wasn't). Getting hung up on these qualifications is an indication that there are higher (and more mundane) authorities in your hierarchy of values than the holy books. Why not go serve your real masters more directly? You'll never have to defend the scientific bonafides of actual science. Trying to cast Crowley as something he wasn't sounds exhausting and counter productive, to me.

I'm a little hurt that you didn't catch my pun earlier about Parsons not knowing jack. Lighten up a little.

>>19552684
>well sure he tried, but he failed so it doesn't count
What?

>Magick isn't powerful because it's scientific
I don't THINK that was my contention, simply that there was more interface than you asserted (but less than his incessant dickriders do as well). Same with "scholarly", though I think I can mount a solid argument that he was more educated of an occultist than anyone in twenty five years or so from his birth and death.

>stop trying to direct you to a greater breadth of source materials by which to judge corpus of work
Oh...k.

>Why not go serve your real masters more directly?
?
I'm not sure why a science aligned career precludes devotion to the Holy Books, or the inverse.

>Trying to cast Crowley as something he wasn't sounds exhausting and counter productive, to me.
Tell me about it, since you're using one diary entry to attempt to undermine pages and pages and pages of deeper understandings of source material than you assert.

>>19552727
>stop trying to direct you to a greater breadth of source materials
You could have done that by posting your Mega link here. Instead, you told me to go to your shitty general where you hold court over anons impressed by anybody with a trip. That's attentionwhoring, not being helpful.

>I'm not sure why a science aligned career precludes devotion to the Holy Books, or the inverse.
This is another misrepresentation. Being an engineer doesn't preclude somebody from being a Thelemite and I never said that. What I said is that being fixated on magick "needing" to be scientific, to be validated by science, indicates that science is a greater authority over you than magick. If science is the judge of magick, then science is the master. Matthew 6:24.

>using one diary entry
So we've established that you're just going to ignore evidence that undermines your argument. There's no point continuing, then. Peace.

>>19552796
>that being fixated on magick "needing" to be scientific, to be validated by science, indicates that science is a greater authority over you than magick.
Except I don't think it NEEDS validated. I covered this like half the thread ago ( >>19547740
>inroads were made where you claim none were found.) and again in the post you're directly replying to.

>Matthew 6:24
Fuck the bible.

>>19552796
>So we've established that you're just going to ignore evidence that undermines your argument. There's no point continuing, then. Peace.
Later, mate.
Sorry you're desperately allergic to being directed to the actual source materials to look at the citations used instead of a single diary entry indicating he's done the same as his sources in terms of collation.

>>19552878
You have your own magick thread?
Do you really have to come be a condescending faggot in literally every thread that contains the word "magick"?
Really?

>>19552886
The truth can be obnoxious, anonemoose.

>>19552796
You have been told about it and directed to it at LEAST two other times in this thread.

File: jRwVK0O.jpg (160KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x1024px

>>19552878
>Fuck the Bible
Edgy.

Pretty ironic, too, considering the way Crowley circled back to it time and time and time again. There are verses in the Holy Books that are word for word copies of Scripture or inversions of it. But hey, it's not the first time in this thread that you've disregarded something that made you look foolish. There are good ideas to be found everywhere, including the Bible. Good luck ignoring the Bible while studying Western esotericism lmao.

>>19552886
Seems that way. /x/ is full of people curious about the unknown and looking for answers, and by extension looking for authority figures to give them those answers. Le Happy Tripfag seems to really enjoy playing the part of "the guy with the answers" and resents anybody encroaching on his turf. It's pathetic. The name field was a mistake.

>>19552904
There's already an armchair thread.

>>19552886
If someone's gonna use a single paragraph to outright deny the existence of pages and pages indicating a deeper understanding of materials referenced than most editors let on, yeah, I'm gonna condescend, particularly if it's paired with accusations about convictions I don't actually hold.

I don't think Thelema is the New Science. I also don't think it's interaction with science is "none/shoddy". I don't think Crowley was a Great Scholar. I also don't think he was pseudointellectual deceiver.

Everyone seems to have an agenda w/r/t Crowley that flies in the face of what's actually in black and white by his own hand in the corpus of materials.

>>19552878
Hey, I guess since William Burroughs was published in medical journals, he has made more contributions to modern science than Crowley...if that's really still the standard we are using. It seems to change from post to post.

>>19552921
Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals, what say ye of Waite?

File: D20A124A701123838177795604480_28b119f5c49.5.1.jpg (8KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x200px

>>19552921
Cool.
Have fun with that.

>>19552909
1. I am familiar with the materials he's referring to already. That should've been obvious.

2. Again, posting a download link would be an example of directing somebody to information. Saying "go to my general" is attentionwhoring. There's a difference. Fuck generals and fuck tripfags.

>>19552921
From what I've seen, condescension is your default attitude. And for the record, the only one flying in the face of what's black and white in the record is you. You have an agenda too: "The Authority Figure." Pass.

>>19552727
>ignore tripfagging cancer

End your life, ape of shit.

>>19552913
>Pretty ironic, too, considering the way Crowley circled back to it time and time and time again.
Well, one of my huge beefs with Crowley was his utter inability to abandon the dispensationalism of the Plymouth Brethren.

>some verses in the Holy Books
And?
Some of it's from Fountain of Wisdom and Sefer Yetzirah.

>good luck ignoring
Who said anything about ignoring? I just don't hold verses as authoritative, particularly when it comes to ethical and moral systems of the New Testament.

BTW, I like how you've made this a series of personal attacks instead of a good-faith discussion on the contents of the Crowley microfilms.

>>19552937
>What are you even trying to argue? You seem mad in the way somebody is mad when their clay feet get exposed.
>>19547915

>>19552925
Sure, why not?

I ain't super concerned with "who was the most bestest at scienceonomy", if Burroughs was more influential on medicine, w/e, I have no dog in that race, but it seems like that's the point of hangup for some folks here.

Again, my point isn't that Crowley's contributions to the academic world were MAJOR AND EARTH SHATTERING, just as it's not that they were nil.

>>19552964
Heh. It was directed at the other anon but I have lost interest in engaging them so I linked it to you instead.

>>19552944
It's not about Matthew 6:24 being authoritative, you brainlet. It's about a useful observation that you can't serve two masters. You'll wind up loving one and hating the other. That's true regardless of your religious beliefs. It explains quite a bit as to why modern Thelemites think Thelema is the bee's knees, but are visibly uncomfortable with a lot of it. Can you Fucking Love Science and be a great magician at the same time? I'm not convinced.

And this was never a discussion of the Crowley microfilms lmao. It was a debate over whether magick is scientific that you hijacked because you saw a conversation about magick happening without your imprimatur stamped on it. Shoo.

File: giphy.gif (3MB, 420x195px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 420x195px

>>19552985
>It's about a useful observation that you can't serve two masters
And I'm not sure how I'm doing that given I do not hold that magick needs the validation of science, so there's that.

> but are visibly uncomfortable with a lot of it
In what manner?

>Can you Fucking Love Science and be a great magician at the same time? I'm not convinced.
Good for you?

>And this was never a discussion of the Crowley microfilms lmao
It sure as fuck was the MOMENT his diaries became part of the discussion. Guess where the diaries come from, maybe?

>>19552473
no seriously, it is not possible to prove a positive result.
to actually prove a statement is true you need a LITERALLY infinite body of evidence.
to actually prove a statement is false you need a single counterexample.
this is why science has theories and laws instead of "facts".

a theory is accepted when A) it is theoretically falsifiable, B) numerous attempts have been made to prove it false which have ALL failed, C) it is congruent with all evidence that has ever been collected, AND D) there exists no simpler theory which adequately explains the same body of evidence. Einstein did not "prove" E=mc^2. He proved that Newton's conservation of mass was false, suggested E=mc^2 as a more viable alternative, and watched as the scientific community failed in their attempts to prove him wrong.


also, what the hell do you think is more depressing than the second law of thermodynamics?

the claim that NOTHING that can be theoretically done will have any relevance in the end.
that the entire universe is winding down to the heat-death as entropy marches UNSTOPPABLE
that anything you attempt to make with hopes of a lasting impact is INTRINSICALLY doomed to failure.
that it is FUNDAMENTALLY unavoidable for all life in the universe to eventual die off as the energy potential runs out.
to know that the end state of the universe is UNAVOIDABLY a bleary gray homogeneity entirely devoid of interesting features.
to understand that LITERALLY anything you could ever hypothetically do will only serve to HASTEN the progress of this horrific fate!

tell me, the fuck do you think is worse than that?

>>19553364
That's so abstract and remote that it doesn't really mean anything.

The idea that where, when, and to whom you were born are in all likelihood hard limits on what you can achieve as an individualb in the course of your life is way more depressing. The future death of the universe isn't as crushing as the fact that your level of education is more predictive of your prospects in life, including your aptitude for magick, than you or I or anyone else cares to admit. That your social class is more determining influence on your tastes, behavior, and fortune than your zodiac sign.

>>19553428
>that is not depressing because you should not view the big picture
>implying biological immortality is not coming in 10-15 years


genetics and upbringing are all soft limits if free will exists. (another non-falsifiable incompatible with secular materialism)
they are EXTREMELY hard to overcome, but not fundamentally impossible

belief in secular materialism is a belief that intrinsically includes the existence of true hard limits.
belief in magic does not necessitate belief in such things.

>>19553626
>if free will exists
I have bad news, anon...

>>19553670
Free will appears to exist, it's just a matter of degree.

>>19553670
That's funny because I'm pretty sure you have been insisting you are a Thelemite for like...2 days, now?

>>19553717
>>19553713
>>19553670

>"[Some senses of free will] are compatible with what we are learning from science...If only that was what scientists were telling people. But scientists, especially in the last few years, have been on a rampage – writing ill-considered public pronouncements about free will which... verge on social irresponsibility."

~Daniel Dennet

>>19553670
free will is non-falsifiable you retard.
as such, it is a mater for choosing to believe, not for scientific inquiry.
which you would know if you READ THE CONVERSATION before posting.
retarded newfag, lurk more.

>>19553717
Crowley rejected free will. So did Nietzsche, another prophet of Thelema, and Spinoza, an adept of the White School.

Crowley's theory was that your true, eternal Self freely ordered your existence. Fate determines what happens in your life and how you respond, but your Self chose that fate. You can decide if that solves all of philosophy as he proposed it did.

>>19554253
There's an illustration of weak free will in Temple of Solomon articles, iirc., in which AC posits a deterministic free will in the terms of Dennet; that it may indeed be impossible for a child to move a mountain via will. Meanwhile, an adult with the resources (destruction, hauling, etc.) may.

Ain't saying your predestination scenario is outright wrong, just that it's more complex than "rejection".

Hence so much metaphor of gravitation and 'natural course'.

>>19554275
It can't be outright wrong because he says that directly and explicitly in Liber Aleph.

This is an issue where Crowley isn't very helpful, because he took so many contradictory and conflicting positions on it over time.

File: catolax (4).jpg (18KB, 498x456px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 498x456px

Well, if you really want to know...
Anyone can cast basic level magic, id suggest starting with wind spells on chickens or mice, so you can get a taste of it until you reach other elements. Afer you get the hang of it just keep spamming earth/wind/water/fire (fire is always the strongest btw) until you reach a certain level of understanding.
Once you reach a higher level of understanding you can finally go after the crazy stuff, like blood magic, but to do this you will need to prepare, because this involves going into a pyramid and trying to talk an ancient spirit/ghost into teaching you these stuffs. you will need 4 special diamonds that are scattered around the world, and heavily guarded. Once you get these just head back to the pyramid and you will finally be able to use ice barrage to rekt noobs on wildy. Ironman btw

File: images.png (7KB, 282x271px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 282x271px

>>19554778
Fucking kek

>>19545827
your wasting your time. 100% of what you will find in occult books is fake and made by the church to hide how to do real shit. they spread lies during the witch hunts and played up bullshit they made up about star charts and herbalism being witch craft

there is no such thing as a spell. you apply your will and focus it on a goal. no words have to be spoken and you cant really explain how to do it to any one.

i would argue desire isnt even needed which is kind of a paradox how can you will something to happen without desire right? wrong. thats where you fail to understand how this works. you dont need to desire a object you will pick up you just pick it up. no seals or sigils needed. no runes or incense . just force yourself on realities very structure like your kobe bryant and its some maid in a hotel. thats what magic is you raping reality

>>19554825
>your wasting your time. 100% of what you will find in occult books is fake and made by the church to hide how to do real shit. they spread lies during the witch hunts and played up bullshit they made up about star charts and herbalism being witch craft
Citation?