nagasiva
2004-08-26 21:34:33 UTC
50040826 viii om!
# Alexander Mulligan:
#> Rick:
#># Old Coyote:
#>#> "Rick" <***@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com>:
#>#># It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the
#>#># "actual serious practice of magick."
typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
in occult circles the evidence of 'serious practice' typically
revolves around the product or the cost of the engagement to the
occultist. with the product, an extended lavish expanse of temple
and tool may be seen. the seriousness is exhibited through technik
of tool-construction and the care and detail provided to the active
props and ornaments of the Art. with the cost of engagement, the
occultist is seen doing what is regarded as magic a good amount of
time or expending for things required in practice and it impacts hir
available resources and time in obvious ways. magicians who believe
that constant practice, rites, of purifying, spellcasting, whatever,
is imperative to being powerful and/or successful, will implement a
routine of daily and/or more frequent rites and disciplines, either
as a fortification and/or consolidation of power from which to
operate, or as preparation for all future endeavours (enlarging
the operating batterly/power available). what is entailed in the
actual serious practice of magic for these latter will include all
manner of spiritual disciplines, observances, ordeals, etc., and
more likely than not adherence to some doctrinal knowledge-set.
the first might be asked to explain how the tools have been crafted
to fit into the ceremonial tradition which inspired them, what raw
materials were used and how their crafting was timed and in what
conditions (external *+* internal) the tools were constructed.
this would identify the person at least knowledgeable about such
'serious practice', and especially if they could then explain how
the tools they'd crafted were used, demonstrate it, etc., we could
see quite readily that someone was knowledgeable, and, to the
extent that they actually made and used the tools, were engaged in
identifiable serious magical practice.
the second batch (cost of engagement) might be asked what motivates
them to devote themselves to such expenditures of time and energy.
whatever the response, they may have some ideas or feelings about
it and therefore could convey the 'seriousness of their practice'
as regards the intensity of their involvement when providing a
clear reflection of their activities and what these include. while
the craftsperson and dramatist might give clear liturgical and
blocking instruction, even combining this with theoretical under-
pinnings which relate to what is supposed to happen during the
Magical Operation, the ceremonial gymnast will be more familiar
with the psychology and rigor of routine meditative and trance
exercises. what the latter regards as 'serious' will tend toward
the sincere approach and sustained discipline of *any* type,
whereas the former will correctly see attention to trapments
as one of the most visible examples of serious practice.
#>#># We already know what is entailed in what you've defined as
#>#># a "lower caste,"
strange terminology
#>#># because that's published all over the
#>#># place. Now we need to understand what your comparing to it.
#>#> ...the real practice of magick is based upon a proper
#>#> understanding of the nature of ritual.
this emphasizes the effects of practice internally and how such
effects might be refined, pinpointed, and become part of an
overall 'career' as a magician-mystic.
#> You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
#> you do. Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm ...
physical science paradigm doesn't require that magick be inessential
or based on fallacies. physical science, for example, might allow in
through the back door a style of Natural Magic, for example, as long
as there are refinements on combinations between enculturation,
genetics, and magical styles to reach effective results. there may
be insufficient experimentation, for example, to have properly
examined and analyzed the methodology of magic before dismissing
it as proto-science or failed scientific enterprises.
compare this with addiction, in which something impedes healthful
operation or function due to its routinized or emphacized role
and negative side-effects. a preference for materialism doesn't
debilitate magic *necessarily*. one may come from a materialistic
background (as I have) and overcome one's conditioning to the
point that one might appreciate magical activity for itself,
then, like so many religious enterprises, see what actuality
results from the activities described in fantastic and trans-
material ways. it doesn't all have to be 'bad' or 'worthless'.
knowing about magic isn't a paradigmatic litmus either. some of the
best reporting on the operations and procedures of magicians has
been recorded by those with a keen attention to material detail
in the disciplines of anthropology and history of science.
"Martin Swain" <***@hotmail.com>:
# Actually I'm addicted to pussy.
that's a different kind of conception. ;>
nagasiva
# Alexander Mulligan:
#> Rick:
#># Old Coyote:
#>#> "Rick" <***@iopanIsRetired.yahoo.com>:
#>#># It would be very helpful if you described what is entailed in the
#>#># "actual serious practice of magick."
typically the purpose describes the seriousness of the endeavour,
rather than the method, but sometimes ceremonialists distinguish
certain methodological criteria (standards of construction,
attention to symbolic detail, timing, symbolism surrounding even
the *construction* of the operating tools themselves) which are
deemed 'serious' and compared with refinements worked on tools or
the intricate technology constructed by engineers in fine sciences.
in occult circles the evidence of 'serious practice' typically
revolves around the product or the cost of the engagement to the
occultist. with the product, an extended lavish expanse of temple
and tool may be seen. the seriousness is exhibited through technik
of tool-construction and the care and detail provided to the active
props and ornaments of the Art. with the cost of engagement, the
occultist is seen doing what is regarded as magic a good amount of
time or expending for things required in practice and it impacts hir
available resources and time in obvious ways. magicians who believe
that constant practice, rites, of purifying, spellcasting, whatever,
is imperative to being powerful and/or successful, will implement a
routine of daily and/or more frequent rites and disciplines, either
as a fortification and/or consolidation of power from which to
operate, or as preparation for all future endeavours (enlarging
the operating batterly/power available). what is entailed in the
actual serious practice of magic for these latter will include all
manner of spiritual disciplines, observances, ordeals, etc., and
more likely than not adherence to some doctrinal knowledge-set.
the first might be asked to explain how the tools have been crafted
to fit into the ceremonial tradition which inspired them, what raw
materials were used and how their crafting was timed and in what
conditions (external *+* internal) the tools were constructed.
this would identify the person at least knowledgeable about such
'serious practice', and especially if they could then explain how
the tools they'd crafted were used, demonstrate it, etc., we could
see quite readily that someone was knowledgeable, and, to the
extent that they actually made and used the tools, were engaged in
identifiable serious magical practice.
the second batch (cost of engagement) might be asked what motivates
them to devote themselves to such expenditures of time and energy.
whatever the response, they may have some ideas or feelings about
it and therefore could convey the 'seriousness of their practice'
as regards the intensity of their involvement when providing a
clear reflection of their activities and what these include. while
the craftsperson and dramatist might give clear liturgical and
blocking instruction, even combining this with theoretical under-
pinnings which relate to what is supposed to happen during the
Magical Operation, the ceremonial gymnast will be more familiar
with the psychology and rigor of routine meditative and trance
exercises. what the latter regards as 'serious' will tend toward
the sincere approach and sustained discipline of *any* type,
whereas the former will correctly see attention to trapments
as one of the most visible examples of serious practice.
#>#># We already know what is entailed in what you've defined as
#>#># a "lower caste,"
strange terminology
#>#># because that's published all over the
#>#># place. Now we need to understand what your comparing to it.
#>#> ...the real practice of magick is based upon a proper
#>#> understanding of the nature of ritual.
this emphasizes the effects of practice internally and how such
effects might be refined, pinpointed, and become part of an
overall 'career' as a magician-mystic.
#> You are wasting your time. Old Coyote knows as little about magick as
#> you do. Both of you are addicted to the physical science paradigm ...
physical science paradigm doesn't require that magick be inessential
or based on fallacies. physical science, for example, might allow in
through the back door a style of Natural Magic, for example, as long
as there are refinements on combinations between enculturation,
genetics, and magical styles to reach effective results. there may
be insufficient experimentation, for example, to have properly
examined and analyzed the methodology of magic before dismissing
it as proto-science or failed scientific enterprises.
compare this with addiction, in which something impedes healthful
operation or function due to its routinized or emphacized role
and negative side-effects. a preference for materialism doesn't
debilitate magic *necessarily*. one may come from a materialistic
background (as I have) and overcome one's conditioning to the
point that one might appreciate magical activity for itself,
then, like so many religious enterprises, see what actuality
results from the activities described in fantastic and trans-
material ways. it doesn't all have to be 'bad' or 'worthless'.
knowing about magic isn't a paradigmatic litmus either. some of the
best reporting on the operations and procedures of magicians has
been recorded by those with a keen attention to material detail
in the disciplines of anthropology and history of science.
"Martin Swain" <***@hotmail.com>:
# Actually I'm addicted to pussy.
that's a different kind of conception. ;>
nagasiva