Talk:Magick (Thelema)/Archive 1

message: :"Modern practitioners of magick often rely on one or more systems of magick to produce their effects. These include Ceremonial Magick Thelema, Chaos magick..."
Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item? ··gracefool |☺ 02:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ceremonial Magick]] 

message: One of the problems with magick is that its practitioners are not willing to demonstrate that they can do anything that the average man or woman cannot do. Requests for demonstrations of practical utility invariably meet tired excuses, leaving the critically minded wondering whether the occult tomes are anything more than collections of useless trivia and imagination exercises. So-called high magicians shirk the paranormal connotations of the word magick, yet the fact remains that the works of major occultists -- and the works of modern-day Llewellynites -- are riddled with paranormal claims. Everything from Hermetic theory to Qabalistic theory to Eastern mysticism includes the idea that the physical realm is inextricably linked with the "inner planes," so the occult manipulation of the physical realm should be a demonstrable phenomenon (Levi's theories about the Astral Light come to mind). Imagination exercises such as the staple LBRP are all well and good; however, if those exercises cause nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy feelings and self-hypnotic effects, what we have is not a grand form of magick but a puffed-up form of self-therapy. Quibble how much you like over the spelling of the word magick -- the semantic acrobatics and the ridiculous equivocation fool only the extremely gullible. I find myself in agreement with Frater Superior (of the O.T.O.), who wrote the following in the foreword to DuQuette's Magick of Aleister Crowley: "Occultism frequently gives ample grounds for criticism to its detractors by making insupportable claims for vaguely defined powers, the whole compassed by nonsensical theory." 
[Contributions from other seekers are welcome.] --Camus 06:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The veracity or otherwise of claims regarding magick is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Discussions like this should be pursued on usenet or some similar forum. Fuzzypeg 10:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although my comments would be inappropriate for the main article itself, I included them here to provoke discussion in the interests of neutrality. I believe you know this, but you've decided to policy-thump arbitrarily, probably because what I said is incongruous with your own beliefs. The veracity or otherwise of claims regarding magick may be irrelevant for the purposes of the main article, but the fact that a significant number of people challenge those claims IS relevant for the purposes of the main article. Camus 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 'xactly, doesn't matter at all. You don't have to believe in White Supremacy to explain it to others, and attempting to PROVE it is beyond the point and scope of any article here anyway. --TheOtherStephan 06:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one is trying to prove or disprove anything -- or even request compelling evidence for or against anything. Experience has shown that such attempts are futile. I myself study magick, but I am fully aware that there are many claims for which there is a distinct dearth of solid evidence. Crowley was a strong proponent of both philosophical and general skepticism (see his Soldier and the Hunchback, for instance). When I mention skepticism, I'm not talking about obstinate debunkers of the Randi variety, who are really nothing more than True Disbelievers. I hope this comment clears up any misunderstandings. Camus 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No offense was intended, and please don't assume poor motives on my part. It's a clear and obvious fact that many people do not believe in magic(k). I don't see that that in itself needs much discussion. To actually debate the reality or otherwise of magic(k) is not necessarily futile, but it requires a great deal of time and a great deal of charitable listening from all parties. The pro-magic(k) camp can either discuss complicated theories at great length, or (and I find this really distasteful) cite examples of "miraculous" things they've seen and done. Either way, it will achieve nothing in the face of committed skepticism, but it will make for an extremely large discussion page. Basically, most serious occultists will not go out of their way to convince anyone of the truth of their beliefs, however if you're genuinely interested there are newsgroups where you can enter discussions on the subject. Prepare to devote a lot of time to it. Fuzzypeg 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much ado about nothing? 

message: I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrying 

message: After reading the article and its discussion, I've decided to add the NPOV flag. I think that whoever wrote most of this article was definitely biased "pro-spiritual," and it shows in his writing. Though I don't necessarily disagree, this isn't the place for apologetics.
:It's not that long an article (and the [also brief] discussion here is not really relevant to the article itself), but could you be more specific about what you consider non-NPOV and apologetic in this article? I didn't write it, but I did recently clean it up and I am responsible for the entire third paragraph. But some explanation of your action would be appreciated to get the discussion going. Might I also suggest signing your posts and adding some information to your user page? Thanks. --Craig 04:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. I see what you're saying, and looking at the article now I see two things: 1) My "rewrite" wasn't that extensive, other than adding the third paragraph; and 2) Much of the article, aside from my paragraph, is one long quote of Crowley. (By the way, I'm not holding up my paragraph as being better, just different.) Point 2 may or may not be a bad thing, but I do have to admit at this point that my knowledge of Crowley is not extensive enough for me to change the article substantially to reflect a broader view of magick. At the same time I feel that an anonymous "hit and run" editor slapping on an NPOV tag and then heading for the hills doesn't help the situation; either he/she should stick around and discuss the issue, or change the article. I'll leave this for a few days and if nobody (including the person who put the NPOV tag on the article) makes any concrete suggestions or rewrites the article, I'll post something on the Wicca talk page and see if anyone there wants to wade in, as there seems to be more activity over there. --Craig 08:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 1) Yes. 2) Don't have time to read the whole thing right now, but it seems worth linking to from the quote in the article. Will make that change shortly. But you do seem more knowledgeable on this topic than I, so perhaps you'd like to have a go at a re-write? --Craig 06:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick scan of the article and a read of the comments here, it seems to me that what the article is presenting is Aleister Crowley's point-of-view.  Given that he coined the word, that seems fairly reasonable to me.  The article should discuss where the word comes from, what it's originator's thinking was, and (ideally) why the spelling spread into common usage.  Surely someone wanting a discussion of rationalism vs. belief in the paranormal is going to enter the word magic in the search bar, not magick.  The article could use a thorough copyedit, and an editor might want to make the quotes from Crowley more clear in their attribution, but I don't think the article needs to go into much detail about criticisms of Crowley's belief system, which would belong instead to the article Thelema.  A more appropriate contrary point-of-view would be "So and so said in their book Some book, that spelling magic with an extra "k" was really rather precious and silly, especially for someone who called themselves The Great Beast 666."  Jkelly 02:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I think those are good points. Unless Mr./Ms. Anonymous returns, I'll remove the NPOV tag in a couple of days. --Craig (t|c) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thanks Jkelly. I somehow missed the post by Kirrah (I presume) and hadn't got around to coming back here yet. --Craig (t|c) 23:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: *Johnson, Nathan J. & Wallis, Robert J. Galdrbok: Practical Heathen Runecraft, Shamanism and Magic London & Winchester: The Wykeham Press, 2005. 
:Does anyone agree with  that this article should have the above book as "Further reading"?  Jkelly 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading section cut