One does not have to do magical practice to "get it"?

Q&A and discussion on ceremonial magick

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Re: One does not have to do magical practice to "get it"?

Postby Gnosomai Emauton » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:11 pm

gerry456 wrote:Now, I recall that AC may have held a different definition

Given that AC doesn't use the term "fantasist", nor was psychotherapy practiced with nearly the frequency nor method that it is today, it's very possible that he did hold a different definition of the word... though I don't know where you might be "recalling" that from. His one mention of psychotherapy in this book recognizes it as a good start but fundamentally incomplete.

So, we have five confused people here who are deluding themselves, are unhappy for it and need to get in touch with the reality of their true inner natures in order to reach happiness. .

Indeed we do, as "illustrations" of AC's theorems for a general audience. As I'm sure you'll recall, he begins this particular book with the announcement:
This book is for
ALL:
for every man, woman, and child.
My former work has been misunderstood, and its scope limited, by my use of technical terms. It has attracted only too many dilettanti and eccentrics, weaklings seeking in "Magic" an escape from reality. I myself was first consciously drawn to the subject in this way. And it has repelled only too many scientific and practical minds, such as I most designed to influence.
But
MAGICK
is for
ALL.
I have written this book to help the Banker, the Pugilist, the Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul --- and all the rest --- to fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her own proper function.

In essence, this was meant to be the "Magick for Dummies" of its day. As such -- in this introductory essay, at least -- he illustrates all of his technical theorems with mundane examples in order to make them understandable to bankers, pugilists, biologists, poets, navvies, grocers, factory girls, mathematicians, stenographers, golfers, wives, consuls, and all the rest. You can argue whether he keeps to this "dumbing it down for the masses" approach throughout the rest of the book (I would argue that, as in most everything he writes, he can't help himself but show off his intellectual superiority through his particular prose, thus undermining his stated intention) but, for this introduction at least, I'd argue that the conceit stands.

Thus, my statement above still stands: "This does, of course, play out in the psychological sphere... but not exclusively. Personal psychology is just one of the many aspects of Self that must be mastered in the process of becoming a 'Magician'."
Go in all ways contrary to the world.
User avatar
Gnosomai Emauton
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:28 am

Re: One does not have to do magical practice to "get it"?

Postby gerry456 » Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:55 am

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[

Given that AC doesn't use the term "fantasist", nor was psychotherapy practiced with nearly the frequency nor method that it is today, it's very possible that he did hold a different definition of the word... though I don't know where you might be "recalling" that from. His one mention of psychotherapy in this book recognizes it as a good start but fundamentally incomplete.
'."


No, I never meant that AC gave a specific and explicit definition of "fantasist" in relation to psychotherapy, I was referring to his example in Principle number 7 which continue with the theme of one's true nature.


Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
.
My former work has been misunderstood, and its scope limited, by my use of technical terms. It has attracted only too many dilettanti and eccentrics, weaklings seeking in "Magic" an escape from reality. I myself was first consciously drawn to the subject in this way. And it has repelled only too many scientific and practical minds, such as I most designed to influence.
But
MAGICK
is for
ALL.
I have written this book to help the Banker, the Pugilist, the Biologist, the Poet, the Navvy, the Grocer, the Factory Girl, the Mathematician, the Stenographer, the Golfer, the Wife, the Consul --- and all the rest --- to fulfil themselves perfectly, each in his or her own proper function.[/////


In essence, this was meant to be the "Magick for Dummies" of its day. '."


I see what you're arguing here. Your average wife or banker etc would've been put off by AC'S previous output on Magick because it contained obscure occult terminology? You seem to think that when he omits the obscure occult terminology he has in effect "dumbed it down"? Could you elaborate on why MITAP is a dumbing down from his pervious work?

Also, note how he says that Magick formerly attracted eccentric weaklings who live in fantasy and so he has set out in MITAP to repel that type of person and, if you like, attract the "real people" to Magick?

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[
Thus, my statement above still stands: "This does, of course, play out in the psychological sphere... but not exclusively. Personal psychology is just one of the many aspects of Self that must be mastered in the process of becoming a 'Magician'."


Are you basing your concept of Magick on the Hermetic principles of man as microcosm? If so, then yeah I understand how that stretches the definition of Magick far beyond personal psychology?

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[ (I would argue that, as in most everything he writes, he can't help himself but show off his intellectual superiority through his particular prose, thus undermining his stated intention) .
."


Yes you are inadvertently describing the demon Crowley and his defence mechanism known as Narcissism ie. a display of superiority (intellectual, social, self-adornment etc ) as an insecure means of hiding shameful defects within.
2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
gerry456
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:53 pm
Location: Lancashire England

Re: One does not have to do magical practice to "get it"?

Postby Gnosomai Emauton » Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:37 pm

gerry456 wrote:I see what you're arguing here. Your average wife or banker etc would've been put off by AC'S previous output on Magick because it contained obscure occult terminology?
It's not what I'm arguing, it's what AC wrote here and what Soror Virakam wrote in the introductory note to parts 1 & 2 of Book 4:

"THIS book is intentionally "not" the work of Frater Perdurabo. Experience shows that his writing is too concentrated, too abstruse, too occult, for ordinary minds to apprehend. It is thought that this record of disjointed fragments of his casual conversation may prove alike more intelligible and more convincing, and at least provide a preliminary study which will enable the student to attack his real work from a standpoint of some little general knowledge and understanding of his ideas, and of the form in which he figures them... Before printing, the whole work was read by several persons of rather less than average intelligence, and any point not quite clear even to them has been elucidated."

You seem to think that when he omits the obscure occult terminology he has in effect "dumbed it down"?
That is essentially what he and Soror Virakam are claiming.

Could you elaborate on why MITAP is a dumbing down from his pervious work?
See Soror Virakam's quote above as well as the bit from the MTP Introduction that I quoted in my previous post for his reasoning. Beyond what they wrote, I wouldn't want to speculate as to any other motivations.

Also, note how he says that Magick formerly attracted eccentric weaklings who live in fantasy and so he has set out in MITAP to repel that type of person and, if you like, attract the "real people" to Magick?
I do not see anywhere that he has any intention of repelling anyone from anything. The first words of the book are: "This book is for ALL: for every man, woman, and child."

But you ended this with a question mark. Is there a question you have?

Are you basing your concept of Magick on the Hermetic principles of man as microcosm?
In this discussion, I'm using the definition, postulate, and theorems that AC advances in this book.
If so, then yeah I understand how that stretches the definition of Magick far beyond personal psychology?
Again, do you have a question?
Go in all ways contrary to the world.
User avatar
Gnosomai Emauton
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:28 am

Re: One does not have to do magical practice to "get it"?

Postby gerry456 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:56 pm

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:[]Again, do you have a question?


No I'm generally done with the subject, thanks for those quotes there.
2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
gerry456
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
Ultimate Spark of the Intimate Fire
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:53 pm
Location: Lancashire England

Previous

Return to Magick

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron