One does not have to do magical practice to &"get it&"?
-
@Frater 639 said
"
Do you think that these are just symbolic technicalities? What would lead you to believe that?
?"Because that passage you quoted is a flowery way of describing about knowing one's place and capacities in relation to what you think you want to achieve.
@Frater 639 said
"
To cherry pick certain phrases out of context and use them as evidence is a rhetorical device and doesn't really point to anything substantial."
Cherry picking? I didn't have an agenda in choosing that passage about symbolic technicalities. He uses that, at the outset, to make a major all encompassing point about the contents of MITAP...doesn't he?
@Frater 639 said
"
. He didn't devise this system to embed an agenda of strict materialism and rationalism in a riddle. Do you think he did??"
Well I'm merely discussing what he said. I didn't say it. Behind the symbolic technicalities of this book, why would one write that?
He blatantly states that the techniques in MITAP allow one to become a magician I.e. to discriminate between what one imagines oneself to be and what one actually is. How does gathering 777 correspondences in a circle and invoking a god allow me to do that? For that matter, all of the other MITAP exercises, how do they aid me in eliminating fantasies I have about who or what I am?
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
I fail to see anything in that quote that initiates a psychological model.
A "Magician" is one who practices "Magick". According to Crowley's definition in this book, "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Therefore, a "Magician" is one who practices the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. QED.
In the section you quote, Crowley is saying that "the processes described will enable him to discriminate between what he actually is, and what he has fondly imagined himself to be," i.e., the actual carrying out of the practices will enable him to do this discrimination. This is the surface level, as stated by 639 above.
In order to discover how to make himself a "Magician", the sincere student must look "behind the symbolic technicalities of this book," i.e., one must master the underlying Art and Science that informs the outward material presentation.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"."
Ok, you're convinced it's more than psychological and that becoming a Magician involves manipulating "forces of Nature" and the like but at the same time you do accept that the exercises of MITAP allow someone to discriminate between what he fondly imagines himself to be and reality. How then do these MITAP exercises allow one to discriminate between what one fondly imagines oneself to be and reality? Perhaps a fantasist has a wild imagination and tattva-dharana and/or assumption of god forms allows him to tame those flights of fantasy? Maybe the fantasist is dominated by a turbulent "nephesh" and mastering asana tames that turbulence. Maybe a fantasist closes off advice from external sources and so divination will train him to open up to other sources of information, likewise if he develops communication with astral entities?
Furthermore if the exercises of MITAP do allow one to discriminate between what one fondly imagines oneself to be and reality, does this not involve the premise that AC is there for the fantasists? He's a sort of haven for fantasists and he's going to lead these pathological types to reality with MITAP? Perhaps OTOH, he is suggesting that Joe Average is a fantasist and society is flawed and the chosen ones are the ones who have the unusual self-honesty to perceive this flaw in the human condition i.e. this latter group are the Magicians?
-
@gerry456 said
"
Because that passage you quoted is a flowery way of describing about knowing one's place and capacities in relation to what you think you want to achieve.
"That would be one perspective based on a rationalist point of view. AC is referring to a lot more than that. Following out the magical practices allow a person to "get" more than one point of view. Meaning, many perspectives could be assimilated and not just one that preserves the fantasies of the ego.
@gerry456 said
"
"Frater 639 wrote:
To cherry pick certain phrases out of context and use them as evidence is a rhetorical device and doesn't really point to anything substantial. "Cherry picking? I didn't have an agenda in choosing that passage about symbolic technicalities. He uses that, at the outset, to make a major all encompassing point about the contents of MITAP...doesn't he?
"You seem to be asking questions based on your interpretation of symbolic technicalities and using it to defend a position that one doesn't need to practice to "get it." The real question is how could one stretch that interpretation to defend that position, despite overwhelming evidence that AC didn't think all of the practices were merely symbolic technicalities . Defending that position would be an example of using an interpretation to preserve a fantasy.
If one submits a claim, one needs to back it up with more evidence, instead of just providing a stretched interpretation of what AC was actually saying. That's why it is considered cherry picking. Then you have called one example that doesn't support your previous claim "flowery language" while seemingly dismissing it as literary license, even though AC regularly worked that "class" of magick and believed that the operation was a viable method (a claim that I make based on evidence).
I think the question and conclusion you present is based in fantasy based on lack of knowledge. They don't seem to be rooted in reality when reviewing all of the evidence honestly.
@gerry456 said
"
Well I'm merely discussing what he said. I didn't say it. Behind the symbolic technicalities of this book, why would one write that?"I could answer why AC would write that, but it would be speculation. My answer would be this: in magick, there are symbolic technicalities - we are dealing with concepts that require metaphor and symbols. These are used as a filing cabinet to do various workings. For example, I never knew what Saturn represented at all when I first started out. But now that I know, and I desire to perform a Saturnian operation, I know what symbols I need to call to get the desired result. I had to get past the symbolic technicalities to perform successful operations. To go even further, the more the ego and the rational mechanism is involved, the more that certain magickal interference is created. Which is why I keep pressing the point. And, to me, it is why AC always harps on knowing what you actually are (True Will) and what you imagine yourself to be (ego).
@gerry456 said
"He blatantly states that the techniques in MITAP allow one to become a magician I.e. to discriminate between what one imagines oneself to be and what one actually is. How does gathering 777 correspondences in a circle and invoking a god allow me to do that? For that matter, all of the other MITAP exercises, how do they aid me in eliminating fantasies I have about who or what I am?"
True, you didn't say it, but you interpreted what he meant by it, correct? Anyone that has seriously followed out the magical practices of invoking gods does not need to have that question answered by others. They "get it."
The G.'.D.'. Tasks of the A.'.A.'. aim toward ego-dissolution. Your questions about "who and what you are" become answered by each Aspirant individually. I can't answer these questions for anyone personally, the Aspirant needs to do the Work themselves. But, since you're asking...in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions.
The questions I would ask:
How does my interpretation of Crowley preserve my ego?
How does my ego defend my rationalistic point of view?
Do my fantasies about magick confirm any previous biases that I may have?
How do these fantasies and biases affect myself and the outside world?
Would following out the practices help me to eliminate my fantasies and biases?
Do I know the above information based on practice or just thinking that I understand the theory behind it?
If I were to find evidence that magick goes beyond my rational explanation, would I believe it? Why or why not? -
@Frater 639 said
"
]I could answer why AC would write that, but it would be speculation. My answer would be this: in magick, there are symbolic technicalities - we are dealing with concepts that require metaphor and symbols. These are used as a filing cabinet to do various workings. For example, I never knew what Saturn represented at all when I first started out. But now that I know, and I desire to perform a Saturnian operation, I know what symbols I need to call to get the desired result. I had to get past the symbolic technicalities to perform successful operations. To go even further, the more the ego and the rational mechanism is involved, the more that certain magical interference is created. Which is why I keep pressing the point. And, to me, it is why AC always harps on knowing what you actually are (True Will) and what you imagine yourself to be (ego).
."
The G.'.D.'. Tasks of the A.'.A.'. aim toward ego-dissolution. Your questions about "who and what you are" become answered by each Aspirant individually. I can't answer these questions for anyone personally, the Aspirant needs to do the Work themselves. But, since you're asking...in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions.
"
Ok I read all of your points there and you basically perceive the "behind the symbolic technicalities" phrase, as being a reference to some sort of induction of experiential knowledge beyond metaphor and language.
Thanks for that input.
-
@gerry456 said
"
@Frater 639 said
"
]I could answer why AC would write that, but it would be speculation. My answer would be this: in magick, there are symbolic technicalities - we are dealing with concepts that require metaphor and symbols. These are used as a filing cabinet to do various workings. For example, I never knew what Saturn represented at all when I first started out. But now that I know, and I desire to perform a Saturnian operation, I know what symbols I need to call to get the desired result. I had to get past the symbolic technicalities to perform successful operations. To go even further, the more the ego and the rational mechanism is involved, the more that certain magical interference is created. Which is why I keep pressing the point. And, to me, it is why AC always harps on knowing what you actually are (True Will) and what you imagine yourself to be (ego).
."
The G.'.D.'. Tasks of the A.'.A.'. aim toward ego-dissolution. Your questions about "who and what you are" become answered by each Aspirant individually. I can't answer these questions for anyone personally, the Aspirant needs to do the Work themselves. But, since you're asking...in my opinion, you're asking the wrong questions.
"
Ok I read all of your points there and you basically perceive the "behind the symbolic technicalities" phrase, as being a reference to some sort of induction of experiential knowledge beyond metaphor and language.
Thanks for that input."
That's a great way to put it.
No problem!
-
@gerry456 said
"Ok, you're convinced it's more than psychological"
yes"and that becoming a Magician involves manipulating "forces of Nature" and the like"
Becoming a Magician, in the context of this particular book, involves practicing the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. I would agree that that involves working with natural forces. I don't know what you might mean by "and the like"."but at the same time you do accept that the exercises of MITAP allow someone to discriminate between what he fondly imagines himself to be and reality."
yes"How then do these MITAP exercises allow one to discriminate between what one fondly imagines oneself to be and reality?"
They each work on particular aspects of one's perceptions and one's abilities, both individually and in collaboration. Attempting to generalize some blanket answer to all of them misses the point of the Work."Perhaps a fantasist has a wild imagination and tattva-dharana and/or assumption of god forms allows him to tame those flights of fantasy?"
Perhaps."Maybe the fantasist is dominated by a turbulent "nephesh" and mastering asana tames that turbulence. "
May be."Maybe a fantasist closes off advice from external sources and so divination will train him to open up to other sources of information, likewise if he develops communication with astral entities?"
Also possible."Furthermore if the exercises of MITAP do allow one to discriminate between what one fondly imagines oneself to be and reality, does this not involve the premise that AC is there for the fantasists?"
Google defines fantasist as "a person who imagines or dreams about something desired." So... yeah, sure.
But I'd also say that he's there for the non-fantasists as well. As he puts it: "MAGICK is for ALL.""He's a sort of haven for fantasists and he's going to lead these pathological types to reality with MITAP?"
"Pathological type"? I guess you're working with some other definition of fantasist. Perhaps you should define your terms and demonstrate how they relate to AC's writing in this book."Perhaps OTOH, he is suggesting that Joe Average is a fantasist and society is flawed and the chosen ones are the ones who have the unusual self-honesty to perceive this flaw in the human condition i.e. this latter group are the Magicians?"
This reads to me like pretty standard issue psychological projection, but if you'd like to actually connect these conjectures to quotes from AC and demonstrate how his words imply these conclusions, I'm all ears.@Frater 639 said
"The questions I would ask:
How does my interpretation of Crowley preserve my ego?
How does my ego defend my rationalistic point of view?
Do my fantasies about magick confirm any previous biases that I may have?
How do these fantasies and biases affect myself and the outside world?
Would following out the practices help me to eliminate my fantasies and biases?
Do I know the above information based on practice or just thinking that I understand the theory behind it?
If I were to find evidence that magick goes beyond my rational explanation, would I believe it? Why or why not?"
Or to put it another way: What are my Soldiers(!) and how can I bend them over into Hunchbacks(?)? -
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
]yes"
Etc.
Cool, I appreciate the feedback in all those points you made.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
I guess you're working with some other definition of fantasist."Yeah, apparently in psychotherapy a fantasist is someone who pretends he is popular and successful in his own fantasy-world, whilst he doesn't try to succeed at his job and he won't make efforts to make friends so the defence mechanism is a denial, a pretence. Now, I recall that AC may have held a different definition I..e in MITAP he defines the flawed person whom lacks discrimination between fantasy and reality as someone who is e.g confused about his career path or lifestyle? This won't necessarily involve pretending to be popular and succesful I guess.
From MITAP;
4*) The first requisite for causing any change is thorough qualitative and quantitative understanding of the conditions.
(Illustration: The most common cause of failure in life is ignorance of one's own True Will, or of the means to fulfill that Will. A man may fancy himself a painter, and waste his life trying to become one; or he may really be a painter, and yet fail to understand and to measure the difficulties peculiar to that career.)
**
7**) Every man and every woman has a course, depending partly on the self, and partly on the environment which is natural and necessary for each. Anyone who is forced from his own course, either through not understanding himself, or through external opposition, comes into conflict with the order of the Universe, and suffers accordingly.(Illustration: A man may think it is his duty to act in a certain way, through having made a fancy picture of himself, instead of investigating his actual nature. For example, a woman may make herself miserable for life by thinking that she prefers love to social consideration, or vice versa. One woman may stay with an unsympathetic husband when she would really be happy in an attic with a lover, while another may fool herself into a romantic elopement when her only pleasures are those of presiding over fashionable functions. Again, a boy's instinct may tell him to go to sea, while his parents insist on his becoming a doctor. In such a case he will be both unsuccessful and unhappy in medicine.)
*So we have here examples of people who would benefit from working MITAP;
- a man who thinks he's a painter but he isn't and so he wastes his time.
- a man who is a painter but doesn't appreciate what he must do to succeed so he wastes his time.
- a woman thinks she should stay with her husband when in fact she'd be happier not doing that.
- a woman thinks she should be someone's lover but she'd actually be happier keeping things domesticated.
- we have a sailor-wannabe but he is swayed by parents to use his intellect to go to medical school where he isn't happy.
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. .
-
@gerry456 said
"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'."
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"[
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 said
"[
.
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 said
"[
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 said
"[ (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.
-
@gerry456 said
"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?