7 ms·

Yes all that, and also it's worth considering Magick from the psychological perspective, rather than the "magic missile" idea that lots of folks have. Here is

Yes all that, and also it's worth considering Magick from the psychological perspective, rather than the "magic missile" idea that lots of folks have. Here is a link[0] to Crowley's definitions of Magick, in his view: [0] https://sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/defs.htm https://sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/defs.htm

ryandv 3y ago
> it's worth considering Magick from the psychological perspective That's right. Israel Regardie ("The Middle Pillar," "The One Year Manual") has more to say on viewing magick and Crowley's work through a psychological, Jungian lens, instead of a metaphysical, or even anti-scientific one.
- TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
  Many things which are often quickly dismissed tend to have rich and interesting symbolic interpretations. One example is a kind of "ghost". For example, if someone passes away and you miss them deeply it's possible for you to be "haunted" by their ghost / memory. And how do you get rid of the ghost? By using salt, i.e. crying. (Obviously this example is meant to be illustrative and basic.) Jung has some really interesting interpretations of symbols but he can sometimes go a bit overboard. I recently read Aion and while the first few chapters were intellectually interesting, he absolutely lost me when he went on an 8(?) chapter detour rambling about opaque fish symbolism. Admittedly, maybe I'm just a bad reader and was unable to fully grasp the full intricacies of his points.
- User23 3y ago
  > or even anti-scientific one This might sound like a quibble, but details matter in this sort of thing. Both sorcery and theology are sciences as traditionally understood. Perhaps you meant "anti-pure-materialist?" After all, there are notable and influential scientists who very much believed in the supernatural. Now maybe some people get a dopamine rush from thinking "Lol Newton wuz dumb," but on the other hand maybe the world's greatest minds weren't actually stupid.
  - what-no-tests 3y ago
    Jacques Lacan's "Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary" categories come to mind. Not everything we experience has a material basis (eg: emotions, inner dialogue, expectations, etc) but can be "anchored" in our minds through symbols. Those symbols can become a kind of vocabulary with which we can communicate with the subconscious (dreams, intuitions, what we notice/don't notice, ritual, etc) to change what and how we perceive. Crowley's and Israel Regardie's approach to this field is worth looking into, even though there may be less esoteric ways to acquire the knowledge they shared.
    - User23 3y ago
      Personally I think Peirce's semiotic was digging in the right place, but sadly even his genius intellect wasn't able to bring those conceptions to unity in his allotted time.
      - what-no-tests 3y ago
        Exactly - cultivating one's ability to self-reflect, and increasing the critical distance between oneself and one's thoughts, to the extent that one can experiment with changing how one thinks in order to observe what one thinks as a result - that is the project. Working in the realm of the abstract, writing software, is a kind of playground that allows for this kind of experimentation. Paradigm shifts in system architecture and in how we conceive of daily life are in many ways alike. Recognizing that we have (even if limited) some capacity to adjust to our liking how we think, so we can think what we want (and feel how we want to feel, do as we want to do, etc) is magical and rewarding. To understand that it is only nihilistic fatalism and helplessness of blaming circumstance or others for what - in many cases - is our own shortcoming (with regard the above notes) is actually empowering and inspiring on so many levels. Anything is possible, if we put our mind to it.

ryandv 3y ago

> it's worth considering Magick from the psychological perspective That's right. Israel Regardie ("The Middle Pillar," "The One Year Manual") has more to say on viewing magick and Crowley's work through a psychological, Jungian lens, instead of a metaphysical, or even anti-scientific one.

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
Many things which are often quickly dismissed tend to have rich and interesting symbolic interpretations. One example is a kind of "ghost". For example, if someone passes away and you miss them deeply it's possible for you to be "haunted" by their ghost / memory. And how do you get rid of the ghost? By using salt, i.e. crying. (Obviously this example is meant to be illustrative and basic.) Jung has some really interesting interpretations of symbols but he can sometimes go a bit overboard. I recently read Aion and while the first few chapters were intellectually interesting, he absolutely lost me when he went on an 8(?) chapter detour rambling about opaque fish symbolism. Admittedly, maybe I'm just a bad reader and was unable to fully grasp the full intricacies of his points.
User23 3y ago
> or even anti-scientific one This might sound like a quibble, but details matter in this sort of thing. Both sorcery and theology are sciences as traditionally understood. Perhaps you meant "anti-pure-materialist?" After all, there are notable and influential scientists who very much believed in the supernatural. Now maybe some people get a dopamine rush from thinking "Lol Newton wuz dumb," but on the other hand maybe the world's greatest minds weren't actually stupid.
- what-no-tests 3y ago
  Jacques Lacan's "Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary" categories come to mind. Not everything we experience has a material basis (eg: emotions, inner dialogue, expectations, etc) but can be "anchored" in our minds through symbols. Those symbols can become a kind of vocabulary with which we can communicate with the subconscious (dreams, intuitions, what we notice/don't notice, ritual, etc) to change what and how we perceive. Crowley's and Israel Regardie's approach to this field is worth looking into, even though there may be less esoteric ways to acquire the knowledge they shared.
  - User23 3y ago
    Personally I think Peirce's semiotic was digging in the right place, but sadly even his genius intellect wasn't able to bring those conceptions to unity in his allotted time.
    - what-no-tests 3y ago
      Exactly - cultivating one's ability to self-reflect, and increasing the critical distance between oneself and one's thoughts, to the extent that one can experiment with changing how one thinks in order to observe what one thinks as a result - that is the project. Working in the realm of the abstract, writing software, is a kind of playground that allows for this kind of experimentation. Paradigm shifts in system architecture and in how we conceive of daily life are in many ways alike. Recognizing that we have (even if limited) some capacity to adjust to our liking how we think, so we can think what we want (and feel how we want to feel, do as we want to do, etc) is magical and rewarding. To understand that it is only nihilistic fatalism and helplessness of blaming circumstance or others for what - in many cases - is our own shortcoming (with regard the above notes) is actually empowering and inspiring on so many levels. Anything is possible, if we put our mind to it.