THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.magick.tyagi,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.magick.folk,alt.magick
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode)
Subject: Re: Epistemology and Magic (was A question from a beginner.)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:33:22 GMT

50000923 Vom hail kaos! eqinoks

nagasiva continues using the example of a tortured magical poppet 
 of "Poke" created by "Tom" in order to illustrate the notion 
 that belief in the efficacy of the magical act may not be 
 necessary to its success:
>> before, during, and after the ritual we all know that
>> the doll is not Poke, even though it is given Poke's
>> name. the doll is a MAGICAL LINK, used to concretize
>> the symbolic action with the desired result

"Tom Schuler" :
> The reason that it is a "magical  link" is because, 
> by belief in the law of similarities, one considers the 
> doll to be sharing in the nature of Poke, such that 
> what affects the doll is believed to affect Poke.

with this I essentially agree. I don't think that belief
in the law makes it happen, but the law or principle of
similarities describes why it does. the reason that it
is a *magical* link, rather than merely a symbolic link,
is that it has some connection to Poke's nature WITHOUT
the belief. that is, the powerful spell actually contains
Poke's nature. in hoodoo, the term 'nature' refers in 
many cases to a person's sexual power, enthusiasm, or,
especially where spellcraft is concerned and the capturing
of magical components, sexual juices. 

so in the most potent fictional example I can imagine,
the spellcaster has obtained, say through a mutual lover,
the sexual emissions of the target, as well as pieces of
the target's underwear, pubic hair, head hair, and some
object of extreme personal value to the target, and has
placed all of these items on or in the doll. in this case
no belief is necessary as to the sharing of nature between
the doll and the target, it REAL.

> The doll is not Poke in some ways but the doll is Poke 
> in other ways.  It's magical double-think and the 
> suspension of disbelief is necessary to the operation.

I don't see the double-think, I just see that if you have
any disbelief that they *do* share natures based upon the
magical link, then you'd have to suspend it enough to do
the spell. other than that it may have an affect upon the
spell's success, but belief needn't be *necessary* to it. 

>> we (or at least Tom)
>> *makes-believe* that it is Poke, envisions Poke being
>> tortured in the manner of the doll, but he does not
>> believe that he is doing it TO POKE.

> In fact, I would so believe, not merely pretend to 
> believe. The more I believed, the greater the impact 
> of my actions would have upon my psyche.

this seems to proceed from psychological model of magic --
that it is what Tom believes, rather than what magical
links are made (i.e. Poke's hair in the doll) that makes
the magic work. I'd emphasize that there is another 
valuable way to view this: that what Tom believes is
relatively unimportant, since what is being done may 
be more important than what Tom thinks is being done.

you don't need to believe that the doll is Poke, because
you understand that it is a simulacrum, a representation,
which, when connected with the action of doing harmful
things to that of which it is an image, influences the
world toward mimicking the act. I suggest that it is only
really in movies that we are shown that people believe
that the two (doll, target) ontologically overlap in any 
substantial way (such that the victim receives the exact
repercussions of the doll-manipulator's actions). the 
spellcaster is CAUSING the effect, by this perspective,
through the magical link, but is not enacting it directly.

>> to pretend that this is NOT such an overlap is to enter
>> psychosis. when Tom begins to talk with us about how
>> Poke will post to the internet because he has him stowed
>> in his magical bag, wonders whether people will notice
>> that he has changed Poke into a doll, etc., then we can
>> see that Tom has fused make-believe and belief and is
>> therefore ready for a 72-hour observation.

> But Tom doesn't believe he has "changed Poke into a doll".  
> He believes that what affects a doll that is linked to 
> Poke will affect Poke in some way.

precisely, or will inspire effects of a like manner.
if Tom DID believe that the doll and the target were the
same, then we would consider that there was something
unusual about Tom's thinking process or his understanding
of magic (perhaps Tom is 4 years old or something ;>).

> However, from outside of the compartment in which this 
> happens, Tom may also believe that the actions performed 
> on the doll are only affecting Tom's psyche, influencing 
> his perceptions such that it seems to Tom that Poke is
> suffering the effects of the operation. That's in a 
> different compartment, however.  

in which case Tom's belief may undermine the spell, by
detracting from the will which he would otherwise put
into the spell, the emotional intensity of the
enchantment, the volatility of any power which he lends it,
he could disrupt the magical link or the power necessary
to see the spell through to working.

> In yet another compartment, Tom may believe that the 
> whole thing is nonsense.

this might undermine the spell even further. more that
he doesn't want the spell to work, the greater influence
against it he brings to the spell's crafting. that isn't
necessarily enough to stop it, by some cosmological
theories of magic.

> As we switch from one compartmentalized belief to 
> another, we see things differently.  We may even 
> choose to stop compartmentalizing and stop trying
> to explain all this crap to ourselves.

how I would interpret this is that Tom is confused in
his desires as regards whether he truly wants the spell
to work. on the one hand he does (in this fictional 
example) because he wishes to punish his target. on the
other, if he believes that it is all nonsense, then the
success of the spell would overturn his intellectual
certainty about the way the world works. this predisposes
him to wanting to fail. 

whether this affects the spell may well depend upon 
the particular configuration of Tom's assembled pieces. 
that is, say Tom had only obtained a piece of paper 
with Poke's name written on it 9 times, rather than 
his hair, nail clippings, etc. Tom's lack of 
volitional intensity may significantly reduce the
spell's chances of working. compare the former to the
latter, more thorough spellcrafting, in which Tom's 
disbelief in the whole affair may have no relevance as 
to whether the spell is indeed effective. it would in
such a case happen *despite* his disbelief, demonstrating
that belief is not the essential component of magical
activities, of spellcraft. 

I'd compare this to a novice's "beginner's luck" in some 
ways. Tom doesn't believe and doesn't take actions to
actively sabotage the spell, and the configuration of
elements results in a success, despite the fact that Tom
may have been thinking it was all stupid nonsense the
whole time. that is, the magical link was strong enough
that very little will was necessary to see it through.
even the most skeptical of spellcasters, in such a case,
would obtain successful results.

>> if you're talking about ripping aside pretence and 
>> finding reality, then this IS the realm of mysticism.

> Usually, it's a matter of ripping away one pretense and 
> substituting another one.

you're evaluating, I'm describing the viewpoint of mystics.

>> yes, this is the reason that mystics are attributed powers
>> (because their nearness or understanding of reality has
>> leant them supranormal abilities), and why there is sometimes
>> competition between mystics and magicians. often mages are
>> said to be able to manipulate REALITY, not just appearance.

> Reality is a label we put on explanations we think are 
> consistent.  

rather Humean. :> that's one metaphysical model. another is
that reality is that which is given the label, however
accurate that label may be. the explanations may or may not
accord with the reality, but they are conceptual, whereas
the reality is ontological, a fundamental difference of order.

> From a limited viewpoint, it is indistinguishable 
> from appearance.

from a limited viewpoint, agreed. from a more expansive
viewpoint, however, the two can become very diverse.

nagasiva.
-- 
FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com
mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ 
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired

Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail
From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode)
Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.pagan.magick,alt.magick,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Epistemology and Magic (was A question from a beginner.)
Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net
Lines: 435
Sender: yronwode@sonic.net
Message-ID: <8qj8l0$uuv@bolt.sonic.net>
References: <39a18c9a.37287192@news.netvision.net.il>     <8q7jqs$9c8@bolt.sonic.net>  <8q97ni$gjp@bolt.sonic.net> 
Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:44:35 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net
X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 969745475 208.201.224.36 (Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:44:35 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:44:35 PDT
Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:25304 alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic:25474 alt.pagan.magick:24756 alt.magick:211109 sci.skeptic:437385

50000919 Vom Hail Kali!
"Nova Solo" :
>>> Believe is the same as make-believe, for the time that you're
>>> make-believing.

nagasiva:
>> I can make-believe that I'm killing you, for example, in
>> the confines of a dramatic play, and that I am a hard-
>> hearted villain, but I won't really react to the fact of
>> your death, believe you to be dying, believe that I am
>> killing you, etc. this is PLAY-ACTING, ACTING AS IF. this
>> is different than believing that the events I am making-
>> believe to happen are truly happening. doing this latter
>> would be considered 'amateurish', at least in a play and,
>> I maintain, also in the context of a ritual.

"Nova Solo" :
> Actually, doing the latter is what actors strive to accomplish.  
> They seek to find a state of mind in which they can most 
> effectively 'become' the character, discovering rationalizations 
> within that character for the actions the character takes, and 
> the words the character says.  

yes *effectively* become them. they don't try to morph themselves
into the character once and for all, take actions in their lives
based on the character's motivations, affect their acting careers
based on the character's interests, etc. as I said, there is a
clear division between the character and the actor inasmuch as
the character is circumscribed as to effectuality (within the
make-believe world which we understand is fiction even while we
may be make-believing it isn't). it is a kind of false belief,
play-acting belief, as if it were real belief, which it isn't.

> ...This is why actors sometimes say they can't leave a character 
> behind.  Not necessarily a good thing, at the end of the day.  
> It's also why actors sometimes need space after a particularly 
> "on" performance; they need time to remember who they are and 
> what their life is, as opposed to the character they're portraying.

because they have a weak personal character and the adopted
character has obsured their own. this is the mark of the
inexperienced or indisciplined actor, not the master, at least
according to some acting methods (they differ, of course,
and I'll bet we could find those which support your assertion).

> In the context of ritual, things are strikingly similar.  
> You immerse yourself in symbology, in scents and sounds and 
> sights and textures that increase your ability to believe 
> in what you're doing.  

that is one context. all magic isn't this way. not all magic
even bothers with ritual context. this is religious magic,
theurgy, which includes it. those that work folk magic aren't
too interested in whether you BELIEVE it not. what's more
important is whether you got the hair from the hairbrush of
that woman you're wanting to jinx.

> You just have to remember to leave it behind when the 
> ritual is over.

maybe *you* do, but for those who live 100% of the time in a
subjective context where magic IS real, this isn't necessary.
all this suspension of disbelief (compare what you're talking
about to a STAGE MAGICIAN and I think you'll have a better
match) isn't necessary. make-belief is different than belief
in that make-belief is more like a mask that can be taken
off and put back on, as during a magical ceremony. for those
that integrate magic as a part of their daily lives this kind
of make-belief isn't really important, and can be problematic.

>> *makes-believe* that it is Poke, envisions Poke being
>> tortured in the manner of the doll, but he does not
>> believe that he is doing it TO POKE. there is an overlap
>> between conscious perception and conscious intent.
>>
>> to pretend that this is NOT such an overlap is to enter
>> psychosis. when Tom begins to talk with us about how
>> Poke will post to the internet because he has him stowed
>> in his magical bag, wonders whether people will notice
>> that he has changed Poke into a doll, etc., then we can
>> see that Tom has fused make-believe and belief and is
>> therefore ready for a 72-hour observation.
>
> Perhaps.  I say that the focus of belief here is not that 
> the doll IS Poke, but rather that the link actually has 
> some effect on Poke.  

that is a minor consideration where effectuality is
concerned in a world where the stuff that goes INTO the
doll is what makes that connection. Tom had to go out
of his way to create that doll thing. it isn't just
some kind of toy, if it is serious. it will have things
like licorice root chips and calamus root chips to make
Poke do what Tom wants, maybe some eucalyptus leaves and
devil's shoestring to keep Poke from pestering us with 
gossip, along with lots personal items that he had to
obtain from Poke's offline world. the connection involved
isn't just conceptual (surrounding belief), but instead
includes materials that are reputed to have magical power,
and which cement the connection between the doll and Poke.

> I think you have to believe that the pins you use are 
> affecting Poke. Making believe isn't enough, I don't 
> think.  It would seem to me that you have to believe, 
> and everything you do to set up the ritual is designed 
> to increase your belief that sticking the doll with 
> needles really will give Poke a charley horse or 
> whatever. Flames, incense, oil, bits of Poke's 
> clothing/hair/fingernail clippings.  It's all designed 
> to increase your feeling and/or belief that there is a 
> physical link between the doll and Poke.

that seems to be one popular perspective (usually Hermetic
or from the psychic community I notice) on how magic works.
another is that it can work regardless of what you believe,
that you have to assemble the pieces, but the formula is
effective if you have gathered the right elements together
and move them in the proper ways. that is, we are here
discussing the divide between considering magic to be an
art or a kind of science. on the one hand we create an
ambiance of persuasion by which some nonphysical cause may
be effected (you haven't described how that works yet),
and on the other, which I am describing, there are formulae
which may be used to effect a cause at a distance based on
certain long-understood principles of association and
properties of items used in spells.

> Poor Poke.  I think he's pretentious, but does he really 
> deserve all this voodoo energy? ;>

doll babies aren't "voodoo", they have a longstanding
place in the many world traditions as effigies and should
not be ignored as an important part of magical practice.
nobody's *made* the doll of Poke. I suppose that, based
on what you have been saying about how you believe magic
works, just thinking about it (make-belief in a merely
conjectural sense such as my example) starts making it
happen? I hadn't considered that. that kind of thinking
might lead one to refrain from even *thinking* about
magical activities or the possibility of doing them
(because unless one was sure one wanted the results one
might inadvertantly create them). New Agey.
 
>>> Tom and I hashed this one out pretty thoroughly.  Only in
>>> foresight or hindsight is there a difference.
>>
>> ridiculous! in present-sight things are different too!
>> instead of real blood coming from the knife that I use
>> to make-believe kill you, I am sure to puncture the fake
>> stage-blood packet taped to your throat under makeup.
>> your breathing and bodily functions are substantially
>> different, since you aren't actually losing blood, and
>> nobody in the audience gets up to call the police!
>
> Everyone in the audience acknowledges that this is a play, 
> but "willing suspension of disbelief" can sometimes go 
> beyond the conscious acknowledgement of the play itself.  
> The next time "Extremities" is performed in your area, 
> go see it.  But watch the audience, not the play. People 
> will shift, look away, and otherwise break the link between
> themselves and the performance so they can remind 
> themselves that this is a play.  Blurring the line is why 
> people cry at sad movies.  They know it's not real, but 
> still they hurt and feel sad, etc.

I agree that there is a connection, but I think that
identifying the two is oversimplifying and extreme.

>>>>> ...most people accept the appearance and never think to
>>>>> look for the reality beneath it.
>>>>
>>>> IS the reality 'beneath it'? that is rather essentialist. maybe
>>>> the reality is completely comprised of the appearance.
>>>
>>> I don't care where you put the reality.  The point remains.  Most people
>>> would see a beautiful house and never stop to think that the wood might
>>> be rotting.  They accept the appearance.  Flim-flam artists count on
>>> this.
>>
>> sure, and so do magicians. Crowley counts on the fact that there will
>> be a number of suckers born to carry on his religious legacy, for example.
>
> A good magician can fool himself, a great magician can fool other people.
> Crowley was a great magician.  Nowhere do I claim magicians aren't flim-flam
> artists. ;>

but ritual self-fooling is not a universal aspect of magical practice,
and the vision of the competent mage which I am advancing here is that 
she is NEVER fooled, even by hirself. she doesn't need to make-believe 
because she understands the mechanisms by which magic works and knows
the probabilities of effecting change based on the quality of the
components of the spell. no make-belief (or in fact, belief) is 
needed. just follow the recipe of the spell.

this is an interesting comparison of perspectives on magic. in some
ways you are defending the 'faith-based' notion of magic, a kind of
psychology-orientation whereby for the spell to work the MAGICIAN
must be convinced somehow that it will work. I'm countering your
assertions with the notion that faith is not necessary, and that
one may make magical effects based on known properties of objects
placed together in formulaic ways (natural magic). 

this issue and this divide has come up many many times in my memory
of internet discussions. typically it takes the form of 'do magical
objects *really* have any power?' you seem to be answering this
question by saying "no, not really, it is the belief (or make-belief,
in the context of ritual these are not distinguishable) of the mage
that makes magic possible", without describing how that works. what
I am saying in contrast (and finding it quite interesting to compare),
is "yes, objects can have particular magical power -- this is the
reason that certain herbs, minerals, and sometimes particular objects
(stones, spears, etc.) become well-known for their potency."

these seem to be the two most popular ideas about how magic works,
and what is required to effect successful spells. I enjoy bouncing
them off one another.
 
>>>>> They take things at face value, while it's the magician's
>>>>> (dare I say?) duty to rip aside the pretense, the appearance,
>>>>> and find reality.
>>>>
>>>> preposterous! you're talking about mystics here, who are only
>>>> shallow mages at best. the better magicians use appearance and
>>>> pretense to great effect.
>>>
>>> I most certainly am not talking about mystics.  Mysticism gives me hives.
>>
>> if you're talking about ripping aside pretence and finding reality,
>> then this IS the realm of mysticism.
>
> I dislike the term, and I have no positive attachments to it....  

the reason I said this was not to identify YOU as a mystic, but to
point out that 'finding reality' is very different than the goals
toward which most of those in the world who practice magic are 
aiming. Hermetic magic (like Crowley's magicK) tends to include
the premise that The Goal is mystical (often even messianic), but
more often than not, the street mage is more concerned with getting
tomorrow's bread, keeping hir job, removing a curse from hir house,
or getting magical revenge on hir lover's new beau.

> ...if that's your definition....

c'mon kin. I don't have too look to far to substantiate my claim:

	mysticism ... *n* 1 : the experience of mystical union
	 or direct communion with ultimate reality reported
	 by mystics....
	_______________________________________________
	"Websters Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary", 
	 1967; p. 561.
	----------------------------------------------

the world of magic is far far more expansive than mysticism,
as is attested to by the countless spells and implements
surrounding spellcraft that do not care about finding the
real or doing more than using what has proven to be effective
in producing certain results sought.

>>> Of course you use appearance and pretense, you've gotta 
>>> fool people
>>
>> why?
>
> Because that's what magick is.  Fooling people.

my, how cynical! then it isn't really magic at all, it is a
kind of sociology whereby people's perceptions are altered.
this is the modern scientific assessment of magic. it is
certainly a legitimate hypothesis with which to approach the
subject of magic (I have done so myself), but it isn't the
only one.

so, by your assessment, how would such a poppet/doll work?
if Poke never knew about the doll, for example, and if
Tom did the spell against him, are you saying that there
would be some unconscious communication between them in
some way? I'm genuinely curious about how you flesh out
the metaphysics here, especially if there is no further
contact between Tom and Poke other than what has already
happened and Tom's observation of how Poke expresses
himself in the newsgroup (i.e. whether Tom likes it and
decides not to torture the doll some more :>). is magic
just a farce, in your mind, complete and utter charlatanry?

>>> and the easiest way to do that is to let them fool themselves
>>> BECAUSE people accept appearances and don't think to look
>>> beneath them.  But if you wanna hide an elephant in a dog
>>> costume, it helps to know what an elephant's size is.
>>
>> I don't follow your point here.
>
> Reality = elephant
> Magickal effect = disguising elephant as dog
> Magick spell = dog costume
> Appearance = Big fucking dog
>
> If you wanna hide an elephant in a dog costume, it helps to know what an
> elephant's size is.  My quippy way of saying that if you want to change
> reality via magick, it helps to know what reality is.  That neglects to note
> that our version of reality will almost certainly be skewed because our only
> means of acknowleding reality is through our senses and brains, both of
> which are incredibly fallible.

ok, so perhaps I can categorize your assessment here as the Stage
Magician Hypothesis of magic, in which the magical effect is just
an effect of altering appearances through the manipulation of
people's perceptions and beliefs? I'm trying to get a handle on
the diverse perspectives from which we're approaching this 
discussion. help me out a little. :>

>>> Once you know (or think you know) the reality, you can begin
>>> to alter the appearance of reality.  And that ain't mystical,
>>> it's about as practical as you can get.

...

> I'm interested in manipulating reality but I'm not there yet.  So far, the
> easiest way I've found to manipulate reality is to manipulate my version of
> it.  

that's manipulating appearance, subjective perception. without a
magical link, you'll merely effect self-delusion, I think. my
impression is that many Hermetic magicians go down this precise
road. Poke Runyon gives evidence that he has chosen this road
himself by asserting his belief that his ritual (or at least the
viewing of the rushes or prints for his movies) was somehow
responsible for a large power outage in his region. it is this
kind of Stoplight Magic (cf. my FAQ or read "Moonchild" by
Crowley if you want to look for gems in a compost pile) which
leads to the downfall of many a mage and mystic, turning them
AWAY from science, despite their apparent belief that they are
firmly within it.

> I'm not sure how successful I'd be in trying to manipulate someone
> else's version, or objective reality (as far as we can perceive it).
> Like... I don't know how good I'd be at, say, making a chunk of overpass
> vanish.  I might find it easier to manipulate a road crew into believing
> they were supposed to demolish that section, and in that sense I might be
> able to do it.  I don't know.  I'm pretty sure I couldn't make the road up
> and vanish.  Which, of course, makes it all the more likely that I couldn't
> do it. ;>

right, manipulating people's perceptions. yes, I think that you
are talking about the Stage Magician Hypothesis. it is an important
position from which to approach the subject. obviously I tend
toward a different working hypothesis, but think that the spectrum
of epistemological systems associated with magic is fascinating.

>>>>> Or try to.  Descartes already pretty much ran the gamut of
>>>>> trying to establish what's real, and all he proved was that
>>>>> he thought he was, and I seem to recall that Hobbes was
>>>>> pretty sure he was wrong about that.

...

>> ...Gautama looked beyond 'I think' and 'I am'
>> and into the nature of the subject doing the thinking and
>> being, acclaiming the very item which you say Hobbes was
>> sure about (namely, that 'he' was much less real than Rene
>> thought: the principle of anatman/anatta).
>
> Whereas Descartes was looking for a series of universal truths, 
> but because he was aware of the falliblity of perception, the 
> only truth he ever would accept was "Well, since I'm thinking, 
> there has to be a thing that exists TO think, so I will call 
> that thing "I".  Je pense, donc je suis."  

Descartes stopped with the it of skepticism and considered
it a thing, calling it 'I'. Gautama observed further that
even this thing changes and doesn't persist (therefore is
also not 'real' in this sense). this is why Descartes' is
a limited establishment. he demonstrated logically that
*something* exists, else there would be no doubt. anyone
can follow his thought out and come to a similar conclusion.
Gautama demonstrated to himself through acute reflection
that nothing remains the same, and is therefore real in 
this sense. anyone may duplicate this by following his
practical example.

> Hobbes just flat didn't believe in the existence of a 
> soul at all and didn't have a distrust of the senses.  

where the 'soul' may be equated with the Hindu 'atman',
disbelief is something less valuable than attenuated
attempts to observe what was claimed, in which case
finding something *other* than what is claimed is an
important addition to our knowledge-base.

> Descartes was a rationalist, Hobbes an empiricist.

Gautama was an empiricist also, but transcended the
rationalist notion of 'the thing which doubts' by
observing it directly.

>>> Neither am I, for that matter.
>>
>>but you're into magicK? so you should know all the Words
>>of the previous Aeonic Masters. ;>
>
> I can never tell when you're being sarcastic...  I don't 
> study too many masters.  I realize I'm in a sense 
> reinventing the wheel, but that's not necessarily a bad 
> thing.  I've considered joining an organization, just to
> see how much of what they teach I've already figured out.  

I was joking, though only partly. organizations provide
canned answers, by and large, to important philosophic
conundrums which cannot ever be resolved. by pretending
that they *are* resolved they pretend to a knowledge of
which they are incapable. checking in with students of
these organizations will teach you more about the org,
over time, than involving yourself with the org proper.

> But last I looked, in most of them the means of 
> advancement is a lot of memorization of rituals, plus 
> some drawing.  My native skepticism prevents me from 
> actually joining any of these things.

I'm sorry, my joke was very obscure. my newest working
hypothesis is that "magicK" is Crowley's magic, and this
includes the concept of "Aeonic Words uttered by Magi".
Crowley identifies the Logos or Word of Gautama as 'Anatta',
which I have often claimed is an essential Word for all
Hermeticists to understand by virtue of the fact that it
makes mincemeat of Spiritualistic notions of reincarnation
(because there is no soul to reincarnate) and transphysical
existence (because we're a composite that disintegrates at
bodily death). :>

nagasiva
-- 
FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com
mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ 
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired