Multiple Inquiries

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

I am very very angry. I had typed up a post that had more than 4 paragraphs in it, giving my history in magic, my questions, and information. When I hit post, it asked me to log on again, even though I already was, and when I did, everything that I had already typed was lost! I tried going back but nothing worked. Therefore, I am very very angry.

I am going to keep this short as I have already typed it once.

I can buy the book The Complete GOlden Dawn System of Magic for just under $50.00. I wanted to know if any of you recommend it, like it, have learned from it, or have an alternative.

I can also buy the book Enochian Magic for Beginners fir $12.00. I am interested in this type of magic and ask the same for this book as the previous paragraph.

Lastly, I am very interested in magic circles. I'm reading Franz Bardon's opinions right now. Are there any books you would recommend for this?

I'll give an extremely abbreviated version of what I typed earlier. I have over 300 Ebooks and books ranging from Ceremonial Magic by A.E.Waite to the Book of Gates. I have 2 tarot decks, Rider Waite and Thoth by Crowley. I decided to share this for anyone who either wanted to request a book or use it to guide me.

Thank you for the guidance and help and I look forward to your replies. I shall copy it this time in case it is deleted.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Mmothra

Go to half.com for the Golden Dawn and other texts...you can get the GD for as little as $13.00 paperback (http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=840458&domain_id=1856&meta_id=1). I have the gaudy Israel Regardie edited hardcover and like it but I am not a ceremonial magickian so my vote means little.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ekron

The GD is a sound choice.

Tyson's Enochian for Beginners is ok as a basic guide but 'filter' some of the things he says. He has some radical ideas which is ok to a point but Enochian is a system of magick which requires a great deal of personal imput to gain any lasting ground.

Bardon's The Practice of Magical Evocation is a must IMHO. Plus you should get (so must I) his Initiation Into Hermetics.

Summoning Spirits by Konstantinos is also worth having.

With regards to the Tarot there really is only one author for me and that is Dr.Paul Foster Case and his book The Tarot, A Key to the Wisdom of the Ages is a classic. This again is just my HO.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

Mmothra: You have the book I was origionally looking for (Now I will most likely get the paperback version and save my money). What do you think about it? Have you used it much? Was it worth your money and finally, what does it essentially have in it? Just because you're not into the same magic as I am does not mean that I won't use your opinion as a crucial buying influence.

Ekron: Thanks for the advice. I have all of Franz Bardon's books, and I also have them on pdf if you would like me to give them to you. Better yet, I will give you a url: http://lqairah.tripod.com/ . I have Summoning Spirits by Konstanitonos also, as well as The Tarot. Heh, I am very glad I stumbled upon a wonderful utility called wget.

I must add, however, that I am finding great difficulty in reading Initiation to Hermetics. It is not particularly difficult to understand, but within the first few chapters I was extremely critical of his theories. He makes all these statements about Elements and such, and it just bothers me how incorrect they are according to modern chemistry. One comment that got me really annoyed was as follows: "Light without fire is unconceivable," then there was "Each fiery eleme nt can be converted into light and the other way around." and last, this little gem: "Without darkness, light would not only remain quite unrecognizable, but without darkness there would never be any light at all." These are just blatantly untrue and that is a major thing for me. I know I am a nerd for questioning this on something so minute, but it bothers me. I'm starting to wonder if I should even take him so seriously.

Anyhoo, would you suggest an alernative to Enochian for Beginners?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ekron

Overflowed Buffer, I rather like The Enochian Evocation of Dr. John Dee, edited and trans., by Geoffrey James. Dee's unadulterated workings, another classic IMHO.

"A room without books is as a body without a soul" Circero .

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Grab

It is not particularly difficult to understand, but within the first few chapters I was extremely critical of his theories. He makes all these statements about Elements and such, and it just bothers me how incorrect they are according to modern chemistry.

Well... did he ever pretend to write a chemistry book? This is hermetic science.

One comment that got me really annoyed was as follows: "Light without fire is unconceivable,"

:lol:

If you knew (which you would if you actually READ the book, or did some tarot scrying or... did just about anything magical) what light and fire means in his words you would agree.

I know I am a nerd

Nerd or not, does it matter? Anyway, you have things to learn, so get busy!

/Grab

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

[QUOTE=Grab][/font][/left]

Well... did he ever pretend to write a chemistry book? This is hermetic science.

:lol:

If you knew (which you would if you actually READ the book, or did some tarot scrying or... did just about anything magical) what light and fire means in his words you would agree.

Nerd or not, does it matter? Anyway, you have things to learn, so get busy!

/Grab

[/QUOTE]Whether or not he intended to write a chemistry book is irrelivant. I am not a hermetic philosopher by any means and do not wish to be one due to the fact that I do not believe in a few of the principles of hermetic philosophy. However, he is blatantly giving out false information here and in my opinion, it does not matter what philosophy you believe in. When one of your beliefs is proven wrong without a reasonable doubt, that is that. That's what makes or breaks a theorem.

To your second reply: Would he not exlpain if he meant something different by the words before he used them in such a statement? Besides, if you wish to help then why don't you explain what you mean instead of patronizing. If I knew what he meant, if he did in fact mean something by them, perhaps I could learn from it. I can't be expected to read through the entire book to figure out what he means in a single, relatively insignificant sentence.

Lastly, I threw in the nerd part as a bit of comic relief after laying down such a negative attitude previously. I am aware that I have much to learn, and also feel that everyone has things to learn. In fact, I hope to learn from these posts.


While I am on the subject, Franz's other main work, The Practice of Magical Evocation, I noticed something that I had difficulty with. He states:
"Without the knowledge of the symbolism of the magic triangle and of all other magic aids, ritual and ceremonial work would not be possible."
[align=left]"To get the right idea of this symbolism one must, to some extent, be acquainted with the Quabbalah and must have a complete knowledge of the secret of the number three."[/align]
[align=left][/align]
[align=left]"It would lead us too far if I were to deal fully, at this point, with the mystical number three and its analogies."[/align]
[/size]

He provides a tiny piece of infromation on the said symbolism, but then gave no means of furthering the research to have success. I don't see how he can expect the reader to have any success if he does not provide this information.

[/size][/font]

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Caradoc

Hi Overflowed Buffer,

I've never read any of Bardon's works so I have some questions for you if you don't mind.

He makes all these statements about Elements and such, and it just bothers me how incorrect they are according to modern chemistry.

Is he actually talking about chemical elements or discussing the magical elements of fire, water, air and earth? What did he say that you consider to be incorrect according to modern theory?

One comment that got me really annoyed was as follows: "Light without fire is unconceivable," then there was "Each fiery element can be converted into light and the other way around." and last, this little gem: "Without darkness, light would not only remain quite unrecognizable, but without darkness there would never be any light at all." These are just blatantly untrue and that is a major thing for me.

Well the middle sentence seems a little fluffy, I don't quite get what he means without reading it in context, but what is the problem with the first and third sentences? They make perfect sense to me. The first requires a certain point of view, but the third is very basic philosophy of duality.


To your original question... I would highly recommend the GD book but as Mmothra says, you can get it far cheaper than that... I just saw a hardback copy go unsold on ebay because the postage was over £5.00 - you could have snapped it up at the starting price of £1.99 and added the postage and got the book for less than $10.00 American (if my maths hasn't failed me ).


I don't really like the Tyson but if you want it you can buy a first edition for less than you quoted... try rare and used book websites. I would recommend Abebooks. That's dot co dot uk or dot com or whatever your country has... they have different addresses for various countries so their search engines can list the books located in your own region first.

EDIT:- Sorry about the bizarre font sizes and odd spacing but the damn wysiwyg is not working properly again... it's really starting to bug me now

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

Thanks Caradoc. The problem with the first sentence is the fact that fire is not the only source of photons. The problem with the third sentence is that there is no particle making up "darkness." The only reason darkness exists, or doesn't exist, is because there is no light there. However, Without darkness, everything would be like it is no except that we would be able to see much better.

I suppose the first remark you quoted was pretty much just building up for the rest of what you quoted me on:).

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Grab

Whether or not he intended to write a chemistry book is irrelivant.

I don't agree. He's not dealing so much with the material sphere of Malkuth (where chemistry is valid) as with a hermetic perspective on any sphere, be it of high or low frequency.

I am not a hermetic philosopher by any means and do not wish to be one due to the fact that I do not believe in a few of the principles of hermetic philosophy.

Please exemplify which specific principles you do not agree with.

Also, it is kind of peculiar that you do not wish to learn hermetism - while insisting on reading books about it. :lol:

Would he not exlpain if he meant something different by the words before he used them in such a statement?
......
I can't be expected to read through the entire book to figure out what he means in a single, relatively insignificant sentence.

He does explain it, but you might have to read the whole book to get it. Nobody said this was going to be that easy.

Oh, and the sentence isn't insignificant at all.

He provides a tiny piece of infromation on the said symbolism, but then gave no means of furthering the research to have success. I don't see how he can expect the reader to have any success if he does not provide this information.

I can't help you there, but... just do an evocation when you feel ready, you might get lucky.

/Grab

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

I will let the chemistry book thing drop. I never said I did not want to learn about hermetics, I simply do not wish to be a philosopher of hermetics or make my own claims about it. I can still utilize what it has uncovered.
I never implied that it would be easy, nor do I have a problem with a challenge. However, being that you seem to imply that you understand it, perhaps you could be of aid to me.

Off the topic, would you mind contacting me with the information I provided to you in the private message grab? It would be greatly appreciated.


To whomever provided the link to the ebay site selling the GD books, could someone private message me information to contact bargainbookstores_two ? I don't have an ebay account nor do I wish to get one, but the sellers will almost always sell it to me directly. Thanks.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Caradoc

[QUOTE=Overflowed_Buffer]Thanks Caradoc. The problem with the first sentence is the fact that fire is not the only source of photons. The problem with the third sentence is that there is no particle making up "darkness." The only reason darkness exists, or doesn't exist, is because there is no light there. However, Without darkness, everything would be like it is no except that we would be able to see much better.

I suppose the first remark you quoted was pretty much just building up for the rest of what you quoted me on:).[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply... and for not taking it as an insult

As to the source of light not always being fire... in magical theory the element of fire does not always mean fire in the sense of something burning. Fire, in the sense I guess he means without reading the book, is the force of energy and new life which is symbolically represented as FIRE. What better way to represent the idea of light than the philosophical idea of the fire element? I'm not being very clear here but I mean that 'fire' represents more than you seem to think it does. Try looking up the fire element and it's correspondences.

The problem with the third sentence is a semantic one I feel. There doesn't really need to be a particle of darkness, though I do think I know where you are coming from here. The idea is to do with duality... How would you know you were happy if you had never been sad? Why would you have invented the word 'light' if there was no darkness? Without something to compare light to, you would need no word for light. It is all to do with duality, we only describe something in order to differentiate it from the things that it is not. In more advanced magickal practices you will find no differences and the theory of duality crumbles, I would guess that Bardon is referring to light in the dualistic sense though.

I hope that made some sense, I'm not fully on the ball right now... it's pretty late here

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Grab

Well spoken, Caradoc.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

I suppose I overlooked this because of how...I don't know how to put it. I mean to say, these ideas that are represented in fire are so broad that they could be represented in other things as well, but the fact that he picked an element makes sense to me I guess, now that I really look for alternatives.

To the third sentence thing, I understand completely what you are saying. However, I assumed that he was talking less about the word light than the thing light. You know? Without darkness, or rather with complete light, I would still think that we could name light as something considering it is made up of something. I could understand if it was something like darkness that has nothing to it, but with light there will always be something creating the light and being the light and so therefore it must be defined, if not to differenciate between it and anything else. Darkness is of meager importance.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

The idea is to do with duality...

Does one need to believe in duality to study hermetics?

How would you know you were happy if you had never been sad?

That's an unanswerable question. When I think of a state such as "health," I can imagine such a state existing without the "opposite" state of sickness. Love can exist without the opposite state hate.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Grab

Ahhh, that is true, but can you truly love, if you never felt hate? I think not... and even if you could, would you know that it is love you feel?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

Look up love and it will not use hate in its definition. While hate may exagerate the sensation of love, it does not define it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Babalon_Reborn

[QUOTE=Overflowed_Buffer]Thanks Caradoc. The problem with the first sentence is the fact that fire is not the only source of photons. The problem with the third sentence is that there is no particle making up "darkness." The only reason darkness exists, or doesn't exist, is because there is no light there. However, Without darkness, everything would be like it is no except that we would be able to see much better.

I suppose the first remark you quoted was pretty much just building up for the rest of what you quoted me on:).[/QUOTE]While part of this statement is true, I have to point out that some of it is false.

Modern Day science has proven that Dark Mass/Matter exists. They did so within the past couple of years if I remember correctly.

And his way of looking at whether or not darkness exists wasnt meant to be taken literally anyhow.

By saying "Without darkness, light would not only remain quite unrecognizable, but without darkness there would never be any light at all." he meant that
if one didnt know light, they wouldnt know dark. For example, it you stubbed your big toe, and didnt know the concepts pain or comfort, how would you know that the feeling you have after stubbing your toe is a feeling of pain? You wouldnt you would just know that its a different feeling...

Gets down off her soapbox....

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: LadyHydralisk

Yeah that posting glitch can be frustrating.

Going along with what alot of people here are saying, fire in the Bardonian system, and many other systems is not about the actual element of fire you talk about in science. This isn't science, it's magic. Magic takes philosophy, science, art, wisdom, dust bunnies and fairy dust and throws them into a blender.

The element of fire, can be expressed as an emotion, or many emotions: anger, lust, courage are all products of the fire element. Flirtatiousness is a product of the air element. Just a few examples to get you started. Bardon actually goes into it much further with workable exercises. Did anyone tell you all three of his books are available through occultforums in the Ceremonial Magick Library in PDF form? Well anyways, this concept of the elements, this is how a magician of that system views the world on a daily basis. Yes indeed that is very different territory than chemistry.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

I know I'm doing this backwards, but I'll do it in the order I see the posts from where I type.

Lady: I understand what you say and thank you for your input. I think we have decided on the fire part:). I already own all of his books including the fragmentized one.

Babalon: Thanks for correcting me, but you are incorrect on both levels. Dark matter is not shadows or darkness. It is just a mysterious substance that does not emit light and is entirely dormant in every force except for gravity. I took physics too, just more recently than you. Say a rock doesn't emit any light. Does this make it the opposite of light?
Besides, if he did not mean for you to take it literally, how do you think he meant you to take it?
You are also incorrect when you say that you would not know pain if you stubbed your toe. Pain is simply a bad feeling; something that hurts. Like what I said earlier about love, pain is a sensation. It is not defined by comfort, it has its own completely different characteristics. Therefore, without comfort one could still feel discomfort.

I hate to be a spoilsport, but I have counted I think 4 people with this response and it is getting a little bit old to have to repeat myself over and over again. Do not take this the wrong way, I am not here to impose my views on you, but instead to learn. However, I think we have gotten past the principle of duality and the fire discussion. I was kind of hoping that I could have gotten a little more book advice than I did instead of a deep philisophical discussion lol.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: I AM

[QUOTE=Ekron]The GD is a sound choice.

Tyson's Enochian for Beginners is ok as a basic guide but 'filter' some of the things he says. He has some radical ideas which is ok to a point but Enochian is a system of magick which requires a great deal of personal imput to gain any lasting ground.

Bardon's The Practice of Magical Evocation is a must IMHO. Plus you should get (so must I) his Initiation Into Hermetics.

Summoning Spirits by Konstantinos is also worth having.

With regards to the Tarot there really is only one author for me and that is Dr.Paul Foster Case and his book The Tarot, A Key to the Wisdom of the Ages is a classic. This again is just my HO.[/QUOTE]

These books are in the CM library. SO is "An introduction to the Tarot by Paul Case.

Humbly, I AM

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Ludi

Ahhh, that is true, but can you truly love, if you never felt hate? I think not... and even if you could, would you know that it is love you feel?

I utterly disagree with you, but I acknowledge your opinion.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Overflowed_Buffer

I just started reading Summoning Spirits and so far I am very impressed. It seems like what I have been looking for, a down to earth guide to communicating with those not so down to earth;). Unfortunately, I could not find it at Borders book shop. I will have to settle for a digital version...ugh. I hate reading off of a computer screen.