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

To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.pagan.magick
From: nagasiva 
Subject: Magical Results (was protection)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:07:47 GMT

50020418 VI om

"Chris"  asks "Grrr" some questions about magical ability:
> Are you able to cause changes in the material world with your spells, 
> astral work, talismans and amulets?

mystics don't care about changes in the material world except inasmuch as it
yields attention to their person for how great they are (egotism). in fact,
this element of occultism is ridiculed and slammed because it isn't spiritual.

> Can you sucessfully evoke spirits to visible appearance? 

nobody seems to be able to in the conventional sense (camera-visible). there
are those (such as Poke Runyon and others) who accept 'visible appearance'
to be 'visible to the magician', perhaps even extending to 'visible to the
magical group doing the operation'. there are individual stories, of course,
of such visible evocations, but no pictures to back it up. even if there
WERE such pictures, we'd have to rule out hoaxing on the order of UFOs and
Loch Ness Monsters using fancy photographic special effects, so it quickly
becomes a Skeptical Inquirer kind of deal (requiring a knowledge of arts of
deception and flim-flam in order to ascertain anything with reliability).

> Can you skry visions in a crystal? are they fairly accurate predictions 
> of the future?

skrying visions without reference to the world is of course pretty easy.
visions portraying the future seem to be more psychic flim-flam, from
what I can tell. in any case I wouldn't personally class this with magic.

> are you able to safely control Enochian magick with some degree of
> proficiency?

I've never heard of "safely controlling Enochian magick". what does this
mean. are you saying that the Enochian spirits are demons rather than
angels, that they are fallen angels, or something? why the need for control?
what would happen if it weren't 'safe' for some reason?

> Do your created elemtnals and thoughts forms preform theyre tasks 
> correctly and effciently?

now we're getting somewhere with promise. however, this again extends beyond
the interests of the usual mystic, who will complain that such beings and
'artificialities' are totally unworthy of attention (the spiritual aspects
of magical work taking precedence).

> Are you able to command the spirits you evoke to complete magickal tasks 
> you require?

this seems more confused. do the spirits perform the magic or is the
evocation itself (ceremonial, Solomonic) magic? isn't evocation of 
spirits you want to dominate (e.g. goetic) usually for treasure or 
superior knowledge or something?

> You use the term Charlatan, but these techniques are genuine magickal
> techniques. 

what makes a technique 'genuine'? does a demonstration of actual results
factor into it? if so, then dismissal by virtue of cosmological axioms
would seem reasonable (i.e. if I believe charlatans are purporting the
use of ineffectual procedures to deceive the desperate and ignorant,
then I may voice this complaint). if genuineness is determined by 
whether there is a tradition of spellwork associated with the process,
then few can complain about what they purport to be 'bad' or 'wrong'
procedures.  

> Spells and Charms are real techniques, as are tarot readings and 
> skrying. 

how can you tell? I'm not just talking about you, but about how anyone
can look at a technique and determine that it isn't "fake"? 

> Just because these techniques dont work for you, or you dont 
> agree with them doesnt mean they dont work or are not legitimate 
> magickal practices. 

evidence to the contrary would be helpful in support of denying the
efficacy of the 'Low Magic' activities of which you are speaking.
evidence to the POSITIVE would of course contradict Grrr's thesis,
but agreeing on what constitutes 'evidence' and providing it would
seem the major obstacle. just look at the hooplah surrounding scam
psychics like Uri Geller, exposed by stage magicians like The
Amazing Randi, for example. 

> If you are so opposed to real magick causing real change, 
> why are you here [alt.magick, apparently]?

most of the mystics and Hermetic Trolls posting to such newsgroups
aren't opposed to "real magick" causing change, they simply do not
believe that it is either possible (being cynics and dogmatists)
or worthwhile (being ascetics and transcendentalists at heart).

> In fact I challenge everyone who takes the alt.magick attitude of 
> extreme skepticism to anwser this question

the problem with this challenge is that the term 'extreme' is left
open to interpretation. gullibility appears rampant in the occult
world, and those who espouse the need for scrutiny of method and
goal are valuable participants in any examination of occult arts and
sciences. your mischaracterization (by their standards) doesn't move
the dialogue on this subject much closer to resolution (though it has
to be understood that many of the Trolls care nothing but for the
attention it provides them in the forums to which they post, usually
antagonistically with respect to the prevalent paradigms of regulars).

> If you do not believe in the power of these things, if you are not 
> here to further your magickal knowedge and ability, why then are 
> you here? I get the impression that many of you just enjoy shooting 
> others down, calling their claims and beliefs rubbish. 

that is correct. of course some of them believe (or portray the belief)
that they are performing a valuable social service by disrupting the
communication of occult techniques and methods. for this reason they
are inclined to reply to you that your scrutiny is sub-standard and that
you are a dupe of charlatans. where the discussion turns on the actual
legitimacy of any particular school or method this is properly placed,
but those who seek to turn *every* (esp. practical) thread toward anti-
occultist ends are usually worth killfiling or ignoring for knowledgeable
and reliable alternatives.
 
> The arrogance of it annoys the hell out of me.

it is intended to do precisely that in many cases. 'Grrr' appears to be
one of these disruptors. if you have inspiration to oppose such people,
hang out in the newsgroup a while and catalogue the real offenders,
posting a 'catalogue of alt.magick Trolls', reposting this when they 
again start up their distractions. it usually defuses the problem, I find.

> Just because you dont believe or agree with something or just because you
> can't get something to work doesnt mean it doesnt work.

too many negatives. better to hear how it *has* worked for you, what makes
you think you aren't fooling yourself into thinking it does, etc.

> I still hold true to my theory that belief, respect and most of all, 
> child like awe of what you are doing is one of the main ingredients 
> to get magick to work.

in which case the same belief can get it to not work. why do you think this
subjective state is important to success?

> Now you may commence with your formulated responses, witty one liners,
> insults and other non magickal inane babble.

not my intent. I'm hoping to turn this thread into something valuable for
those who actually practice magic, rather than merely typing for attention.
you seem one of the rational. metaphysics such as this is valuable for the
magician to engage occasionally, aside from the practice of arts arcane.

don't be surprised if few respond to your challenge. a sincere interaction
is the furthest thing from most of the Trolls' minds. ;>

nagasiva