Book Recommendation Any good books to recommend?

[Amur]

Well the only real thing of the entire GD paradigm is the placings of the elements, which is correct YHShVH (from right to left) which goes with the 4 elements + spirit. This is really almost everything that a magickian needs to know for the rest of their life.

Pretty much the rituals are 'God name', 'Corresponding Arch Angel' 'Element'. This can have many oppurtunities as well as approaches. Basically there are many God names or Gods to choose from but they can all be attributed, about arch angels I can not say but had an experience where they said "Jesus Christ Technology" and that seems to prove true to me. Got a paper of the elements that I could put in a thread here, got it now on mega. Well here it is:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[neilwilkes]

There is also a very detailed version in Crowley's Book 4:
Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae

 

[Amur]

Here's 2 good books for starting out on the RHP:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Flavius]

I would say that Dante Allighieri’s Divine Comedy would be good to read. It shows the way to get out of the materialism which contemporary man is severely stuck in.

 

[WisdomAddict]

I would say that Dante Allighieri’s Divine Comedy would be good to read. It shows the way to get out of the materialism which contemporary man is severely stuck in.

I have the PDF but never read it
I wasn't sure what I will read
A novel ? Or an esoteric text?
I will look into it I guess

 

[HoldAll]

Currently reading "The Arch Conjuror of England: John Dee" by Glyn Parry. It's scholarly but not condescendig vis-a-vis magic and not at all hostile towards Dr. John Dee but he nevertheless comes off as a mildly naive, misguided academic that was not very good at court politics, not as the 'trusted advisor' of Elizabeth I. His angels were wrong in their prophecies most of the time, gave inappropriate and impractical counsel or led him by the nose, made various U-turns in their opinions and didn't lift an astral finger when he was in grave difficulties.

If your image of Dr. John Dee as a powerful Renaissance mage is able to survive this onslaught of historical facts, congratulations. Personally, I've long given up on occult authors when it comes to magic in history. Among scholars, it has become fortunately non-PC nowadays to depict magic as mere superstion, and there are many books by historians out there that debunk long-cherished occultist myths without even being aware they existed. I don't want to ever read occult books about ancient Greece, Egypt, the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists anymore, all that phony romantic glow of the glorious past of magic gets on my nerves. Contemporary how-to books, ok, but not tomes purporting to build on imaginary 'ancient wisdom' for which there is no textual or other evidence whatsoever.

 

[Xenophon]

Currently reading "The Arch Conjuror of England: John Dee" by Glyn Parry. It's scholarly but not condescendig vis-a-vis magic and not at all hostile towards Dr. John Dee but he nevertheless comes off as a mildly naive, misguided academic that was not very good at court politics, not as the 'trusted advisor' of Elizabeth I. His angels were wrong in their prophecies most of the time, gave inappropriate and impractical counsel or led him by the nose, made various U-turns in their opinions and didn't lift an astral finger when he was in grave difficulties.

If your image of Dr. John Dee as a powerful Renaissance mage is able to survive this onslaught of historical facts, congratulations. Personally, I've long given up on occult authors when it comes to magic in history. Among scholars, it has become fortunately non-PC nowadays to depict magic as mere superstion, and there are many books by historians out there that debunk long-cherished occultist myths without even being aware they existed. I don't want to ever read occult books about ancient Greece, Egypt, the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists anymore, all that phony romantic glow of the glorious past of magic gets on my nerves. Contemporary how-to books, ok, but not tomes purporting to build on imaginary 'ancient wisdom' for which there is no textual or other evidence whatsoever.

Every account I initially read of Dee made him out as a curious scholar, albeit one with limited (if any) magickal skills. Which is why he so needed the decidedly tacky Edward Kelley. In particular, the accounts I read stressed how Dee compiled the Enochian material but never used it. I guess I was lucky to read sources that were not starstruck. If memory serves, this take on Dee is that taken on the hermetic.com website.

On the other hand, if one were a powerful mage, an image as a bumbling dabbler might be the best cover. I'm not into Dee enough to sweat it either way. But both possibilities are worth pondering. (For those with spare time to ponder.)

 

[HoldAll]

Addendum: This doesn't mean the whole of Enochian magic is bullshit, I just wanted to say that the widespread 'backstory' is probably wrong. Lack of venerability doesn't invalidate a given system, I'd say.

 

[Xenophon]

Addendum: This doesn't mean the whole of Enochian magic is bullshit, I just wanted to say that the widespread 'backstory' is probably wrong. Lack of venerability doesn't invalidate a given system, I'd say.

First comes the accomplishment, then comes the backstory. Something similar caused Oscar Wilde to remark that The Peerage was "the finest thing the British have done in fiction."

 

[neilwilkes]

Rarely has anybody been so deliberately misunderstood as John Dee (with the possible exception of Edward De Vere) and it is as if someone, somewhere was deliberately attempting to destroy his reputation & credibility even back in late Elizabethan (and certainly in Stuart) times.
He never claimed to be a 'mage' at all (and complained about various people disparaging his reputation with statements like that - happy to dig out chapter & verse if anybody would like?) even though he was accused of this as far bvack as his time in Cambridge University and was indeed a close confidante of Elizabeth I who even visited him at his home in Mortlake on more than one occasion (something Monarchs rarely did in those days unless 'On Progress' in order to awe the provincials with the Regal Majesty & putting the strong arm on the wishy-washy etc) and if you read Dee's 'Compendious Rehearsal' from 1592 he details what he has done for England & the Queen and her advisors, such as Cecil (Lord Burghley) and the rest of them.
He never claimed to be a magician, and this cannot be overstated.
As far as the Enochian material goes, it's fascinating to try & make sense of what was happening there - how much was Kelly taking Dee for a gullible fool (this has been argued by many, although as far as I can make out not exactly convincingly as it is not always possible to ascertain who heard & saw what during the 'Actions' - mostly it was Kelly reporting whilst Dee wrote down what Kelly said he saw & heard, but there are other times when it appears to be Dee who is hearing & seeing things he could not readily explain, plus there are many diary entries where Kelly is the one telling Dee that these are not Angelic creatures but decievers & he does not want any further part in the proceedings.

Personally speaking, I cannot as yet give a definitive answer as to what I think really happened as I am still reading the source material, learning & studying Dee's writings in various editions. I think Dee was certainly one of the finest minds this country has ever produced - he was a Polyglot and a Mathematician & understood Optics, Cartography, Geometry, Algebra (although he would not have known it by that name) and much more besides yet we do not even know where he is buried!

 

[Xingtian]

Currently reading "The Arch Conjuror of England: John Dee" by Glyn Parry. It's scholarly but not condescendig vis-a-vis magic and not at all hostile towards Dr. John Dee but he nevertheless comes off as a mildly naive, misguided academic that was not very good at court politics, not as the 'trusted advisor' of Elizabeth I. His angels were wrong in their prophecies most of the time, gave inappropriate and impractical counsel or led him by the nose, made various U-turns in their opinions and didn't lift an astral finger when he was in grave difficulties.

If your image of Dr. John Dee as a powerful Renaissance mage is able to survive this onslaught of historical facts, congratulations. Personally, I've long given up on occult authors when it comes to magic in history. Among scholars, it has become fortunately non-PC nowadays to depict magic as mere superstion, and there are many books by historians out there that debunk long-cherished occultist myths without even being aware they existed. I don't want to ever read occult books about ancient Greece, Egypt, the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists anymore, all that phony romantic glow of the glorious past of magic gets on my nerves. Contemporary how-to books, ok, but not tomes purporting to build on imaginary 'ancient wisdom' for which there is no textual or other evidence whatsoever.

This is exactly why I’m strongly in favor of directly reading ancient sources as well as good historical scholarship, it really does wonders for deflating the claims of various would-be gurus and mystery schools.

 

[Xenophon]

Rarely has anybody been so deliberately misunderstood as John Dee (with the possible exception of Edward De Vere) and it is as if someone, somewhere was deliberately attempting to destroy his reputation & credibility even back in late Elizabethan (and certainly in Stuart) times.
He never claimed to be a 'mage' at all (and complained about various people disparaging his reputation with statements like that - happy to dig out chapter & verse if anybody would like?) even though he was accused of this as far bvack as his time in Cambridge University and was indeed a close confidante of Elizabeth I who even visited him at his home in Mortlake on more than one occasion (something Monarchs rarely did in those days unless 'On Progress' in order to awe the provincials with the Regal Majesty & putting the strong arm on the wishy-washy etc) and if you read Dee's 'Compendious Rehearsal' from 1592 he details what he has done for England & the Queen and her advisors, such as Cecil (Lord Burghley) and the rest of them.
He never claimed to be a magician, and this cannot be overstated.
As far as the Enochian material goes, it's fascinating to try & make sense of what was happening there - how much was Kelly taking Dee for a gullible fool (this has been argued by many, although as far as I can make out not exactly convincingly as it is not always possible to ascertain who heard & saw what during the 'Actions' - mostly it was Kelly reporting whilst Dee wrote down what Kelly said he saw & heard, but there are other times when it appears to be Dee who is hearing & seeing things he could not readily explain, plus there are many diary entries where Kelly is the one telling Dee that these are not Angelic creatures but decievers & he does not want any further part in the proceedings.

Personally speaking, I cannot as yet give a definitive answer as to what I think really happened as I am still reading the source material, learning & studying Dee's writings in various editions. I think Dee was certainly one of the finest minds this country has ever produced - he was a Polyglot and a Mathematician & understood Optics, Cartography, Geometry, Algebra (although he would not have known it by that name) and much more besides yet we do not even know where he is buried!

If you're satisfied he was no mage (which seems to have been the case---i.e., you're right) why vex yourself over whether he was misunderstood or where he was buried? He was a scholar who had some remarkable experiences, it seems. And...? What's the motivation here? Simple biographisizing?

 

[neilwilkes]

Good question - the honest answer is that I totally respect and admire his other work - for me, the whole 'Spiritual' stuff is an aside, albeit a bloody fascinating one that at this point I am absolutely neutral about with no firm opinion one way or the other as to it's reality or efficacy, whicyh is why I am reading up on it. I just get a little irritated when he is seemingly only remembered for his 'magic' and unsuccessfully haranguing Maximillian over his supposed sins than for the other things he did.
He absolutely had remarkable experiences, and I cannot make up my mind how much of these were real and how much was faked by Kelly although in the case of the latter it is probably far less than some people suppose it was, but no matter how that turns out it will never take a thing away from his other achievements, spome of which were f***ing stunning, not to mention brilliant and nothing short of genius.

Are you aware of his encryptions in the title page & dedication of the 1609 published first Quarto edition of Shake-Speare's Sonnets at all?

 

[theantichrist]

The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows.

 

[Xenophon]

Good question - the honest answer is that I totally respect and admire his other work - for me, the whole 'Spiritual' stuff is an aside, albeit a bloody fascinating one that at this point I am absolutely neutral about with no firm opinion one way or the other as to it's reality or efficacy, whicyh is why I am reading up on it. I just get a little irritated when he is seemingly only remembered for his 'magic' and unsuccessfully haranguing Maximillian over his supposed sins than for the other things he did.
He absolutely had remarkable experiences, and I cannot make up my mind how much of these were real and how much was faked by Kelly although in the case of the latter it is probably far less than some people suppose it was, but no matter how that turns out it will never take a thing away from his other achievements, spome of which were f***ing stunning, not to mention brilliant and nothing short of genius.

Are you aware of his encryptions in the title page & dedication of the 1609 published first Quarto edition of Shake-Speare's Sonnets at all?

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2024

No I was not aware of his encryptions. And, having learned of them, I shall do my best to forget about them completely.

 

[neilwilkes]

Post automatically merged: Mar 16, 2024

No I was not aware of his encryptions. And, having learned of them, I shall do my best to forget about them completely.

Might I please ask why?
Might I also please ask where you went for the information?

 

[Xenophon]

I was just making a slightly joking reference to the old Sherlock Holmes anecdote where he informs Watson that he, Holmes, was ignorant of Copernican astronomy till Watson told him that moment. His point was his mind was filled with other info.
Actually, I recently added Dee's "Monad" to my trove of book to read soon.

Where I went for the encryptions info? You mentioned them in your post.

 

[neilwilkes]

I was just making a slightly joking reference to the old Sherlock Holmes anecdote where he informs Watson that he, Holmes, was ignorant of Copernican astronomy till Watson told him that moment. His point was his mind was filled with other info.
Actually, I recently added Dee's "Monad" to my trove of book to read soon.

Where I went for the encryptions info? You mentioned them in your post.

My apologies for missing the Holmes quote - I never did get on with the writing style for some reason. Probably some aversion to Victorian writers in general, which is unfair of me but there you go - I struggle with almost all of them. The only reason I mentioned it all was because I got the impression that you thought it was irrelevant?

Be careful about the translation of the Monad too - I can recommend Jim Egan's version (along with a series of free to download PDF books on the geometry and Numerology at the root of Dee's world view) as well as the recent one by Dr Terry Burns as well. She has also put out a huge series of 'explanatory' videos, but at the end of the day it's her opinion.
Happy to post these if you are interested