Magical Rules of the Universe

Firetree · Tuesday at 12:04 AM

Spiritual doctor said:
No i am not

No i am not one of the grabber but i am reply like being the elephant i am not judging anyone but i am reply the truth that happen in our magical world

Can you explain 'dirtiness' and 'purity' according to the 'laws of the Universe ' ?

ewiz · Tuesday at 12:42 AM

Sidenote, all of these systems of correspondence and classification are arbitrary. Just because some ancient scholars believed the universe was composed of the 4 classical elements, that does not make it so (in fact, we now know this is very far from reality.) Same with the rest of your "rules." And if we're to assume that tables of correspondence are the secret formula for real magic, then the question is which ones? Because there are dozens of famous ones, and hundreds if not thousands of lesser known ones, and most of them contradict each other. And that's not to mention, we're only talking about western/european esoteric traditions here, what about the rest of the world?

It sounds like you're trying to work out the perfect universal system for yourself, and I think that's great. I think that's what we all do. But I don't assume my philosophy and working model is universal, even if it's right for me, and neither should you. Just because you can't get meaningful real world results from scribbling on a dirty napkin in a truck stop then flushing it down the toilet, doesn't mean that someone else can't. You can have your magical philosophy of purity, and someone else could disregard everything entirely, put not thought into how or why things work, and just Will something into reality. These can be equally valid approaches, it just depends on the person. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 1:19 AM

Toz_ said:
Just to make clear to you dude, taking ideas out your ass without a real source don't give it credibility, and for something to be a rule of the universe it needs to be proven, verifiable by anybody who test it, not just claimed. Take gravity for example, everyone can experience it, there a whole corpus of study, replicated experiment, math that predict it, that's what make it a rule. You just dropping a list here with zero of that.

And notice something, this list you just posted, elements connect to zodiac, elements connect to angels and god names, elements connect to alphabets and correspondence tables, this ain't "the actual magic frame" you discovered separate from philosophy, this literally IS the same kind of correspondence philosophy from guys like Agrippa and every other grimoric author you'd probably call "opinion of the author" if their name was on it. You said earlier ignore the philosophy, focus on real rules, but this whole list is philosophy, somebody's theory of how correspondence work, written in manuscripts by humans who also disagreed with each other across traditions. You didn't escape philosophy, you just didn't credit where you copied it from.

Also, you undercutting yourself in your own post, you wrote this "for discussion purpose trying to practice witu guess and without the actual correspondence rule that create mistake." That's you admitting you're guessing and don't actually have the confirmed rule yourself. So which is it, you got the real rules of the universe or you're guessing? Can't be both. That N.B. is basically you conceding the whole argument while still calling it a rule in the same post.

Just discussed on the topic if you have not answer simply being silent is better than criticism only saying you are not correct in long paragraph can not be answer if you have answer just write to me based on your real thinking.
Your practice chaos, your answer chaos, your discussion chaos, so what give reasonable answer

Toz_ · Tuesday at 1:21 AM

Yeah he don't understand what he talking about, early alchemy ran on the platonic four elements model, later Paracelsus time it shifted to sulfur, salt, mercury as the core principles, and what we call chemistry today is basically the evolution outta Paracelsus alchemy through centuries of refinement and testing. Every stage of that history got replaced, corrected, built on top of by people who actually tested it and showed their work. That's how a real field move forward.

But this dude just pulling elements-connect-to-zodiac-connect-to-angel-names outta his own head like he got some special authority nobody else got access to, no lineage, no source, no test, just vibes dressed up as "rule of the universe." Dude sound unhinged honestly, talking like he cracked some cosmic code everybody else missed while admitting in his own post he's literally guessing.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 1:42 AM

SCHIZOTERIC

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 1:35 AM

Toz_ said:
Yeah he don't understand what he talking about, early alchemy ran on the platonic four elements model, later Paracelsus time it shifted to sulfur, salt, mercury as the core principles, and what we call chemistry today is basically the evolution outta Paracelsus alchemy through centuries of refinement and testing. Every stage of that history got replaced, corrected, built on top of by people who actually tested it and showed their work. That's how a real field move forward.

But this dude just pulling elements-connect-to-zodiac-connect-to-angel-names outta his own head like he got some special authority nobody else got access to, no lineage, no source, no test, just vibes dressed up as "rule of the universe." Dude sound unhinged honestly, talking like he cracked some cosmic code everybody else missed while admitting in his own post he's literally guessing

So now you enter instantly from belief to chemistry
Sorry i think writing those rules i made your chaos usless but i am not made this, chaos by itself was noise and noise is useless

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 1:42 AM

0

Toz_ said:
Yeah he don't understand what he talking about, early alchemy ran on the platonic four elements model, later Paracelsus time it shifted to sulfur, salt, mercury as the core principles, and what we call chemistry today is basically the evolution outta Paracelsus alchemy through centuries of refinement and testing. Every stage of that history got replaced, corrected, built on top of by people who actually tested it and showed their work. That's how a real field move forward.

But this dude just pulling elements-connect-to-zodiac-connect-to-angel-names outta his own head like he got some special authority nobody else got access to, no lineage, no source, no test, just vibes dressed up as "rule of the universe." Dude sound unhinged honestly, talking like he cracked some cosmic code everybody else missed while admitting in his own post he's literally guessing.

I am not saying this rules are my foundation

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 1:55 AM

Toz_ said:
Can I be honest? You claiming stuff you can't proof, the moment you say "that is the reason most modern magics result is worse" you gotta provide the data, what experiment you asked ppl to do, what's the sample size, how you managed to remove your own bias against certain practice before you drop a conclusion like that. Right now that's just a assertion wearing a lab coat, no different than me saying "chaos magic work better" with nothing behind it either.

And the goalpost moved again. first chaos magic was "real magic," then it wasn't magic at all just psychology, now suddenly you got a whole theory why "modern magics" result worse, casters who "follow philosophy" vs casters who "follow the actual frame." What frame? Who wrote it, where it's at? You keep pointing at this objective frame like it's sitting in a book somewhere everybody agreed on, but you never once showed it this whole conversation.

Not only that, the way you talk make it clear you got little to no knowledge about chaos magick, even grimoric tradition or magick period. You brought up "legion" like it's some order-concept to fight chaos, but that ain't a term from the grimoric tradition, that's something you pulled outta your ass and dropped in the conversation like it's established. The fact you don't even recognize common jargon like nomina barbara from the tradition you claiming authority on is even more revealing you talking about stuff you don't actually know.

Giving "chaos" agency like it's a combatant, then inventing "legion" outta nowhere to be its rival "order," all loaded on a christian dualistic worldview, that ain't a neutral logical position, that's a specific inherited frame you treating like universal law while telling other people they the ones who don't understand the "real rules."

You can say one thoused times " barbaric name " or you can make it fake by writing like " bariric mane " then burning and forgeting it then expecting something life changing . Is this fun or foolishness? Which i do not understand

Toz_ · Tuesday at 6:18 AM

This is a basic term. Anyone who's actually read actual grimories translations eventually runs into it:

A barbarous name (Latin: nomen barbarum; pl. nomina barbara) is a meaningless (or seemingly meaningless) word used in magic rituals. The term comes from Greek barbaroi, meaning someone whose native language wasn't Greek, a foreigner. These names got called "barbarous" specifically because the magician using them didn't understand the foreign language they came from.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarous_name

Fact, not opinion: you wrote "barbaric name" in English, at the very start of this conversation, when the actual term is "barbarous name" / nomina barbara. That's not a typo, that's the term itself being unfamiliar to you. Anyone can scroll up and check.

Then instead of just saying "yeah I didn't know that word," you turned it into a joke, "say it a thousand times, write it fake as 'bariric mane,' burn it." That's not a counter, that's changing the subject to avoid the correction. Mocking the source doesn't undo that you misused the term first.

Next point, also checkable: you said "now you enter instantly from belief to chemistry" like that's some gotcha. But look at the actual sequence you posted a 7-point rules list where elements connect to zodiac, zodiac connects to angel names, that whole correspondence structure. I showed that exact correspondence model is the historical lineage that evolved step by step into modern chemistry, Platonic elements to Paracelsus to chemistry, each stage replaced by testing. So your own rules list is proof of the thing you're arguing against, that magical "laws" are theories people update over time, not fixed cosmic law.

And notice you already backpedaling, first it's "here are the actual rules of magic," then a couple posts later "I am not saying this rules are my foundation," then "chaos by itself was noise, noise is useless," this is the part that's hardest to argue with because it's your own words, not my interpretation. Three different positions in different posts. Anyone reading this thread top to bottom can see the position moving every time it gets challenged, that's not me characterizing you unfairly, that's just what's on the page.

So this isn't "who's more aggressive," it's laid out for anyone to check line by line: wrong term, deflection instead of correction, self-defeating evidence, and a shifting position with your own quotes as the receipts.

Dude just accept it at this point, in this whole conversation you're the only one being illogical, you don't actually know the terminology or tradition you talking about, and every time you get cornered you dodge, redefine, or backpedal instead of just admitting it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Robert Ramsay · Tuesday at 7:48 AM

I think it might be time to end this thread; all we're doing is feeding him attention.

ribbit93 · Tuesday at 8:21 AM

Robert Ramsay said:
I think it might be time to end this thread; all we're doing is feeding him attention.

Maybe, but I've picked up a load of useful information here (albeit not from the OP), and I'm sure others have too.

Thank you for your insights on Chaos magick guys!

HoldAll · Tuesday at 10:10 AM

ewiz said:
Sidenote, all of these systems of correspondence and classification are arbitrary. Just because some ancient scholars believed the universe was composed of the 4 classical elements, that does not make it so (in fact, we now know this is very far from reality.) Same with the rest of your "rules." And if we're to assume that tables of correspondence are the secret formula for real magic, then the question is which ones? Because there are dozens of famous ones, and hundreds if not thousands of lesser known ones, and most of them contradict each other. And that's not to mention, we're only talking about western/european esoteric traditions here, what about the rest of the world?

Correspondences are a matter of convention. So are laws in the socio-political sense, they vary from country to country. The mistake early 19th century occult 'philosophers' made was postulating cosmic laws in the scientific sense, not in the conventional one; they were probably meant symbolically only, not as actual rules the universe had better conform to, or else. Symbolism always reflects the aesthetics and mores of the times and the societies it originated in, so it's relatively easy to poke fun at them, knowing what we do know, feeling how we feel now. When the Kybalion was published in 1908, for example, it was ok to claim "The Principle of Gender: Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; gender manifests on all planes. ", today it's just cringe. It's up to you of course if you accept it as a cast-iron law of the universe, go "Y-e-s, in the broadest possible sense but…", or simply dismiss it as an obsolete pronouncement from occult days of yore that's of no practical use today.

A curious thing about correspondences I've discovered for myself is that they'll stop working for me as soon as I find incontrovertible evidence that there's something wrong with them. For example, I used to be a big fan of Dion Fortune's The Mystical Qabalah until I looked into traditional Jewish Kabbalah a bit deeper; it was an eye-opener, and I don't think I'll use the Golden Dawn's tables of correspondences ever again. Correspondences are not irrevocable truths, they're rough guidelines that are subject to change and need to be updated once in a while.

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 12:31 PM

Toz_ said:
This is a basic term. Anyone who's actually read actual grimories translations eventually runs into it:

A barbarous name (Latin: nomen barbarum; pl. nomina barbara) is a meaningless (or seemingly meaningless) word used in magic rituals. The term comes from Greek barbaroi, meaning someone whose native language wasn't Greek, a foreigner. These names got called "barbarous" specifically because the magician using them didn't understand the foreign language they came from.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarous_name

Fact, not opinion: you wrote "barbaric name" in English, at the very start of this conversation, when the actual term is "barbarous name" / nomina barbara. That's not a typo, that's the term itself being unfamiliar to you. Anyone can scroll up and check.

Then instead of just saying "yeah I didn't know that word," you turned it into a joke, "say it a thousand times, write it fake as 'bariric mane,' burn it." That's not a counter, that's changing the subject to avoid the correction. Mocking the source doesn't undo that you misused the term first.

Next point, also checkable: you said "now you enter instantly from belief to chemistry" like that's some gotcha. But look at the actual sequence you posted a 7-point rules list where elements connect to zodiac, zodiac connects to angel names, that whole correspondence structure. I showed that exact correspondence model is the historical lineage that evolved step by step into modern chemistry, Platonic elements to Paracelsus to chemistry, each stage replaced by testing. So your own rules list is proof of the thing you're arguing against, that magical "laws" are theories people update over time, not fixed cosmic law.

And notice you already backpedaling, first it's "here are the actual rules of magic," then a couple posts later "I am not saying this rules are my foundation," then "chaos by itself was noise, noise is useless," this is the part that's hardest to argue with because it's your own words, not my interpretation. Three different positions in different posts. Anyone reading this thread top to bottom can see the position moving every time it gets challenged, that's not me characterizing you unfairly, that's just what's on the page.

So this isn't "who's more aggressive," it's laid out for anyone to check line by line: wrong term, deflection instead of correction, self-defeating evidence, and a shifting position with your own quotes as the receipts.

Dude just accept it at this point, in this whole conversation you're the only one being illogical, you don't actually know the terminology or tradition you talking about, and every time you get cornered you dodge, redefine, or backpedal instead of just admitting it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you are try to tell for me about grimoire type barbarous names that is funny, i am not talking about barbaric names passed down from generation to generation i am talking about the childish game of Peter J. Carroll and Ray Sherwin and their followers barbaric names and non sense sigils
.the other thing you are before saying "no rule " and now you try to explain the grimoire type barbarous names so there are rules how to use them under those barbarous names in those grimoires there for how can you ignore the rule and accept only the barbarous names to explain
Lastly there is difference between in knowing the rule and finding the rule

Toz_ · Tuesday at 2:42 PM

Robert Ramsay said:
I think it might be time to end this thread; all we're doing is feeding him attention.

Nah I enjoy debating, for me I’m doing this for rhetoric practice, sorry if sounded a bit aggressive but I was trying to point out logical fallacy.

and for the record I’m not a chaos magician, I just enjoy Magick and history in general

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 2:54 PM

I asked a simple question: Can you summon a jinn, control a demon, or do exorcism using only 'belief' as your mechanism?

@Toz_ admitted they've never done it. @ewiz gave a vague 'yes' with no personal experience. @Robert didn't answer at all.

So here's the truth: They can't answer because they've never done it.

They speak about magic from books. I speak about magic from the circle.

You cannot summon a jinn without knowing its name, its seal, its planetary hour, and the proper purification.

You cannot control a demon without authority, tradition, and protection.

You cannot do exorcism without spiritual authority passed down through lineage.

These are not 'philosophies.' These are practical realities that chaos magicians have never experienced.

So tell me again: Have you ever summoned a spirit? Have you ever controlled one?

If not, you're not a magician you're a theorist.

I speak from the circle. You speak from the armchair.

The difference is clear

Toz_ · Tuesday at 3:39 PM

Spiritual doctor said:
I asked a simple question: Can you summon a jinn, control a demon, or do exorcism using only 'belief' as your mechanism?

@Toz_ admitted they've never done it. @ewiz gave a vague 'yes' with no personal experience. @Robert didn't answer at all.

So here's the truth: They can't answer because they've never done it.

They speak about magic from books. I speak about magic from the circle.

You cannot summon a jinn without knowing its name, its seal, its planetary hour, and the proper purification.

You cannot control a demon without authority, tradition, and protection.

You cannot do exorcism without spiritual authority passed down through lineage.

These are not 'philosophies.' These are practical realities that chaos magicians have never experienced.

So tell me again: Have you ever summoned a spirit? Have you ever controlled one?

If not, you're not a magician you're a theorist.

I speak from the circle. You speak from the armchair.

The difference is clear

You are so desperate and delusional to get credibility that you are intentionally misreading or idk not smart enough to understand what you are saying and reading. I said I’m not a chaos magician, I just enjoy Magick and history this doesn’t mean I don’t practice magic

you dumb-dumb

At same time in this conversation you never proved anything only contradicted yourself time and time again, not only proving that you don’t understand basic concepts but you also have a loaded bias towards a magical system that you got out of your head dude.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 3:43 PM

Can you summon a jinn, control a demon, or do exorcism using only 'belief' as your mechanism?

And yes. Because you need to believe that’s magical stuff you are using will work also you. That’s the reason why a taois in china que summon a demon, a chaos magician too and a grimoric magic works

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 4:07 PM

Since you are curious about my practice, I was borne in a family of Candomblé priests and I also a member of Fraternitas Saturni

Robert Ramsay · Tuesday at 4:34 PM

Spiritual doctor said:
I asked a simple question: Can you summon a jinn, control a demon, or do exorcism using only 'belief' as your mechanism?

I must confess that I've never tried, because I believe that things like jinn and demons are basically tulpa and I have never found any need for tulpa.

Spiritual doctor said:
you're not a magician you're a theorist.

and you, sir, want nothing more than to be a gatekeeper - that's the whole reason for starting this thread. You want to be the one who tells people what is and isn't magic, because a) you get a thrill out of it and b) you can't conceive of any other magic than your own.

You are 50% right, though. I am a theorist. I am also a magician. It's amusing that you talk about rules - you have broken one of the unwritten rules of being a magician; do not negate the lived experience of another magician.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 4:37 PM

Toz_ said:
Nah I enjoy debating, for me I’m doing this for rhetoric practice, sorry if sounded a bit aggressive but I was trying to point out logical fallacy.

and for the record I’m not a chaos magician, I just enjoy Magick and history in general

Yes, I enjoyed your arguments, they were very clear - it's just hard to argue with someone who isn't listening

Toz_ · Tuesday at 5:05 PM

Robert Ramsay said:
I must confess that I've never tried, because I believe that things like jinn and demons are basically tulpa and I have never found any need for tulpa.

and you, sir, want nothing more than to be a gatekeeper - that's the whole reason for starting this thread. You want to be the one who tells people what is and isn't magic, because a) you get a thrill out of it and b) you can't conceive of any other magic than your own.

You are 50% right, though. I am a theorist. I am also a magician. It's amusing that you talk about rules - you have broken one of the unwritten rules of being a magician; do not negate the lived experience of another magician.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 4:37 PM

Yes, I enjoyed your arguments, they were very clear - it's just hard to argue with someone who isn't listening

i believe he is reading, but its very common the person who notices that their logic was desmatled to deflect or distort the conversation to try make things in their favor, but if we keep close look on what they are doing we can pinpoint than well for example:

He still ain't answered a single point from the last three posts, not the nomina barbara thing, not the correspondence-evolving-into-chemistry thing, not the four different positions he took in four posts. Instead he swap the whole argument again into "have you personally summoned a jinn," that's not a rebuttal, that's a new burden of proof that got nothing to do with whether the logic hold.

He asking for anecdote when the actual disagreement is about logic and definitions. That's shifting the ground again, same move he did like four times already in this thread. Whether I done a summoning or not don't make "belief is the underlying mechanism" true or false, same as me never running a physics experiment don't make gravity false

Also funny he demanding "practical proof from the circle" now, when he the one who couldn't produce a single source, data point, or reference for his own 7-rule list a few posts back, "Theorist vs magician" is just a label, it don't refute nothing I said about correspondence theory literally evolving into chemistry, or he misusing nomina barbara, or he shifting position four times. Calling someone an armchair theorist instead of answering the argument is exactly the dodge I already pointed out, he just doing it again with new words.

ewiz · Tuesday at 5:44 PM

I think it's clear to everyone involved that this guy has little to no actual experience himself to draw from, only the mental masturbation he gets from formulating this childlike understanding of magic. This is the sort of LARPing that typically keeps people from engaging with online communities. Everyone is wrong, and I am right simply because I say so

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 7:52 PM

One who practice nothing in all of his life how could write about magic and from where he got the moral to judge practical magic this is stunning thing.
How could a person said my theory is correct without practicing even a single practice in his whole life?
How could logic and theory heal person, bring wealth, etc? How could a magician be
Writing 1st, logic 1st, theory 1st, criticism 1st, moral 1st, practice 0, result 0, prove 0 just bla bla bla

Spiritual doctor · Tuesday at 8:03 PM

ewiz said:
I think it's clear to everyone involved that this guy has little to no actual experience himself to draw from, only the mental masturbation he gets from formulating this childlike understanding of magic. This is the sort of LARPing that typically keeps people from engaging with online communities. Everyone is wrong, and I am right simply because I say so

Sometime in debate theory alone can not make the debate full so if your theory is real show against me practically and aslo i show you my rule magic practically against you then let me show who will itch his ass this idea is better than laughing

Magical Rules of the Universe

Disciple

Neophyte

Banned

Neophyte

Banned

Banned

Banned

Neophyte

Apostle

Neophyte

Librarian

Banned

Neophyte

Banned

Neophyte

Apostle

Neophyte

Neophyte

Banned

Banned