What kind of wizard are you?

[Robert Ramsay]

Unless they are a parapsychologist in which case your chances are probably better with them. This of course would also be dependent on the type of parapsychologist they are.

It's interesting you should say that. I was at the SPR conference last year and they didn't seem particularly interested :-/

 

[Third-Man-Rises]

Ride-All-Magik

 

[dema354]

It's interesting you should say that. I was at the SPR conference last year and they didn't seem particularly interested :-/

Funny. You would normally expect those within a particular field of study to at least be interested in a possible theory or scientific explanation. What were their priorities then? Funding?

 

[cormundum]

As far as wizardry comes along, I'm more into studying alchemy (basic spagyrics) and praying over any sort of super-involved ritual practice. I do angelic invocations every so often, and rarely call on the Abramelin familiars. Every so often I'll hammer out a talisman for one purpose or another if the timing is interesting enough and it seems helpful. Honestly I'm more of a Law of Assumption guy at this point, which will probably piss everybody off here.

When I first got started I was very into Solomonic/Traditional Western High Magick, and I still maintain that view as my core approach, as it jives well with the Traditional Catholic faith - though I was not Catholic when I began my journey. My first successful invocation was of one of the Arbatel spirits, and that grimoire has been a mainstay for me, though I no longer call those spirits regularly. They gave me advice, I followed it. I wanted to learn languages quickly and remember all my studies, Ophiel's seal on a piece of parchment brought me near miraculous success in this endeavor, where I became fluent in writing a little-known dialect of one of the sacred tongues that no outsider other than myself has ever been able to master. Did a version of the Abramelin one of my patron saints I worked with at the time instructed me in, got to know the HGA which ended up putting me on yet another path of investigation which brought me to where I am now.

I made all the Enochian tools myself right around COVID time, except for the miniature Sigillæ Dei Æmeth (got those from Jason Augustus-Newcomb), the ring (first one I got on Etsy), and the Ensigns of Creation (friend and fellow practitioner engraved the high-tin pewter for me). I even made the little booklet for the Watchtower spirits, to work with them properly. Those experiences were interesting, and I've seen the power of the Angelical magick of John Dee.

After a certain point, in-between KCHGA and Enochian experimentation, I got exposed to Liber NULL and Carroll's work. What I found interesting about that was his attempt to break down the ceremonies and ritual procedures of High Magick and other traditions and reduce them to their basic parts, rather than remaining mired in the (pointless) details of individual ceremonies. This broader approach aligned with much of what I had received from the spirits in fragments over the previous years, though I was resistant to the ideas that not everything is real etc. for a long time. After seeing enough "glitches in the Matrix" in my day-to-day life that had nothing (perceptably) to do with my magickal work, I started to see more of the appeal of the Chaos Magick perspective.

In 2023 I took upon myself to study the entirety of Agrippa's Three Books, which took me about a year. During that time period, I became acquainted with RAW, particularly his Prometheus Rising, and I saw that in Agrippa's work itself, there were a lot of parallels with RAW's idea of the "reality tunnel" and the teachings of Neville Goddard's "Law of Assumption" (Agrippa, per example, teaches that the passions of man's soul can cause significant changes upon his physical person, as well as the world surrounding him, even to the point of causing apparent wonders). Reading the New Testament with an open mind, Christ mentions plenty of the time that all one needs is faith the size of a grain of mustard seed in order to toss mountains into the sea, and heal the blind and raise the dead. Experimenting with more loosey-goosey methods of trying to accomplish thaumaturgical acts, just through changing mindset and praying over issues with certainty and faith, I've seen at least as many results as I have from the "serious" magickal practices I used to engage in.

At this point, I don't really have much truck with the occult community. I see a lot of people who miss the forest for the trees, and often the trees they fixate on are rotting and probably need to be cut down for the safety of the neighborhood. Participating here in a limited manner is fun, but at this point I find it prudent to follow the Fourth Rule of the Sphinx and keep my practices and goals out of the limelight.

To close I'd like to share this quote from one of Agrippa's essays collected in the work De Invisibilia Dei:

"And this is what I now want you to know: the operator of all wondrous effects lies within ourselves. It knows how to discern and accomplish whatever portentous astrologers, prodigious magi, alchemists – the envious persecutors of nature – and wicked necromancers worse than demons dare to promise, and all this without any crime, without offending God, without injury to religion. In us, I say, is that operator of wonders. It dwells within us, not in Tartarus, nor in the stars of heaven; All this is brought to pass by the spirit which lives in us."

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Funny. You would normally expect those within a particular field of study to at least be interested in a possible theory or scientific explanation. What were their priorities then? Funding?

Data, I think. They don't seem to have progressed beyond the "there must be incontrovertible proof" even though theory would show them why they didn't have incontrovertible proof.

 

[dema354]

Data, I think. They don't seem to have progressed beyond the "there must be incontrovertible proof" even though theory would show them why they didn't have incontrovertible proof.

I'm presuming they at least have some general ideal of what they are looking for, yes? Otherwise looking for 'incontrovertible proof' is a fools endeavor without at least having a semblance of what it is that one is looking for. Now if you mean they're still stuck on the question concerning 100% proof or disproof of the existence of magick in a specific term so as to exclude wishful thinking, fraud, the normal laws of causality, etc, well that's going to be a problem. As far as I can tell science is not in the business of asking whether something does or does not exists beyond any measure of evidence. No, instead you are looking for the likelihood and from the observations you then try to reason why. The objective isn't to look for proof beyond all reason. That's a ridiculous standard. You might as well ask for definitive proof that everything is just thoughts and that we are all one and the same or that everything can be explained under a materialistic lens.

Basically you can gather as much evidence as you want either in favor or against it however that will never be enough to say there's a 100% in either direction.

I'm presuming since you have a theory you at least have an ideal of what you are looking for and have done enough tests to feel relatively confident in it, yes?

 

[Asteriskos]

As far as wizardry comes along, I'm more into studying alchemy (basic spagyrics) and praying over any sort of super-involved ritual practice. I do angelic invocations every so often, and rarely call on the Abramelin familiars. Every so often I'll hammer out a talisman for one purpose or another if the timing is interesting enough and it seems helpful. Honestly I'm more of a Law of Assumption guy at this point, which will probably piss everybody off here.

When I first got started I was very into Solomonic/Traditional Western High Magick, and I still maintain that view as my core approach, as it jives well with the Traditional Catholic faith - though I was not Catholic when I began my journey. My first successful invocation was of one of the Arbatel spirits, and that grimoire has been a mainstay for me, though I no longer call those spirits regularly. They gave me advice, I followed it. I wanted to learn languages quickly and remember all my studies, Ophiel's seal on a piece of parchment brought me near miraculous success in this endeavor, where I became fluent in writing a little-known dialect of one of the sacred tongues that no outsider other than myself has ever been able to master. Did a version of the Abramelin one of my patron saints I worked with at the time instructed me in, got to know the HGA which ended up putting me on yet another path of investigation which brought me to where I am now.

I made all the Enochian tools myself right around COVID time, except for the miniature Sigillæ Dei Æmeth (got those from Jason Augustus-Newcomb), the ring (first one I got on Etsy), and the Ensigns of Creation (friend and fellow practitioner engraved the high-tin pewter for me). I even made the little booklet for the Watchtower spirits, to work with them properly. Those experiences were interesting, and I've seen the power of the Angelical magick of John Dee.

After a certain point, in-between KCHGA and Enochian experimentation, I got exposed to Liber NULL and Carroll's work. What I found interesting about that was his attempt to break down the ceremonies and ritual procedures of High Magick and other traditions and reduce them to their basic parts, rather than remaining mired in the (pointless) details of individual ceremonies. This broader approach aligned with much of what I had received from the spirits in fragments over the previous years, though I was resistant to the ideas that not everything is real etc. for a long time. After seeing enough "glitches in the Matrix" in my day-to-day life that had nothing (perceptably) to do with my magickal work, I started to see more of the appeal of the Chaos Magick perspective.

In 2023 I took upon myself to study the entirety of Agrippa's Three Books, which took me about a year. During that time period, I became acquainted with RAW, particularly his Prometheus Rising, and I saw that in Agrippa's work itself, there were a lot of parallels with RAW's idea of the "reality tunnel" and the teachings of Neville Goddard's "Law of Assumption" (Agrippa, per example, teaches that the passions of man's soul can cause significant changes upon his physical person, as well as the world surrounding him, even to the point of causing apparent wonders). Reading the New Testament with an open mind, Christ mentions plenty of the time that all one needs is faith the size of a grain of mustard seed in order to toss mountains into the sea, and heal the blind and raise the dead. Experimenting with more loosey-goosey methods of trying to accomplish thaumaturgical acts, just through changing mindset and praying over issues with certainty and faith, I've seen at least as many results as I have from the "serious" magickal practices I used to engage in.

At this point, I don't really have much truck with the occult community. I see a lot of people who miss the forest for the trees, and often the trees they fixate on are rotting and probably need to be cut down for the safety of the neighborhood. Participating here in a limited manner is fun, but at this point I find it prudent to follow the Fourth Rule of the Sphinx and keep my practices and goals out of the limelight.

To close I'd like to share this quote from one of Agrippa's essays collected in the work De Invisibilia Dei:

"And this is what I now want you to know: the operator of all wondrous effects lies within ourselves. It knows how to discern and accomplish whatever portentous astrologers, prodigious magi, alchemists – the envious persecutors of nature – and wicked necromancers worse than demons dare to promise, and all this without any crime, without offending God, without injury to religion. In us, I say, is that operator of wonders. It dwells within us, not in Tartarus, nor in the stars of heaven; All this is brought to pass by the spirit which lives in us."

Well thought out, and Well Said!

 

[therootbeersprite]

I'm an eclectic witch, always picking up little bits from here and there. I take what works for me, and leave the rest. Though I do avoid closed practices. That's not for me to take.

I try to do a lot of reading, because I find that even when a text is too introductory for me, I still always learn SOMETHING because every path has a different way of looking at things. Study is important because I can't practice if I don't know what the heck I'm doing. And I see study AS a part of my practice, as a way to continue to build my skills and to engage with and walk my path.

I am particularly naturally adept with divination, which is ironic, since I'm not always so curious and don't often know what to ask. I mostly use a modified form of Geomancy, and also Elder Futhark Runes. I'm just starting to learn Tarot. (My tarot cards have "scolded" me several times already for not asking specific enough questions.)

I consider myself an "art witch", as I physically "build" all of my spells, and my anthame is a palette knife. Creating sigils is another specialty of mine, and I often use them in my spell building. I find that, for me, the creation is the manifestation of the intention.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

I'm presuming they at least have some general ideal of what they are looking for, yes? Otherwise looking for 'incontrovertible proof' is a fools endeavor without at least having a semblance of what it is that one is looking for. Now if you mean they're still stuck on the question concerning 100% proof or disproof of the existence of magick in a specific term so as to exclude wishful thinking, fraud, the normal laws of causality, etc, well that's going to be a problem. As far as I can tell science is not in the business of asking whether something does or does not exists beyond any measure of evidence. No, instead you are looking for the likelihood and from the observations you then try to reason why. The objective isn't to look for proof beyond all reason. That's a ridiculous standard. You might as well ask for definitive proof that everything is just thoughts and that we are all one and the same or that everything can be explained under a materialistic lens.

Basically you can gather as much evidence as you want either in favor or against it however that will never be enough to say there's a 100% in either direction.

I'm presuming since you have a theory you at least have an ideal of what you are looking for and have done enough tests to feel relatively confident in it, yes?

There is a saying: data without theory is not evidence. The SPR (for example) have, like, 140 years of data, and all the theories I've seen from them amount to

Their MO seems to be: find something and then get a PhD student to study it, but until they have a decent theory, this data is not evidence.
Any proper investigation of my ideas (like any theory) requires more experimental expertise and equipment than I possess. I would need to get them interested enough to take it up. I do have a couple of predictions (about telepathy/remote viewing) that can be experimentally tested.

 

[albie]

I understand that most of you likely don't practice or study just one type magick, therefore the following list of choices is non-exhaustive, feel free to add your type of wizardry that defines you in your reply if not listed here.

If there are multiple choices applicable to you, select one that is your primary (feel free to share secondary as well), also please tell us more about how you approach it, e.g is it:

• study focused
• practice focused
• commercial or advertising focused etc.

And most importantly, what do you like about it, why do you consider it more relevant to you than other types.
Tell us also about your ambitions and your end goals if you have any.

Here goes the list

• Necromancy
• Chaos magick
• Elemental magick
• Green magick (herbalism)
• Divination
• Witchcraft
• Folk magick
• High magick
• Blood magic
• Shadow magick
• Sex magick
• Enchantment magick

To answer first (and to be honest), I'm not much into any particular one however I'm serious about studying herbalism.
I'm aiming at establishing my own pharmacy for personal use one day, a hobby of sort.

I'm consider it more relevant than other because I'm able to interact with physical things (herbs) that have physical effect.
My secondary that I'm currently willing to study more about is elemental magick.

I'm a BELIEVE I'M GOD AND COINCIDENCE GOES MY WAY wizard. The David Icke way of doing stuff.

 

[Dascent]

In a sense I could say I combine many aspects from whatever to create the reality I prefer most.

 

[dema354]

There is a saying: data without theory is not evidence. The SPR (for example) have, like, 140 years of data, and all the theories I've seen from them amount to

Their MO seems to be: find something and then get a PhD student to study it, but until they have a decent theory, this data is not evidence.
Any proper investigation of my ideas (like any theory) requires more experimental expertise and equipment than I possess. I would need to get them interested enough to take it up. I do have a couple of predictions (about telepathy/remote viewing) that can be experimentally tested.

Semantics. Another word for proof is data and another word for data is evidence though technicalities and connotations aside if what you're saying is true this would mean that the main issue is no longer not having enough proof, data, evidence or whatever synonym in order to posit a hypothesis or theory (essentially a hypothesis that's made for the purposes of explaining) but rather figuring out which proposed theory is best supported given the data. And like a battlefield, the one theory or theories with the most data in support of them wins out regardless of veracity. If we think of data like resources, then controlling the flow or even the propagation of resources is crucial to winning the battle and hopefully the war.

Naturally of course if there are two or more theories that are functionally the same or aligned ideologies with maybe some minor caveats or allied/duplicate forces to keep with the battlefield analogy, then we might as well treat them as one. Since you first replied with that the SPR was not interested in your theories and given what has been presented so far I can posit a few reasons why.

1. Lack of data, preexisting or otherwise that could be reasonably interpreted to be in favour of your theory(ies)
2. Your theory or theories are quite similar to some other theories that may have been proposed such that they might as well be considered one- effectively there's no reason to take special note of yours if it's part of an amalgamation of others like it.
3. Malice, after all the ones evaluating ideals are humans or presumably humans and if not that then hopefully with at least the sapience level of a human (this statement is not said in support or denial concerning the existence or lack there of of extraterrestrial life, creatures widely considered to be mythological and not human in origin, spirits or the such) so of course we cannot rule out self-serving agendas.

Oh and if you don't like my first paragraph then let's go with the term systems of informational support to broadly cover what data, theory and evidence are used for or are effectively are, that is unless you want to be very specific and highlight the nuances. Or perhaps you would like to use another term instead to emphasize your position.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Semantics. Another word for proof is data and another word for data is evidence though technicalities and connotations aside if what you're saying is true this would mean that the main issue is no longer not having enough proof, data, evidence or whatever synonym in order to posit a hypothesis or theory (essentially a hypothesis that's made for the purposes of explaining) but rather figuring out which proposed theory is best supported given the data. And like a battlefield, the one theory or theories with the most data in support of them wins out regardless of veracity. If we think of data like resources, then controlling the flow or even the propagation of resources is crucial to winning the battle and hopefully the war.

Naturally of course if there are two or more theories that are functionally the same or aligned ideologies with maybe some minor caveats or allied/duplicate forces to keep with the battlefield analogy, then we might as well treat them as one. Since you first replied with that the SPR was not interested in your theories and given what has been presented so far I can posit a few reasons why.

1. Lack of data, preexisting or otherwise that could be reasonably interpreted to be in favour of your theory(ies)
2. Your theory or theories are quite similar to some other theories that may have been proposed such that they might as well be considered one- effectively there's no reason to take special note of yours if it's part of an amalgamation of others like it.
3. Malice, after all the ones evaluating ideals are humans or presumably humans and if not that then hopefully with at least the sapience level of a human (this statement is not said in support or denial concerning the existence or lack there of of extraterrestrial life, creatures widely considered to be mythological and not human in origin, spirits or the such) so of course we cannot rule out self-serving agendas.

Oh and if you don't like my first paragraph then let's go with the term systems of informational support to broadly cover what data, theory and evidence are used for or are effectively are, that is unless you want to be very specific and highlight the nuances. Or perhaps you would like to use another term instead to emphasize your position.

This is all excellent stuff. I reckon the thinking behind the saying is that evidence needs to be data for something (i.e. an hypothesis) whereas data is well, data - resources, like you say. I just find it odd, that with all this data, there aren't very many competing theories to take advantage of it, and even fewer that make experimental predictions.

 

[Konsciencia]

I don't really have any labels, but I can say I am a mystic. Even though, I'm not really doing much.

 

[dema354]

This is all excellent stuff. I reckon the thinking behind the saying is that evidence needs to be data for something (i.e. an hypothesis) whereas data is well, data - resources, like you say. I just find it odd, that with all this data, there aren't very many competing theories to take advantage of it, and even fewer that make experimental predictions.

The fuck? You would think that having 140 years of data would be enough to start forming some theories to make sense of them but I guess that's somehow not the case.

'and that is why parapsychologists, despite their protestations to the contrary, have no greater understanding of psychic abilities than they did when Rhine arrived at Duke.' - Stephen E. Braude; PSI AND THE NATURE OF ABILITIES

Yes, I'm quite aware that Stephen E. Braude's PSI AND THE NATURE OF ABILITIES is more about the methods of investigation and how 'It is almost comically arrogant to think that Nature should conform to our favorite modes of investigation, or that we should dictate to Nature the forms in which we are willing to accept its secrets.' though I'm pretty sure the point of his message is still analogous here which is to say that despite all of the years we really haven't progressed that far and if they are trying to investigate a phenomena that supposedly only occurs once a century I would suggest putting that on a backburner and focusing on the ones that are more timely like maybe no more than 12 years at a time.

 

[Shade]

Weird ass chaos magician, most chaos magician would probably even deny I'm a chaote, which, idk f- em. I believe in taking the artistry of life, using it as a flow within my practice, digging deep in meditation, taking a rhyme or the end of a story and applying it to a sigil and that is the dance between the subconscious and conscious mind to create a reality. That connection of belief and the resonance that digs deep within is the tapestry for my desires. It's not about pretending or using belief as a tool. that belief is you. You embody it is an unconscious truth already known, embracing it, recognizing it and letting it come to fruition without denying it. You can guide it which makes it magick but intelligence is a pitfall, example "it's not what the eyes can see but in which the eyes can see" -brahma. That has meaning to different people, I applied that to my eyesight, my eyes are still scarred beyond repair, I should be blind, I was blind for months, yet.... I stimulated my mind in order to see. should that be possible? No.. did I care or believe it was impossible? No. So I identify as a chaos magician. always have but my practice has evolved over time.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

'and that is why parapsychologists, despite their protestations to the contrary, have no greater understanding of psychic abilities than they did when Rhine arrived at Duke.' - Stephen E. Braude; PSI AND THE NATURE OF ABILITIES

Preach, brother, preach

'It is almost comically arrogant to think that Nature should conform to our favorite modes of investigation, or that we should dictate to Nature the forms in which we are willing to accept its secrets.'

I personally believe that it is not the data (well a great deal of it anyway) is at fault, nor (most of the time) the way it was obtained. Parapsychologists were very early adopters of the 'double blind' and other experimental procedures to enfore rigour, because they knew that they were going to be held to a higher standard than 'ordinary' scientists.

My belief is that they just do the experiments and expect someone else to do the theory work. Which would be fine, if anyone else was going the theory work.
It looks like parapsychology basically needs an Einstein to get it all to fall into place. I would not be foolish enough to put myself forward, but I feel confident I've taken some steps in the right direction; taking our current (very successful) theories more seriously and trying not to let normal assumptions block off useful implications of those theories.

 

[stalkinghyena]

I am at bit of a loss as to what to call myself, or brand myself as. I feel definitions are contingent in my state where I dismiss my own self aggrandizement (in my head mind you) and proceed with analysis. So, "wizard", generically... whatever kind is of rotational perspective.

• study focused
• practice focused

I've actually found both of these often tend to be the same with me. When studying, I find myself experiencing states of exaltation and then weird shit happens - and this can be to be to my advantage. I guess I could call that "practical" in a certain sense, but I do try to frame deliberate practice as the application of study.

And most importantly, what do you like about it, why do you consider it more relevant to you than other types.

It's all utterly compulsive. "I" as "me" - that is, "someone" with a "social identity" and meaningful destiny or actualization am little more than a puppet of forces rooted in what John Locke might frame as "I know not what."
Spencer's "Unkowable" is fine but I prefer the term AIN.

Tell us also about your ambitions and your end goals if you have any.

Here goes the list

• Necromancy
• Chaos magick
• Elemental magick
• Green magick (herbalism)
• Divination
• Witchcraft
• Folk magick
• High magick
• Blood magic
• Shadow magick
• Sex magick
• Enchantment magick

I do or have done or just dabble in all this - except "Green magick" as it sounds to political due to my locality. I suppose the term could be interpreted variedly. Goals, I must say, are in the productions which I demonstrate and then pass on.

But what strikes me now is a recent realization that started with an astrological analysis of Gemini. Basically I discovered that due to House position in my chart and the location of certain points that he is a cockroach. So I decided to signify him as such and named him "Kafka", and this is a guide to further analysis of function.

By odd connection, along the way, I came across a modern criticism of Descartes that characterized his "Cogito ergo sum" statement as representing a condition of "Solipsism of the Present Moment". Never mind that Renee's original statement was probably a ploy, an attempt to set the stage for a system of rational linear deductive inference in answer to late Renaissance skepticism (or so Professor Arthur Holmes said on YT) so he could justify his real desire, which was to do science (per Will Durant). Also, never mind that it originally was "Dubito ergo sum" in a sort of play on St. Augustine, possibly to forge a link in the clerical censor's mind that might mitigate a potential auto da fe (totally my idea here). He was indexed anyway.

Renee aside, I extract the criticism and apply to Gemini. This interest in the Solipsism of the Present moment might be an archontic ploy by my Gemini nature to distract me from its fixation on "the other". I mean, you can't be your own twin, can you? - though some say yes, as in, "you are your own twin flame". Fuck that nonsense. I am talking about cockroaches as solispsitic.
I mean, look at them - they mass but do not hive. I grew up in a house with cockroach infestation, and while I do not consider myself any kind of expert, I can say they are all perfectly individuated and selfish.

So this led me to be more clear on Kafka and I looked into his story of hardworking Gregor waking up one day to find himself a bug. What species of bug is not determined, but Grant talks about "insectival" consciousness and I got to thinking. Then I realized with Geminian vision that I could shape my percepts to determine if I, as Gemini, am a cockroach, then I may in fact be surrounded by other cockroaches.

This leads me to consider whether there exists, or if I must invent, "Kafkamancy". That is to say, a system of magical approach that extracts principles of bug existence that may lead to some kind of instrumentality. Really, at this point I am in a research-contemplation phase, but as indicated above, study and practice can sometimes be the same thing with me. A lot of processes may be unconscious, deeply rooted in the "I know not what".

I have seen the movie Naked Lunch, btw. I also tried to read the book but it was insensible to me at the time.

All versions of might be useful.

 

[art-vark2323]

My kind of wizardry has been mostly study based for the last two years with a little bit of practice. I got burnt out because of a stressful job and had to focus on just doing the absolute basics required to get through life for a while. I'm doing better now and hoping to do more practicing than studying. In the past, my focus was on witchcraft. I worked with plant spirits and developed a relationship with the goddess Hekate. I also became Wiccan somewhere in the last few years and my current focus is on becoming a better ceremonial magician while also finding a coven. I still want to work with spirits. I wouldn't mind trying a bit of demon conjuring every once in a while too. I really like old grimoires and spend a lot of time studying them.

 

[Sabbatius]

What kind of wizard are you?​

I'm a Hufflepuff.