![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Based on discussions in re the Magic (paranormal) and Magic (religion) articles, I have removed the redirect to Magic (paranormal). This article still needs some sort of parenthetical disambiguation as well as additional content. -- NetEsq 18:48 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item? ··gracefool | ☺ 02:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that you can't strip magick of its paranormal connotations and then speak of "effects" in any non-trivial manner. Why not just link the article to volition, deliberation, awareness, consciousness, decision-making, eye-blinking, sapience, and such. -- Camus 07:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
RE: "Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item?"
They're related. Thelema started as a philosophy, then mixed with the Ceremonial Magick of the Golden Dawn, becoming a more robust tradition of its own. It was virtually unheard of until then, and therefore, Aleister Crowley is reguarded as it's creator.
There needs to be examples of what is considered magick. I couldn't tell when reading this if the magick being performed actually changed the outside world or was all in the users head.
Is this page NPOV enough? It seems rather heavily biased towards the "hey look, paranormal things exist" view of the world. Perhaps a link to "skeptic" at least would be appropriate? --
203.167.184.76
05:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the problems with magick is that its practitioners are not willing to demonstrate that they can do anything that the average man or woman cannot do. Requests for demonstrations of practical utility invariably meet tired excuses, leaving the critically minded wondering whether the occult tomes are anything more than collections of useless trivia and imagination exercises. So-called high magicians shirk the paranormal connotations of the word magick, yet the fact remains that the works of major occultists -- and the works of modern-day Llewellynites -- are riddled with paranormal claims. Everything from Hermetic theory to Qabalistic theory to Eastern mysticism includes the idea that the physical realm is inextricably linked with the "inner planes," so the occult manipulation of the physical realm should be a demonstrable phenomenon (Levi's theories about the Astral Light come to mind). Imagination exercises such as the staple LBRP are all well and good; however, if those exercises cause nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy feelings and self-hypnotic effects, what we have is not a grand form of magick but a puffed-up form of self-therapy. Quibble how much you like over the spelling of the word magick -- the semantic acrobatics and the ridiculous equivocation fool only the extremely gullible. I find myself in agreement with Frater Superior (of the O.T.O.), who wrote the following in the foreword to DuQuette's Magick of Aleister Crowley: "Occultism frequently gives ample grounds for criticism to its detractors by making insupportable claims for vaguely defined powers, the whole compassed by nonsensical theory." [Contributions from other seekers are welcome.] -- Camus 06:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I added this section so as not to insult those critical thinkers who aren't fooled by all the wordplay, linguistic legerdemain, equivocation, and blatant dishonesty concerning the term magick. What follows is my original version. ( Camus 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
Crowley made many claims for the paranormal effects of magick; however, as magicians and mystics had done before him and continue to do after him, Crowley dismissed such effects as useless:
Even so, Crowley realized that paranormal effects and magical powers have some level of value for the individual:
Going further, others argue that a conclusive demonstration of these effects and powers would result in remarkable paradigm shifts and revolutions in human awareness -- the ostensible goals of magick on a collective scale.
I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
After reading the article and its discussion, I've decided to add the NPOV flag. I think that whoever wrote most of this article was definitely biased "pro-spiritual," and it shows in his writing. Though I don't necessarily disagree, this isn't the place for apologetics.
I think I see the objection being made. The article gives too much opinion over what alister crowley thought "magick" was. In many cases, crowley did have some fantastic claims about what would happen durring a ceremony (divine voices, flames, etc. etc. etc) while this article would make it seem like crowleys definition of magick was entirely yogic styled. While some of thelemic magickical practices does incorporate this rather yogic like magickical/spiritual practices. Crowley also was influenced and wrote ceremonies similar to that of mathers. Which involved an awful lot of fantastic things (like meeting your holy guardian angel, invisiblity, immortality, and etc) Jaynus
1) You know that more than one Indian authority makes paranormal claims about yoga, right? 2) In the quoted lecture (external link) Crowley seems to refer to these ceremonies as a form of yoga. Read the quote in context. I do think it makes sense to say more about what you might call the specifically magical aspects, but let's stress those claimed parallels. (Since I don't know of any modern use of the word 'magick' except those deriving from Crowley, and he demanded the comparison.) Dan 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I actually took the time to read the article and the npov dispite. The article is fine. The only opinion present is that the Alester Crowly who is the person who changed the word's spelling in the first place, and it is not inappropiete to to include his reasons for doing so, even if the man was way out there. It is virturaly impossible to define magick without its historical and religious context. I think that Mr. Anonymous was either just causing trouble or was ignorant of the origins of modern magickal practice which Alestery Crowley spear headed in all of his weirdness. The NPOV tag really needs to be removed.
--Kirrah Aurelia
I've removed it, after coming to the impression that the matter has received more attention and careful thought than is usual for anon-IP NPOV-tagging. Jkelly 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the most contaminated terms I've heard.
The suffix -al derives from Latin -alis, so does the word "magic", hence "magical".
The "ck" and the word "magick" are of typically Germanic origin, hence they shouldn't use the suffix -al, istead I propose them to use Germanic -ish. "Magic" - "magical", but "magick" - "magickish". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.47.20 ( talk • contribs) .
I'm thinking about adding some or all of Crowleys theoroms to this, seeing as how it relates and goes into detail about his form of the word magick. This might change a few things around that either are cited, or need citations. Any thoughts? Zos 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I added it all. I think now some of the content in the other sections can be removed, alot of it isnt cited. We, or I, can add other comments on his theoroms later, maybe leave some of the content on that deals with the theoroms, but they almost speak for themselves. Zos 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 999's . That was entirely too long a quote; we need to summarise things like this for the benefit of our readers. We should keep in mind that Crowley was mostly published first in the UK -- his work will not be in the public domain until 2039. Jkelly 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside, (and 999 is right, see Berne Convention), part of our job here is to create encyclopedic summaries for our readers. Pasting great swathes of the original texts we are discussing is not an elegant way of doing that. Jkelly 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sitting over here at Zos' house, he showed me the text in question, which are the 28 postulates as quoted in Book III of Liber ABA. It is listed at http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/index.html, which means that it is considered public domain in the US, the site refuses to list any works that aren't public domain. So, full reproduction of this book, for profit, is 100% valid and legal.
Now, beyond this, there is much reason why this would otherwise qualify for fair use. It's really like fair use of the Bible, seeing as it's public domain, but still, we'll go through the motions.
First, we have that it is for non-profit use. There is no money to be made. It is for education, but not technically for a teacher-student relationship, so we cannot quite use educational use. Zos intends to add onto this in the near future where he also can claim commentary or criticism fair use, because he will be illustrating Crowley's views on magic with a k through the quotes. It also applies as a transformative use, because it is, or will be, expounding upon Crowley's work, and it can also apply under reporting, it is reporting Crowley's views in reference to magic with a k. Neither Zos, nor Wikipedia is gaining any money from it. Wikipedia is NOT FOR PROFIT.
Second, we deal with the nature of the work. It was a factual account (at least in Crowley's eyes), and being so, Zos is reporting the facts and theories of Crowley. Interestingly, according to fair use law, the fact that it was published also helps push it towards fair use.
Third, we look with the extent of the work used, which is the most important part. He is using an EXTREMELY small part of the book, notably Liber ABA. This book, and the book it came from, are both several hundred,if not reaching a thousand pages..... in fact I'm almost certain it is. He is using the necessary, bare minimum amount to mention what Crowley's 28 theorems of Magic with a k are. He is using a very, very small percentage which is the minimum amount necessary.
Fourth, is the impact of the work. Zos does own a legitimate copy, and so can anyone else who just copies the site. It is public domain after all. There will be no negative results upon the sales of Liber ABA, as one would not buy it for the listing of the 28 postulates themselves. In fact, if this had any effect on Crowley's posthumous sales, it would be to increase them.
So, we have a reason to educate people on Crowleys' ideas, factual and published (and well-known) ideas, we use an extremely small part of the work, the bare minimum, his 28 theses (which are notable and theses are certainly publishible. I could, for example, and quote Igor Bogdanov and his brother's thesis from their controversial paper with no problem whatsoever. (See Bogdanov Affair) This does no harm, and the likelihood of whoever holds a copyright today of Crowley's works would be extremely unlikely to attempt to file a suit, which they would invariably fail in..... they'd have to be insane. We are talking about publishing his theses, not all of his explanations or research....... his theses. You cannot talk about Liber ABA in a scholarly manner without mentioning what his theses are!
Of course, I also think it would be much wiser to make an article called Aleister Crowley's 28 Postulates of Magick and list them there. In this article, mentioning it only as his "28 postulates" and expecting people to look there. It is notable enough to have its OWN article. Btw, I am pulling my information on copyrights from a book on copyrights.
I suggest that 999 may be a little unnecessarily grumpy about this. Nevertheless, 999 is also correct -- the statement that this work is in the public domain is an extraordinary claim, and would need an extraordinary amount of evidence to demonstrate it convincingly. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that this article would benefit from a copying and pasting of the exact text of the 28 postulates, regardless of their licensing status. Are we really incapable of offering a useful summary of important points to our readers? Jkelly 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is terrible. It is haphazard and disjointed. It does not present the subject in any rigorous manner, but simply skips around quoting this out-of-context thing after that out-of-context thing! - 999 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the article history, I propose that an entirely new article be started at Magick/temp and moved into place when the current active editors are satisfied with it. - 999 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that there is a completely new, expanded and much improved article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema/Peer review/Magick. I think that article should be moved into place immediately so nobody wastes any time on the inferior article currently here. - 999 01:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - I guess we're actually supposed to pay attention to that little box on the top of the talk page? I thought it would just be discussion of this article, not a new article. To get it moved, we'd have to put in a move request, as cut-and-paste moves are not allowed (they lose the edit history). - 999 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I put in a request with User:Frater5 that he either request the move or that he cut & paste. He can do it as it appears he is the sole author of the new article. - 999 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Based on discussions in re the Magic (paranormal) and Magic (religion) articles, I have removed the redirect to Magic (paranormal). This article still needs some sort of parenthetical disambiguation as well as additional content. -- NetEsq 18:48 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item? ··gracefool | ☺ 02:55, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that you can't strip magick of its paranormal connotations and then speak of "effects" in any non-trivial manner. Why not just link the article to volition, deliberation, awareness, consciousness, decision-making, eye-blinking, sapience, and such. -- Camus 07:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
RE: "Is Ceremonial Magick related to Thelema, or a list item?"
They're related. Thelema started as a philosophy, then mixed with the Ceremonial Magick of the Golden Dawn, becoming a more robust tradition of its own. It was virtually unheard of until then, and therefore, Aleister Crowley is reguarded as it's creator.
There needs to be examples of what is considered magick. I couldn't tell when reading this if the magick being performed actually changed the outside world or was all in the users head.
Is this page NPOV enough? It seems rather heavily biased towards the "hey look, paranormal things exist" view of the world. Perhaps a link to "skeptic" at least would be appropriate? --
203.167.184.76
05:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
One of the problems with magick is that its practitioners are not willing to demonstrate that they can do anything that the average man or woman cannot do. Requests for demonstrations of practical utility invariably meet tired excuses, leaving the critically minded wondering whether the occult tomes are anything more than collections of useless trivia and imagination exercises. So-called high magicians shirk the paranormal connotations of the word magick, yet the fact remains that the works of major occultists -- and the works of modern-day Llewellynites -- are riddled with paranormal claims. Everything from Hermetic theory to Qabalistic theory to Eastern mysticism includes the idea that the physical realm is inextricably linked with the "inner planes," so the occult manipulation of the physical realm should be a demonstrable phenomenon (Levi's theories about the Astral Light come to mind). Imagination exercises such as the staple LBRP are all well and good; however, if those exercises cause nothing more than warm-and-fuzzy feelings and self-hypnotic effects, what we have is not a grand form of magick but a puffed-up form of self-therapy. Quibble how much you like over the spelling of the word magick -- the semantic acrobatics and the ridiculous equivocation fool only the extremely gullible. I find myself in agreement with Frater Superior (of the O.T.O.), who wrote the following in the foreword to DuQuette's Magick of Aleister Crowley: "Occultism frequently gives ample grounds for criticism to its detractors by making insupportable claims for vaguely defined powers, the whole compassed by nonsensical theory." [Contributions from other seekers are welcome.] -- Camus 06:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I added this section so as not to insult those critical thinkers who aren't fooled by all the wordplay, linguistic legerdemain, equivocation, and blatant dishonesty concerning the term magick. What follows is my original version. ( Camus 09:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
Crowley made many claims for the paranormal effects of magick; however, as magicians and mystics had done before him and continue to do after him, Crowley dismissed such effects as useless:
Even so, Crowley realized that paranormal effects and magical powers have some level of value for the individual:
Going further, others argue that a conclusive demonstration of these effects and powers would result in remarkable paradigm shifts and revolutions in human awareness -- the ostensible goals of magick on a collective scale.
I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
After reading the article and its discussion, I've decided to add the NPOV flag. I think that whoever wrote most of this article was definitely biased "pro-spiritual," and it shows in his writing. Though I don't necessarily disagree, this isn't the place for apologetics.
I think I see the objection being made. The article gives too much opinion over what alister crowley thought "magick" was. In many cases, crowley did have some fantastic claims about what would happen durring a ceremony (divine voices, flames, etc. etc. etc) while this article would make it seem like crowleys definition of magick was entirely yogic styled. While some of thelemic magickical practices does incorporate this rather yogic like magickical/spiritual practices. Crowley also was influenced and wrote ceremonies similar to that of mathers. Which involved an awful lot of fantastic things (like meeting your holy guardian angel, invisiblity, immortality, and etc) Jaynus
1) You know that more than one Indian authority makes paranormal claims about yoga, right? 2) In the quoted lecture (external link) Crowley seems to refer to these ceremonies as a form of yoga. Read the quote in context. I do think it makes sense to say more about what you might call the specifically magical aspects, but let's stress those claimed parallels. (Since I don't know of any modern use of the word 'magick' except those deriving from Crowley, and he demanded the comparison.) Dan 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I actually took the time to read the article and the npov dispite. The article is fine. The only opinion present is that the Alester Crowly who is the person who changed the word's spelling in the first place, and it is not inappropiete to to include his reasons for doing so, even if the man was way out there. It is virturaly impossible to define magick without its historical and religious context. I think that Mr. Anonymous was either just causing trouble or was ignorant of the origins of modern magickal practice which Alestery Crowley spear headed in all of his weirdness. The NPOV tag really needs to be removed.
--Kirrah Aurelia
I've removed it, after coming to the impression that the matter has received more attention and careful thought than is usual for anon-IP NPOV-tagging. Jkelly 21:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the most contaminated terms I've heard.
The suffix -al derives from Latin -alis, so does the word "magic", hence "magical".
The "ck" and the word "magick" are of typically Germanic origin, hence they shouldn't use the suffix -al, istead I propose them to use Germanic -ish. "Magic" - "magical", but "magick" - "magickish". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.139.47.20 ( talk • contribs) .
I'm thinking about adding some or all of Crowleys theoroms to this, seeing as how it relates and goes into detail about his form of the word magick. This might change a few things around that either are cited, or need citations. Any thoughts? Zos 09:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I added it all. I think now some of the content in the other sections can be removed, alot of it isnt cited. We, or I, can add other comments on his theoroms later, maybe leave some of the content on that deals with the theoroms, but they almost speak for themselves. Zos 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 999's . That was entirely too long a quote; we need to summarise things like this for the benefit of our readers. We should keep in mind that Crowley was mostly published first in the UK -- his work will not be in the public domain until 2039. Jkelly 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright issues aside, (and 999 is right, see Berne Convention), part of our job here is to create encyclopedic summaries for our readers. Pasting great swathes of the original texts we are discussing is not an elegant way of doing that. Jkelly 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sitting over here at Zos' house, he showed me the text in question, which are the 28 postulates as quoted in Book III of Liber ABA. It is listed at http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/index.html, which means that it is considered public domain in the US, the site refuses to list any works that aren't public domain. So, full reproduction of this book, for profit, is 100% valid and legal.
Now, beyond this, there is much reason why this would otherwise qualify for fair use. It's really like fair use of the Bible, seeing as it's public domain, but still, we'll go through the motions.
First, we have that it is for non-profit use. There is no money to be made. It is for education, but not technically for a teacher-student relationship, so we cannot quite use educational use. Zos intends to add onto this in the near future where he also can claim commentary or criticism fair use, because he will be illustrating Crowley's views on magic with a k through the quotes. It also applies as a transformative use, because it is, or will be, expounding upon Crowley's work, and it can also apply under reporting, it is reporting Crowley's views in reference to magic with a k. Neither Zos, nor Wikipedia is gaining any money from it. Wikipedia is NOT FOR PROFIT.
Second, we deal with the nature of the work. It was a factual account (at least in Crowley's eyes), and being so, Zos is reporting the facts and theories of Crowley. Interestingly, according to fair use law, the fact that it was published also helps push it towards fair use.
Third, we look with the extent of the work used, which is the most important part. He is using an EXTREMELY small part of the book, notably Liber ABA. This book, and the book it came from, are both several hundred,if not reaching a thousand pages..... in fact I'm almost certain it is. He is using the necessary, bare minimum amount to mention what Crowley's 28 theorems of Magic with a k are. He is using a very, very small percentage which is the minimum amount necessary.
Fourth, is the impact of the work. Zos does own a legitimate copy, and so can anyone else who just copies the site. It is public domain after all. There will be no negative results upon the sales of Liber ABA, as one would not buy it for the listing of the 28 postulates themselves. In fact, if this had any effect on Crowley's posthumous sales, it would be to increase them.
So, we have a reason to educate people on Crowleys' ideas, factual and published (and well-known) ideas, we use an extremely small part of the work, the bare minimum, his 28 theses (which are notable and theses are certainly publishible. I could, for example, and quote Igor Bogdanov and his brother's thesis from their controversial paper with no problem whatsoever. (See Bogdanov Affair) This does no harm, and the likelihood of whoever holds a copyright today of Crowley's works would be extremely unlikely to attempt to file a suit, which they would invariably fail in..... they'd have to be insane. We are talking about publishing his theses, not all of his explanations or research....... his theses. You cannot talk about Liber ABA in a scholarly manner without mentioning what his theses are!
Of course, I also think it would be much wiser to make an article called Aleister Crowley's 28 Postulates of Magick and list them there. In this article, mentioning it only as his "28 postulates" and expecting people to look there. It is notable enough to have its OWN article. Btw, I am pulling my information on copyrights from a book on copyrights.
I suggest that 999 may be a little unnecessarily grumpy about this. Nevertheless, 999 is also correct -- the statement that this work is in the public domain is an extraordinary claim, and would need an extraordinary amount of evidence to demonstrate it convincingly. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that this article would benefit from a copying and pasting of the exact text of the 28 postulates, regardless of their licensing status. Are we really incapable of offering a useful summary of important points to our readers? Jkelly 18:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is terrible. It is haphazard and disjointed. It does not present the subject in any rigorous manner, but simply skips around quoting this out-of-context thing after that out-of-context thing! - 999 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking at the article history, I propose that an entirely new article be started at Magick/temp and moved into place when the current active editors are satisfied with it. - 999 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, now I see that there is a completely new, expanded and much improved article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema/Peer review/Magick. I think that article should be moved into place immediately so nobody wastes any time on the inferior article currently here. - 999 01:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - I guess we're actually supposed to pay attention to that little box on the top of the talk page? I thought it would just be discussion of this article, not a new article. To get it moved, we'd have to put in a move request, as cut-and-paste moves are not allowed (they lose the edit history). - 999 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I put in a request with User:Frater5 that he either request the move or that he cut & paste. He can do it as it appears he is the sole author of the new article. - 999 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)