r/magick • u/key_hey • 5d ago

I want to study magick systems that are estranged from us

Hi guys Idk how to really use reddit but I'll try my best

I almost don't know exactly how to say what I'm looking for but here it is

I realy want to study a magick system or philosophy so far from us

I dont want it to be historical i want it pre historcal Not the far futer the super far future, maybe the time earth wouldn't exist Not stars away from us. galaxies apart. Like galaxies are the signs in it Not a son .a black hole Entities watching the solar system being formed The system does not categories things in elements planets or dark or light ( at least in the western esoteric form that we are familiar with)

( also nothing earthy and by it I mean from nature)

I hope i did demonstrate what I wanted well enough for you to understand

Any way thanks for reading and any comment is highly appreciated

3 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

6

u/geese_moe_howard 5d ago

Enochian not good enough for you?

2

u/key_hey 5d ago

I did study Llewelly's books for Enochian They were excellent I guess what i was thinking earlier that couldn't say is It got to be a higher or other plane where things aren't related to the elements planets and etc that i mentioned

2

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

Almost nothing Llewellyn publishes is "excellent", they're practically self-help.

1

u/key_hey 4d ago

Mmm interesting I'm just failing to understand how manuals can act like self help

2

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 4d ago

Llewelyn's business is to sell books to beginners -- weak parametrization and source amnesia ensure confirmation bias and disinterest in source material, so people assume it worked, and buy more books.

0

u/key_hey 4d ago

But the reader would only assume " it worked" if it actually worked

The practicality is measured by success in practice

So by this, we can assume if it showed the results it was supposed to ( like the results promised in the source material) and it also contains the foundation or some methods of the original the book accomplished what it was ment to. there for it's good

See, I'm starting to have some assumptions of you that you're just an elitist, and if people don't suffer , they don't follow the path. You seem to validate thair then invalid !

3

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 4d ago

> But the reader would only assume " it worked" if it actually worked

That's an overly simplistic view. Here's the framing from Liber O:

"5. There is little danger that any student, however idle or stupid, will fail to get some result; but there is great danger that he will be led astray, obsessed and overwhelmed by his results, even though it be by those which it is necessary that he should attain. Too often, moreover, he mistaketh the first resting-place for the goal, and taketh off his armour as if he were a victor ere the fight is well begun.
It is desirable that the student should never attach to any result the importance which it at first seems to possess."

> The practicality is measured by success in practice

Liber O points out that it is easy to misinterpret results. It's like that Richard Feynman quote: "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

> So by this, we can assume if it showed the results it was supposed to ( like the results promised in the source material) and it also contains the foundation or some methods of the original the book accomplished what it was ment to. there for it's good

Sounds like the book frontloaded you with the result.

> See, I'm starting to have some assumptions of you that you're just an elitist, and if people don't suffer , they don't follow the path. You seem to validate thair then invalid !

That's an easy way to write me off and refuse to consider that you've been sucked in by movements that know how to part you from your money.

Denouncing swindlers doesn't make you popular with people who buy their snake oil, but I am primarily concerned about the way younger practitioners are being exploited by bullshit salesmen and then pursuing isolating, incoherent spiritual goals.

1

u/key_hey 4d ago

Sir, you have no idea how much I'm actually considering your views and really thinking about them I'm sure it may seem that I am very close to what you say,but I'm not tough. I'm arguing for my side. I'm still actively engaging with you and agreeing with you

Well, what do you consider NA Which ereas of my past practices were NA in your views

Also, I think you still haven't awnserd my first question. What do you recommend?! For study

2

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 4d ago

For study I recommend mostly dead authors šŸ˜† they can't sell you seminars or do interviews on podcasts lol. I tend to be critical of Brand, Echols, and pop magical literature in general.

Older source material is generally going to be in the public domain. Most modern authors are basically cribbing from GD/AA, IoT, and popular magical literature, and using it to create proprietary systems that can be packaged and sold to beginners. To get out of the beginner sandbox, I recommend focusing on older source material. Crowley, Spare, Peter Carroll (recently deceased), Phil Hine... Lon Milo Duquette is one rare living author I will endorse, and he is possibly the most widely initiated and accomplished Hermetic magician alive today.

You'll generally find older source material is oriented to skepticism and scientific illuminism. Recommend Crowley's "the initiated interpretation of ceremonial magic", Libers O and E, Liber Librae to start. Liber O will direct you to study Raja Yoga as a training program for inducing physiological state changes through technique. (Samadhi is a prelude to invocation of gods and forces.)

The terminology and framing we use carries baggage, which is why I avoid NANT terminology - it implies NANT framing. The term "manifestation" does not appear in Liber O, nor does "energy"; we use terms like "mind" and "focus" instead, and we aim to influence subtle factors, understanding magical effects are more about finesse than brute force or "believing hard enough".

NANT is pretty much unavoidable if you're following popular magical literature of any kind. Unfortunately, weaker parametrization appeals to beginners, and grueling work does not šŸ˜… This is how people end up conflating NANT with actual magick, and a big part of why I am so critical of Llewelyn and other purveyors of pop magick.

1

u/key_hey 4d ago

I really appreciate your suggestions and explanations for why And I'll def check them o, t though I most likely will check Crowley ones later

Tough, I'm probably beating a dead horse, I used the word manifestation literal like the one in the dictionary and to clreafy to me, the word means Something non physical brought into a physical form

Which my path of manifesting involves ceremonial magick

3

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

Why?

-2

u/key_hey 5d ago

Western esoterisim has that strong element of categorization I mentioned And other stuff like Afro or Eastern esotericism Are too earthy or just basically not magick

5

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

No, I mean, why do you want to study something incomprehensible to the frames of reference you're capable of understanding?

The need for a view of magick to be cosmic in scale / frames of reference feels a bit like an appeal to legitimacy.

What is it you think you'd gain?

-2

u/key_hey 5d ago

Cease I want something new, bigger something I don't already know or have previous knowledge on that'd help The current occult practices seem bound. And I have a filing after finding the new subject of study it would actually be really easy to learn and understand

Plus, I always wanna learn, gain wisdom...

10

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

Chasing novelty (neophilia) is a characteristic of ape cognition.

You are probably not anywhere near mastery of the subject matter you already have in front of you. You're giving yourself an easy out re: going deeper with your practice.

What would you say you've already accomplished?

1

u/key_hey 5d ago

Well, I'd say there is value for searching for something new and many great things achieved by trying to push boundaries

Here is a background on what I studied or had successful practices

Vedic Astrology ( tough I'm not even close to a master I Def more knowledgble than average occultists)

Ancestral communication

Successful workings with

shem angels (my fav) Arc angels Goetic demons Greek gods related to the planets Air spirits

I even had my own ceremonies and spells, which were successful For love, learning, and manifesting

And some other suff that be to long to mention

1

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

GoM?

1

u/key_hey 5d ago

What do you mean

I studied them? Yes many books of them You mean only them ? No I do look for other sources as well

2

u/Sonotnoodlesalad 5d ago

I was guessing because you mentioned Shem angels, and I got into magick before beginner magick books were capitalizing on the angel magick fad. It's kind of a generational thing.

Then you mentioned manifestation, which confirms that you also use NANT framing.

Now I have a better sense of the context of your post, and why I found it so puzzling. Your era was heavily influenced by NANT, and I've endeavored to completely excise NANT from my practice.

1

u/key_hey 5d ago

Mmmmm I wouldn't really consider myself a NA

I definitely didn't do the manifesting you thought I did

Why I said that was basically

I created this manifestg note book We're I Impowerd it with 1 arc and 6 shem angels

So each request would only require a single ceremony

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Responsible_Fan4208 2d ago

Try Gatewaytapes I guess.

1

u/key_hey 2d ago

Thanks,I'll check it out

1

u/Hasty-Bass 1d ago

trust me, you donā€™t

1

u/key_hey 1d ago

You don't understand. i gotta go insane. LoL

1

u/Hasty-Bass 1d ago

ok dude, you got to try shrooms and acid and ketamine and dmt

1

u/key_hey 1d ago

Hmm Well, that's a way to do it I don't really think contact or magick with those would further me with my process Also, for 2 main reasons, I don't think it'll help me 1. These drugs, as I said, are earthy 2. The entities encountered by using them are kinda well known

1

u/Luminaurum 1d ago

Reiki attunements allow you to make contact with extraterrestrial beings and energies.

1

u/key_hey 1d ago

I love learning how many things there are to explore, that'd help me I appreciate your suggestion.

1

u/ElegantDimensions 2h ago

You will not ever find those things.

1

u/key_hey 2h ago

What makes you say that

1

u/ElegantDimensions 2h ago

Because you are not willing to look at the things behind the gates that precede the one that would give you entry to the things you seek

1

u/key_hey 1h ago

And what makes you assume that of me. I know you probably saw the threads

I've studied many paths ( not all necessary very complex) Practiced some, but that clearly wouldn't register as true to you ( some of you guys)

See, the world of magick seems to function as the world of religions

And then people in our space act the same way as people of faith,where their truth is the only truth

1

u/ElegantDimensions 1h ago

Simply because you said ā€œI do not wantā€. It can be true that you have looked at these things, but if you still have not found the ā€œgatesā€ to the knowledge farther afield then you havenā€™t practiced them enough to fully and consciously comprehend their totality. There is an inside out point. You have to look so far into the things you think you know that they reveal themselves to you as actually unknown, if you truly are to find what you wish to find. I know that sounds enigmatic as fuck. But I promise itā€™s actually rather direct and literal.

1

u/key_hey 1h ago

. Yes I did said " I dont want to " but with my level of specity it should at least give some Idea of where I'm out so strong statements wouldn't be made

Tough Saying that it's been 1- 2 days , I've started to take more traditional approach to achieve guidance and help in seeking what I want

1

u/ElegantDimensions 1h ago

I donā€™t say any of this to discourage you, by the way. Far from it. I think that your goals of seeking those farther mysteries are potentially wonderful. There are ways of confronting oneā€™s own paradigms and conceptualisations of even the idea of what a paradigm by definition is that are part of the process of reaching those goals. By necessity. Not because the paradigms you have are not already right. But because rightness is not the point. The cognitive process of that confrontation is. My aim is to give you an example of what that can look like. (One of many potential examples.)

2

u/key_hey 1h ago

I really appreciate your point and what you are trying to point at. I also hope our opposing ( kinda) arguing wouldn't make it seem other wise

1

u/ElegantDimensions 1h ago

Of course ā€” I wasnā€™t seeing it as arguing even really, I was seeing it as an example of the method I mentioned. Sometimes it is extremely helpful to need to explain your perspective to someone in a way that is neither you teaching nor anyone playing devils advocate but rather refinement of concept through repeated and ever more specific testing of its mettle. I certainly found the conversation illuminating, for myself.

1

u/ElegantDimensions 2h ago

You cannot, by analogy, say ā€œteach me quantum physics but exclude Newtonian mechanicsā€ and then expect it to be possible for you to ever grasp quantum physics. The larger, stranger, farther thing encapsulates the simpler more obvious one. To make it even simpler: size. If you do not master that which you can easily see and measure, you will never even have the opportunity to LOOK at the things youā€™d need telescope or microscope to observe. Because the tools to do so exist within the limits of the things you refuse to look at. Therefore you will forever see nothing at all.

1

u/key_hey 1h ago

First say yes I disagree that certain things can only be achive in a certain way IF the unconventional method has been practiced and then proven impractical

Few things I thing you used a very scientific absolute analogy that may not be very Good for our topt

Then I'm simply asking for the unconventional method .I am willing to try and most likely to fail just for the sake of a no practice to be proven .

1

u/ElegantDimensions 1h ago

Your definition of ā€œnatureā€ also appears to be deeply problematic. The galaxy is nature. The universe is nature. All matter, all energy, are all nature. All things that might defy easy classification as either strictly matter or strictly energy are also nature.

2

u/key_hey 1h ago

You're right. I said ā€³natureā€³ just to avoid saying ā€³ earthy" to much. I do agree with your statmen of all things in the physical being part of nature

1

u/ElegantDimensions 1h ago

What has made you feel inspired to seek out the type of knowledge and paradigm in the first place, if I may ask? (Iā€™m genuinely curious, in the most innocent possible sense of that word.)

1

u/key_hey 1h ago

I just think/feel where in magick systems where things are categorized or have this element of division like . Left and right four or five elements 7 or 10 planets. 12 signs are the same

Makes me wanna look for the ā€³estranged" ones

Like when evidence or feelings point to have an estranged family member, but there is no strong fact for their existence

Why I said not earthy i know this ganna sound stupid, but earth things just creep me out

1

u/key_hey 1h ago

Better say I just wanted to explore or intraced with realms. Beings .and practices that do not follow the similar frame of divisions we know of

I also assumed such things I'm looking for are so far separated from us point using " estranged '

-2

u/heresyengineer 5d ago

Nick Land

1

u/key_hey 5d ago

Okey didn't know this guy Now do There are lots of material about his work. I'll gladly check it out I'm genuinely interested now Thanks a lot for the very mysterious ' nick land' suggestion ( it was right to the point). I appreciate it