Regarding Matters Of Ceremonial Magic/kabbalah, Ceremonial Magic Response to Question Options

The following is an email I received from a gentleman in this forum. I decided to place it in the "Fight Club" after being advised to do so by a Moderator and so here it is.

Yes, what works magically for me can, and will work for everyone else. That is just the way it is and simply cannot be argued. You are dealing with laws here, just like gravity as I have explained before in my other posts. If you take the research findings and apply them yourself, you will see that what I am saying is universal and true! In other words, no matter where you are in the world there is a gravitational pull, and if an item is dropped it will fall.

Why in heaven's name would you think saying that a failed evocation to physical manifestation will cause slingshot effects is pompous of me to say? That's just the way it is, son, and you may still need to experience this terrible reality to come to your senses, and I don't mean this to be rude.

What I write on these forums is what I have experienced by putting into effect Dr. Lisiewski's good advice--this is what I have 'come up' with on my own. I also suggest that the post readers come to know this method of Magic and get rid of the New Age trash that plagues most on this forum (and many times, through no fault of their own).

I cannot be certain, but it is likely your proper state of subjective synthesis was not attained while learning and then using the Kabbalistic Cycles. This technique takes years to learn because of all the books one needs to read to become acquainted with the information that is recommended in the book.

Yes, Old System Magic is dangerous, but one has more of a chance of eliminating the negative factors if it is practiced correctly. However, the improper use of an evocation proper can and will lead you to a world of trouble (remember, the slingshot effects can come and hit you at the worst possible time too). There is a common misconception that it hits you immediately, but I have found that this is not necessarily true. It waits to get you.

The highest and best way to perform an evocation is in the way I speak. There is no point in arguing about it. This is not an issue of 'my ritual is better than your ritual.' Rather, this is an issue of "WHAT WORKS VERSUS WHAT DOESN'T!!" I hope I made that crystal clear to you, because I will NOT explain it again to you.

I am giving you 'advice' but I am not telling you how to 'run your life.' Go and seek advice from the disgruntled individuals who have nothing upon which to hang their hats because of their "sucessess." Do what you want, and as I always write to my New Agers, ALL "power" TO YOU!!!!

You think Dr. Lisiewski is a "quack on crack?" You know not of what you speak and thus are misinformed. I look forward to reading the new university texts he is writing for physics, engineering and science, which, by the way, must go through an extensive process of review. Oh and by the way, it will say Dr. Lisiewski Ph.D.

You have a nice day too.

Mr. Curi

"Mr. Curi:"

Unless you received explicit permission from {the particular Member} to post this response with his name on it, doing so is pretty crass.

What is your peculiar obsession with Lisiewski? Frankly what you've said (here and elsewhere) goes above and beyond mere respect.

I would also like to say that your condescending tone doesn't make your position any stronger, but rather the opposite. If you want to engage someone on the basis of results, let's hear some of yours.

Subjective Synthesis is a new age idea, and so is the inclusion of Kabbalistic Cycles in grimoire-related works. There is no adequate way to evaluate one's use of the former, so you cannot simply say "follow my instructions exactly" as there is no specific point of reference for this key component.

Kabbalah is such a vast subject that at this point you could say twenty conflicting things and all are in some way validated by "Kabbalah" though not one would be recognizable to a scholar of the 15th century. To say that this sort of knowledge is necessary to evocations is a red herring designed to lure the student away from a position where he or she could effectively challenge the teacher.

With all of that said, I should mention (yet again) that I agree with your fundamental assertion: when you are using a cookbook, follow the recipe. Is that so hard to say? I don't believe it requires any put-downs of people who we should consider colleagues.

"Imperial Arts:"

Yes, that is my name. Mr. Curi. I don't need to hide it and use a so-called "magickal name" or screename for this forum--I do not belong to the new age. This is why I put your name in parenthesis, but you have no reason to do it to my name since it is my own.

No, I do not need explicit permission from anyone to post an email message I received. Dr. Lisiewski does it all the time on his website and does not ask for permission. I concealed the name of the person who sent me the email and am well within my rights to post what he wrote.

I have no "obsession" with Dr. Lisiewski. He is a man who I admire greatly and by extension advocate what he writes. His position is correct and truthful and I always recommend what he writes.

If you challenge me, I am not going to take passive stance. I am not condescending, I am merely telling you how things are. If you don't like it, well that's just too bad: deal with it. What I write is very serious since I am protecting Old System Magic.

Your ego wants 'proof.' THIS, like Lisiewski, I will not give to one who is not a fellow colleague. This form of Magic sells itself. As I tell the new agers, if you want to read about "magical successes" go read a good occult novel. This is what I suggest for you, since day dreaming is what new agers do (and I mean this in no condesceding way).

Subjective synthesis is NOT a new age idea. The Kabbalistic Cycles is NOT included in grimoire-related works as you suggest. It is used as a FRAMEWORK for Magical work.

Again, you are mistaken. The amount of emails I receive from this forum for the position I take and hold for upholding the proper method of practicing Magic, are numerous. I have worked with individuals from this forum and have helped them see what a bunch of trash the new age movement is--and guess what?? They like it, just like a thirsty man in a desert who finally finds water to drink.

Evocation is not about following a cookbook recipe. Adhere to the rules of it and later, after the proper development of the subjective synthesis you will discover what it means to practice Magic ON YOUR OWN TERMS. But this is after apprehension takes place.

Mr. Curi

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 16 2008, 11:56 PM

"Mr Curi:" (or Tom at INS if you prefer)

I do not request "proof" from you, but when I see statements like
"Go and seek advice from the disgruntled individuals who have nothing upon which to hang their hats because of their "sucessess."

then I wonder where you hang your own hat.

You seem to have missed some of the points in my initial response. A thorough re-reading of the matter might do well for you. Please reference a few sources contemporary to Lisiewski's subject (13th to 17th century) that discuss the matter of Subjective Synthesis and its relation to works of ceremonial magic. Psychological theories of magic are, sorry to disappoint you, very much new-age.

Perhaps you could also clarify the concept of Kabbalistic Cycles in relation to magic. Can you reference rabbinical writings on the subject to support the nature and relevance of this concept to your subject, or are these too from New Age versions of Kabbalah?

It is also apparent that you have utterly failed to recognize the position on this forum that I have diligently maintained in regard to using traditional rather than innovative approaches to the grimoires. If you can identify any clear support given by me for "new age" approaches to ancient grimoires, please provide a link to the post.

One of the things I have noticed about suspicious guru types, as opposed to those who are deemed respectable even centuries after their deaths, is that they often resort to baiting the student. There is a wonderful thing promised if only you persist in the teaching for "many years" and somehow assimilate a vast amount of esoteric lore to which they alone (or their mysteriously silent elect) are privy.

This is not the mark of reserved wisdom no matter what letters follow your name, it is the mark of someone who hopes to string you along until submission/agreement has been secured. I have never seen it lead to the positive growth of the student in any school of thought, and it is a common tactic among low-grade cult leaders.

Truth can withstand any scrutiny. If your position is secure, make known what you can and give it ample support.

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 17 2008, 02:16 AM

"Imperial Arts"

Well, to start matters on a light note, you have my name incorrect. Sorry, I don't work at "INS" nor am I associated with it. I think its creepy how you went and researched me though...I have to wonder about individuals like you sometimes. Now I can understand why people need to conceal their identity sometimes.

I hang my hat on the results of my hard work! That is where and no where else.

The 'subjective synthesis' is based on an age old philosophy. It is not new. Think of an old definition that is 're-defined or updated but not necissarily changed.' It is the same thing here. And I am not advocating psycological theories about magic. Quite the contrary!

As I wrote before, and you may expose this to the world if you want, the Kabbalistic Cycles are a FRAMEWORK for Old System Magic.

You speak of what you do not know. There are wonderful things promised for those that keep to the rules of the ancient Grimoires.

Again, you ask for proof that I will never give you. Go work on the results yourself (which you can obtain) or go read a good occult novel. The latter might be more advisable, if you asked my opinion.

Mr. Curi

This post has been edited by Mr. Curi: Feb 17 2008, 10:00 AM

It is creepy, isn't it? This is why we use screen names... it makes good sense. You don't need to be ashamed to use something other than your actual name. I looked in the white pages for a Curi in Burke, VA. I figured you aren't Sylvia, nor Emi who ges to Church every weekend. Tomas Curi placed 9th in a bike race... good for him.

I also searched high and low for academic references for Lisiewski. Could you provide a link to his non-occult works aside from his fiction? Since he is a "noted physicist" I would like to see who has given these notes. Academic journal references are preferred.

Since you refuse to back up your source materials Mr. "I don't take a passive stance," there is no reason for anyone to whom you are speaking to take your position too seriously. This may not bother you, but it certainly desn't help your argument.

There is almost nothing of what may be called Kabbalah in the grimoires. A few of the names invoked (not all) are also used in Kabbalistic texts, but it is apparent that the grimoire authors were largely ignorant of Kabalah and did not in any way use it as a framework for their writings. I refer you t the writings of Sir Arthur Edward Waite, wherein the relation of the grimoires to any actual Kabbalah is thoroughly debunked.

My occult work is largely available to the public, and I have always been forthcoming abut my methods, aims, and results.

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 17 2008, 10:33 AM