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

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!

Earliest reference to "Subjective Synthesis" that I can find is here: Law of Subjective Synthesis, the second volume of "Psychology", by Antonio Romini Serbati Circa, 1886, apparently years after his death. Romini-Serbati was an italian philosopher of some repute apparently. So, kind of old, but not really 'age-old'. While Rosmini-Serbati uses the idea as a means of communicating the relationship between the subjective individual and his objective world, I can see some possible connections between Lisiewski's idea and this one, in the sense that as in Romini-Serbati's idea, Lisiewski states that for magical work to take place the practitioner must intellectually understand, and accept as truth, the paradigm within which he is working - Serbati is in a different vein of course, applying it to the individual's interpretation of the world around him, and accepting beingness as inherently truthful or some such (I'll admit I skimmed, but I skimmed three times.)

And in his book, "Ceremonial Magic..." Lisiewski recommends that the student read several books on psychology in the process of understanding and applying 'subjective synthesis' as well as stating implicitly that it is this psychological work that is the foundation of all magical practice, of which evocation is but an important part. So, you may not be advocating a psychological theory of magic, but Lisiewski certainly is. In fact he suggests a study of psychology is critical.

Lisiewski advocates old system magic, but that doesn't mean his work is not 'new-age'. It is a new take on an old song, by it's very nature it is in fact, new-age. Lisiewski simply uses the term 'newage' to refer to a specific cross section of modern occult philosophy, while implying a blanket generalization over all "not-old" occult philosophy - either a mistake or a prejudice on his part. His work on the Kabbalistic Cycles (hey, I don't agree with it all, but I do love to broaden my book collection) is also a newage take on kabbalah, strictly speaking. But in that particular case he seems to make an exception, and I think it's warranted - Kabbalah has existed in dozens of updated forms, and was intended to be malleable in the first place, save for some very basic tenets, because it was intended to survive the ages and evolve with humanity as it did so. In effect, the 'new age' ideal - though not necessarily all of its constituent parts - is thoroughly embraced, kabbalistically speaking. Reworking and reinterpreting 'age-old' philosophies, practices, and traditions is a natural part of human evolution, and this is recognized in most mystical philosophies, many of which are far, far older than the classical grimoires.

When one is lead to success through the counseling of another, we do tend to assume that everything they say is glittering gold, and accept blindly that they speak without fault. It's a common human failing unfortuneately, but there is no reason why one cannot be critical of any 'authority' even when they do say a few things that we find to be true. Lisiewski is not, it would seem, above the illusions of any other mortal man due to prejudice and a desire to adhere to a principle. He advocates old system magic only so far as the technicalities go, but gives it a very much new age interpretation, regardless of how carefully he maintains the integrity of the history and practice. This is not necessarily bad though - the majority of new-age ideals are dross, useless for the most part, but there are a few gems out there amidst the rubbage.

peace

When one is lead to success through the counseling of another, we do tend to assume that everything they say is glittering gold, and accept blindly that they speak without fault.

From Lisiewski's website:
http://8thmatrixpress.com/consulting_service.htm

<<That is, in a very few cases I take students who have exceptional ability and who are ready and willing to work—and work unmercifully hard—in order to attain to that level of spiritual unfoldment and magical position...

...each of them does pay a monthly fee: $75.00 per hour. Each of them and I spend 8 hours in discussion during any 4 week period>>

The math: $75.00 per hour x 8 hours per month = $600.00 per month per student.

I still have not found any academic references to Lisiewski, could anyone else here provide them?

Mr. Curi, originally I suspected that you were in fact Lisiewski himself, putting on a mask so as to promote the books. This is apparently not the case and I apologize if I have offended your privacy, despite your eagerness to make your identity clear and public.

I am interested to hear how magical works of any sort are done and what specific things they can do. Magical literature of all ages tends to neglect both concerns, so if you do in fact want to make a difference and present something valuable, these issues might be a great place to begin. If you want to say "it works!" then tell us what it does.

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 25 2008, 12:04 PM

Imperial Arts:

Just to better inform you, Lisiewski charges more than what he writes about on his website (which will be torn down at the end of 2008). This is to keep new agers away, I wouldn't wonder.

As researchers of this author's method, we become are aware of one thing: the Magic of which he writes is more efficacious than what the new age dilettantes of today promote.

I wouldn't be surprised if he, too, earlier in his career wrote under a secret "pen name." If you are so concerned about this issue, I'd suggest you contact him yourself, but according to what he has written, there will be two university-level texts soon to be released that will be under the name: Joseph Lisiewski Ph.D. If you'd like more details feel free to email me so that I can send you the names of the soon-to-be released books.

It doesn't bother me if I can't find the 'credentials' for Lisiewski's doctorate. The reason for this is two-fold: first, his works on Magic are not books on physical law, so therefore I am not concerned about his 'expertise' on the matter. If there were some degree in Magic education, then I'd certainly wish to know the details--but there is not. Secondly, what he has written about is not fantasy since what others and I have received by applying his work to our lives is consistent and replicable across the board--and let me not be cliche here, but it WORKS! I'd give it a try Imperial Arts, perhaps you will see that I am not wrong in this matter.

There is no need to apologize, many well-known occult authors disguise their names and come through this forum as you very well may know (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I wrote to one of the Administrators and will soon begin to actually write about the "Methods of Magic" on this forum. Do not be misled and think these will be 'success stories' (if people are interested in these they should go read a good occult novel). I don't work with the idea of instant gratification. I could help explain how and why a set of certain phenomenon occurs prior, during or after to an experiment (describing what falls within normal range or not), and then will allow the student to work on the procedure themselves and come to a conclusion. In other words, MY findings will be explained before the student works on the project themselves.

I hope this helps.

Most Sincerely,

Mr. Curi

This post has been edited by Mr. Curi: Feb 25 2008, 05:07 PM

I have sent a polite email to Lisiewski requesting citation of his academic journal articles. Since he specializes in "exploring the possibility of physical time travel" I really cannot expect too much in the way of peer-reviewed documents, but perhaps I will be surprised.

I am absolutely fed-up with fake credentials in occult authors, most especially in those who are leaders and teachers. Donald Kraig may be a new-age kook (in your opinion), but I have never seen a formal title of some sort appended to his name to add weight to his instructions. "Dr. Hyatt" (Alan Miller) earned his degree from a two-year community college. Peter Carroll runs an aromatherapy store, which casts a doubtful haze over his claims to wealth and business magic. Even Regardie practiced a form of psychotherapy (Reichian) which is only semi-legal, and he is proud to have lived in Sedona, AZ, which is like Mecca for new-agers.

{{Aside, Edit: I once asked Carroll about my former business in remote seaside CA, in relation to business magic. His advice was for me to market my merchandise as "magical artifacts hand-crafted by a real-life sorcerer." UGH! That's not a good market strategy for solid-gold mountain lions and $30,000 diamond rings! I lost respect for him as a magician every single time he spoke outside of his published books. }}

Why in the world doesn't it bother you that you cannot verify his PhD? Since he makes that boast in just about every self-reference, I would expect that we shouldn't just have to take his word for it. It adds weight to his words and we, his audience, should demand that he back up the claim in some way.

One basic similarity of all the grimoires is that the spirits are called for specific purposes. It is not done to simply receive a long-term aggregation of fortune, but for definite purposes requested from the spirits. Whether to build towers and gather artificers from all parts of the world, or to reveal some article of knowledge, or whatever.... there is always something the spirits are actually supposed to DO for you. The grimoires say nothing about offering an advancement of the self in a spiritual sense, or acquiring anything vague: "you name it, you get it" is the very essence of the grimoires and their enduring appeal.

Why would you take seriously someone who, when pressed for any slight example of something gained by magic, refers you to a work of fiction? In my world we call that BS!

Even the smallest fee is not justifiable IMO if the person offering you instruction will not give any hint at what the system is expected to actually do. If he says the new agers areperfectlywilling to pay $400-$500 per hour for crap, why would $75 keep them out?

I look forward to your "class lessons" article.

This post has been edited by Imperial Arts: Feb 25 2008, 07:02 PM

Imperial Arts:

You have made several good points but I would like to clarify something about Dr. Hyatt, or Allan R. Miller who recently passed away first. You wrote, "Dr. Hyatt" (Allan Miller) earned his degree from a two-year community college." Here are the facts from "Howlings" Journal # 4:

After leaving high school, Miller obtained his GED during his military service, and upon separation from the navy, began his academic career (which BEGAN at Los Angeles City College where he studied accounting). He then obtained a B.A. from Cal State, Los Angeles and later an M.A. in Psychology from Cal State, Los Angeles, an advanced M. Ed. from the university of Southern California, a Ph.D. in Psychology at Western University as well as another Ph.D. in human behavior from USIU. His specialty was in experimental and clinical psychology and he practiced as a psychotherapist for many years and operated his own Freudian clinic in Southern California.

Ph.D. does not add weight to Dr. Lisiewski's words (perhaps if he is making a reference to physics, then yes). It is all about the CONTENT he provides about Magical working. Does it work or does it not work? That is the question. If you or I apply what is written in his books and his theory is proved incorrect, then it has reason to be questioned. Otherwise, he is a man who knows what he is talking about "Dr." or not.

In my world, a work of good occult fiction is suggested only to those who want to read about sucess stories--I don't care whether you or anyone else likes it or not, I will not provide such information if it is not within the boundaries of some manner of in-depth teaching manual. This is not about instant gratification--that's the new age thought, plain and simple.

The reason why new agers pay $400-$500 per hour is because the new agers pay to hear only what they WANT to hear and nothing else. They want quick fixes, and want to do as they wish with little work. Dr. Lisiewski, as stated in that letter regarding the Oral Tradition of Magical Instruction on his website works quite differently than that.

It should be interesting to see what Lisiewski says. I too have been wondering like many, where his name appears in the world of science, as I'm sure the information would be interesting to read!

Mr. Curi

This post has been edited by Mr. Curi: Feb 25 2008, 08:14 PM

Any updates on this discussion? Did you get a reply from Lisiewski, Imperial Arts?

I do not get a reply from Lisiewski. Maybe he is busy doing aspersions. Maybe I should have offered him a pile of cash.

I did happen to find his article in "Rebels and Devils," and a reference to his PhD. dissertation with the name of his supervisor for the paper, who is similarly unknown as a physicist. This suggests to me that Joseph Lisiewski is in fact his real name, but of course I could be mistaken.

At this point, based on conversations elswhereon the forums, it is apparent that Lisiewski's use of the term "Old System Magic" or OSM refers only to his professed reconstruction of the grimoires into a spiritual tradition of sorts. This is similar to Wicca using the term "witchcraft" while not exactly having much to do with the traditional notion of witches. I feel that his use of the term is somewhat misleading (as is his approach to the grimoires as spirituality), and I continue to maintain my opinion that he is a charlatan seeking to prey on the desperate and/or credulous for his own small financial and social gain.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)
It should be of little effort to reveal the credentials (academic and professional) of anybody who uses PhD. to their title. If nothing else, it is a matter of honor and to ones hard work! (Hyatts past, btw, is very similar to LaVeys upon closer inspection and it is of interesting note within societal types that alot of us older magical types look very similar to one another! (Suggesting some sort of commonality at work) LOL! I'm very close to a friend in the field of Molecular Bio-physics (at NYU) who, having a doctorate in that field, has absolutely no trouble (or hesitancy) to supply information regarding his academia...something that he is very proud of and though not flag waving is happy to supply the necessary facts when asked. He and I have lengthy discussions concerning the existance and interaction with spiritual entities. In my ramble, I've lost the specific point made here other than to drive home the point that one should, upon entering a public venue, not hesitate to disclose verification of past merits or accolades academic when asked. Otherwise it could be construed as having something to hide. As far as money goes...that is a personal issue. IMHO I don't charge for my opinions or theories. Bad Karma. LOL! But then, that's just me! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/horse.gif)

A bit of update info for this particular discussion regarding kabbalah.

I've been researching the various permutations of kabbalah after having encountered Carlo Suares' work, and this lead me to a comparison of the versions of the Sefer Yetzirah that I own - the Gra version, Saadia version, and the one edited by Waite, which in direct comparison seems to be a kind of amalgam.

With Suares' work as a very basic guide to interpretation, along with the Golden Dawn manual, Fortune's Mystical Qabalah, Regardie's Garden of Pomegranites - it's possible to divine why the changes made by the G.D. were made (this is the system that Lisiewski's kabbalah is based on, and the one Curi cites as the 'framework' for ceremonial magic).

I'm not going to expound on it here, as i'll be making another post about my recent research and conclusions, but the short version pertinent to this discussion is that the kabbalah Lisiewski bases his work on is fundamentally flawed, as is the kabbalah of the GD in general. This raises the question: How then does anyone work any such kabbalistically based system effectively? This goes for The Kabbalistic Handbook, Kabbalistic Lifecycles, and The Kabbalistically oriented Golden Dawn Material - and the majority of western esotericism for that matter.

Either those hundreds of practitioners are lying about their results, imagining them, or, just as likely, it is proven yet again that: the laws of magic are found not in the system and symbols themselves, but in the presence of symbols and the methods by which they are assimilated and applied.

A careful comparison (as if it was really needed) of lisiewski's material regarding kabbalah, comes exclusively from the Golden Dawn manuals, Regardie's work in particular - not surprising given their relationship.

When I've collected my notes into a readable format, I'll discuss my conclusions on the validity or lack thereof and the reasons for that, in another thread.

In the meantime, suffice it to say that Curi and Lisiewski both claim that magick operates on immutable laws - and one that point I agree - however the exact nature of those laws, I think, perhaps neither one of them have accurately defined, as those systems Lisiewski has put forth contain fundamental flaws in philosophy and reasoning inherited from a similarly flawed system. Yet that system seems to work for many... curious, no?

peace

"As above so below." This is the nature of every law that governs Magic. Remember that Magic is as much a science as it is an art. Physical law requires empirical observations (which usually come from repeatable scinetific experiments) and is later accepted in the scientific community. Also, a law is empirically constant. In the same light, Magic requires observations (stemming from repeatable experiments) and is later accepted or rejected by the Magical community. The laws governing Magic itself are indeed constant and will work given the correct circumstances every single time and regardless of who one is. If for some reason they are lacking in any way, shape, or form, the failure to produce the desired effect is attributed to an error source (i.e. New Age thinking that is ever so prevalent on these forums). These laws, if applied correctly to one's Magical endeavours, will bring about exactly what they were designed to bring about no matter what. Follow and obey the rules and you will absolutely attain (without partial results) that which you are after! Magical law either is or it is not.

Those of you who continue musing and are caught up in mindless chatter indicate to me a disregard for the sacred work at hand. I find it particularly laughable when such blindness is encouraged by fellow squanderers of time with words such as "good posting." St. Augustine was not wrong in saying, "Such is the blindness of men that they take delight in their own blindness." What is there left to do in this arm chair of mine now but to pity your kind?

Lisiewski has left us an invaluable way of understanding and practicing Old System Magic which is far from flawed (but this needs to be discussed in another thread because there is clearly a misunderstanding here). The Grimoires have not been reconstructed in any way whatsoever by him. It is the method left behind by Lisiewski that was meant to be put into practice by you and by me.

So ends my 77th post.

Mr. Curi

This post has been edited by MagicIsMight: Apr 12 2008, 09:21 PM

Greetings!
To the Brick (Mr. Curi)!

Those of you who continue musing and are caught up in mindless chatter indicate to me a disregard for the sacred work at hand. I find it particularly laughable when such blindness is encouraged by fellow squanderers of time with words such as "good posting." St. Augustine was not wrong in saying, "Such is the blindness of men that they take delight in their own blindness." What is there left to do in this arm chair of mine now but to pity your kind?

This pretty much sums up your whole schtick. There is no way but your way. Your outspoken opinion is a might harsher than your teacher's. When I give a "good posting" in a response to a posting it is merely an opinion that you may or may not choose to agree with. Don't think to flatter yourself by raising yourself with autohagiography to bastion your ideals. What you're falling into is circular logic and your ends just don't justify the means. As far as squandering of time....I've practiced magic successfully now for over fifty years. Solomonic Magic was one of the first "systems" that I've tried. I currently work with a somewhat older "system"
with similar success. Who the hell are you to pass judgement on anybody but yourself? Why must you drag everybodies practice into a pissing contest? I'm not refuting your experiences.....though I should!... for you have yet to illuminate not one such experience to the membership, here on Forum, at large.

Your style of posting borders and delves into the obnoxious and distasteful. There is a word bandied about on Discussion Forums for someone who tries to bring discussions to confusion with japes and jibes...TROLL! I have asked you to form a class and teach your methods but I received no answer. No even an acknowledgement with a reply. This, I find, is highly indicative of your character and your intention(s). One of the pitfalls of Magicians is the failing of Pride and Arrogance. Your way, though Sacred to you may not be perceived as Sacred to others. We have given you ample opportunity to illuminate your message and ideas. Do try and come up with anything new or novel...you may just find out that you can open wider vistas of perception! ...or not.

Lisiewski has left us an invaluable way of understanding and practicing Old System Magic which is far from flawed (but this needs to be discussed in another thread because there is clearly a misunderstanding here). The Grimoires have not been reconstructed in any way whatsoever by him. It is the method left behind by Lisiewski that was meant to be put into practice by you and by me.

So ends my 77th post.

Mr. Curi

I agree that Lisiewski's method works. Other methods do as well. To what extend relies on the individuals ability to apply that method - some are naturally going to be easier for some than others. A native aboriginal tribesman, for instance, may find himself having a great deal of difficulty learning, assimilating, and applying in practice this system of western esotericism and old system magick. The laws themselves are constant, everyone uses them - the western occultists, the shaman and medicine people, the tribal ritual cultures of australia, africa, and every other continent; this is discussed at length by Bonewitz in Real Magick. It's also self evident to anyone taking the time to study and practice various effective systems of occult philosophy. Over time, you grasp certain elements one by one, until you can see the underlying foundation of what you're doing to apply these laws. This process becomes self evident as inevitable as one begins to fully assimilate the 32 paths, because it is such a precise system.

And Lisiewski has a great method; it works, but because it works it illustrates my point - Old System Magick, and any other effective system of magick, is just one set of ultimately arbitrary symbolism - arbitrary in the global sense, less arbitrary for someone raised around the significance of said symbolism, and in so many words, Lisiewski confirms this when instructing in his axioms that the pracitioner should "light a candle for the god of one's childhood." However, his use of those symbols - specifically in his two books relating to kabbalah specifically - in their applications of kabbalistic analysis - he cites "Three Books..." by Agrippa, Mystical Qabalah by Fortune, and The Golden Dawn manuals by Regardie as references for interpreting and learning rituals that are in turn based on flawed information. Yet, it works.

Kabbalah works a lot better, and is far easier to apprehend, when it's properly presented, and utilized according to it's particular internal consistency. His pathworking, for instance, on the 22 paths and the 10 spheres using tarot. Realigned to the 22 paths in an order with several differences, their connection to the paths becomes so obvious you can't believe you ever accepted Case's method. Case gives good arguments for his interpretations of the trumps to the paths, and even the numerical divisions - but you have to really push to make those connections for yourself. Following a different correspondence though, you don't have to push. They just click into place on their own.

Lisiewski's attributions of the paths and their connections to the trumps is exactly the same, no differences. Not surprising given his source of education. What's the difference then? THe practitioner's process of assimilating the symbols into their own sphere of sensation - each symbol granted it's special place in a grand scheme and a set of connections that will allow them to move energy from their innermost godhead across the abyss of the subconscious and into the phenomenal world (a process of reaching both inwards and outwards).

No one has argued that Lisiewski's method doesn't work, so there's no need to get defensive over that point. I can personally attest to it's efficacy - it works. However, Just because it works, doesn't mean it's perfect. It also doesn't mean it's old. Grimoires aside, because that is not the only subject he covers in his complete method - His material on kabbalah is drawn exclusively from the Golden Dawn and it's related traditions - Victorian magick, not rennaissance. The Golden Dawn made a lot of changes to the magic of their predecessors, because of their own opinions and experiences no doubt, and because of mistranslations - the evidence of which can be found in their manuals simply following forward from the earliest versions, and accounting for so many variations in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn proper, it's descendants aside. Enochian is properly renaissance magic, but they changed that too.

Despite his opinion of them, there can be no argument that although he obviously didn't reproduce the entire tradition and call it old system magic, what source material he gives, and the reading material specifically relating to the symbolism applied towards magical ends, is all either taken directly from the Golden Dawn, or built up on it's symbolism (their kabbalah for Kabbalistic Cycles, for instance).

Now, you say you refute this in the brief version before, so I'll assume you have a working knowledge of several systems of kabbalistic symbolism though you may employ Lisiewski's exclusively, and that you have a working knowledge of the Golden Dawn system, if not practically, then at least theoretically (which, in parts, you do because you work lisiewski's system). So, because you are so sure of the correctness of his system, please do elucidate here why his Golden Dawn attributions are the correct 'old system' way, and why there is therefore according to you, far from flawed. (it is the appropriate place, although the variations of other systems within themselves is certainly too broad for this thread) Also, if you'd care to identify what you consider his particular method, it would help to explain his connection to old system magic, and justify his claiming his system to be that, if you could elucidate in some way the principles that make them the same.

I have no doubt at all that the structure underlying his use of symbolism is as old system magick as any other. When you get right down to it, as I said before, magick doesn't function by any other laws than that which governs it. Every effective system of magick therefore follows those laws, or it doesn't function. What I personally refute, as with many others here, is that the symbolism employed, is not old system magick as lisiewski himself defines it. That would be:

Ceremonial Magic and the Power of Evocation:
"Dark Ages, Medieval, Renaissance, and Transition Era Magic constitutes the a developmental and application period which will hereafter be referred to as the 'Old System of Magic' or simply as the 'Old System'. (476 c.e. - 1800's c.e.)" [Pg. 70, second paragraph from the bottom]
Then in the same chapter:
"The Gothic Revival and Modern Era magic will be made reference to by what I have already termed "New Age Magic or simply the New System of Magic or New System. Yes, this is correct. I place the Golden Dawn, it's numerous spin offs - for example, the works of W.E. Butler, W.G. Gray, and Dion Fortune, as well as Crowley's system of magic in with this lot - because once again, in my opinion, while these magical systems are ultimately viable and workable, they are so only in a purely theoretical sense."

What he never does define is why the Golden Dawn system is only theoretically workable. Throughout his book he only ever references Regardie's place in the Golden Dawn and his shared belief that they system was beautiful, but ultimately unworkable. The interpretations of all of the kabbalistic material though is distinctly golden dawn. Mathers and Waite basically adapted the Golden Dawn Kabbalah, Regardie got it from them, Lisiewski got it from Regardie. And All of them present the same information based on the same principles. That system of kabbalah, based on it's origins in the history of magic, falls into the Gothic Revival era. Under the assumption that the GD's information comes from the Cipher Manuscripts, and the truth of their legitimacy, it's content if not it's application, could be considered old system by Lisiewski's definition. However, over that period alone there were so many adjustments, additions, reinterpretations, that you still cannot say that his system is true to that entire nearly 2000 year history of magic.

Well, this is getting lengthy, but there is an obvious correlation to the use of kabbalistic knowledge in the grimoires, in my opinion - not just the words, etc., but the relationships between the symbols employed - circles, tools, colors - which can be grasped through an apprehension of Kabbalah - if something doesn't seem to fit at that point, then you're using the Kabbalistic system wrong. The very basis of Kabbalah is that it is a framework for all symbolism and experience. And it really is, for me at least, some others prefer less structure. Using the correct interpretations, the symbolism all makes sense, using the wrong ones, it doesn't, it seems arbitrary. With the GD system and Lisiewski's system, you have to convince yourself of the symbolism. With other variations - usually a combination of them ultimately resolved into one system, although there's so much material it's bound to come in chunks rather than all at once - you don't have to convince yourself, it's self evident.

So I'll go in for Kabbalah as linked to the Grimoires. However, I disagree that Lisiewski's kabbalah is old system proper, whowever authored the Grimoires had a different education in Kabbalah than Lisiewski did.

I'll wait until you ask to get even more specific, but I quite honestly want to know your opinion personally, and feel this discussion is of benefit to everyone with an interest in lisiewski's work, as well as ceremonial magic and it's components generally.

peace

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Apr 13 2008, 02:02 AM

I just want to point out, incase any of you who have read the journals have overlooked that Lisiewski went very briefly into the subject of kabbalah (in its more original forms and in GD versions) in the February 2008 Issue (Number 4). To quote him partly here:

I have found the Golden Dawn system to be valueless in the matter of the Double Letters — and indeed, as a serious system of magic as a whole as I am certain you are aware. I used the Westcott and Kaplan systems at different times, and found both to be quite effective. Normally, I do not liketo switch between systems of correspondences, so as not to ‘mix systems’ or introduce additional variables into the Operation. In this case, however, I have experimentally found such switching to be justified, judging from the results I achieved thereby.

This a reply to a readers question (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the querent was you, Vagrant Dreamer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) i.e. where Golden Dawn assigns Tav to Saturn, whereas most other kabbalistic works I have read attribute Tav to Luna...at least in the majority, although I believe some major versions do give different attributions too (Mercury or Jupiter I believe, though don't trust me on that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif))

It would seem (although I am not Lisiewski) that although he evidently has alot of fuss and fuming about the 'New Age' and what he views as overall laziness, much of his problem doesn't come with 'my system is the only right system' but rather is much moreso 'STICK TO ONE SYSTEM' and thus has problems with the 'eclectic' methods of many nowadays when they start out at magic...as he goes into above very slightly for his reasoning (which I must agree with in this case, as skipping about certainly never availed me much and wasted alot of my time...but there can be intelligent electism too...perhaps if it is built on a past experience mind you)

Just thought I'd point it out.

I want neither your faint approval or faint dispraise.

What I have written I have written.

I remind those inquiring about the Kabbalah that it acts as merely a framework for Old System Magic. So, in this case Vagrant Dreamer, you are correct. However, I am having some difficulty understanding the question at hand. Clarify it and I will answer it as best I can.

Most Sincerely,

Mr. Curi

What I am asking in essence is how, in your opinion, is the validity of the Kabbalah as put forth by Lisiewski viable and applicable to old system magic, when it is simply one of several variations in use over the nearly 2000 year history of the time period which Lisiewski identifies as the period of Old System Magic. Second to this, I suppose the next question is basically this: How is the use of Golden Dawn Kabbalah, which Lisiewkski specifically identifies as a flawed system, justified as the basis for his kabbalistic analysis and kabbalistic lifecycles, on the premise that systems as such should remain untouched. While he may have spoken about other systems of kabbalah elsewhere - and he did suggest works of Aryeh Kaplan, and for that matter other perspectives on kabbalah which ultimately amount to variations on a theme - he utilizes the Golden Dawn system in his books. If that system is flawed, by his own account, how can the use of that system be justified without explanation? Lisiewski assures his readers there are no 'blinds' in his books, and that may be true or it may itself be a 'blind', just on the basis of his incongruous statements (a classic trick in the old grimoires and other magical texts of the time period identified as Old System Magic as well as some early victorian work).

If it isn't clear enough, what I'm getting at here in essence is that according to my own study and research into the subject, Lisiewski gives an inaccurate portrayal, and subsequently, usage, of the kabbalistic system in both analysis and lifecycles. As I said - the system works anyway. There are few explanations for this beyond the effect of the subjective synthesis utilizing symbols according to the way they are arranged with their own internal consistency. In other words, the symbols themselves become arbitrary, the only constant being the fact that there are symbols which must be apprehended in a way that creates the necessary pathways between the 'inner' and 'outer' worlds on either 'side' of the individual axis.

Put in perspective with the Cube of Space and Adam Qadmons inner and outer space, Lisiewski's approach makes perfect sense. It's when his system of kabbalistic symbolism is applied to it that the 'sense' begins to break down, because he appears to have inherited, or at least put forth, a repeat of the Golden Dawn Kabbalah.

So in your opinion, to reiterate, how is his used of a flawed version of the Kabbalah justified when it is a victorian era version, later in magical history than Old System Magic, according to his own words. Are we to take it that he's double talking, or that his kabbalistic system must be explored, altered, and updated according to personal research and experience?

peace