word spells

Post by David Dalton
So far in my magickal endeavors I have mainly used directed
workings of will, with or without invocation, and I have
rarely used a word spell (a rhyme), improvised or traditional.
But do you use traditional word spells and/or improvised ones?
Do you think, as I would expect, that creativity is rewarded
and improvised spells are more effective, or that there
is some benefit in sticking to tried and true tradition?
Sometimes in listening to live music I have pumped along
with the lyrics; e.g. Lizband's anti-patriarchal song
Motherfucker (seehttp://www.lizsolo.com/). And years
ago I could sometime improvise my own lyrics to instrumental
music; but I haven't recently but hope to again soon.
--
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

Just ask yourself what kind of music is best: the kind without any
patterns, notes and melodies or the kind that is completely manifested
as noise; according to its own unrelated views.

The power of word spells is to be found in the definition of spelling
and of words. They follow certain patterns to communicate effectively
with their audience. Of course, if your will alone is sufficient to
change the realities of others and not just your own reality, then who
need steenkin words? :-)

Words and letters are tools like notes and melodies.

Searles O'Dubhain

David Dalton

2011-10-17 02:13:48 UTC

In article

Post by Searles O'Dubhain

Just ask yourself what kind of music is best: the kind without any
patterns, notes and melodies or the kind that is completely manifested
as noise; according to its own unrelated views.
The power of word spells is to be found in the definition of spelling
and of words. They follow certain patterns to communicate effectively
with their audience. Of course, if your will alone is sufficient to
change the realities of others and not just your own reality, then who
need steenkin words? :-)
Words and letters are tools like notes and melodies.

I used to do a lot of wordplay in 1994--1995 as is
evident in the subpage "My old fte list writing"
that I recently added to my Salmon on the Thorns
web page. But I have rarely used words in magickal
workings and I will try to remedy that.

Thanks for the advice, Searles.

le-Olahm, Angelus

2011-10-17 22:19:51 UTC

Post by Searles O'Dubhain

Just ask yourself what kind of music is best: the kind without any
patterns, notes and melodies or the kind that is completely manifested
as noise; according to its own unrelated views.
The power of word spells is to be found in the definition of spelling
and of words. They follow certain patterns to communicate effectively
with their audience. Of course, if your will alone is sufficient to
change the realities of others and not just your own reality, then who
need steenkin words? :-)
Words and letters are tools like notes and melodies.
Searles O'Dubhain

words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
one's will. remember silence is golden!

Tom

2011-10-18 15:07:32 UTC

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
one's will.

But not one's will alone. Will requires some form through which it
can be expressed. That's where art and science come in.

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
remember silence is golden!

So you shouldn't speak out against injustice?

Bassos

2011-10-18 15:45:15 UTC

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
one's will.

But not one's will alone. Will requires some form through which it
can be expressed.

How do you define Will as used by you here ?

Post by Tom
That's where art and science come in.

Yet the science is at odds with the Art, untill both are mastered.

Akin to beginners luck, but how beginners never win against pros.

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
remember silence is golden!

So you shouldn't speak out against injustice?

Perhaps doing something is more effective;
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

Just occupying is not changing anything, there should be some purpose.
Something to be done.
Just something simple and doable.

Step one.

Problem is that lots of people think they are entitled to grandiose riches.

Eating meat only twice a week ?
Instead of war, simply ending world hunger ?

Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness.

Tom

2011-10-18 23:52:02 UTC

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
one's will.

But not one's will alone. Will requires some form through which it
can be expressed.

How do you define Will as used by you here ?

The impulse to action. Can you google "readiness potential"?

That's where art and science come in.

Yet the science is at odds with the Art, untill both are mastered.

Bah. I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors. The science informs his artistic
explorations, but does not limit them. The scientist seeks to produce
the same result every time (replicability). The artist seeks to
produce a different result every time (creativity). "Set these two
asses to grind corn."

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
remember silence is golden!

So you shouldn't speak out against injustice?

Perhaps doing something is more effective;

Speaking spomething that is done.

Post by Bassos
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

But there does appear to be a consensus forming.

Post by Bassos
Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
nothing to say about it at all.

Post by Bassos
Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness.

Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
either guarantee it or compel it. The Constitution provided us only
with greater license to pursue happiness than we had previously. "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness." Of course, where one's pursuit of happiness interferes
with the various rights of others is a point of some debate.

Bassos

2011-10-19 05:57:17 UTC

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
words, letters, melodies, prayer, sorcery, left/right, it is always
one's will.

But not one's will alone. Will requires some form through which it
can be expressed.

How do you define Will as used by you here ?

The impulse to action. Can you google "readiness potential"?

The pereparation of the body to act, which is then presented to
consciousness?
(with a possible NO to the suggestion)

Post by Tom
That's where art and science come in.

Yet the science is at odds with the Art, untill both are mastered.

Bah.

We'll see.

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.
The art can only start when the science is adequate.

Post by Tom
The science informs his artistic explorations, but does not limit them.

Ofcourse it does.
He brews Beer, not chocolate.

Post by Tom
The scientist seeks to produce the same result every time (replicability).

Only as a means to art.
One has to know the science of math before one can appreciate the wonder
of math.

Post by Tom
The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).

Does an artist set out for a result ?

For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus
remember silence is golden!

So you shouldn't speak out against injustice?

Perhaps doing something is more effective;

Speaking something that is done.

Post by Bassos
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

But there does appear to be a consensus forming.

There does?

Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?

Post by Bassos
Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
nothing to say about it at all.

Yes it does.
Happyness actually *is* operationally defined in a myriad of ways.

Sure, there is no clear consensus about what factors are the most
relevant, but that does not stop 'science' from making claims in other
area's either.

Think observational data, just ask people how happy they are and compare
to difference in the population regarding income.

The rationale behind this theory is also quite sound.

Rich people do not like poor people and vice verce.

Nobody likes unhappy people.

Post by Bassos
Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness.

Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
either guarantee it or compel it.

That is not the job set out.

Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.

For some time to come we will still need someone to say *NO* to
unbridled lust for results.

Post by Tom
The Constitution provided us only
with greater license to pursue happiness than we had previously. "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness." Of course, where one's pursuit of happiness interferes
with the various rights of others is a point of some debate.

omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

Do people need 100 million dollars as a retirement package ?
(or as a bonus for causing the global crisis, and profiting thereof)

Tom

2011-10-19 13:49:31 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.

But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
recipe.

Post by Tom
The scientist seeks to produce the same result every time (replicability).

Only as a means to art.
One has to know the science of math before one can appreciate the wonder
of math.

There is no science of math.

Post by Tom
The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).

Does an artist set out for a result ?

Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
either way.

Post by Bassos
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
above.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Some artists do, some don't.

Post by Bassos
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

But there does appear to be a consensus forming.

There does?

Sure. If you don't think so, you're not paying attention.

Post by Bassos
Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?

It's becoming so. Like all political views, there is always a certain
amount of fuzziness, but there does seem to be a consensus regarding
the damage done to the global economy by huge, unregulated financial
organizations.

Post by Bassos
Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
nothing to say about it at all.

Yes it does.
Happyness actually *is* operationally defined in a myriad of ways.

So many ways than nobody can agree on what it is, unless they're all
members of the same cult.

Post by Bassos
Sure, there is no clear consensus about what factors are the most
relevant, but that does not stop 'science' from making claims in other
area's either.

That's because what you're calling "science" isn't science. It's
media hype.

Post by Tom
Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
either guarantee it or compel it.

That is not the job set out.

Precisely.

Post by Bassos
Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.

No they don't. They exist to regulate cooperative behavior.

omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
expression of it.

Post by Bassos
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
guaranteeing happiness.

Bassos

2011-10-19 14:34:33 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.

But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
recipe.

Well, unless he wants to master Beer-Brewing.

You agree, right ?

Post by Tom
The scientist seeks to produce the same result every time (replicability).

Only as a means to art.
One has to know the science of math before one can appreciate the wonder
of math.

There is no science of math.

Ofcourse there is, mathematics itself is science.

Post by Tom
The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).

Does an artist set out for a result ?

Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
either way.

Wigglebut.

Post by Bassos
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
above.

Okay.
Will: a term used to describe the movement of the universe as it
influences our own personal expressions of reality.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Some artists do, some don't.

Artists do, fakes don't.

Post by Bassos
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

But there does appear to be a consensus forming.

There does?

Sure. If you don't think so, you're not paying attention.

Agreed, i decided to not pay.

Post by Bassos
Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?

It's becoming so.

Hey, i am the one not paying, what is it ?

Post by Tom
Like all political views, there is always a certain
amount of fuzziness, but there does seem to be a consensus regarding
the damage done to the global economy by huge, unregulated financial
organizations.

Duh.

So now what ?

Post by Bassos
Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
nothing to say about it at all.

Yes it does.
Happyness actually *is* operationally defined in a myriad of ways.

So many ways than nobody can agree on what it is, unless they're all
members of the same cult.

There is the example of the kingdom of Bhutan.

Post by Bassos
Sure, there is no clear consensus about what factors are the most
relevant, but that does not stop 'science' from making claims in other
area's either.

That's because what you're calling "science" isn't science. It's
media hype.

No.
I may have framed it thus, but it is actual science.

Post by Tom
Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
either guarantee it or compel it.

That is not the job set out.

Precisely.

So, erm, what ?

Post by Bassos
Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.

No they don't. They exist to regulate cooperative behavior.

Heh.
A starting point of exploration if ever i met one.

omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
expression of it.

I called the American Dream a Nightmare.
No wonder some piece of paper does little to ease the suffering.

Post by Bassos
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
guaranteeing happiness.

So it is worthless, but you reference it anyway, as if it has some purpose.

As in:

Ta fucking Da.

Tom

2011-10-19 20:45:33 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.

But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
recipe.

Well, unless he wants to master Beer-Brewing.
You agree, right ?

As a professional, yes. As a home brewer, no.

There is no science of math.

Ofcourse there is, mathematics itself is science.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "science".

Post by Bassos
Does an artist set out for a result ?

Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
either way.

Wigglebut.

That must be your way of saying, "You're right."

Post by Bassos
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
above.

Okay.
Will: a term used to describe the movement of the universe as it
influences our own personal expressions of reality.

That's not a workable definition. It's just meaningless babble. You
might as well say "everything is will". That's equally meaningless.

Post by Bassos
Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Some artists do, some don't.

Artists do, fakes don't.

Fakes claim to know what all artists do.

Like all political views, there is always a certain
amount of fuzziness, but there does seem to be a consensus regarding
the damage done to the global economy by huge, unregulated financial
organizations.

Duh.
So now what ?

Now we go find some artistic beer.

Post by Bassos
omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
expression of it.

I called the American Dream a Nightmare.

Not in this conversation. Here's what you wrote. "Guess the American
Dream does not want Happyness."

I dispute that.

Post by Bassos
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
guaranteeing happiness.

So it is worthless, but you reference it anyway, as if it has some purpose.

Indeed, as a guarantor of happiness, it is worthless. Once again,
that's not what it's for. However, as an example of why your comment
about "happyness" was bullshit, it does the job pretty well.

Bassos

2011-10-19 22:26:52 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.

But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
recipe.

Well, unless he wants to master Beer-Brewing.
You agree, right ?

As a professional, yes. As a home brewer, no.

Home brewers that sell their product *ARE* professional.

Post by Tom
There is no science of math.

Ofcourse there is, mathematics itself is science.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "science".

Nope.
Perhaps on my usage of math.

Post by Bassos
Does an artist set out for a result ?

Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
either way.

Wigglebut.

That must be your way of saying, "You're right."

Or it is my way of claiming you act like a wigglebut.

Post by Bassos
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
above.

Okay.
Will: a term used to describe the movement of the universe as it
influences our own personal expressions of reality.

That's not a workable definition.

Heh, what about it is unclear ?

Post by Tom
It's just meaningless babble.

Just very precise.

Post by Tom
You might as well say "everything is will". That's equally meaningless.

Nonsense.
The way the universe does not move is not Will.

Post by Bassos
Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Some artists do, some don't.

Artists do, fakes don't.

Fakes claim to know what all artists do.

I do not claim to be an artist, just informed.

Duh.
So now what ?

Now we go find some artistic beer.

Without safety regulations, no clean workplace, no scientific approach
to this alchemical process, yeah.

Post by Bassos
omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
expression of it.

I called the American Dream a Nightmare.

Not in this conversation.

Yes i did.
I just did not use the phrase itself.

Does everything need to be spelled out before you can see ?

Post by Tom
Here's what you wrote. "Guess the American Dream does not want Happyness."
I dispute that.

TAD is about working your way up from nothing to mogul.
No word in there about being happy about the process.

Post by Bassos
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
guaranteeing happiness.

So it is worthless, but you reference it anyway, as if it has some purpose.

Indeed, as a guarantor of happiness, it is worthless.

As anything it is worthless.

Post by Tom
Once again, that's not what it's for.

It has no use other than as a symbol to appease to drones.

Post by Tom
However, as an example of why your comment
about "happyness" was bullshit, it does the job pretty well.

If you use an ostrich tactic.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-19 22:55:02 UTC

Post by Bassos
Without safety regulations, no clean workplace, no scientific approach
to this alchemical process, yeah.

Overheard today around the home dye shop: "writing down color proportions
= not enough. It helps to write down how much water they were floating in,
too."

Part of the attraction to the work of "art" is of course its
irreproducibility. Mechanical reproduction replaces accident with
standardization -- with something like Six Sigma or ISO at the far end --
but there's the brewer again.

Notionally ye "alchemical" process is necessarily entirely bespoke, even
though it builds on the receipts scribbl'd by giants. But that takes us a
bit afield.

Bassos

2011-10-20 00:12:06 UTC

Post by Bassos
Without safety regulations, no clean workplace, no scientific approach
to this alchemical process, yeah.

Notionally ye "alchemical" process is necessarily entirely bespoke, even
though it builds on the receipts scribbl'd by giants. But that takes us a
bit afield.

Melikes afield.

As viewpoints change, so do mountains.

But Giants ?
They may have existed, but using them as an argument seems silly.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-20 16:16:19 UTC

Beyond ye Fields [fieldsbooks.com] we know

Post by Bassos
As viewpoints change, so do mountains.

A giant is only a mountain that answers us back.

We all come from somewhere.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/newton-alchemy.html

Tom

2011-10-20 14:52:27 UTC

Post by Tom
I suppose that depends on your definition of "science".

Nope.

Bassos

2011-10-21 03:27:31 UTC

Post by Tom
I suppose that depends on your definition of "science".

Nope.

http://youtu.be/teMlv3ripSM

Disagreement for it's own sake; Irish!

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-19 16:16:04 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Love it.

Is "science" the ability to generate reproducible results?

Or is that more along the lines of something we might call technique,
tekne or "craft?"

Interestingly, of course, neurosis can be classically defined as
repetition without result.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Clear the way for Johnny Barleycorn.
This is the day that he will surely be reborn.

www.occupywallstreetevents.com

Tom

2011-10-19 20:58:07 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Love it.
Is "science" the ability to generate reproducible results?

Not the ability but the goal.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Or is that more along the lines of something we might call technique,
tekne or "craft?"

A craft is a very apt way of describing brewing. The mass production
of identical items is not what most folks would expect from a
craftsman.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Interestingly, of course, neurosis can be classically defined as
repetition without result.

There are always results. Neurosis is repetition with unintended and
undesirable results.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Clear the way for Johnny Barleycorn.
This is the day that he will surely be reborn.

And they hae taen his very heart's blood,
And drank it round and round;
And still the more and more they drank,
Their joy did more abound.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-19 23:43:21 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Interestingly, of course, neurosis can be classically defined as
repetition without result.

There are always results. Neurosis is repetition with unintended and
undesirable results.

Great point. If I were waxing theoretical I'd wonder whether the
"neurotic" component of the act of magick is the lust for [a] result,
which is never perfectly satisfied short of the attainment of ye great
work.

That is, even when we don't get what we want, the work still generates
results. Just unintended and undesired ones that observers interpret as
wasted effort.

Of course, the world is the representation of its own will, so the
"neurotic" self is simply that aspect of the magician that does not
conform to that macrocosmic truth. Some here might call it the
"chatterer" of desire, but I'm no buddhist.

This seems to get us back to the criminal will as a perversion or phantasm
of the survival drive, but there might not be a way around that with these
Freudian terms on the table.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Clear the way for Johnny Barleycorn.
This is the day that he will surely be reborn.

And they hae taen his very heart's blood,
And drank it round and round;
And still the more and more they drank,
Their joy did more abound.

In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Bassos

2011-10-20 00:00:07 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Without any mentioning of the content of your posts;

+11

Bassos

2011-10-20 00:01:26 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Without any mentioning of the content of your posts;
+11

sorry, i posted without the linkage;

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-20 16:21:33 UTC

Post by Bassos
http://youtu.be/ftGoP3_pQp8

+jaja+

le-Olahm, Angelus

2011-10-21 20:09:39 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Without any mentioning of the content of your posts;
+11

sorry, i posted without the linkage;
http://youtu.be/ftGoP3_pQp8

Of Course theres beer in heaven as well as wine. Heaven is what you
make of it, not the traditional standard. There's even that dream
motorcycle you couldn't afford while on earth, that fine babe you can
do just about anything with, that life you wanted so bad to live in;
that's heaven
le-olahm, Angelus - in my own private heaven

David Dalton

2011-10-22 02:57:36 UTC

In article

Post by le-Olahm, Angelus

Post by Robert Scott Martin
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Without any mentioning of the content of your posts;
+11

sorry, i posted without the linkage;
http://youtu.be/ftGoP3_pQp8

and there are bottles of rum on every tree, in Fiddler's Green

Fiddler's Green

As I walked by the dockside one evening so rare
To view the still waters and take the salt air
I heard an old fisherman singing this song,
Oh take me away boys, me time is not long

(chorus): Lock me up in me oilskins and jumper
No more on the docks I'll be seen
Just tell me old shipmates I'm takin a trip mates
I'll see you someday in Fiddler's Green

Oh in Fiddler's Green is a place I've heard tell
Where sailormen go if they don't go to hell
Where the weather is fair and the dolphins do play
And the cold coast of Greenland is far far away

(chorus)

Where the skies are all clear and there's never a gale
[ From:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/fiddlers-green-lyrics-irish-rovers.html ]
And the fish jump on board with a swish of their tails
Where you lie at your leisure - there's no work to do
And the skipper's below making tea for the crew

(chorus)

Oh and when you are docked and the long trip is through
There's pubs and there's clubs and there's lassies there too
Where the girls are all pretty and the beer is all free
And there's bottles of rum growin off every tree

(chorus)

Oh I don't want a harp nor a halo, not me
Just give me a breeze and a good rollin sea
And I'll play me auld squeezebox as we sail along
With the wind in the riggin to sing me this song

(chorus)

Tom

2011-10-20 15:13:22 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Interestingly, of course, neurosis can be classically defined as
repetition without result.

There are always results. Neurosis is repetition with unintended and
undesirable results.

If you're focused only on results, yes.

Perhaps the most common act for which we expect no result is singing
in the shower. Yet we do it nonetheless.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Of course, the world is the representation of its own will, so the
"neurotic" self is simply that aspect of the magician that does not
conform to that macrocosmic truth.

Hmmm. How would we determine that the world is a representation of
its own will? It sounds like postulate to me.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
This seems to get us back to the criminal will as a perversion or phantasm
of the survival drive, but there might not be a way around that with these
Freudian terms on the table.

Everyone is drumming in 4/4 time but one guy drums in 3/4 time. He's
a criminal. So what is he when others also drum in 3/4 time?

Context is everything.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
In heaven there is no beer.
That's why we drink it here.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-20 15:58:03 UTC

Post by Tom
If you're focused only on results, yes.

What can we focus on that doesn't result from something?

Post by Tom
Perhaps the most common act for which we expect no result is singing
in the shower. Yet we do it nonetheless.

Sure. Birds do it. Bees do it. We [indulge in phatic communication].

Post by Tom
Hmmm. How would we determine that the world is a representation of
its own will? It sounds like postulate to me.

But an analytic one.

People go on endlessly about the relation between will and results because
it figured highly in a book or two they read as children.

There is even a tendency to conflate the "will" as that aspect of desire
that gets results, much as a brewer's "science" achieves reproducibility:

"Magick is willed action. Success is thy proof."

OK.

So reverse that relation to see whether it holds up in the mirror of
reflexive logic.

"Unintended results are not products of [my] will."

But they are still "results" -- extant in the world -- so they are still
nominally "magick," just not mine.

Whatever is out there that is not "me," we call "the world."

"The world," after all, is whatever goes on in my absence.

When the magician succeeds, he or she has willed some aspect of the world
into being.

When the magician fails, something else wills it so.

I conflate the world-willing other with the world in itself in order to
avoid needlessly multiplying hypothetical entities, and because I like the
Schopenhauer gag that emerges.

Happy to be proved wrong.

Post by Tom
Everyone is drumming in 4/4 time but one guy drums in 3/4 time. He's
a criminal. So what is he when others also drum in 3/4 time?

Joe Oz wants to kill his boss and does so. He gets the lethal injection.
Aleister Crowley says Joe Oz was acting out of a false will-to-murder. The
boss is dead. Joe is dead. Aleister Crowley is dead. Who was right and who
was wrong?

Post by Tom
http://youtu.be/KXwc5Ti3py8

That's the version I heard first, yeah.

Tom

2011-10-20 20:01:59 UTC

Post by Tom
If you're focused only on results, yes.

What can we focus on that doesn't result from something?

When you look for results, you see results.

Focus on the moment, not what came before or after.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
People go on endlessly about the relation between will and results because
it figured highly in a book or two they read as children.

People love stories.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
There is even a tendency to conflate the "will" as that aspect of desire
"Magick is willed action. Success is thy proof."

Heh. "Proof". You know what I think of that.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
So reverse that relation to see whether it holds up in the mirror of
reflexive logic.
"Unintended results are not products of [my] will."

This is letting the tail wag the dog; like some preacher claiming that
prayers are answered only if you have enough faith. So if your prayer
isn't answered, it doesn't mean prayer doesn't work. It means you
didn't have enough faith. Since faith cannot be measured
independently, the claim is unfalsifiable. Similarly, if you don't
get what you want, it doesn't mean your True Will is not supreme, it
means you didn't use your "True Will". Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Post by Tom
Everyone is drumming in 4/4 time but one guy drums in 3/4 time. He's
a criminal. So what is he when others also drum in 3/4 time?

And who's to say whether or not Joe cared what happened to him after
his act? Suppose he saw himself as a disposable agent of divine
justice. Or he simply never thought beyond the moment.

Crowley often made an ass of himself over the question of Will.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-21 13:54:21 UTC

Post by Tom
When you look for results, you see results.
Focus on the moment, not what came before or after.

Sure. But this is why there is no beer in heaven. Beer takes a brewer and
a drinker, after all.

The serious brewer doesn't have the luxury of living in the moment.

And if not for serious brewers, we would have no beer.

The luciferean double-bind of consciousness.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
"Magick is willed action. Success is thy proof."

Heh. "Proof". You know what I think of that.

I used to be in that camp before I entered this, uh, "mirror stage."

Reversing the way the line is conventionally read yields:

Whatever is self-evident [extant] has clearly succeeded.

Naturally, this is the beer drinker's samsara -- can't touch the stuff,
myself -- but unlike the conventional crowlean model it helps us explain
resistance. Why magick doesn't work.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
"Unintended results are not products of [my] will."

This is letting the tail wag the dog;

Definitely. Pulling the tail instead of the dog helps us discover if and
how they weren't really organically connected in the first place.

Post by Tom
prayers are answered only if you have enough faith. So if your prayer
isn't answered, it doesn't mean prayer doesn't work. It means you
didn't have enough faith. Since faith cannot be measured
independently, the claim is unfalsifiable. Similarly, if you don't
get what you want, it doesn't mean your True Will is not supreme, it
means you didn't use your "True Will". Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Crowley often made an ass of himself over the question of Will.

That's what ah'm TRYIN' to find OUT.

Tom

2011-10-21 14:46:16 UTC

Post by Tom
When you look for results, you see results.
Focus on the moment, not what came before or after.

Sure. But this is why there is no beer in heaven. Beer takes a brewer and
a drinker, after all.
The serious brewer doesn't have the luxury of living in the moment.

Home brewers don't care that each batch is a little different. They
are focused on the process, not the result. People who brew for a
living are focused on selling beer, not making it.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
And if not for serious brewers, we would have no beer.

If the only way you can get beer is to wait for someone to make it for
you then ship it to you then pour it into a glass for you, then you're
not serious about beer either.

Post by Robert Scott Martin
"Magick is willed action. Success is thy proof."

Heh. "Proof". You know what I think of that.

I used to be in that camp before I entered this, uh, "mirror stage."
Whatever is self-evident [extant] has clearly succeeded.

Crap. If I do a dawn ritual and then the sun rises, it's a fallacy to
conclude that I caused it to rise. It rises anyway. Post hoc ergo
propter hoc. "After this, therefore because of this."

Post by Robert Scott Martin
"Unintended results are not products of [my] will."

This is letting the tail wag the dog;

Definitely. Pulling the tail instead of the dog helps us discover if and
how they weren't really organically connected in the first place.

If applied properly it can be a good self-checking strategy but if
applied improperly it's just a convenient rationalization for
experimenter bias. The way it's applied here is improper.

Robert Scott Martin

2011-10-21 14:49:56 UTC

Post by Robert Scott Martin
Whatever is self-evident [extant] has clearly succeeded.

Crap. If I do a dawn ritual and then the sun rises, it's a fallacy to
conclude that I caused it to rise. It rises anyway. Post hoc ergo
propter hoc. "After this, therefore because of this."

Sure.

Who said it was [my] success?

Success has happened. The sun is up. Post hoc, ergo hoc.

You're the one reading from the propter here.

Slarty

2011-10-20 16:37:34 UTC

Post by Tom
I was talking to a beer brewer yesterday and he said that using
science he could produce the same flavor in beer every time but using
art, he could invent new flavors.

Yet he needs the science to make beer at all.

But he doesn't need to "master" science. He just needs a basic
recipe.

Post by Tom
The scientist seeks to produce the same result every time (replicability).

Only as a means to art.
One has to know the science of math before one can appreciate the wonder
of math.

There is no science of math.

Post by Tom
The artist seeks to produce a different result every time (creativity).

Does an artist set out for a result ?

Sometimes yea and sometimes no. The result is different every time
either way.

Post by Bassos
For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result,
is every way perfect.

You asked me how I defined will in the context of my comments and I
did. It's your turn. Define "will" in the context of the statement
above.

Post by Tom
"Set these two asses to grind corn."

Well, good scientists doubt, good artists perhaps do not, they just act.

Some artists do, some don't.

Post by Bassos
re the occupy movement without a clear purpose but with lots of speaking
out against injustice.

But there does appear to be a consensus forming.

There does?

Sure. If you don't think so, you're not paying attention.

Post by Bassos
Is it more specific than a general 1% should not hold that much wealth ?

Post by Bassos
Science claims that the best predictor of happyness in a society is a
small difference between the rich and the poor.

It does not. Unless happiness is operationally defined, science has
nothing to say about it at all.

Yes it does.
Happyness actually *is* operationally defined in a myriad of ways.

So many ways than nobody can agree on what it is, unless they're all
members of the same cult.

Post by Bassos
Sure, there is no clear consensus about what factors are the most
relevant, but that does not stop 'science' from making claims in other
area's either.

That's because what you're calling "science" isn't science. It's
media hype.

Post by Tom
Sure Americans want it, but we don't necessarily feel a government can
either guarantee it or compel it.

That is not the job set out.

Precisely.

Post by Bassos
Governments exist to provide the framework within which people can be happy.

No they don't. They exist to regulate cooperative behavior.

omg, the constitution ?
Are you a wanky constitution waving weirdo aswell ?
(while raising the morning flag ofcourse)

You asked about "the American Dream". The Constitution is the primary
expression of it.

Post by Bassos
How did that piece of paper protect the world against greed ?

That isn't what it's for. I told you. It's not about compelling or
guaranteeing happiness.

I here and now declare Tom the winner of this debate. Theres no need
for the jury to retire.

Bassos

2011-10-21 05:05:24 UTC

Post by Slarty
I here and now declare Tom the winner of this debate. Theres no need
for the jury to retire.

So who do you think is convinced by whatever the fuck you claim ?

First of all there was no debate.

Second of all, i have won ALL debates with Tom, since 2000.

Goes to show that you in fact are not capable of vision.

And yes, i actually can claim to be more enlightened than you, and be
correct about that.

Evergreen

2011-10-19 21:04:46 UTC

Post by Searles O'Dubhain

<snip>

Post by Searles O'Dubhain
The power of word spells is to be found in the definition of spelling
and of words. They follow certain patterns to communicate effectively
with their audience.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

And this from a fellow who says that Druidry has nothing to do with
magick.

<snip>

Post by Searles O'Dubhain
Searles O'Dubhain

I'll respond to a crazy and an egomaniac, but the rest of the people
on this thread
are stinking trolls.

Evergreen

le-Olahm, Angelus

2011-10-17 22:17:14 UTC

I use traditional rituals whether invoking or evoking. I strongly
believe the way one performs rituals should be done in their original
languages, and yes i do try to study all appropriate languages:
chaldean hebrew, sumerian, sabian, enochian, latin. & arabic.

le-olahm, Angelus

Evergreen

2011-10-19 17:38:59 UTC

Post by David Dalton
So far in my magickal endeavors

You mean your creative writing endeavors.

Post by David Dalton
I have mainly used directed
workings of will, with or without invocation,

That have accomplished nothing, as far as anyone can tell.

Post by David Dalton
and I have> rarely used a word spell (a rhyme), improvised or traditional.

So you think that "word spells" have to rhyme!

Isn't that cute?

<snip>

Ol' DD quit posting on alt.religion.wicca, my home group, because he
doesn't like anyone criticizing his articles.

He actually thinks that there are intelligent people who take him
seriously.

Evergreen

David Dalton

2011-10-19 18:32:21 UTC

In article

Post by Evergreen

Post by David Dalton
So far in my magickal endeavors

You mean your creative writing endeavors.

Post by David Dalton
I have mainly used directed
workings of will, with or without invocation,

That have accomplished nothing, as far as anyone can tell.

Post by David Dalton
and I have> rarely used a word spell (a rhyme), improvised or traditional.

So you think that "word spells" have to rhyme!

No, but I think they should be poetic. I think creativity
is rewarded sometimes.

Post by Evergreen
Isn't that cute?
<snip>
Ol' DD quit posting on alt.religion.wicca, my home group, because he
doesn't like anyone criticizing his articles.

No, I just wanted to limit the crosspost to five groups. I
still intend to post to alt.religion.wicca in future.

But the next couple of days I may post less than usual
since there will be a guest in this guest room

Evergreen

2011-10-19 19:07:37 UTC

Post by David Dalton
In article

Post by Evergreen

Post by David Dalton
So far in my magickal endeavors

You mean your creative writing endeavors.

Post by David Dalton
I have mainly used directed
workings of will, with or without invocation,

That have accomplished nothing, as far as anyone can tell.

Post by David Dalton
and I have> rarely used a word spell (a rhyme), improvised or traditional.

So you think that "word spells" have to rhyme!

No, but I think they should be poetic. I think creativity
is rewarded sometimes.

You really are almost clueless about magick, David.

(Though you have a LOT of company on the Internet, including the most
popular
websites that are supposedly about magick, and in the real world from
the authors
of the most popular books that claim to be about magick.)

There isn't anything or anyone to reward you, David. One does not do
magick by appealing
to some supposed superior being to do it for us. Nor do we need their
suppoed approval or consent.

Doing magick is not a kindergarten coloring project where the Teacher
gives you a gold
star for ornamentation.

We do magick ourselves and don't need any help at all. And it is done
with ideas and emotions and
imagination (beliefs) and intent and desire, not words. Words are
symbols for ideas or beliefs and whether they
rhyme or alliterate or not is irrelevant.

Your mind is supposed to be on your goal, not on whether some non-
existent Cosmic Big Daddy approves
of your presentation.

Beliefs are spells.

ALL of our beliefs are manifested, one way or another, for good or
ill. That's what we are here to learn.
This is what sages throughout history have been trying to tell us.
Like Jesus, who said things like this all the way
through the Gospels:

Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto
this
mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall
not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which
he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

The Christians would have us believe that he meant belief in HIM, but
that's
not what HE said. He just said "belief" (or "faith", which is another
translation
of the same ancient word).

Furthermore, David, we do not consciously control the 'mechanics' of
manifestation, anymore
than we conscoiusly control the mechanics of digestion. This stuff is
handled by our inner
selves. Our multi-dimensional selves. We are the captains of our
earthly ships. Not the ship
and not the crew and not the ocean and not the winds. We don't hoist
the sails, we
just give the orders. The ego is the surface-self, it is not the
whole self.

<snip>

Evergreen

David Dalton

2011-10-20 16:52:02 UTC

Post by David Dalton
So far in my magickal endeavors I have mainly used directed
workings of will, with or without invocation, and I have
rarely used a word spell (a rhyme), improvised or traditional.
But do you use traditional word spells and/or improvised ones?
Do you think, as I would expect, that creativity is rewarded
and improvised spells are more effective, or that there
is some benefit in sticking to tried and true tradition?
Sometimes in listening to live music I have pumped along
with the lyrics; e.g. Lizband's anti-patriarchal song
Motherfucker (see http://www.lizsolo.com/ ). And years
ago I could sometime improvise my own lyrics to instrumental
music; but I haven't recently but hope to again soon.

Last night I went to Folk Night at The Ship Pub and
the headliner was Dave Penny on accordion and voice,
joined by some friends.

Before I went I was about to drink a glass of water
and said

Water of life
End all strife.

At the show someone mentioned a set list and I
came up with

Why does Set list?
Because he has had too much beer.

But I think I posted that before.

Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole

2011-10-21 07:37:29 UTC

"I" Am, but the idea of being a descendant of "The POETS", gave me a
different view on the subject!

Poem435

2011-10-26 08:42:55 UTC

Post by David Dalton
But do you use traditional word spells and/or improvised ones?
Do you think, as I would expect, that creativity is rewarded
and improvised spells are more effective, or that there
is some benefit in sticking to tried and true tradition?

I think improvised spells are more effective because they're tailored
to what you're trying to do. I have modified published spells from
books to good use. Much better has been writing my own, however -
although when this happens, it's usually me frantically scribbling
down an entire poem which has just flashed into my head, which makes
me wonder if it isn't being channeled from someone else instead.

(Oh, hey, looky, I made a rhyme!)

Post by David Dalton
Sometimes in listening to live music I have pumped along
with the lyrics; e.g. Lizband's anti-patriarchal song
Motherfucker (seehttp://www.lizsolo.com/). And years
ago I could sometime improvise my own lyrics to instrumental
music; but I haven't recently but hope to again soon.

I have done both of these as well. The main thing is to find something
which focuses and amplifies your energy, something that gets you
charged. One that never fails to work for me on charging up energy is
Uriah Heep's "Lady in Black", especially live versions of the song.
The beauty of that one is I can hum the (wordless) chorus to myself in
public if necessary to get the required effect. :)

Tom

2011-10-26 13:21:30 UTC

Post by Poem435
I think improvised spells are more effective because they're tailored
to what you're trying to do. I have modified published spells from
books to good use. Much better has been writing my own, however -
although when this happens, it's usually me frantically scribbling
down an entire poem which has just flashed into my head, which makes
me wonder if it isn't being channeled from someone else instead.

I think a lot of the effectiveness comes from how you see your role as
a magician. If you come from a shamanistic POV, your methods are
going to be highly individualistic. On the other hand, if you come
from a priestly POV, your methods are going to be strictly
traditional. To see an explanation and comparison of the two roles of
shaman vs priest, see Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God: Primitive
Mythology".

t***@gmail.com

2016-07-18 21:47:10 UTC