In this chapter, *IB* is kind enough to define his terms for the rest
of the book. This is appreciated, as most posters in alt.magick
already know, few people tend to be careful in tending meaning and
dive instead into their preconceptions, scattering verbiage like a fat
man launching a cannonball into a small pool. By the time posters
have actually managed to deduce what the hell has happened, the pool
sits empty of water, with an embarassed obesity grinning inside.

(so much for extended metaphors [...])

*IB* keeps his definitions terse. His agenda is to cut away the dross
of superstition rather than pay homage to hoary occultism. He dives
into two tangents: a)the bifurcation of scientific and magical
knowledge and b) an examination into the definition of magic

Here are the definitions:

_Occult_: "hidden", "secret"

_Science_ : "Organized knowledge"

_Mystic_: One who has been initiated into the Greek Mysteries

"Kisai" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a851a90-1700-4ff0-b036-1dde5157b67e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On May 24, 9:30 pm, "Tom" comcast.net> wrote:

"Janine Starscream" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0258c97b-2660-4fb9-8aa4-f89cd176eaff@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

As will we all, you silly bugger.

Defining Magic

*IB* begins with examining the etymology of "magic", starting with the
Magi, mislabelling them "Persian" (they were from Medes, Persians were
their neighbors and not unified with the Medians until Cyrus the
Great) and "Zoroastrian", (which is only half-true, they developed
Zoroastrianism into Zurvanism).

Confuscating the Magi with the words for magician/charalatan was
common for the Greeks. Aristotle, who spent part of his life in the
western Persian empire specifically states: 'that the Magians neither
know nor practice sorcery', in response to their ill-deserved
reputation. I'm inclined to believe him. There is no evidence that
the Magi had anything greater than some customs that the Greeks
thought were pretty weird. Unfortunately. this may because the
Persian sources with mention Magi are administrative texts.

A short history of the Magi can be found here:

http://www.livius.org/maa-mam/magians/magians.html

On 25 May, 00:44, Kisai gmail.com> wrote:

Hello kiddies.

IB makes the point that words are symbols. This ties in with some of
laws. Such as the law of ultimate universes. We might all know what a
dog is, but that doesn't mean we all have the exact same definition.
It also ties in with his earlier points that words are associational
devices.

x-post

On 3 Jun, 13:08, Chade newsguy.com> wrote:

"Chade" newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:02ec3363-acd1-4208-9a5d-5ff77a97a110@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps that's what he meant, but if so he's wrong.

Things move from magical (wondrously strange) to mundane (ordinary and
unremarkable) by everyday use, but not from occultism to science. In order
to move from occultism to science, a phenomenon must have a theoretical
explanation that is supported by some strongly suggestive and falsfiable
demonstrations. It's a lot more rigorous than mere familiarity.

I think Isaac, like many occultists, often confounds "scientific" with
"mundane".

Chade wrote, On 6/3/2008 8:08 AM:

Usually it seems the distinctions are only made by some of the "religious".

Mysticism is a communion with Ultimate Reality that is neither apparent
to the senses; nor obvious to the intelligence, and is beyond ordinary
understanding.

Is it possible that all reality is merely the dream of Ultimate Reality?
Could it be that just as in most human dreams that Ultimate Reality
forgets Itself while It is dreaming, and it is up to the individual...

On Jun 3, 5:08 am, Chade wrote:

No

Yes

There is no method for distinguishing between the untestable beliefs
that happen to be accurate representations of reality and pure
delusion.