Okay, I'm taking people at their word and not holding back anymore. :)
So here is the new magical mystery thread.
Everyone is free to join in - submit ideas, links, discuss whatever.
Skeptics and naysayers will not be toaded.
However the posts of those who come to mock
will be subject to severely fluffifying nonsensical moderation of their posts by Mal and Moi.
You've been warned. Mwahahahaaaaaaaa!
Edit: This warning no longer applies.
But even though I'm no longer a mod, I hope you will all remain respectful.
Thanks.
Ok, first off - do you consider magic (sp?) to be subjective or objective?
Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
I think I know what you're asking, but I'm not quite sure.
Essentially (and I know either/or answers are anathema), does magic [sic] work on your perceptions, or does it actually affect the experiential universe?
*strolls through singing*
...if you edit a post made by Turd, daddy's gonna buy you a mockingbird...
mock
mock
:P
*strolls off to take a milkbath and shave his legs*
Oh goody. It's almost time for the To Wong Foo Memorial Bunny Hop.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/TheModzareyourfriends.jpg)
That's a hard one to answer for certain because everything gets filtered through my personal perceptions.
However, I think the answer is yes.
I believe magic is both subjective and objective at different times and to differing degrees.
Subjective is much easier to achieve, objective is a little harder.
Okay....it's a lot harder.
For instance, I have the mailman from hell. He started making my life miserable when I first moved to this neighborhood 16 years ago. If you don't check the mail everyday (and I don't) he'll knock on the door and yell. Or leave rude little stickers in the mailbox. Talking to him about this only made things worse.
So after a particularly traumatic experience with this mail nazzi, Demonica told me to take one of my rings and put some ylang ylang oil on it and stick through the slot in the mail pickup box. I asked that from now on, this man would present the better half of his nature towards me instead of the worst. (Assuming he had one, that is - because I don't believe you can change anyone's basic nature.) I put the ring through the slot, but didn't say who it was from or for whom it was meant. I assume he picked it up, but can't open that box to tell. Anyway, right after that his attitude towards me changed and he's very nice now. I didn't pick up my mail for about three days last week and he not only didn't complain, he knocked on my door and asked if I realized there was a package waiting for me. Said he was worried there might be something perishable in there. He still yells at the other people on his route, though.
Now I can't say for sure it was the spell I put on the ring that made him change his attitude. Maybe he thought someone was giving him a gift, maybe he assumed it was from me because it looked kind of witchy. My subjective perception is that the magic played a big part in this - but whatever the case may be, he's objectively nicer. And either way, I'm happy with the results.
Do you ever stop believing in all this? and if so, how do you get back to the belief state that seems so neccesary to achieve the intended ends?
Sure. It's like any other discipline.
I stop believing sometimes.
Mostly when I'm tired and things are getting me down.
When that happens, I mope for a while and then meditate or exercise or go for a walk.
I also keep a list of positive changes and look at that.
Whether it's actually magic or the result of positive thinking doesn't matter.
What matters is the results.
And once I realize that again, I can go back to believing.
Quote from: She Who Lurks Beyond, Oracle of Doomylang ylang oil
What is that?
I don't know what it IS, exactly, but I'd be more than happy to vouch for it's effectiveness in certain matters.
and NO ONE is more skeptical about that sort of thing than me, normally.
Quote from: Baron von HooplaQuote from: She Who Lurks Beyond, Oracle of Doomylang ylang oil
What is that?
It starts out as this:
(http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL940/4244040/8904467/125557220.jpg)
It's an oil made from the flowers of the ylang ylang tree which grows in the Philippines. It'a a relative of the magnolia, and I think it smells like a cross between magnolia blossoms and jasmine. It's yummy and is the main ingredient in several perfumes and love potions. Demonica told me about it. She used to wear it and men would follow her all over the grocery store, etc. Course they probably would have followed her anyway, but ECH is right. It works like hell. I think there's something in the oil that stimulates the pleasure center of the brain or something.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle*strolls through singing*
...if you edit a post made by Turd, daddy's gonna buy you a mockingbird...
mock
mock
:P
*strolls off to take a milkbath and shave his legs*
Oh goody. It's almost time for the To Wong Foo Memorial Bunny Hop.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/TheModzareyourfriends.jpg)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Magic is basically an art. There are many paradigms through which you can approach it. Some see it as a psychological thing. Some see it as a spiritual thing. Some see it as an energy thing. Some see it as a pure information thing (especially the linguists). Some people see it through a combination of the above. Some switch paradigms to achieve whatever it is they are going for.
The point of it all is that it is subjective, otherwise it doesn't work. Let me explain: In order for all of this wonderful technology that we have, someone had to first dream up and design the ideas. Then they were realized....made real. Magic works like that, except maybe quicker. Now when I say it works like that, I don't mean it works the same way....you dream it and it happens. It still takes some effort.
I call it an art because it does depend on one's feelings, and one's psychological makeup...(more in if they can be mentally disciplined/focused than any other trait). The mind is the basic tool, therefore anyone training in magic learns how to use the mind...this sometimes means a lot of silly repetative exercises for those who train a lot. But much like a painter who must learn how to use color and how to use the brushes by doing some simple basic exercises, the magic-user has to learn a few simple basic things upon which the whole complex of other things can be learned.
It is an art also because it has an objective reality as much as any other art does. Music is subjective but look around and listen. You can hear it in your head even as you read this. Someone's song has a reality for you. And music can change the way you perceive or feel. Same thing with any other art. Art is used so often in our world nowadays to manipulate us into feeling the right things so we can be lead to consume the right products. Art, especially the art of speaking, can lead to thousands or millions of people following the ideas of a leader...who then goes on to change the world irrevocably.
I think of magic in this way. It is a broad definition but works as an effective approach. I used to be skeptical but appraoched certain aspects of magic with an open mind and experimented a bit. Now I know better than to think I can just judge something I don't understand as being false or superstitious.
Can you explain the linguistic approach more? As mentioned elsewhere, I tend to view it from the psychological model, but that theory sounds interesting.
Quote from: CainCan you explain the linguistic approach more? As mentioned elsewhere, I tend to view it from the psychological model, but that theory sounds interesting.
The information approach (favored by linguists) sees everything as basically information. You change the information, you change the reality. Now matter how small something is - i.e. the info in your head - if you make a change to it, you will create changes in other things. The approach has its ancient parallels in what is known as "contagion," except that in the information model, all you need to do is to change the symbol (which is info representing some other info) and you change the other info. This approach gets weirder as it incorporates more and more ideas about theoretical physics and semiotics.
Hmm, sounds interesting. I may do some reading on that.
Quote from: CainHmm, sounds interesting. I may do some reading on that.
I think some of the ideas are discusssed on various chaos magic sites, but you would do better to find Phil Hine's website where you can download PDF books for free. (Another writer who can explain this better than I can is Patrick Dunn who wrote "Post Modern Magic" which is probably the only book any one ever need read nowadays.)
So, would you consider E-Prime a form of magic, since its intention is to alter how people think about things?
It also resonates with the ancient "naming stories", and with the legends of the Celtic Poets/Bards.
Quote from: Baron von HooplaSo, would you consider E-Prime a form of magic, since its intention is to alter how people think about things?
No. I think of E prime as more of a mental exercise. It could get you to probably be better at magic if you're into the whole semantics idea that we are limited by our choice of language. But I don't like semantics because the theory disregards evidence of other types of cognitive functioning.
E prime can only alter the way you use language to think about things, and thus may alter some ways you think about certain things. But E prime probably will not lead to any significant changes in thinking or feeling unless you had other sorts of training.
I seem to recall Crowley saying something about Hitler being a supreme magician in his opinion because of how he manipulated the ideas of the people.
What's your opinion of that?
I'll try to hunt down a source.
Hugh does have a point, in that the use of e-prime can become just another vocal tic, much like the use of pejoritives to indicate displeasure: saying "gay" "lame" "retarded" "sucks" etc doesn't automatically mean that the person saying it is thinking about what they are saying, or that the mean "homosexual," "crippled", "mentally handicapped" or "fellatio".
In the same way, substituting "it seems to me" for "it is" doesn't automatically mean that the person isn't thinking in a non-Aristotelian way.
E-Prime only seems to help thought when the one using it is actually thinking about their words.
I agree.
Quote from: Baron von HooplaI seem to recall Crowley saying something about Hitler being a supreme magician in his opinion because of how he manipulated the ideas of the people.
What's your opinion of that?
I'll try to hunt down a source.
I don't know about that quote. However just because Crowley said it means nothing. The idea of Hitler being a magician can be analyzed by the simple criterion: Did he practice magic and was that part of or all of his development?
I'm not putting stock into it because Crowley said it, just bringing it up. And my impression was that he didn't believe Hitler was practicing magic, just that what Hitler was doing to the minds of the people of Germany was, according to Crowley, magic.
Your interpretation seemed along a similar line of thought, so I was wondering if you agreed or not.
Does Hitler not being a practicing magician make a difference? Can people perform magic without realizing it?
I've been looking for a source for the Crowley comment and can't find it . . . i will check my notes tonight when I get home but its possible I dreamt the quote.
At any rate, my questions stand as they are . . . I'm still curious for your opinion.
Quote from: Baron von HooplaI'm not putting stock into it because Crowley said it, just bringing it up. And my impression was that he didn't believe Hitler was practicing magic, just that what Hitler was doing to the minds of the people of Germany was, according to Crowley, magic.
Your interpretation seemed along a similar line of thought, so I was wondering if you agreed or not.
Does Hitler not being a practicing magician make a difference? Can people perform magic without realizing it?
Now, he certainly could be considered a magician because he was able to turn his ideas to reality using words. But he also used state-power to do things. I do think that people practice and are manipulated by magic all the time and never know it.
So hitler could be considered a magician, but his role seems more to the side of a dictator.
Quote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCSo hitler could be considered a magician, but his role seems more to the side of a dictator.
As if there is difference.
So cute.
this forum has shown that is nearly impossible to say that one thing is 'magic' and another thing isnt
intent seem to be the only area of difference
Quote from: Enrico SalazarQuote from: Irreverend Death to Poultry, KSCSo hitler could be considered a magician, but his role seems more to the side of a dictator.
As if there is difference.
So cute.
Actually some occult theorists and other weird sorts say that there is no difference. Some chaos magicians also concur with the idea that society in this day and age is a grand manipulation of our desires by images, which is a sort of magic using "sigils."
I was merely keeping to common categories.
Speaking of sigils and social manipulation, I will in two weeks be starring in what has got to be the gayest play on earth. As in, they've got a girl (me) playing a drag queen and a guy playing a lesbian just so the archetypes are that exaggerated. (Okay, it's really because we went from a cast of six to a cast of three in about a week, but hey!)
Anyway, if we print programs for the play, what sort of sigil should I sneak onto the page somewhere? Any good words or phrases y'all can think of for this sort of sneakiness? "Ten percent is not enough - recruit!" is just a little too vague for a sigil IMO. ;)
heavily moderated?!?!?
Dictionary
heav¬?i¬?ly (hĕv'ə-lē)
adv.
With a great weight or burden: heavily laden.
Very slowly and with difficulty; laboriously: walking heavily through the snow.
Greatly or severely: heavily in debt.
mod¬?er¬?ate (mŏd'ər-ĭt)
adj.
Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
Of medium or average quantity or extent.
Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
thats going inot my oxymoron collection.
I completelt understand that this post my become missing and am prepared to pay a small ransom for it.
...
"Aim for the chin."
Quote from: Netaungrot"Bite It Off"
(http://www.utdallas.edu/~katies/biteitoff.jpg)
On further reflection, the vertical axis should be scooted over to the left a little bit.
Quote from: erotic"Aim for the chin."
(http://www.utdallas.edu/~katies/aimforthechin.jpg)
I like this one a little better because it actually forms a closed square. I mean, without making any of the letters look *too* distorted. :)
Swote!
Zorga wishes to be moderated by her sister.
:evil:
I've been kicking around the idea of making a necklace for a friend of mine, and just filling it with very generic energy. He's running an RPG for us that's set in prehistoric Australia, and I have these drilled bits of amethyst that would work really well in primitive-style jewelry (if they weren't purple, they might even look like teeth), so that was going to be the pretext under which I gave it to him.
The reason I was drawn to the amethysts is that I read *somewhere* that they can help men find good mates, and he has been a little down about his love situation lately. But since I respect him as a friend, I didn't want to make a "love charm" per se without getting his permission. And amethysts are pretty versatile, so the actual intent I wanted to put into the necklace was to make the amethysts really damn good at being amethysts, and then let him decide what properties he wanted them to have in his life, if any.
And the main reason I mention this at all is it got me thinking on the nature of using "props" when working with magic, and I came up with an analogy that amused me: Let's say your goal is romance, and you're going to achieve this by means of a home-cooked dinner and heartfelt serenade. Either way, you'll need to buy all the ingredients for the dinner and the sheet music or karaoke tape for the serenade, so the bulk of the burden is on you and dependent on your resources. But you'll get different results if you cook the dinner and sing the song yourself than you would if you were to ask one of your friends to cook and then sing the song yourself, or if you were to cook the meal yourself and ask one of your friends to sing, or if you were to outsource both tasks and spend your energy on plying your loved one with alcohol or chocolate. ;) And you'd get different results within those options depending on which friend you asked - if you give two thinly cut steaks to my husband and another two to my POSSLQ, you'll get chicken-fried steak out of my husband and stir-fry out of my POSSLQ.
What a great idea. Amethysts are so cool - do you have a pic of that necklace? I'd like to see it.
One of my friends does something very similar. She and her cousins make necklaces designed to help bring certain things into the wearer's life. I have one called "Story Teller" that I wear when I'm writing, another called "Homeward Bound" that I wear when I'm traveling, etc. She recently made one as a gift for Demon Seed#3. It's called Suzi's Calcium and is designed to help DS3 rebuild the calcium in her system, especially her heart, after being so sick for so long.
Charlotte doesn't consider her jewelry to be charms, exactly. She thinks of them they way you seem to be doing here - as a way of attracting whatever it is the wearer wants or needs. She names each necklace and gives the new owner a list of the materials used, as well as a "reading" on that particular piece and what it's designed to do.
That is so cool, for both of you. A friend of mine got me a string of amethyst that was on a stretchy string and it broke while I was putting it on. So I was able to save them all. I haven't figured out what to do with them, yet. I have a couple of focal beads, but that probably wouldn't work for a guy. Even a really gay guy would have a hard time with what I have in mind.
Anyway, when I make a project, I usually just think happy thoughts, sort of thing. Besides jewelry, I have also done some boxes. I take one of those paper mache boxed you can get at Joanne's or Michael's and paint it. One I did for a friend of mine, who was recently divorced and crashed into a major depression, I put some runes that represent protection, in a circle, which looks remarkably like a peace sign :D I also put a sun and a moon. One I did for my neice and I put paper, they used to call it decopoge(sp) but I didn't layer it. For my mom I found one that was textured. I painted it with acrylics, then watered down the beige color and went over it and it worked out really well, looked more like stone that way and covered the imperfections in the material. I usually put a poem on the back, which is where I found out my penmanship is a bazillion times better with a brush than with a pen :lol:
....what? :?
Dont go there. Just...dont.
Reading Prometheus Rising. My brain is steaming. Everything is magic. Everything is not magic. All is all. All is nothing.
I think hitler was more of an illusionist, which is a school of magic, and practiced by alot of people in politics ..... i heard a story about Crowley, never did bother to research it's validity but it's an interesting story none the less ..... and is along the same lines .....
Crowley was talking to a collegue about manipulation of energy and how to apply that to people on a large scale ..... so Crowley at the behest of his collegue explained by setting up a lecture and inviting his collegue to come listen ..... as the story goes Crowley spent 3 weeks working on this lecture, writing it re-writing it etc. ..... when he delivered the lecture the strangest thing occured ..... with an obvious split down the middle one half of the crowd burst into tears and the other side into hysterical laughing .....
You got a reference for that? I couldn't find that story anywhere.
Quote from: LMNO on August 23, 2006, 08:25:14 PM
You got a reference for that? I couldn't find that story anywhere.
no i don't and i stated that i had not researched the validity of the story ..... it's still interesting and applicable though even if some fucktard made it up
Easy, buddy.
Just wondering where you heard it, is all.
Then again, if it's not true, is it really applicable?
Quote from: LMNO on August 23, 2006, 08:44:27 PM
Easy, buddy.
Just wondering where you heard it, is all.
Then again, if it's not true, is it really applicable?
good point but thats a philosophy question thinks i
and i didn't mean to sound mean ..... :-D
Not "T" True, but "t" true.
That is to say, if the point is about your "Illusionist" idea, and Crowley never did that, doesn't it sort of mean that your Illusionist Idea is invalid?
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2006, 02:26:27 PM
Not "T" True, but "t" true.
That is to say, if the point is about your "Illusionist" idea, and Crowley never did that, doesn't it sort of mean that your Illusionist Idea is invalid?
actually .... wouldn't a falsehood like that CREATE an illusion in fact .....
Um, no.
LMNO
-knows how sophistry works, and that wasn't it.
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2006, 05:12:42 PM
Um, no.
LMNO
-knows how sophistry works, and that wasn't it.
it most certainly would ..... point in reference WMD's .... where the falsehood of facts created the illusion
The difference is, you can point to actual articles about WMD, and you can structure many different theories about the process of selling it to the masses, but in your case, it was some guy who fed you a line of bullshit that you didn't bother to confirm.
The parable of the Sacred Bull is floating around these boards somewhere, you should read it.
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2006, 05:51:14 PM
The difference is, you can point to actual articles about WMD, and you can structure many different theories about the process of selling it to the masses, but in your case, it was some guy who fed you a line of bullshit that you didn't bother to confirm.
The parable of the Sacred Bull is floating around these boards somewhere, you should read it.
wait a minute ..... didn't we get fed a line of bullshit about WMD's in Iraq ..... yes we did .... in fact, if it was a coke line it would've gotten the entire Dallas Cowboys high AND still been big enough to support an Amtrack train ..... besides the fact that NOTHING is true unless someone actually believes it ..... but more to the point ..... a well told lie is the creation of an illusion ..... that should be plain as day .....
Illusion, the act of deceiving or imposing upon; deception; mockery; a deceptive apperence; an unreal vision presented to the bodily or mental eye; hullucination
Illusionist, one given to illusion .....
and i'm fairly sure, that while crowley was well documented ..... perhaps a few things fell throuigh the cracks ..... and perhaps it's just an urban legend ..... either way it's an interesteing story that illustrates the use of illusion as a way to control the masses
Quote from: davznothere on August 24, 2006, 07:33:16 PM
either way it's an interesteing story that illustrates the use of illusion as a way to control the masses
WMD is a better story, because not only did the crowley thing not happen, the fact that it's not even documented puts it in the realm of bullshit, not illusion.
If Crowley had pulled it off = illusion.
If your friend made it up and passed it off as "urban legend" = bullshit.
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2006, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: davznothere on August 24, 2006, 07:33:16 PM
either way it's an interesteing story that illustrates the use of illusion as a way to control the masses
WMD is a better story, because not only did the crowley thing not happen, the fact that it's not even documented puts it in the realm of bullshit, not illusion.
If Crowley had pulled it off = illusion.
If your friend made it up and passed it off as "urban legend" = bullshit.
thats the worst arguement ever just because something is undocumented doesn't make it bullshit ..... lots of things that might be true are undocumented i'm sure ..... particularly when the discussion is in the rhelms of magic
Quote from: davznothere on August 24, 2006, 09:50:29 PM
thats the worst arguement ever just because something is undocumented doesn't make it bullshit ..... lots of things that might be true are undocumented i'm sure ..... particularly when the discussion is in the rhelms of magic
be careful with that M word
anyway:
whats the difference between the realms of bullshit and the realms of magic?
meh, two sides of the same coin.
Quote from: davznothere on August 24, 2006, 09:50:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2006, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: davznothere on August 24, 2006, 07:33:16 PM
either way it's an interesteing story that illustrates the use of illusion as a way to control the masses
WMD is a better story, because not only did the crowley thing not happen, the fact that it's not even documented puts it in the realm of bullshit, not illusion.
If Crowley had pulled it off = illusion.
If your friend made it up and passed it off as "urban legend" = bullshit.
thats the worst arguement ever just because something is undocumented doesn't make it bullshit ..... lots of things that might be true are undocumented i'm sure ..... particularly when the discussion is in the rhelms of magic
Indeed... but let's use Occam's Razor. Is it more believeable that:
1.The self-aggandizing blowhard Crowley, who would promote himself at the drop of a hat, and loved spreading stories about himself
wouldn't jump at the opportunity to smear this story all over his auto-biographies, essays, and commentaries, or
2. Your friend just made it up to sound cool and "esoteric".
Yeah.
LMNO
-extremely familiar with the Sacred Bull.
Quote from: LMNO on August 25, 2006, 01:39:16 PMLMNO
-extremely familiar with the Sacred Bull.
too much informations.
NEVAR!
YE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE MOST SACRED REALMS OF MAGICK!
:-D
Quote from: dr john dee on August 25, 2006, 09:05:44 PM
YE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE MOST SACRED REALMS OF MAGICK!
:-D
Occum's huh ?!? ..... does this mean you are totally faithless .....
and either way ..... it's truth irrelevant, it's an interesting story ..... true or not and still illustrates my point about illusion(ists)
Quote from: davznothere on August 26, 2006, 11:17:50 AM
Quote from: dr john dee on August 25, 2006, 09:05:44 PM
YE ARE NOT WORTHY OF THE MOST SACRED REALMS OF MAGICK!
:-D
Occum's huh ?!? ..... does this mean you are totally faithless .....
and either way ..... it's truth irrelevant, it's an interesting story ..... true or not and still illustrates my point about illusion(ists)
Are you talking to Dee?  Are you talking to
Dee?  I don't see no one else here, so you
must be talkin' to Dee...
\
(http://www.bergen-filmklubb.no/images/Taxi_Driver_mellomstort.jpg)
thou inverted one speaks truth.
the sacred magick is occluded from the profayne.
i most verily smite the infidel with my finger of golde.
(http://img498.imageshack.us/img498/6329/stfu20yr.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: davznothere on August 23, 2006, 08:19:00 PM
I think hitler was more of an illusionist, which is a school of magic, and practiced by alot of people in politics ..... i heard a story about Crowley, never did bother to research it's validity but it's an interesting story none the less ..... and is along the same lines .....
Crowley was talking to a collegue about manipulation of energy and how to apply that to people on a large scale ..... so Crowley at the behest of his collegue explained by setting up a lecture and inviting his collegue to come listen ..... as the story goes Crowley spent 3 weeks working on this lecture, writing it re-writing it etc. ..... when he delivered the lecture the strangest thing occured ..... with an obvious split down the middle one half of the crowd burst into tears and the other side into hysterical laughing .....
Necrobump, but I feel there needs to be a correction here.
Crowley never delivered the lecture. This post is a misreading of one of Crowley's early writings. In it he describes what makes an influential speaker is when one can divide the masses against each other. I'm trying to find the book that I read it in but I'm certain I remember the quote as: "...with a word you will see a crowd divided: People in the throws of laughter cackling at those who shed tears of despair." Or something to that effect.
Citations to follow as soon as I figure out how my GF's Grisham crap got mixed in with my books. Stabbings may abound.
Quote from: I_Kicked_Kennedy on August 01, 2008, 09:33:11 PM
Quote from: davznothere on August 23, 2006, 08:19:00 PM
I think hitler was more of an illusionist, which is a school of magic, and practiced by alot of people in politics ..... i heard a story about Crowley, never did bother to research it's validity but it's an interesting story none the less ..... and is along the same lines .....
Crowley was talking to a collegue about manipulation of energy and how to apply that to people on a large scale ..... so Crowley at the behest of his collegue explained by setting up a lecture and inviting his collegue to come listen ..... as the story goes Crowley spent 3 weeks working on this lecture, writing it re-writing it etc. ..... when he delivered the lecture the strangest thing occured ..... with an obvious split down the middle one half of the crowd burst into tears and the other side into hysterical laughing .....
Necrobump, but I feel there needs to be a correction here.
Crowley never delivered the lecture. This post is a misreading of one of Crowley's early writings. In it he describes what makes an influential speaker is when one can divide the masses against each other. I'm trying to find the book that I read it in but I'm certain I remember the quote as: "...with a word you will see a crowd divided: People in the throws of laughter cackling at those who shed tears of despair." Or something to that effect.
Citations to follow as soon as I figure out how my GF's Grisham crap got mixed in with my books. Stabbings may abound.
hugh?
where did the magic go
It died with Doug Henning.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: