/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.745178]

hey /lit/ I just got this (the satanic bible) and I must say I'm pretty disappointed with it. It's got hardly any spells and none of them work. So what I want is advise on proper magic books (grimoire). Does anybody know of any like the Book of Abra Melin - ones where the spells actually WORK?

[uh-oh !SEchrono1c No.745179]

/x/ is that way ->

[Anonymous No.745181]

you want a book of spells that actually work?
How 'bout "Vogel's Handbook of Practical Organic Chemistry"? -
All the spells in that book work just fine :)

[Anonymous No.745182]

[Anonymous No.745184]

This is copypasta, almost (or older) than /lit/.

Don't fall for it guys :)

[Anonymous No.745188]

May I suggest the Diana Hawthordt Book Of Spells and Magic. It's basically an encyclopedia of womens housekeeping spells. It ranges form summoning sandwhiches to dicks; great practical stuff. Especially the Vacu`umus spell is of great use; your cooter transforms into a mater-absorbing vortex with different settings for carpet and tiles.
Another one of my favorite spells is the Ironicus spell, which will turn your hands into a single sizzling hot smooth surface. The pain is excruciating but those shirts wil come out brilliant! Heil Hitler!

[Anonymous No.745191]

Real magic doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous No.745195]

I have acquired in my quest for knowledge of great power. A great one by the name of Brady has written a tome full of magical knowledge. At great cost you may too acquire the tome of knowledge known as Chemistry, 4th Edition. By doing the google-ing you may find a way to bargain it from hands that no longer need its powers.

[Anonymous No.745199]

>>745191
>real magic
Would that not be "magick"?

[Anonymous No.745204]

>>745199

No.

[Anonymous No.745206]

>>745195
Have you in your learning the arts of Chemistry ever summoned a fireball by accident?

[Anonymous No.745208]

>>745191
>Real magic doesn't work
fix'd

[Anonymous No.745219]

>>745206

In my inexperience many a place of study has been given loud calls of warning and be made to orderly and rapidly make haste yonder into the bosom of safety

[Anonymous No.745223]

>>745208

>Real magic doesn't work

Keep on revelling in your ignorance as your betters unravel the mysteries of the universe.

[Anonymous No.745229]

>>745223
Do you just assume it works or have you actually tried it?

Feedan.

[Anonymous No.745232]

>>745229
>have you actually tried it?
We've all done magic.
Most of us don't realize it.

[Anonymous No.745238]

Sure is robert anton wilson in here..

[Anonymous No.745247]

>>745232
Interesting. State your definition, then.

[Anonymous No.745248]

>>745247

Magnets

[Anonymous No.745251]

>>745247

Manipulations of the material order through cosmic sympathy.

[Anonymous No.745254]

>>745251
What is cosmic sympathy, a universal conciousness of some sort?

[Anonymous No.745256]

>>745251

You like science? I just moved some cosmicly charged particles through my rectum earlier and that was more magical than any claims from charlatans at miagick

[Anonymous No.745260]

>>745254

>a universal conciousness of some sort?

No.

Cosmic sympathy is the attraction of similar things in the cosmos. Like is drawn to like as they say.

It's not really as simple as that (one must grasp that each is in all), but that should give you a pretty basic understanding of what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.745265]

>>745260
Yes, I get it. It is an interesting concept, quite widespread, too, but to me it seems that it is more likely explained as a feature of perception, a confirmation bias of sorts.

Do you think I would be possible to set up a study to test its effects in a controlled environment?

[Anonymous No.745266]

>>745265
*it would be possible

[Anonymous No.745276]

>>745265

>but to me it seems that it is more likely explained as a feature of perception, a confirmation bias of sorts.

No one denies that we see patterns everywhere.

-The traditional view is that these patterns have an actually independent existence.
-The modern view is that these patterns are unconsciously imposed on the universe by humans in order to better understand our surroundings.

>Do you think I would be possible to set up a study to test its effects in a controlled environment?
Not with modern science.
Modern scientific experiments always start with the isolation of variables. One cannot begin to tackle a vast(infinite?) network of inter-penetrated objects with such a methodology.

[Anonymous No.745285]

>penetrated

[Anonymous No.745294]

>>745276
I would disagree with the how you call the 'modern' view just that. Unless I misunderstand it, such theories have occurred in many places throughout history and. Not essential, though.

As to the current science isolating variables, you can have a model with an infinite (and, if you want to, literally uncountable) number of variables. However, I don't think this would even be an issue. Unless everything, every thing influences every other with the same exact intensity all the time (which would make for pretty pointless interaction), you can approximate the sum-total by finding most important influences with a certain precision; it being greater than chance is all that counts. If your belief is such that a person can influence something with his or her desires, that person's influence would obviously be a higher priority among things the model should contain. You know, it's like diminishing returns and all.

[Anonymous No.745295]

>>745276
I would disagree with the how you call the 'modern' view just that. Unless I misunderstand it, such theories have occurred in many places throughout history. Not essential, though.

As to the current science isolating variables, you can have a model with an infinite (and, if you want to, literally uncountable) number of variables. However, I don't think this would even be an issue. Unless everything, every thing influences every other with the same exact intensity all the time (which would make for pretty pointless interaction), you can approximate the sum-total by finding most important influences with a certain precision; it being greater than chance is all that counts. If your belief is such that a person can influence something with his or her desires, that person's influence would obviously be a higher priority among things the model should contain. You know, it's like diminishing returns and all.

[Anonymous No.745296]

>It's got hardly any spells and none of them work.

I lol'ed.

[Anonymous No.745301]

>>745295
>such theories have occurred in many places throughout history
Dissenting views have always been a reality. I was merely pointing out the prevailing views of the ancient/modern worlds.


Some interesting studies have been able to demonstrate links between colours and emotions.

So certain correspondences can be explored, but none of this "proves" the validity of cosmic sympathy. It's just fiddling with parts of a whole with no understanding of what that whole is.

[Anonymous No.745306]

>>745301
So, basically, we can't test for the whole because we cannot come up with a passable operational definition of what this 'whole' is?

[Anonymous No.745311]

>>745306

Metaphysical principles cannot be quantified.

[Anonymous No.745314]

>>745311
Why so?

[Anonymous No.745316]

>>745314

Because then we don't have to prove anything. It's very convenient.

[Anonymous No.745317]

>>745316
That would be a disappointing conclusion to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.745319]

>>745314

You need quantities to quantify.
Metaphysical things are immaterial.

No matter - no quantities.

[Anonymous No.745323]

>>745319
But
x = 2
is quite immaterial too.

[Anonymous No.745324]

I would suggest Book 4 by aleister crowley. Very practical advice on yogic practices and their relation to the nature of genius. The second half contains esoteric knowledge. Do the ''spells'' work? That concept betrays your lack of initiation.

[Anonymous No.745328]

>>745323

Mathematical quantities are merely representational.
Mathematics is essentially a qualitative endeavour.

[Anonymous No.745336]

>>745328
I would imagine that they are as representational as our imaginings of metaphysical entities.

[Anonymous No.745346]

>>745336

Metaphysical truths condition matter.

These immanent "conditionings" represent higher transcendent realities.

Physics represents metaphysics(not the other way around).

[Anonymous No.745360]

>>745346
Then we should be able to observe the metaphysical through the physical.

[Anonymous No.745372]

>>745360

>Then we should be able to observe the metaphysical through the physical.

Yes. This doesn't make things like Cosmic Sympathy more palatable to modern scientists though.

One problem with reformulating Cosmic Sympathy into a scientific theory in order to explain observable occurrences is that such a theory would violate the principal of parsimony(Occam's razor) which most modern scientists take as axiomatic--they would dismiss the whole thing out-of-hand.

[Anonymous No.745376]

>>745372
I don't think they would, really. You should just devise a clever, reproducible way of showing that it works.

[Anonymous No.745380]

If it can be dismissed by the principle of parsimony, that means that the phenomena are already explained by simpler theories, which kinda disproves your magicky stuff immediately..

[Anonymous No.745381]

i'm a level 12 mage and what is this

[Anonymous No.745382]

ITT synchronicity

[Anonymous No.745403]

>>745232