Has anyone taken the next step in their /tg/ experience and studied magick in real life?
How many actual fa/tg/uy wizards are in here?
>>43539751
>>43539751
I've got this book, it's a historical account on exactly what witches did, why they did it, and how people reacted to all of this. Great read, picked it up in some bookstore for five dollars.
Also,
>magick
>>43539751
Back to /x/
I have some grimoires, and some occult writings.
Done some symbol magick, some basic rituals, never got much of a result out of it though. Tried astral projection and ānāpānasati too. Doesn't really work for me.
Maybe because of my inability to view it as anything but a huge joke.
>>43539751
>magick in real lifeit isn't real.
Although I have been thinking up some /diy/ related plans for some wearable contraptions that are a bit 40k tech-priest-ish.
Are you asking if there are any virgins here over the age of 30?because there are
>>43539751
In highschool I fucked a wicca/goth chick, does that count as studying magick?
>>43539853
>>43539751
Never studied, but in a few short weeks I'm going to become a wizard anyway, supposedly.
If shit goes down as expected, I'll get back to you with an FAQ to get you started, OP.
>>43539893
Fucking a succubus also counts as studying the demonic arts, right? Same thing.
>>43539967
She had a hairy bush and smelled like BO but I'd fuck her again
>>43539751
I..I guess i have?
I write, I make magic systems with charts and all and for that I research stuff.
I mean, that's really nothing special. Well, it is if you think the stuff you read is actually real.
>>43539751
I've studied quite a lot about magic, yes. I'm actually learning as much as I can about it nowdays, mostly on slavic and celtic magical rituals.
And I did actually see people around here SERIOUSLY believing magic (in the fantasy sense, not in the anthropological) sense is real. I remember making somebody pretty damn mad when I tried to explain to him what magic in real world means.
I hope you are not one of those deluded people who actually believe magic is anything else but a mythical perspective on reality.
>>43539751
Ya, I just need the last lesson.
>>43539857
yeaaahh...
>>43540747
I don't want to feel this old
>>43539751
Im pretty sure ed greenwood belives he is elminster.
No actual magic, but I've been doing a fair bit of alchemy.
I've read a couple of Peter Carroll's books on Chaos Magic, mostly out of curiosity for what it actually consisted of. A lot of complex-sounding psuedoscience, it seems, but I'm sure I can borrow some of it to make my writing or campaigns more interesting.
>>43541590
Aaaaah... good ol' alchemy, always there for me in bad times.
>>43541590
That's necromancy, Anon.
>>43539751
Yes.
Read through my bunch or Crowley, Rose Croix, fat wiccan ladies etc.
Experimented with meditation and breathing techniques and drugs. Do some rituals once in a while. Have an altar and have become superstitious about a number of things.
Still don't know what I believe. Good times though.
>>43541590
>>43540437
I have a similar view over magic but I'm curious to hear your explanation, could you elaborate?
>>43540437
>>43542536
>logicalpositivism.kek
>>43542536
>science means never having unverified beliefs
That is an amusing image but if you were attempting to convey a message, it escapes me.
>>43540437
I am not OP, but I believe in magic.
Well, not the supernatural (which is an impossible word) or magic that science could not explain eventually.
But I believe in the actual existence of concepts often attributed to the paranormal.
I have in my subjective perspective, experienced anecdotal proof of precognitive dreams, manifesting, spirit messages, auras, reiki, and energy work.
I believe in magic, but have yet to see any practical application of any.
It's like good, honest, pure-hearted politicians.
I believe they can and do exist, but I'm not prepared to believe in one without a lot of scrutiny.
Only experience with magic was getting cursed by gypsies. I've never recovered.
>>43543758
damn those gipsies
>>43539751
I have. I have a modest library and some divination paraphernalia.
Of course, magic isn't fireballs and curses in real life. It's just a way to willingly shift your perspective as needed in such a way as to benefit your life.
I suspect that's what most "wizards" believe when they aren't tied to a religious tradition.
>>43539751
Sure. I mean, magic is really just most of the world forgetting about the power of placebo.
So...
>>43539751
>Has anyone taken the next step in their /tg/ experience and studied magick in real life?
Well...
>>43539751
>magick
Nigger you what?
Closest I've come to anything was a random online conversation I ended up in where the other person legit did some psychic hoodiggery and was able to tell me things nobody could have known. Didn't really believe before that, and was even skeptical during, but the things they said really made me wonder, as it was minute details about something that couldn't be guessed, and nobody I knew could have been claiming to be this person.
>>43544277
>Magick, in the context of Aleister Crowley's Thelema, is a term used to differentiate the occult from stage magic and is defined as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will", including both "mundane" acts of will as well as ritual magic. Crowley wrote that "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature". John Symonds and Kenneth Grant attach a deeper occult significance to this preference.
People attribute it to clueless teen Wiccans, but it's been in use as a spelling since at least 1651 and adapted by Crowley to make the distinction between witch-magick and stage-magic.
>>43539751
I studied the Siberian Shamanic traditions at uni, however it was more of coming to an understanding of how the Siberians believed it worked and its cultural ramifications as opposed to me trying ot be a wizard.
Though technically since most of it is hypnotism, illusion and ritual I think I can actually perform it and maybe trick a few people into thinking they feel better health wise. The mind is easily deceived so I have learnt.
In a blatant attempt to derail this thread into more /tg/ related territory, I'd like to raise another question that stems from having studied the history of real magic.
In real life, there's currently and historically been a great range of belief in magic.
Generally, people believe what they were raised to believe.
And yet, one of the biggest failings of most settings and world building I've seen is that most of the game world seems to have read the handbook.
Everyone knows that magic is real, the gods are real, elves are like this, and dwarves are like that.
When really, sheltered protected villagers, far from the wilds might believe dragons no longer exist, if they ever truly did, fairies are a myth, and that ogres are a story to scare children into behaving.
Meanwhile, the soldiers that protect the border know the truth, but keep the horrors hidden from their loved ones.
When I run a game, I like to make sure the players know that the people they encounter operate from their beliefs and not objective reality.
The best example of this was when one hermit npc refused to believe that one PC was an elf and kept insisting he was too small and must be a fey trickster.
If real magic exists, there must be those that believe they are casting magic, when really they are just being superstitious.
Maybe "knock on wood" is really the verbal and somatic components of a demon banishing spell, but since most people don't understand magic, it just got observed and passed on as a custom.
tldr: My question: How is belief of magic and magical creatures handled in your setting?
>>43539751
All jokes aside I hope that /tg/ isn't that fucking delusional, and downright retarded, to think that magic is real.
>>43546065
The problem is that many many definitions exist for the word. Many kinds of magic are real. Shooting fireballs isn't.
Openly denying the word as a whole kind of makes you the retarded one, my friend.
After all, David Blaine and his ilk would like to have a word with you.
>>43539751
I have a couple of books on 'real magic', SSOTBME and the Simon Nercronomicon, but have not had much of a chance to read them properly.
>>43539751
>Has anyone taken the next step in their /tg/ experience and studied magick in real life?
>>43546214
>Many kinds of magic are real
What
>>43546214
>Shooting fireballs isn't.
pic related would like to have a word with you.
OP's use of the "k" in magick and the term "wizards" suggests we can safely discount stage magic and illusions for this discussion.
But your point is solid. There are many kinds of magic.
The only kind of magic that is absurd is that which is supernatural, or beyond reality.
>>43539751
One of my professors has mentioned that as part of a creative nonfiction piece, he has made multiple attempts to summon a demon to do his bidding. None of these attempts have succeeded.
>>43539751
>Magick
>Real
Pick one and only one.
>>43546513
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, modern non-religious practitioners generally perceive magic as a series of techniques to help you change your perspective in ways that are beneficial to your life. I could provide quotes to this effect from The Magician's Companion, which is an encyclopedia of many different styles and traditions, but I doubt it'd be worth my effort unless you're actually interested.
Suffice to say, magic is basically playing mind games with yourself. Taking advantage of things like self-fulfilling prophecy, the Forer effect, placebo and the like to make them work for you rather than against you like typical. All the ritual and drama is just a way to separate these mind games from day-to-day life so you don't end up one of those deranged hobos talking about angels invading their brain.
>>43546706
I pick both because I'm not an ignorant tryhard.
See the above.
>>43546725
Oh, so you completely change the definition of magic. Great. From now on i'm becoming an angel which in my definition means someone who puts the toilet paper in front of the roll.
>>43546065
>>43546513
Not that anon, but I have seen some shit.
I am not delusional and am quite skeptical.
I believe more in the scientific method than any religion or dogma.
I know a girl that has a huge amount of paranormal stories.
One of which was the time she accidentally manifested SARS on woman.
Some stories are cooler, but not 100% certain to be paranormal.
Distortion of perception and belief and coincidence and whatnot.
But this...
A number of her stories involve a poltergeist trickster that has harassed her family for years.
The most 100% paranormal thing I have ever seen was this:
>watching her eat a piece of pizza
>seeing a slice of pepperoni slide off with a chunk of cheese and sauce
>the chunk falls three inches straight down toward the table
>the chunk changes directions
>the chunk falls horizontally two inches to land on her shirt
>I was two feet away across the table
>I was looking right at it
>It changed directions in a right angle
>It was inside
>there was no wind
>there was no string of cheese for it to swing on
paranormal pizza, man
>>43539751
I've studied many branches of magic, mysticism and divination. But not because I believed in magic. I simply found them interesting. Just like studying the history of linguistics is interesting.
Mysticism and divination can be useful for gathering your own thoughts, same as prayer. Hypnosis can do all sorts of neat things. But none of it means anything supernatural is happening.
>>43546817
I didn't change it. It's an established definition.
>From a neuropsychological standpoint, traditional magic is a collection of rule-of-thumb techniques for altering the focus and content of consciousness. Magic could be described ... as a larval technology for programming and metaprogramming the human biocomputer.
>...
>At the very least, magic can be considered as a pragmatic approach to changing the human psyche and, though it, the surrounding world.
>...
>To some, "paranormal" phenomena are only an obstacle to people truly seeking to know themselves.
>-The Magician's Companion: A Practical & Encyclopedic Guide to Magical & Religious Symbolism by Bill Whitcomb
This is one of the core books for the modern student of the occult.
This is how many people who do not use magic as part of a religious faith perceive it.
I'm not inventing anything. Magic is an internal art to help change yourself so that you might change your circumstances.
>>43547089
That's retarded definition. It's like calling healthy diet and exercising "vampirism" because it will make you live slightly longer. It's just a catchy name given for marketing purposes.
>>43547149
It's putting a new understanding on why old traditions seem to work from the perspective of those that engage in them.
It's like the evolution of alchemy into chemistry. They didn't necessarily know why alchemy worked (sometimes), but the fact that we figured it out later didn't invalidate those initial efforts.
We now understand that when you try to curse someone, your brain is wired to accept events that could be interpreted as the result of your curse and discard events and facts that don't support the curse. This is confirmation bias. If you want to see your enemies suffer, magic lets you see your enemies suffer. We know now that it's because of confirmation bias, not necessarily anything supernatural, but it's still the same techniques and it's still magic, even if we understand that the mechanism is something different than originally supposed.
>>43547089
>>43547149
Guys?
>>43546532
>There are many kinds of magic.
Anon's definition is completely fine, and a good explanation of a great deal of the magical effects experienced throughout the centuries.
It also has the benefit of being completely real.
The problem is that it is not inclusive of all magic.
Not all magic is explained by mental processes.
Magic that affects the unaware would be one example.
Is that magic real?
Most magic is pure BS, most of what isn't BS is the above mental magic.
There is a remaining sliver that remains unexplained and largely unexplored.
Those that believe are not scientific and those that are scientific usually are unwilling to investigate in fear of being ridiculed by those that think they are scientific but really are just believers in the lack of magic.
>>43547395
The definition of magic is "Effect without Cause". Anything else is pure sophistry.
What anon is describing is basically Self-Hypnosis, which has been documented and is actually pretty credible.
>>43548079
>Magic
Noun
: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
: A power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do (seemingly) impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions
: Tricks that seem to be impossible and that are done by a performer to entertain people
: Special power, influence, or skill
: The art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
: the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
: A quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight
WOW!
There sure is a lot of pure sophistry out there.
I could not find a definition of magic that incorporated yours.
Where did you get it?
Did you just define it as something logically impossible in a deterministic universe so that you could declare it impossible?
Or are you just wrong?
>>43548266
>The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Effect without cause.
>A power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do (seemingly) impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions
Effect without cause
>the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
Effect without cause
>Tricks that seem to be impossible and that are done by a performer to entertain people
>The art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.
Stage/Street show sleight of hand
>: A quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, especially in a way that gives delight
>Special power, influence, or skill
Waxing poetic about completely, average, normal things.
>I could not find a definition of magic that incorporated yours.
>Where did you get it?
Let me give you advice my grandmother would always give me.
"Did you try?"
>>43548266
>the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
I like this definition the best, personally.
>>43548366
Those all have causes, anon. Can't you read?
You may not believe in the causes, but none of that says without cause.
>>43539751
I actually do quite a bit of Magic, but you got it wrong, we are not called wizards we are calledPlaneswalkers
>>43548366
>>The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
>Effect without cause.
Effect from mysterious cause.
>>A power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do (seemingly) impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions
>Effect without cause
Effect from special cause
>>the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
>Effect without cause
Effect from the use of incantation or various other techniques
It's like you can't read or have no idea what words mean.
Where did you get this definition?
>"Did you try?"
To define magic? Yes. I did.
To determine how you arrived at such an erroneous definition? A little.
Then I asked you and you didn't answer.
I suspect that neither of us will ever know.
You guys don't really believe in magic, right?
>>43548400
>>43548469
No, a cause is something like "You move your arm by sending electric sparks to your muscles which release ATP which bind with the chemicals in your arm to flex."
"Mysterious or Supernatural" forces are not a cause.
It's literally like the both of you are batshit insane with no grounding in the basic sciences. How did you even figure out how to get to 4chan, let alone use the internet?
>>43539751
I think there's probably a negative correlation. RPGs make me expect magic to have concrete, practical, testable, repeatable effects, so occultists and spiritualists who offer anything less seem silly by comparison.
>>43548491
An unknown cause is not no cause, dipshit.
And they still didn't say no cause.
The best you have is "apparently" which only points to an unknown cause.
>>43548512
>An unknown cause is not no cause, dipshit.
That's why there's no such thing as magic. It all eventually just becomes cold hard science, mouth-breather.
>>43548472
I believe in Mario's squat game. That dude has some monster legs.
>>43548378
it's vague enough that two tin cans tied together with a piece of string could qualify as magic, since they produce a desired effect using techniques that assure human control of the forces of nature (in this case, vibrations and sound).
>>43548541
See
>>43547267
That's exactly what I've been saying all along, dimwit.
Well first, we need to think about what entails magic. In the humanities, magic is indistinguishable from religion. In the sciences, magic is simply functional practices for which there is no formal explanation.
Either way, yeah, I'm sure some have.
>>43548491
You are confusing detailed scientifically understood cause with "cause"
*You* are the one spouting an unsupported definition and then failing to understand basic concepts like the difference between unknown and nonexistent.
I suspect your "grounding in the basic sciences" should be tempered with basic logic reason.
>>43548512
This.
>>43548575
You have a point.
>>43548469
I said do you not know?
You said: Of course!
I said: Wheres the money?
You said: In my pocket bitch!
I said: Take it out.
You said: I don't have pockets, SUPERNATURAL BITCH!
>>43548472
>Do you believe in magic?
>>43546057
>refused to believe that one PC was an elf and kept insisting he was too small and must be a [elf].
What?
>>43548541
>That's why there's no such thing as magic. It all eventually just becomes cold hard science, mouth-breather.
First of all, fuck off, your grandmother was a cause without effect.
Second, EVERYTHING just becomes cold hard science eventually.
You can't define magic as "something that doesn't exist" and then tell people they are stupid for believing it exists.
We could define magic as the ability to achieve an effect thought impossible, through mysterious cause.
That could work on all levels.
And it's still not "Cause without effect."
>>43548366
>>43548079
This guy is still just plain wrong.
I've looked into some semi magical claims like Tulpas, lucid dreaming, hypnotism, etc. Basically mentalism shit.
>tulpas
No way to know if it's just horsefuckers playing pretend or a legitimate exercise that actually makes a sustainable mental construct with sensory impact, short of trying it. Hell, it might even qualify as both. The practice is just a form of meditation, so I don't think it'd be too harmful to try it, and someday I might, because meditation has proven benefits, and is something I want to make a habit of.
>lucid dreaming
I've actually had a lucid dream, and it was one of the best experiences of my life. There's a lot of sources out there on best practices and shit, and I highly recommend you develop this. Don't believe the bullshit dream sharing or astral projection claims though.
>hypnotism
It only works on people that believe it, but it does work. Powerful placebo effect. Most stage hypnotism accounts you see are just the result of filtering for willing participants (anyone who volunteers to be in a stage hypnosis is, on some level, willing to do ridiculous shit).
>>43539751
Personally studied Otter there's teachings for about 10 years.
>>43548629
>You are confusing detailed scientifically understood cause with "cause"
Not at all. A cause is a reason why something happens. Random gesticulation to produce the desired effect into a world is a modern day idea coming from shit like D&D where people need logical reasons why magic happens. Go back 20, 30 years, magic is shit happening for literally no reason. People just change the definition these days as they please.
The definition I'm 'spouting' isn't written in the dictionary sites, no, but when you boil it down to it's simplest terms, yes, magic is in fact Effect without Cause. "I produce fire in my hand because I want to" is not a real cause. It's sophistry.
>>43548789
Provide me an example of magic that is not Effect without Cause.
>>43548713
In the setting, elves are like smaller, weaker Tolkien elves, whereas fey are fairies, sprites, slyphs, dryads, nymph,etc.
The Faye are more magical, dangerous, and less grounded than elves.
But as the example proves, not everyone knows the distinction.
>>43548660
That was just bad, even as nonsense goes.
Nobody said anything like that.
Stop trying to be clever.
If you have something to say, say it clearly.
Or just stop posting.
Other way around. I was practicing magick before /tg/ came into my life. Only a few years apart, though.
Have a library:
https://mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
>Remember the Cultus Sabbati ritual year of the Dragon Book of Essex begins in three days!
>>43548827
>Provide me an example of magic that is not Effect without Cause.
Why?
>>43548469
It's been done.
>>43548491
You clearly can't read.
>>43549031
>Why?
Because I'm making the point that you cannot.
>You clearly can't read.
You clearly have no logical reasoning.
>>43549025
Well, if you're serious, then what has magic done for you?
Thanks for the library, this will make for interesting reading, and might help me portray magic in a more interesting way in my games.
>>43548827
>Go back 20, 30 years, magic is shit happening for literally no reason.
Okay, I doubt that's true.
Seriously, every account of magic I have ever heard of had a source, a cause.
>when you boil it down to it's simplest terms, yes, magic is in fact Effect without Cause.
Ah. See, you need to stop boiling.
You are not good at it.
You aren't even using liquid or heat.
Here is an example:
>"I produce fire in my hand because I want to" is not a real cause.
First, let's point out the crux of the issue.
>a real cause.
You keep saying "Effect without cause." when what you actually mean is "Effect without a REAL cause." and we have no idea what your subjective definition of "a real cause" is.
Now back to the example:
>"I produce fire in my hand because I want to"
The cause here is mental energy, force of will, or psychic ability.
You are describing psychokinesis.
It is unproven and likely not real.
But the cause of the effect is there.
Stop trying so hard.
Your boiled down definition is wrong.
That is okay.
Reducing concepts can be tricky.
Let it go.
>>43549054
>Because I'm making the point that you cannot.
You are making no point, you are embarrassing your anonymous self on an anonymous Tibetan pictograph site.
>You clearly have no logical reasoning.
You can't even properly define one term, the first step of a logical proof.
You can't tell the difference between a lack of understanding and a lack of existence.
You have no room to stand on.
YOU
DON'T
NEED
OTHER
BOARDS
WE /X/ NOW
>>43549279
>psychokinesis.
pyrokinesis
damn spellchecker
>>43549358
/x/ has always been subset of /tg/ though. It's just an entire board for one quest.
>>43549256
>Well, if you're serious, then what has magic done for you?
A lot over the years, imo, but this is 4chan, and the only thing I can offer are weak anecdotes that appear to be little more than extreme circumstances of synchronicity or willed application of mind altering techniques to bring about a religious state of consciousness.
I don't particularly buy that psychological model, but it explains things and is simple, which I think passes the reductionist test.
I don't care about a lot of the epistemological posturing that goes on in these debates. I'm way more interested in cataloging experience. Some magicians have related strange and interesting experiences. I want to explore them as well.
I understand this is a vague non answer, but I also don't particularly weaving huge stories that can quickly be explained by the psychological model outlined in the first bit of my comment. Reductionists gonna reduction.
>>43549279
>Seriously, every account of magic I have ever heard of had a source, a cause.
If you're leinient with the term "cause" referring to a "singular event that might have had to happen for the effect to be produced", then yes, you're right. However no "cause" of magic has ever been consistent or explainable even among fantasy authors, and ESPECIALLY not between "real-life practitioners", many of whom can't agree on the actual effect. "Recite some poetry!" "No! Concoct a potion!", etc.
>Ah. See, you need to stop boiling.
Why? You've yet to prove me wrong?
>You keep saying "Effect without cause." when what you actually mean is "Effect without a REAL cause." and we have no idea what your subjective definition of "a real cause" is.
No, I mean effect without cause. A cause being a consistent action or set of actions which produce the desired outcome. See above about the potions and poetry.
>The cause here is mental energy, force of will, or psychic ability.
>You are describing psychokinesis.
Or I could have been describing a person taking "magic energy" out of the air and igniting it. The fact that you came up with another "valid" explanation of the event tells me it's not a consistent idea. Which means there is no cause. Only effect.
>>43549400
I get you.
That's why I didn't go into my paranormal experiences.
Most are open to criticism and I can't 100% prove to myself what happened.
>>43549434
So
What you're saying is
Psychology is magic
Since it has many different ways to reach the same goal, and most of those ways need to be adjusted or just don't work for a given individual.
Thus it fails the "consistent" part.
Meaning psychology produces effects without causes.
You are a fucking retard.
>>43549534
Wow that strawman. Look, if you're not going to take this seriously, then I just don't see the point in conversing with you.
>>43549534
Many effective traditional forms of psychiatric medicine are now considered to have been magical or religious rituals, if that's what you mean.
>>43549565
Congratulations, you've done it. You've made the worst post in this thread.
>>43549434
Okay.
So you are either trying to change your argument, or you have really been arguing that magic is Cause without source this whole time.
>it's not a consistent idea. Which means there is no cause. Only effect.
See, that is not logical or coherent.
It makes no sense and makes you sound ridiculous.
Even more so if you replace cause with source.
>It's not a consistent idea.
>Therefore there is no cause(or source).
So you are asserting that since there is no unified theory of everything magic, there is no cause?
Or source?
Or what?
Connect those two concepts man.
Why does there need to be a consistent idea in order for there to be a cause?
>>43549565
Reductio ad Absurdum is not Strawman, no matter how often /tg/ mixes those two up.
Your definitions are retarded. I was using your definitions to follow to an absurd conclusion thus showing the definitions as unacceptable.
>>43549617
Might there even be more than one source?
*Gasp!*
Or unknown sources?
>>43549654
>>43549534
Well done sir.
Your example elegantly shows what I was driving at in my post.
>>43549613
Reminder that global rule 6 exists for situations exactly like this one.
>>43549617
>So you are either trying to change your argument,
I'm not changing my argument at all, you just took it in a ridiculous direction into a field which we have trouble with because every person's personality is radically different from each others and applying the common remedies to them don't always produce the correct effects. It was an argument without merit.
Edit: That should be directed at >>43549654, not you. My apologies, anon. And thank you auto-updater.
>See, that is not logical or coherent.
Why not? Take an example from 'real' magic for a moment.
Some people will tell you to recite a bit of poetry and insert the persons name to get the intended effect.
Some people will tell you to mix a love potion.
Some people will tell you to perform a ritual.
Some all three
However, every single one of these people will tell you straight up "If it doesn't work, then that doesn't mean anything. Try it again".
The results are inconsistent, and when it works, the underlying cause is. . .which one exactly? None? All of them? Without a definitive cause but an effect, you have on your hands Effect without Cause.
>So you are asserting that since there is no unified theory of everything magic, there is no cause
Basically, yes. If there was, it would stop being magic and just be science.
Science = Cause and Effect and the studies thereof
Magic = Producing effect with no cause and the practice thereof.
This isn't rocket science here.
>>43549788
>>So you are asserting that since there is no unified theory of everything magic, there is no cause
>Basically, yes.
Okay then.
You have proven yourself to be an illogical idiot and I wash my hands of this weirdness.
>>43539751
Don't worry anon, I'm only 9 years off of being a true wizard
>>43549850
>Nuh uh! I quit
Alright then.
>>43549788
So yes, you are calling psychology magic.
It works the same way. You try a bunch of different things until you find something that works for you personally. If one pill fails, that doesn't mean anything. Try again. If one session of therapy fails, that doesn't mean anything. Try again.
Yes, you can study trends to improve the effectiveness of psychology (though your stupid definition doesn't account for this), but the same can be said of magic.
I have practiced some real life Sorcery, though I desire nothing more then what I have so I haven't done anything more.
However, I talked two people into giving me their souls. So there is that.
>>43550050
>Pharmaceutical Psychology
>>43550050
>So yes, you are calling psychology magic.
Not in the slightest. Psychology is a different beast of science, but they have documented evidence that certain causes will have specific effects that are consistant time and time again, however they do not work on everyone because every person is different from the next. But those differences can easily be mapped out and new causes that work on THOSE persons can be figured out through trial and error. Psychology is a completely different beast that has nothing to do with this discussion other than a cheap, yet flimsy way to make the argument seem sillier than it actually is because you have nothing to go on.
Apologize to every psychologist for your ignorant remarks.
>>43550243
No.
And it's not unrelated. It's how we study magic.
>>43547089
>>43547267
Anon's definition is just still retarded, made by a layman who has no idea what he's talking about, ignoring people who actually do study magic.
>>43550344
>And it's not unrelated. It's how we study magic.
It's completely unrelated and nobody actually studies magic. They make up fantasy to rationalize their self-hypnosis, which IS a science, and then label it as magic to keep up the illusion.
>>43550440
You also seem to have zero idea what you're talking about.
In this thread alone have been several people who study it academically without actually practicing.
How close-minded you must be.
Should an atheist say nobody studies theology because they don't believe in God? They just make up fantasy to rationalize their beliefs then label it religion?
>>43550440
I hate to break it to you but there are two respectable peer reviewed journals on magic, and then we've got multiple groups like the Warburg Institute which, do, in fact, study...I guess in your terms, the fantasies of self hypnosis.
Anthropology also studies a lot of magic. Particularly without trying to be condescending and attempting taxonomies of cultures.
And there are a goodly number of people embedded in those sorts of research departments that practice privately. Some folks want to pick up with a personal phenomenology of religious experience. I don't think the people who want to do this are charlatans, idiots, deluded, etc.
>>43550592
Except I've actually studied the underlying 'effects' of magic and have reached the conclusion that 90% of it is just self-hypnosis with a fantasy story, like I said.
>>43550657
>there are two respectable peer reviewed journals on magi
Sounds hilarious. Please link.
>>43550440
>>43550592
Ladies, please, you're both ugly. Can we please stop shitting up the thread now?
>>43550684
... so? Seriously, so what? You don't have to agree or believe in it for people to study it. People study homeopathy. People study phrenology. People study UFOs. People study psychic phenomenon.
Just because you don't believe it's real, even if it's factually not real, has no bearing on whether or not people study it.
Are you really this narcissistic that you can't comprehend people doing something you disagree with?
>>43550684
One is very not hilarious, it's through Brill, and actually kinda goes all over the place in topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aries_(journal)
Pomegranate is meh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pomegranate
There are a couple more I'm not thinking of right now.
>>43550817
Oh, that's just history and anthropology. I thought you meant actual journals on magic rituals and spells. Less hilarious and very unimportant.
>>43550750
That is in fact true. People will be retarded without my say in the matter. You raise a good point.
>>43550859
K bro, enjoy your smugboner and fuck off now.
>>43550859
>journals on magic rituals and spells
D-did you read Aries?
They're not hard to find in most academic online journal access portals. That's where I got mine. Some of them are analysis, some of it actually delves into nuts and bolts. Fuck Brill but out a literal manual of Sumerian spells against dark witchcraft. Hopefully part two comes out this year.
And hell, if you want a more modern example of the other kind, Cultus Sabbati's got an internal journal, but it's not really 'peer review' by any sense of the proper use.
>>43550966
Err, no no, I don't mean the study of the individual rituals and why people do them and the logical reasoning behind their design.
I literally thought you were talking the necronomicon here.
>>43551047
The Necronomicon is such a great way to test someone's occult aptitude.
A novice thinks it's real.
An adept (or Lovecraft fan) knows it's entirely fiction invented by Lovecraft and then capitalized upon by publishers who write some up to sell to the aforementioned novices.
Then someone really in the know understands it doesn't even matter so long as you believe in it (the self-hypnosis people are so fond about in this thread).
>>43551047
A library got posted itt to a mega with like 30 gigs of ritual manuals and guides going back for hundreds of years.
And I thought I was being clear when I said peer reviewed. If you want a grimoire there are tons of them.
>>43551102
Then the person who is REALLY REALLY in the know knows that the Simonomicon was built out of egregores put together by the likes of Wasserman and Lavenda who were living near each other at the time, with the mysterious occult bookstore referenced in the opening likely being Weiser Antiquarian (they're nice people if you ever wanna buy old expensive occult books).
But that's a little bit of speculative history from the 70's for you.
>>43539751
I'm working on it.
>>43551436
So which came first, the beard, or the realization that you'll die a virgin?
>>43551539
Too late, I've had sex quite a while ago now. Keeping the beard, though.
>>43550440
>nobody actually studies magic
>>43550684
>I've actually studied ... magic
WOW
O
W
>>43542536
Uhhh is that text combined with that person supposed to be ironic?!
I tend to stay out of these discussions because having no way to give proof leaves the discussion superfluous. Believers will believe, skeptics will skeptic. Not much too it.
Having said that, let me tell my story, its a anonymous board right? Make up your own mind on it.
I have had dreams that have felt like real life and were precognitive in nature. Just small things really all in the same month or two. First one was a dream about car wrecks and that day I avoided a crazy lady who was in my lane for a second not paying attention going forward in a turn lane. The next was vertigo and falling, and I slipped on some oil at work. At this point I still didn't really pay much attention to it. I mean the car thing was brief and not all that bad if a bit startling, and the oil was funny a bit.
The next dream was a snake's fang coming over my left foot, when I woke I swear I could still feel a phantom pain on my foot. The night after my dog is smelling and acting oddly at my foot by the computer, and turned on a light to find a fucking scorpion by that same foot. It wasn't actually poisonous and there common enough here, even so it was a bit freaky.
The last one was the worst, I dreamed of being shot in the head at a gas station. During the dream I desperately tried to hold on to my life, but while I was dying I felt something, like I was moving on to something better, I let go and woke up.
That one messed with my head for a minute, but finally I decided I needed to let go, if it happened, it happened. I avoided gas stations at night as I could, but who knows when that might happen right? And at least its quicker and less lingering than some other ways I could imagine right?
A few months later an older woman working at a gas station was brutally shot by a robber. Since then I've had a few minor dreams, but nothing as common or sever as the first few.
Well believe it or not. I do.
>>43546817
Seriously though, that's a pretty fucking angelic thing to do. My wife always puts it on the backside, (no) pun intended.
Everytime.
It's a pain the ass.
> Do you believe in magic(k)?
In a young girl's heart.
>>43551102
Lovecraft is spinning in his grave at 9000rpm and burrowing through the earth because of you
>>43539751
Once I found out about Unknown Armies I went pretty hard into reading anything on the occult I could get my hands on. I never did and still don't believe in the validity of anything I read but it's all pretty interesting.
>>43553002
There are far greater grievances against Lovecraft on this board alone than me saying "Lovecraft invented a fictional book and some people took it seriously."
Get some perspective, pal.
>>43546725
>so you don't end up one of those deranged hobos talking about angels invading their brain.
But they're the only ones that REALLY get it, Anon.
>>43549025
What's the easiest way to download the entire thing?
>>43553268
>have home computer
>download as zip
>leave computer on and connected to internet for 2 days
>after done, transfer to removable media
>>43550159
Nobody is going to believe me, but after this happened I became more 'powerful' in all senses of the word. Got a job, became more socially comfortable, k even intimidate and persuade people now, all coming from an ex-neet faggot awkward virgin. It's amazing how real it all is.
>>43553564
That's not sorcery, that's confidence.
>>43553632
The two are indistinguishable to beta virgins.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SAjvQkO.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>43553658
>>43553632
This is what is meant by being a wizard at 30 btw.
Men age like wine. By age 30, most men have enough capital/status that they've reached the threshold to attract women by default.
Meanwhile, women age like milk, and unpaired women start lowering their standards.
We're all gonna make it acolytes.
>>43553701
This is /tg/. Why would a conversation like this even be on /aco/?
>>43542441Danger?
Does being an anthropology major count?
>>43554856
Hopefully, it's one of the reasons I chose this major.
>>43547057
Anon stop I have to go outside to finish my laundry but now I'm scared the pizza will eat me
>>43555425
>Inb4 anthropologists are modern day wizards and they are filling the practice with a mixture of real and fake hipster shits so they can keep the majick away from all use normies
Fucking anthropologists I tells yah, they are all bastards - I went for a Media production degree, let me tell you how I found the ghost in the machine . . .
>I Technomage now . . .
>>43555449
Heh.
Relax anon.
The pizza is safe and delicious.
Have a slice.
>>43539751
My parents were both into that stuff when I was a kid. They taught me to use divination tools like tarot and runes, taught me the basics of spells and rituals, and how to make assorted charms for various purposes.They also taught me that the "magic" of it is a mixture of psychology, medicine, basic human empathy, conventional wisdom and learning how to tell people what they need to hear in order to make healthy decisions in a way that makes it sound like it comes from something mystical. This is because even in our modern age of science and understanding of one another, people can be so proud and vain that they would rather listen to the cryptic words and drink the foul concoctions of a crazed mystic than admit they are less intelligent and less wise than someone else and heed their honest advice.
>>43554856
That book is FUCKING AWFUL. Don't waste time on it. You'll be better off reading The Golden Bough than this trash.
>>43539751
/tg/ has some resident warlocks.
They helped /pol/ out with a few harmless side projects, if I recall correctly.
>>43560232
I was skeptical at first but that whole thing got real spooky real fast. I think there's a lesson in there somewhere: Don't let /pol/ play with magic.
Well my mother was into.. dunno exactly whats its called in English, divination with those fancy cards.. The devil, the tower, etc.. Tarot cards?
She also believes in ghosts.
As a boy it was weird she was, it still is.
Never could grasp my head around it. I don't talk much with her anyway, ramblings of an alcoholic.
But no, never had believed in sorcery IRL. Sure, you can sacrifice a goat, a human or whatever to ritualistic purposes to inspire your followers for bloodshed, but if you actually believe it will make a tiny drop of difference other than putting people in a frenzied mindset you belong in an asylum.
>>43560503
>The devil, the tower, etc.. Tarot cards?
Yeah, Tarot. Popular with women in particular. There was a huge surge of this and similar shit with the new-age wave between 70-90's.
>>43547057
So pepperonimancy is the true magical power in this world? Seems kinda low-rent for the supernatural.
>>43560544
Yeah that fits, being born in 80 and all. Fucking shit. She had an equally weird friend who got diagnosed with breast cancer, the friend wanted to treat herself with witchcraft... Go figure how that worked out.
>>43560645
Ever came across Wicca? Because that is a real fucking thing, even today, though it thankfully regressed somewhat. It played quite a considerable role in many feminist movements of the 70-90's era.
>>43560755
You mean if I came across it in practice? No I did not. Read about it online.
>>43541590
>no aqua fortis
>no oil of vitriol
Anon step up your game
>>43549788
Building a fire must be magic, then.
Some people tell you to rotate a stick with a bow.
Some people tell you to hit metal on flint.
Some people tell you to use a lens to magnify the light from the sun.
All of these people will tell you to ignore it if it doesn't work, and try again.
All of them only sometimes produce fire, but often don't.
Therefore, there is no cause for fire.
>>43563093
see
>>43549850
>>43551703
He confirmed his status as an illogical idiot.
But, that's another good example.
>>43560559
>So pepperonimancy is the true magical power in this world?
So it would seem.
>Seems kinda low-rent for the supernatural.
This is the actual truth.
Almost all of the really scary, but believable paranormal stuff is pretty low rent.
Real ghosts, if they exist, would probably work more by distorting and controlling people's minds.
The best depiction of this I've seen was in the movie Oculus.Evil haunted mirror, protagonists set up cameras, have argument in room, walk out, return, and everything in the room has moved to the center.
They replay the video, and it shows them moving it all while arguing, despite neither of them remembering doing it.
I had something much milder but similar happen once.
It is very freaky to discover yourself doing exactly the opposite of what you earnestly and adamantly declared you would do 30 seconds earlier.
And it all has the lovely inconvenience of being impossible to distinguish from psychological phenomenon.
