Didn't Arthur C. Clarke nail this technology/magic debate a while ago? :)
james
On 3/5/10 1:31 PM, "Khem Caigan" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mogg doth schreibble :
>>
>> I do understand that some _modern_ occultists have developed a view
>> of magick as a technology -
>
> So you ignore or disregard the /ancients/ that regarded
> magic as technology(?)
>
> I am not a Crowleyite or Thelemite, by-the-way - thus
> no 'k' tacked on magic; nor am I a chAo$ magician.
>
> And I would say that I am both Pagan and Hermetic, and
> I practice Astral Magic/Daemonic Astrology in a manner
> that would be easily recognized by, say, Ficino, or the
> author(s) of the *Picatrix*.
>
> But I would not say that I have /developed/ a view of
> magic as technology - that was completely unnecessary,
> as it is already available from the primary sources.
>
> Cors in Manu Domine,
>
>
> ~ Khem Caigan
> <[log in to unmask]>
>
> " Heat and Moisture are Active to Generation;
> Cold and Dryness are Passive, in and to each Thing;
> Fire and Air, Active by Elementation;
> Water and Earth, Passive to Generation. "
>
> ~ Simon Forman, *Of the Division of Chaos*
|