3 ms·

I used to be into Occult, but never mustered the courage to learn Latin, Greek or Hebrew. I think French is also an important language. Of course there are Engl

I used to be into Occult, but never mustered the courage to learn Latin, Greek or Hebrew. I think French is also an important language. Of course there are English writers such as the beast. Just curious if anyone is into this kind of stuffs. I got into this in late teen, believing that Lovecraftian is a really thing. It quickly turned out to be made up by the great writer, but nevertheless Occult drew me in. I was never deep into it due to lack of time and my belief in science (or we can say modern science especially Physics and Mathematics are the modern Occult). Maybe I'll dig deeper and learn a few foreign languages after 50.

deadly_syn 3y ago
Lovecrafts lore might not be the story, but i woulsnt be shocked if it was accurate allegory.
kcartlidge 3y ago
If you want the Lovecraftian mythos to be a thing, then the field of chaos magic (popularised largely by Peter J Carroll in Liber Null and Psychonaut) is an interesting one. For traditional ritual/ceremonial magic The Heptameron is possibly the easiest of the old grimoires to read, and whilst he has his detractors Joseph Lisiewski's Ceremonial Magic & The Power of Evocation is pretty readable as a modern take. (None of this is to comment on the truth or practicality of the belief systems and practices, it's just a pointer to possibly interesting early stage sources.)
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  Thanks, never heard about these! For modern ones I only know Eliphas Levi, Madam Blavatsky, Crowley and the rocket scientist.
wise0wl 3y ago
There are actually some fairly high quality translations of things nowadays. Much better than even 20 years ago. If you are still inclined to the occult, now is a better time than pretty much ever. Science doesn't negate an interest in the arcane, esoteric, or occult. You can still find this stuff fascinating, and in fact there are practitioners who are actively involved in scientific circles simultaneously. It is not always mutually exclusive.
- hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
  Thanks! I do know that one rocket scientist, Jack Parsons, was an occult researcher. I wonder what he found...
- bodangly 3y ago
  I’d say it goes beyond not being mutually exclusive. They complement each other, sometimes in surprising ways. Sacred geometry, concepts of frequency and vibrational rates, extracting signal from noise, if you are well versed in math and science you’ll find a lot of synchronicities. Fourier analysis dovetails with the concept of unity. Pythagoras was what we might call an occultist. Newton was an alchemist (which isn’t about lead to gold, it’s about the transmutation of the Self), Jack Parsons was a Thelemite. Ramanujan credited his genius to visions. Science and math can’t (yet) answer the big questions. There are things it doesn’t even try and touch. In my experience, curious minds are often interested in trying to attain a broader understanding of the universe and our place in it.
  - jhbadger 3y ago
    "Newton was an alchemist (which isn’t about lead to gold, it’s about the transmutation of the Self)" Well, maybe not so much. That's kind of a 19th-20th century interpretation. We didn't want to believe that all these smart people really were into stupidity like turning lead into gold. Surely it must be much deeper than that! It must have been metaphors! But maybe not. Maybe they literally were into what they said they were into. It's not unlike how people want to claim that various religious stories weren't "really" about what they claim to be.
    - mayd 3y ago
      > We didn't want to believe that all these smart people really were into stupidity like turning lead into gold. Alchemy was not stupid in the 17th century. You have the benefit of three centuries of subsequent scientific advances, to which geniuses like Isaac Newton, and those other smart people, contributed significantly. Besides alchemy, Newton was deeply immersed in various occult studies. He was also a heretic, being a Unitarian, keeping his religious beliefs secret. Scientific research occupied only a part of his time. The seventeenth century was a time of religious and political turmoil, millenarianism and apocalyptic prophecy abounded. Newton was a man of his time.

deadly_syn 3y ago

Lovecrafts lore might not be the story, but i woulsnt be shocked if it was accurate allegory.

kcartlidge 3y ago

If you want the Lovecraftian mythos to be a thing, then the field of chaos magic (popularised largely by Peter J Carroll in Liber Null and Psychonaut) is an interesting one. For traditional ritual/ceremonial magic The Heptameron is possibly the easiest of the old grimoires to read, and whilst he has his detractors Joseph Lisiewski's Ceremonial Magic & The Power of Evocation is pretty readable as a modern take. (None of this is to comment on the truth or practicality of the belief systems and practices, it's just a pointer to possibly interesting early stage sources.)

hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
Thanks, never heard about these! For modern ones I only know Eliphas Levi, Madam Blavatsky, Crowley and the rocket scientist.

wise0wl 3y ago

There are actually some fairly high quality translations of things nowadays. Much better than even 20 years ago. If you are still inclined to the occult, now is a better time than pretty much ever. Science doesn't negate an interest in the arcane, esoteric, or occult. You can still find this stuff fascinating, and in fact there are practitioners who are actively involved in scientific circles simultaneously. It is not always mutually exclusive.

hnthrowaway0315 3y ago
Thanks! I do know that one rocket scientist, Jack Parsons, was an occult researcher. I wonder what he found...
bodangly 3y ago
I’d say it goes beyond not being mutually exclusive. They complement each other, sometimes in surprising ways. Sacred geometry, concepts of frequency and vibrational rates, extracting signal from noise, if you are well versed in math and science you’ll find a lot of synchronicities. Fourier analysis dovetails with the concept of unity. Pythagoras was what we might call an occultist. Newton was an alchemist (which isn’t about lead to gold, it’s about the transmutation of the Self), Jack Parsons was a Thelemite. Ramanujan credited his genius to visions. Science and math can’t (yet) answer the big questions. There are things it doesn’t even try and touch. In my experience, curious minds are often interested in trying to attain a broader understanding of the universe and our place in it.
- jhbadger 3y ago
  "Newton was an alchemist (which isn’t about lead to gold, it’s about the transmutation of the Self)" Well, maybe not so much. That's kind of a 19th-20th century interpretation. We didn't want to believe that all these smart people really were into stupidity like turning lead into gold. Surely it must be much deeper than that! It must have been metaphors! But maybe not. Maybe they literally were into what they said they were into. It's not unlike how people want to claim that various religious stories weren't "really" about what they claim to be.
  - mayd 3y ago
    > We didn't want to believe that all these smart people really were into stupidity like turning lead into gold. Alchemy was not stupid in the 17th century. You have the benefit of three centuries of subsequent scientific advances, to which geniuses like Isaac Newton, and those other smart people, contributed significantly. Besides alchemy, Newton was deeply immersed in various occult studies. He was also a heretic, being a Unitarian, keeping his religious beliefs secret. Scientific research occupied only a part of his time. The seventeenth century was a time of religious and political turmoil, millenarianism and apocalyptic prophecy abounded. Newton was a man of his time.