6 ms·

The history of Queen Elizabeth's court astrologer, John Dee is a very interesting chap. He was well versed in Western Astrology, as well as the joint creator o

by kefka 12y ago

The history of Queen Elizabeth's court astrologer, John Dee is a very interesting chap. He was well versed in Western Astrology, as well as the joint creator of a symbolic magic called Enochian Magic. He was also considered as Elizabeth's spy. For what there is in the occult, I really am surprised that more technologically minded people don't dabble. Things like Chaos Magic and the like are well suited for applying scientific method to the esoteric.

h1karu 12y ago
I suppose what I mean is that I don't think it's fair that fundamentalist christians don't get to post on HN about how they have a savior who performs miracles but yet it's relatively socially acceptable to have posts about "Magic" which is a reference to the same type of thing as miracles but yet it's considered "esoteric" instead of "religious" and is therefor socially acceptable. I mean lets not forget that with the discussion of Dee and Kelly we ARE talking about the scrying of the same Archangels from the old testament, so in some way it is related to the abrahamic religions. That's why I don't see why it gets a special category instead of being labeled 'religious'
- kefka 12y ago
  I see you are somewhat versed in Enochian workings. I'm a bit surprised, but the tech community has knowledge extending every direction. Yes, Enochian Magic was created by John Dee in reference to the apochryphal book of Enoch. It entails in working with both positive and negative angels under YHVH (Judeao/Christian/Moslem deity). That's one of the reasons why I mentioned chaos magic. It is devoid of any deity worship, and is more that of being a sorcerer.Golden Dawn also used Enochian magic, albeit only the second book. And they also involved themselves with YHVH, Egyptian deities and Celtic deities. For no deity workings, perhaps Tantra or Chaos would apply.
  - h1karu 12y ago
    I suppose if the original post had been about chaos magic alone I wouldn't have chimed in to refer to it as religious speech. I would even suggest that there are more and more scientific authors showing up who are helping to bridge the gap between "chaos magic" concepts and hard science (see Rupert Sheldrake, Bruce Lipton, Michael Talbot, and others) "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." – Max Planck. 1931.
- nwatson 12y ago
  Fundamentalist Christians are still seen in the U.S. as the "oppressing majority" that want to impose their belief system on others or want at least to make others feel bad for not adhering to their beliefs or not conforming to their moral code. This view is outdated. The Evangelical+Fundamentalist Christians had their latest political and cultural heyday in the 1980's with the "Moral Majority" movement. They've been in steady decline since, with the book "The Great Evangelical Recession" (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-American/dp/0801014832 http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ...) arguing that the U.S. population can count only between 7% and 9% as part of the "true believer" Evangelical or Fundamental Christian set. The other 30% to 50% that loosely associate themselves with Christian churches have only limited knowledge of what Christianity teaches. Politicians, advertisers, tastemakers all are slowly realizing this declining influence and focus of Christian groups. Many "free thinking" folks though still see Fundamentalist Christianity as the big bogey-man. Those dabbling in the occult or most other religions are generally seen as interesting and as having no agenda to impose moral beliefs, and so are much less threatening and downright fun and interesting. The California occult even had raucous sex parties, yay!
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Fundamentalist Christians are still seen in the U.S. as the "oppressing majority" that want to impose their belief system on others or want at least to make others feel bad for not adhering to their beliefs or not conforming to their moral code. This view is outdated. No, they're more often seen as an oppressing, politically-powerful minority that wants to do that. Which, while somewhat imprecise (Evangelicals/Fundamentalists and those seeking to impose conservative policies either based on religious motivation or by leveraging others' religious identity aren't identical groups, though there's significant overlap), isn't outdated in any sense. > twith the book "The Great Evangelical Recession" (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ... http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ...) arguing that the U.S. population can count only between 7% and 9% as part of the "true believer" Evangelical or Fundamental Christian set. The other 30% to 50% that loosely associate themselves with Christian churches have only limited knowledge of what Christianity teaches. That's kind of silly, for one thing because it presumes that every Christian who isn't a "true believer" in one of two closely-related subsets of Protestantism is only "loosely associated" with a Christian Church.
- dang 12y ago
  The history of religion is not religion, the history of magic is not magic, and to study a thing is not to advocate it. There is no issue here. Please stop.
midhir 12y ago
The guys I know who stuck with this stuff got themselves involved in the modern OTO or gnostic ceremony or whatever. They aren't exactly what I'd call focussed people, they might not make great programmers. In all honesty, I couldn't get my head around it. They vocally rebel against their Catholic upbringing yet replace it with... dogmatic rituals based on Catholicism. It's notable about John Dee that he was doing this stuff as part of the British elite inner circle, royalty, rather than of a rebellious clique (Crowley, Yeats) or of privileged, decadent society (like the Hellfire Club). His life was pretty tragic though. His partner in scrying was clearly a chancer and serial bullshitter, who used Dee's obsession to take everything from him - including his wife.
- macavity23 12y ago
  I'm not sure how you make 'the British elite inner circle' and 'a privileged, decadent society' two different categories :)
ianstallings 12y ago
Magic and science do not mix. That's why I don't dabble or anything else.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Tell that to Newton. There is a fine line separating the various realms of the unknown and inventors are merely the most successful of the insane as they have made flesh of their delusions.
  - ianstallings 12y ago
    This is hardly Newton we're talking about or the unknown appearing as magic as Asimov pointed out all new technology might appear. No this is doing spells and trying to call on mystical powers. And where I'm from, that's called bullshit. If you want to practice science then do so. But don't pretend doing a spell led to a certain result because you "believe".
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      I agree that the methodology is somewhat suspect to say the least, but I also think that the impulse that leads folk to try and practice magic is more or less the same as the impulse that leads them to try and study science and which route you take is more often than not an accident of culture. There are many examples other than Newton of scientists who were heavily involved in trying to do magic. Go look up the founder of the JPL and noted Thelemite occultist Jack Parsons, for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_%28rocket_engineer%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_%28rocket_engineer...
    - dang 12y ago
      http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/
- krazydad 12y ago
  Dee was also doing real science, for example taking measurements of the super nova of 1572 and the comet that appeared 5 years later, and corresponding with Tycho about the same. Along with Tycho, he helped establish that the comet was further away than the moon, which helped dissuade people of the belief that all changes in the heavens happened between the moon and the earth. If you are going to dismiss Dee on the basis of his irrational beliefs, than you must dismiss Newton, Tycho, Kepler and many others as well.
anigbrowl 12y ago
There's a british writer called Lionel Snell who has made a number of interesting observations on the philosophical problems and discussed them in relation to art, anarchy, political institutions etc.

by kefka 12y ago

h1karu 12y ago

I suppose what I mean is that I don't think it's fair that fundamentalist christians don't get to post on HN about how they have a savior who performs miracles but yet it's relatively socially acceptable to have posts about "Magic" which is a reference to the same type of thing as miracles but yet it's considered "esoteric" instead of "religious" and is therefor socially acceptable. I mean lets not forget that with the discussion of Dee and Kelly we ARE talking about the scrying of the same Archangels from the old testament, so in some way it is related to the abrahamic religions. That's why I don't see why it gets a special category instead of being labeled 'religious'

kefka 12y ago
I see you are somewhat versed in Enochian workings. I'm a bit surprised, but the tech community has knowledge extending every direction. Yes, Enochian Magic was created by John Dee in reference to the apochryphal book of Enoch. It entails in working with both positive and negative angels under YHVH (Judeao/Christian/Moslem deity). That's one of the reasons why I mentioned chaos magic. It is devoid of any deity worship, and is more that of being a sorcerer.Golden Dawn also used Enochian magic, albeit only the second book. And they also involved themselves with YHVH, Egyptian deities and Celtic deities. For no deity workings, perhaps Tantra or Chaos would apply.
- h1karu 12y ago
  I suppose if the original post had been about chaos magic alone I wouldn't have chimed in to refer to it as religious speech. I would even suggest that there are more and more scientific authors showing up who are helping to bridge the gap between "chaos magic" concepts and hard science (see Rupert Sheldrake, Bruce Lipton, Michael Talbot, and others) "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." – Max Planck. 1931.
nwatson 12y ago
Fundamentalist Christians are still seen in the U.S. as the "oppressing majority" that want to impose their belief system on others or want at least to make others feel bad for not adhering to their beliefs or not conforming to their moral code. This view is outdated. The Evangelical+Fundamentalist Christians had their latest political and cultural heyday in the 1980's with the "Moral Majority" movement. They've been in steady decline since, with the book "The Great Evangelical Recession" (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-American/dp/0801014832 http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ...) arguing that the U.S. population can count only between 7% and 9% as part of the "true believer" Evangelical or Fundamental Christian set. The other 30% to 50% that loosely associate themselves with Christian churches have only limited knowledge of what Christianity teaches. Politicians, advertisers, tastemakers all are slowly realizing this declining influence and focus of Christian groups. Many "free thinking" folks though still see Fundamentalist Christianity as the big bogey-man. Those dabbling in the occult or most other religions are generally seen as interesting and as having no agenda to impose moral beliefs, and so are much less threatening and downright fun and interesting. The California occult even had raucous sex parties, yay!
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Fundamentalist Christians are still seen in the U.S. as the "oppressing majority" that want to impose their belief system on others or want at least to make others feel bad for not adhering to their beliefs or not conforming to their moral code. This view is outdated. No, they're more often seen as an oppressing, politically-powerful minority that wants to do that. Which, while somewhat imprecise (Evangelicals/Fundamentalists and those seeking to impose conservative policies either based on religious motivation or by leveraging others' religious identity aren't identical groups, though there's significant overlap), isn't outdated in any sense. > twith the book "The Great Evangelical Recession" (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ... http://www.amazon.com/Great-Evangelical-Recession-The-Americ...) arguing that the U.S. population can count only between 7% and 9% as part of the "true believer" Evangelical or Fundamental Christian set. The other 30% to 50% that loosely associate themselves with Christian churches have only limited knowledge of what Christianity teaches. That's kind of silly, for one thing because it presumes that every Christian who isn't a "true believer" in one of two closely-related subsets of Protestantism is only "loosely associated" with a Christian Church.
dang 12y ago
The history of religion is not religion, the history of magic is not magic, and to study a thing is not to advocate it. There is no issue here. Please stop.

midhir 12y ago

The guys I know who stuck with this stuff got themselves involved in the modern OTO or gnostic ceremony or whatever. They aren't exactly what I'd call focussed people, they might not make great programmers. In all honesty, I couldn't get my head around it. They vocally rebel against their Catholic upbringing yet replace it with... dogmatic rituals based on Catholicism. It's notable about John Dee that he was doing this stuff as part of the British elite inner circle, royalty, rather than of a rebellious clique (Crowley, Yeats) or of privileged, decadent society (like the Hellfire Club). His life was pretty tragic though. His partner in scrying was clearly a chancer and serial bullshitter, who used Dee's obsession to take everything from him - including his wife.

macavity23 12y ago
I'm not sure how you make 'the British elite inner circle' and 'a privileged, decadent society' two different categories :)

ianstallings 12y ago

Magic and science do not mix. That's why I don't dabble or anything else.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Tell that to Newton. There is a fine line separating the various realms of the unknown and inventors are merely the most successful of the insane as they have made flesh of their delusions.
- ianstallings 12y ago
  This is hardly Newton we're talking about or the unknown appearing as magic as Asimov pointed out all new technology might appear. No this is doing spells and trying to call on mystical powers. And where I'm from, that's called bullshit. If you want to practice science then do so. But don't pretend doing a spell led to a certain result because you "believe".
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I agree that the methodology is somewhat suspect to say the least, but I also think that the impulse that leads folk to try and practice magic is more or less the same as the impulse that leads them to try and study science and which route you take is more often than not an accident of culture. There are many examples other than Newton of scientists who were heavily involved in trying to do magic. Go look up the founder of the JPL and noted Thelemite occultist Jack Parsons, for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_%28rocket_engineer%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_%28rocket_engineer...
  - dang 12y ago
    http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/
krazydad 12y ago
Dee was also doing real science, for example taking measurements of the super nova of 1572 and the comet that appeared 5 years later, and corresponding with Tycho about the same. Along with Tycho, he helped establish that the comet was further away than the moon, which helped dissuade people of the belief that all changes in the heavens happened between the moon and the earth. If you are going to dismiss Dee on the basis of his irrational beliefs, than you must dismiss Newton, Tycho, Kepler and many others as well.

anigbrowl 12y ago

There's a british writer called Lionel Snell who has made a number of interesting observations on the philosophical problems and discussed them in relation to art, anarchy, political institutions etc.