[TBOPB1C00] Agrippa Book One Introduction

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

[Agrippa] To the Reader.

 

I do not doubt but the Title of our book of Occult Philosophy, or of Magick, may by the rarity of it allure many to read it, amongst which, some of a crasie [languid, feeble] judgement, and some that are perverse will come to hear what I can say, who, by their rash ignorance may take the name of Magick in the worse sense, and though scarce having seen the title, cry out that I teach forbidden Arts, sow the seed of Heresies, offend pious ears, and scandalize excellent wits; that I am a sorcerer, and superstitious and divellish [devilish], who indeed am a Magician: to whom I answer, that a Magician doth not amongst learned men signifie a sorcerer, or one that is superstitious or divellish [devilish]; but a wise man, a priest, a prophet; and that the Sybils were Magicianesses, & therefore prophecyed most cleerly of Christ; and that Magicians, as wise men, by the wonderful secrets of the world, knew Christ, the author of the world, to be born, and came first of all to worship him; and that the name of Magicke was received by Phylosophers [philosophers], commended by Divines, and not unacceptable to the Gospel. I believe that the supercilious censors will object against the Sybils, holy Magicians and the Gospel it self sooner then receive the name of Magick into favor; so conscientious are they, that neither Apollo, nor all the Muses, nor an Angel from Heaven can redeem me from their curse. Whom therefore I advise, that they read not our Writings, nor understand them, nor remember them. For they are pernicious, and full of poyson [poison]; the gate of Acheron is in this book; it speaks stones, let them take heed that it beat not out their brains. But you that come without prejudice to read it, if you have so much discretion of prudence, as Bees have in gathering honey, read securely, and believe that you shall receive no little profit, and much pleasure; but if you shall find any things that may not please you, let them alone and make no use of them, for I do not approve of them, but declare them to you; but do not refuse other things, for they that look into the books of Physicians, do together with antidotes and medicines, read also poysons [poisons]. I confess that Magick it self teacheth many superfluous things, and curious prodigies for ostentation; leave them as empty things, yet be not ignorant of their causes. But those things which are for the profit of man, for the turning away of evil events, for the destroying of sorceries, for the curing of diseases, for the exterminating of phantasmes, for the preserving of life, honor, or fortune, may be done without offense to God, or injury to Religion, because they are, as profitable, so necessary. But I have admonished you, that I have writ many things, rather narratively then affirmatively; for so it seemed needful that we should pass over fewer things following the judgments of Platonists, and other Gentile Philosophers when they did suggest an argument of writing to our purpose; therefore if any error have been committed, or any thing hath been spoken more freely, pardon my youth; for I wrote this being scarce a yong [young] man, that I may excuse my self, and say, "whilest I was a child, I spake as a childe, and I understood as a child, but being become a man, I retracted those things which I did being a boy, and in my book of the vanity and uncertainty of Sciences I did for the most part retract this book." But here haply you may blame me again, saying, "Behold thou being a youth didst write, and now being old hast retracted it; what therefore hast thou set forth?" I confess whilst I was very yong [young], I set upon the writing of these books, but, hoping that I should set them forth with corrections and enlargements, and for that cause I gave them to Tritemius [Trithemius] a Neapolitanian Abbot, formerly a Spanhemensian, a man very industrious after secret things. But it happened afterwards, that the work being intercepted, before I finished it, it was carryed about imperfect, and impolished, and did fly abroad in Italy, in France, in Germany through many mens hands, and some men, whether more impatiently, or imprudently, I know not, would have put it thus imperfect to the press, with which mischeif [mischief], I being affected, determined to set it forth my self, thinking that there might be less danger if these books came out of my hands with some amendments, thwn to come forth torn, and in fragments out of other mens hands. Moreover, I thought it no crime if I should not suffer the testimony of my youth to perish. Also we have added some Chapters, and we inserted many things, which did seem unfit to pass by, which the curious Reader shall be able to understand by the inequality of the very phrase; for we were unwilling to begin the work anew, and to unravell all that we had done, but to correct it, and put some flourish upon it. Wherefore now I pray thee, Curteous [courteous] Reader, again, weigh not these things according to the present time of setting them forth, but pardon my curious youth, if thou shalt findd any thing in them that may displease thee. (Agrippa to the Reader)

 

I confess that Magick it self teacheth many superfluous things, and curious prodigies for ostentation; leave them as empty things, yet be not ignorant of their causes.: This piece of advice is excellent. Agrippa is writing a very comprehensive work which deals with both theory and practice. Much of what he writes would be well known to the educated of his day, that is one of the interesting things about it, and the theory which he introduces is as good now as it was the day he wrote it, but the material which he uses to illustrate these principles, while consisting of quotes from some of the most authoritative sources available to him, read like nonsense today. This make the importance of paying attention to the underlying principles and understanding them and then viewing his exposition as possibly outlandish examples, but examples nonetheless, and understanding them as attempts to illustrate those principles, is a good guide to getting more out of these books than would otherwise be the case.

 

I will try to write more about this, but today I don't have much time to write, but thought I would go ahead and start this and see what response we can get.

 

 

Out of fairness to Joseph Peterson and his great site from which we will be quoting, I think the least we can do is promote one of his products, which will help support his site:

 

Esoteric Archives on CDrom

[rex]

Thank you for updating my years . So apparently it did come first. I still don't like the modern interpretation of the works being related to Agrippa.

 

Oh feel free to keep posting about important works which can be read prior to, or alongside Agrippa. All discussion is good I think. Though you may have to go with the cliffnotes version of your thesis .

 

Interesting would be your thoughts on which aspects of the two works/authors you mentioned, go well prior to Agrippa...

Someone's beaten me to that thesis (can't read Latin so was never really in for the running). Just read Eric Purdue's introduction to his translation of Book One where he mentions that V.Perrone Compagni brought out a Latin critical edition of The Three Books in 1992 which notes many of Agrippa's primary sources. Purdue notes that the Three Books are constructed from passages and paraphrases of other books, though of course Agrippa was no mere compiler. Some of these other books included Marcilio Ficino's Opera Omnia, Pico Dell Miradola's Apologia and Oratio. Other souces mentioned in Eric Purdue's introduction are Fransicus Georgius' De Harmonia Mundi, Ficino's Three Books of Life and Platonic Theology. The introduction also goes on to say that many citations of Plato in The Three Books are taken directly from Ficino or Georgius. So it looks as if checking out Ficino and Plato would also help with understanding Agrippa.

[Nungali]

 

Actually, I first chanced upon TTBs following a hit about 'Hermetic Forums . (Hence 'Mr I-am-liking-this-thread' smiley above. )

 

" Purdue notes that the Three Books are constructed from passages and paraphrases of other books, though of course Agrippa was no mere compiler. Some of these other books included ... "

 

This might be a way for me to become a bit clearer; at times during my sporadic and haphazard approach to Agrippa's Three Books, it seems quiet dated or 'what I expect' and at others I am surprised at a clearer sense ... of almost modernity at times. I put this down to Agrippa speaking or expressing his views on the matter, and the more dated or obscure stuff as the source material. I sorta got something like that in the Letter to the Reader . Now I am not clear exactly about this ... what were his words in the books and what were not. I thought thats what I get for being sporadic and haphazard . and a more thorough reading of the Books would make that clear ... maybe not considering the time and subject matter of the writing? That confusion (in my mind about different 'styles' in the Books) came to mind when Donald wrote this: " but the material which he uses to illustrate these principles, while consisting of quotes from some of the most authoritative sources available to him, read like nonsense today. This make the importance of paying attention to the underlying principles and understanding them and then viewing his exposition as possibly outlandish examples, but examples nonetheless, and understanding them as attempts to illustrate those principles, is a good guide to getting more out of these books than would otherwise be the case." Made me think the distinction between Agrippa's words and his sources would be obvious in the Books and it was my lack of focus. If " Purdue notes that the Three Books are constructed from passages and paraphrases of other books, though of course Agrippa was no mere compiler." Perhaps it may not have been that obvious after all?

 

I want / need a full comprehensive Hermetic education myself so all of the above is relevant. I guess in my case, it is a balance of revisiting that source material somewhat, but not loosing the original focus of , how I liked it outlined ; " This make the importance of paying attention to the underlying principles and understanding them and then viewing his exposition as possibly outlandish examples, but examples nonetheless, and understanding them as attempts to illustrate those principles, is a good guide to getting more out of these books than would otherwise be the case." ; that is (IMO) the 'exposition of underlying voice' that seems to have that specific 'spark' and 'modernity' that I felt in some parts of the Three Books - perhaps the 'essence' of Agrippa?

 

But yes, to understand the source and background is to understand Agrippa and his viewpoint further. (I probably need to read a full biography as well.)

[Zhongyongdaoist]

[Agrippa] To the Reader.

 

I do not doubt but the Title of our book of Occult Philosophy, or of Magick, may by the rarity of it allure many to read it, amongst which, some of a crasie [languid, feeble] judgement, and some that are perverse will come to hear what I can say, who, by their rash ignorance may take the name of Magick in the worse sense, and though scarce having seen the title, cry out that I teach forbidden Arts, sow the seed of Heresies, offend pious ears, and scandalize excellent wits; that I am a sorcerer, and superstitious and divellish [devilish], who indeed am a Magician: to whom I answer, that a Magician doth not amongst learned men signifie a sorcerer, or one that is superstitious or divellish [devilish]; but a wise man, a priest, a prophet; and that the Sybils were Magicianesses, & therefore prophecyed most cleerly of Christ; and that Magicians, as wise men, by the wonderful secrets of the world, knew Christ, the author of the world, to be born, and came first of all to worship him; and that the name of Magicke was received by Phylosophers [philosophers], commended by Divines, and not unacceptable to the Gospel. I believe that the supercilious censors will object against the Sybils, holy Magicians and the Gospel it self sooner then receive the name of Magick into favor; so conscientious are they, that neither Apollo, nor all the Muses, nor an Angel from Heaven can redeem me from their curse. (Agrippa to the Reader,)

 

I really wasn't quit done with 'To the Reader', but I am glad that people are taking an interest and have brought up Marsilio Ficino, anticipating Trithemius' advice, while you can find the 'vulgar secrets' here:

 

Wikipedia on Marsilio Ficino

 

you need to go here for the 'secret and higher':

 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Marsilio Ficino

 

In order to understand Agrippa and what he is trying to do, you need to understand Western Christianity as Agrippa did, in other words the Roman Catholic Church as it existed in 1500, not 1600, certainly not 1800 and definitely not 2000, no in 1500, the Roman Catholic Church was very different and that is why Agrippa thought that he could write a defense of Magic that would redeem it in the eyes of Western Europe, that is why I said:

 

Much of what he writes would be well known to the educated of his day, that is one of the interesting things about it. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

Because in 1500 the Roman Church was a Catholic church, a 'Universal' Church which unified both Pagan Philosophy and Hebrew Revelation, illuminated by the divine teaching of Christ and the New Covenant and the Doctrine and Ritual of the Church, or at least that is how it thought of itself. This is what the educated of Agrippa's time believed, this was not some esoteric doctrine, imported from afar, it was based on the Church Fathers from Justin Martyr on and affirmed by the Scholastics and reached its highest formulation in the thought of Marsilio Ficino. Talk about a beautiful mind, this man had it.

 

That is why Agrippa begins as he does, with the accusation that will be brought against him by the ignorant:

 

who, by their rash ignorance may take the name of Magick in the worse sense, and though scarce having seen the title, cry out that I teach forbidden Arts, sow the seed of Heresies, offend pious ears, and scandalize excellent wits; that I am a sorcerer, and superstitious and divellish [devilish]

 

by the way, I love the phrase 'scandalize excellent wits', but to continue, instead he answers:

 

that a Magician doth not amongst learned men signifie a sorcerer, or one that is superstitious or divellish [devilish]; but a wise man, a priest, a prophet; and that the Sybils were Magicianesses, & therefore prophecyed most cleerly of Christ; and that Magicians, as wise men, by the wonderful secrets of the world, knew Christ, the author of the world, to be born, and came first of all to worship him

 

and then in a phrase that was to prove prophetic continues:

 

the name of Magicke was received by Phylosophers [philosophers], commended by Divines, and not unacceptable to the Gospel. I believe that the supercilious censors will object against the Sybils, holy Magicians and the Gospel it self.

 

Because yes, the Protestant Reformation was to reject all of this, but the Gospel itself, but the Gospel itself, outside the context of 'Phylosophers', Divines, Sybils and Holy Magicians is a very different thing then the Gospel seen within that context and that is the Gospel that Agrippa knew and loved.

 

The rest as they say is history, but a history that is very necessary to understand in order to understand Agrippa.

 

Oh, I'm still not done with 'To the Reader' by the way, but more anon.

[Nungali]

Thanks, that helps to clear up my partial quandary that at times Agrippa was sucking up to the church (insurance policy ?) or that he was sincerely seeing it as a form of expression of - or at least had a place for - Hermetics. So good point about the church history and direction at that time ... more subsidiary reading for me ( I have been reading up again on those mentioned in posts above) thanks for the link on Stanford ... I have 'a taste' for Ficino and need to revisit him (I think he may have been instrumental to original ideas that now surface in Anthroposophical Bio-dynamic agriculture relating to certain 'cosmic influences.')

[rex]

Apparently Ficino attempted to engage and influence the Roman Catholic Church of the time with the Prisca Theologia.

 

This public access thesis may also be worth a look:

 

Prisca Theologia and Human Nature: A Study of Marsilo Ficino's Ontology of the Soul

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Apparently Ficino attempted to engage and influence the Roman Catholic Church of the time with the Prisca Theologia.

 

The problem with the Wikipedia article is that it seems to represent the Prisca Theologia as something which Ficino created, as oppossed to simply giving a name to an already well developed aspect of Roman Catholic thinking as it developed and matured. As I said the ideas begin as early as Justin Martyr:

 

Saint Justin Martyr on Christ and Socrates

 

From the Second Apology, by Saint Justin, Martyr (ca. A.D. 100 - 160):

 

Our doctrines, then, appear to be greater than all human teaching; because Christ, who appeared for our sakes, became the whole rational being, both body, and reason, and soul. For I whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. But since they did not know the whole of the Word, which is Christ, they often contradicted themselves. And those who by human birth were more ancient than Christ, when they attempted to consider and prove things by reason, were brought before the tribunals as impious persons and busybodies. And Socrates, who was more zealous in this direction than all of them, was accused of the very same crimes as ourselves. For they said that he was introducing new divinities, and did not consider those to be gods whom the state recognised. But he cast out from the state both Homer and the rest of the poets, and taught men to reject the wicked demons and those who did the things which the poets related; and he exhorted them to become acquainted with the God who was to them unknown, by means of the investigation of reason, saying, "That it is neither easy to find the Father and Maker of all, nor, having found Him, is it safe to declare Him to all." But these things our Christ did through His own power. For no one trusted in Socrates so as to die for this doctrine, but in Christ, who was partially known even by Socrates (for He was and is the Word who is in every man, and who foretold the things that were to come to pass both through the prophets and in His own person when He was made of like passions, and taught these things), not only philosophers and scholars believed, but also artisans and people entirely uneducated, despising both glory, and fear, and death; since He is a power of the ineffable Father, not the mere instrument of human reason.

 

Saint Justin was a Christian philosopher, who was executed by the Romans for refusing to sacrifice to their gods. His feast day is April 14th in the traditional calendar, and June 1st in the modern calendar.

 

"Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honor and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless." — First Apology. (Saint Justin Martyr on Christ and Socrates/url], Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I don't want to get into a long digression on the history behind the Prisca Theologica, it took me years of reading to understand both its roots in the Hellenistic period and it blossoms in the Renaissance. I am working on a bibliography of sorts, starting with:

 

This public access thesis may also be worth a look:

 

Prisca Theologia and Human Nature: A Study of Marsilo Ficino's Ontology of the Soul

 

Interestingly the thesis supervisor here is none other than Charles G. Nauert, the author of; Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought, University of Illinois Press, 1965; this book is still the academic authority on Agrippa's work and well worth the read for anyone who is interested. I have read it several times myself. As an example of the lameness of Tyson, even though he cites this book in his bibliography, there are notes that indicate that either he did not read it, or if he did, he did not understand it, nor retain much of its content.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

. . . the original texts written in the 2nd & 3rd centuries? But the translation is still over a century after Agrippa's work. However Ficino translated the Hermetica in 1471 though looking into the possible influences of this earlier translation with Agrippa is out of the scope of this thread and is probably more the domain of a research thesis.

 

The actual date of the composition of the texts is not as important for understanding both Ficino and Agrippa, as rather the wrong dating that existed from the late Hellenistic period until the Seventeenth Century:

 

 

3.1 The “ancient theology”

 

Ficino considered himself a Platonist, but a Platonist in a very specific mold: as part of a long tradition of which Plato was a key part but which needed interpreters to keep it going. This “ancient theology” included figures who, divinely inspired, advanced true philosophy. One of the key figures in this sequence was the ancient sage Hermes “Trismegistus” (“thrice great,” because he was considered the greatest king, philosopher, and priest). For Ficino, as for the late ancient Platonists he admired, Hermes was an ancient Egyptian, roughly contemporary with Moses. In the early seventeenth century, Isaac Casaubon would prove that the writings attributed to Hermes could not have been as ancient as they were believed to be (they are considered now to be products of late antiquity). Ficino described the ancient theology in this fashion in his Preface to his Latin translation of the Hermetic Corpus, discussing Hermes as first in this chain of sages (Ficino 1576, 1836, cit. and tr. in Copenhaver and Schmitt 1992, 147):

 

Among philosophers he first turned from physical and mathematical topics to contemplation of things divine, and he was the first to discuss with great wisdom the majesty of God, the order of demons, and the transformations of souls. Thus, he was called the first author of theology, and Orpheus followed him, taking second place in the ancient theology. After Aglaophemus, Pythagoras came next in theological succession, having been initiated into the rites of Orpheus, and he was followed by Philolaus, teacher of our divine Plato. In this way, from a wondrous line of six theologians emerged a single system of ancient theology, harmonious in every part.

After the year 1469, Ficino changed the order and placed Zoroaster first, linking him to the Magi who visited the infant Christ (Allen 1998, 1–49). Unphilosophical though such speculations might seem to modern readers, there are at least two ways in which Ficino's ancient theology manifested ties to what, in his era, could be considered part of philosophy. First, the model of “successions” (Latin “successiones”, Greek “diadochai”) would have been intuitively familiar to many thinkers. At its most emblematic in Diogenes Laertius's Lives of the Philosophers, the “succession” model posited the notion that a powerful initial figure, whose style of life and doctrines were considered exemplary, would have founded a “school” in which many others had followed. (The 1433 translation into Latin of Diogenes Laertius' Lives vaulted it onto Renaissance thinkers' desks; it had a significant predecessor in the Middle Ages in a series of Lives then attributed to Walter Burley, though see now Grignaschi). Second, and more powerfully, like medieval thinkers before him, Ficino saw “philosophy” and “theology” as linked domains, with philosophy as subordinate to theology (Marenbon 2000, esp. studies XII and XV). “Philosophers” could only be considered authentic lovers of wisdom if they graduated from disputatious word games, which Ficino thought were commonly taught as dialectic, to the source of ultimate truth. (The Ancient Theology, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

To Ficino and Agrippa, as well as such Church Fathers as Lactantius, the Hermetic writings were ancient writings, from around the time of Moses. Further they were writings that seemed to indicate doctrines that were 'prophetical' of Christianity, thus the importance of the Hermetica to the early Church. They could be used both to give Christian doctrine more respectability and for conversion purposes. They were used this way by both Lactantius and Augustine. In this regard Lactantius was more positive about the Hermetica than Augustine.

 

The whole issue is extremely complex, but again I don't want to get really caught up in explaining all of this, however, the upshot is that from antiquity to the Renaissance there was a scholarly, learned Roman Catholic tradition that was well disposed to Ancient Pagan Philosophy, it is this line which is represented by Ficino and Agrippa. It is this line, and it is not an insignificant one, to which Agrippa is appealing when he addresses himself 'to the learned'. It is this line which was represented by the two Medici Popes, Leo X and Clement VII, since the Medici's had been Ficino's patrons and between them controlled the Vatican for a lot of the early Sixteenth Century.

 

The dating of the Hermetica in the early Seventeenth Century was to prove disastrous to this learned tradition in the Church, basically relegating it to the historical basement as the Roman Church reeled under assaults on its 'pagan errors' and devilish magic from its Protestant critics.

 

As a curious side note to the above, Issac Casaubon, mentioned above for his dating of the Hermetica, was the Father of Meric Casaubon, who edited and published large portions of John Dee's diaries as the True and Faithful Relation, which was become part of the lore of Enochian Magic.

[rex]

The problem with the Wikipedia article is that it seems to represent the Prisca Theologia as something which Ficino created, as oppossed to simply giving a name to an already well developed aspect of Roman Catholic thinking as it developed and matured.

To Ficino and Agrippa, as well as such Church Fathers as Lactantius, the Hermetic writings were ancient writings, from around the time of Moses. Further they were writings that seemed to indicate doctrines that were 'prophetical' of Christianity, thus the importance of the Hermetica to the early Church.

It seems that affairs were a good deal more nuanced than a cursory look back through modern eyes would suggest. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

Interestingly the thesis supervisor here is none other than Charles G. Nauert, the author of; Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought, University of Illinois Press, 1965;

As a curious side note to the above, Issac Casaubon, mentioned above for his dating of the Hermetica, was the Father of Meric Casaubon, who edited and published large portions of John Dee's diaries as the True and Faithful Relation, which was become part of the lore of Enochian Magic.

Another reference - thanks! When connections like these are shown I'm always suprised at how small and interconnected certain fields of interest and disciplines are. Now I gather that Meric Casaubon wasn't at all complementary about Dee and Kelley's work but clearly this didn't stop the diaries from exerting their foundational influence. I wonder if this position was a bluff to protect the diaries?

The actual date of the composition of the texts is not as important for understanding both Ficino and Agrippa

All that's required is establishing that they were antecedent to these philosophers and formed part of a body of knowledge that they would have drawn upon.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Now I gather that Meric Casaubon wasn't at all complementary about Dee and Kelley's work but clearly this didn't stop the diaries from exerting their foundational influence. I wonder if this position was a bluff to protect the diaries?

 

I wonder if this position was a bluff to protect the diaries?: This is a common way of thinking about such things, even Agrippa's Vanity of Arts and Sciences is viewed by occultists as a screen for publishing his Occult Philosophy, but when examined in detail these ideas don't work.

 

I hope to examine the case of Agrippa in more detail in this thread, but regarding Casaubon, he was a Seventeenth Century ancestor of the modern Bible humping, oh, excuse me, I accidentally left out the 't', Bible thumping fundamentalist. The people who ignored his critical introduction, such as Elias Ashmole, of 'what a sober Christian' can make of Dee's experiences with spirits are the distant ancestors of the founders of the Golden Dawn. Roiling around all of this was 'Protestant Illuminism', a movement that makes as little sense now as the idea of the Hermetica being important to the Early Christian Church, but its manifestations, Rosicrucianism, Speculative Masonry, etc. are part and parcel of modern occultism.

 

For a profound and informative look into Seventeenth century England, I recommend the book from which I quote in my signature:

 

Ernst Cassirer's The Platonic Renaissance in England, a much neglected book of Wisdom.

 

Regrettably long out of print.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I think that this matter of the learned tradition in Christianity needs one more post and I hope that will do.

But first a little note. One of the things that interested me and which I gave some study to in the 1970s and 80s was 'why would an educated Pagan convert to Christianity?' Obviously they did and they did so in numbers that eventually gave Christianity enough respectability and intelligent advocacy to convert an Empire. What I found was an interesting combination of intellectual fashions and profound misunderstandings, combined with some interesting thinking, and while I may admire some of it, I cannot accept as ultimately convincing, but that is because I live in another age and one in which those profound misunderstandings have been revealed and other influences have combined with them to completely undermine the whole basis of the 'Abrahamic' religions, but that was not the case 2,000 years ago and the situation was not much changed 500 years ago when Agrippa was alive.

The primary trends were developments in the philosophical tradition that tended to favor monotheism and, one of those misunderstandings, the notion that Judaism represented a survival of the 'Ancient, true, monotheistic Religion' of which the Greek and Egyptian religions were only decadent descendants. This was an idea particularly promoted by Posidonius, but also his teacher Panaetius, as I recall, advocated it. Here for example is a discussion about Posidonius position:

Bar-Kochva devotes special attention to Posidonius, offering a meticulous study of the man and his writings before approaching his views on the Jews (pp. 338–54). . . . Posidonius’ views on the Jews are then appreciated against the background of his philosophy. Bar-Kochva shows how he uses the society established by Moses as an example of the Stoic utopian state, which is thus said to have been historically implemented (pp. 362–70). Bar-Kochva explains that this positive attitude of Posidonius must be understood both in view of the general Stoic appreciation of Jewish monotheism as well as the author’s upbringing in Apamea, where the relations between the Jews and their neighbors are known to have been good. (Review of: The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period, by Bezalel Bar-Kochva. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010, Emphaisi mine, ZYD)

Now Posidonius was considered the most learned man of his time, you can read about him here:

Wikipedia on Posidonius

and his influence was incalculable.

This misunderstanding about Judaism was to create a very real fashion among the educated to embrace Judaism and lead to the movement of Gentile 'God Fearers'.

Another important contribution was a very real attempt on the part of some Jews to co-opt Greek Philosophy. An early example of which was Aritobolus of Paneas:

Aristobulus of Paneas (Greek: Ἀριστόβουλος; c. 160 BC) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of the Peripatetic school, though he also used Platonic and Pythagorean concepts. Like his successor, Philo, he attempted to fuse ideas in the Hebrew Scriptures with those in Greek thought.
. . .
Aristobulus was among many philosophers of his day who argued that the essentials of Greek philosophy and metaphysics were derived from Jewish sources. Philosopher Numenius of Apamea echoes this position in his well known statement "What is Plato but Moses speaking Attic Greek?" (1.150.4) Aristobulus maintained, 150 years earlier than Philo, that not only the oldest Grecian poets, Homer, Hesod, Orpheus, etc., but also the most celebrated Greek thinkers, especially Plato, had acquired most of their wisdom from Jewish sages and ancient Hebrew texts (Wikipedia on Aristobulus_of_Paneas, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

The most ambitious of these was Philo of Alexandria, sometimes called Philo Judaeus:

Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων, Philōn; c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE), also called Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, during the Roman Empire. (Wikipedia on Philo of Alexandria)

He created a whole interpretation of the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses', which are the core of the old testament and constitute the Torah, in Platonic terms, which completely precluded the type of Biblical literalism which is the basis of modern Christian fundamentalism:

Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for several Christian Church Fathers, but he has barely any reception history within Judaism. He believed that literal interpretations of the Hebrew Bible would stifle humanity's view and perception of a God too complex and marvelous to be understood in literal human terms. (Wikipedia on Philo of Alexandria, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

It is generally considered that while Philo was the most prolific and influential of the Jewish 'Hellenizers”, he represented an influential way of thinking at the time. Philo was writing at the time of Jesus, the Apostles and Paul, it is quit possible that these people were influenced by this type of thinking.

Important parts of Catholic thinking were influenced by the Philosophical tradition, take Purgatory for example, as any fundamentalist will point out 'Where is Purgartory in the Bible?'. Well its not, but the basic Idea is in Plato's Gorgias.

To return to Justin Martyr:

Our doctrines, then, appear to be greater than all human teaching; because Christ, who appeared for our sakes, became the whole rational being, both body, and reason, and soul. For I whatever either lawgivers or philosophers uttered well, they elaborated by finding and contemplating some part of the Word. (Saint Justin Martyr on Christ and Socrates, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

This single quote establishes at the beginning of the patristic period the whole basis for what I was saying here:

Because in 1500 the Roman Church was a Catholic church, a 'Universal' Church which unified both Pagan Philosophy and Hebrew Revelation, illuminated by the divine teaching of Christ . . .

because the following establishes the idea that the truth of the 'Word' was established in all men:

Chapter 8. All have been hated in whom the Word has dwelt

And those of the Stoic school— since, so far as their moral teaching went, they were admirable, as were also the poets in some particulars, on account of the seed of reason implanted in every race of men. (Justin Martyr, the Second Apology on New Advent, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

and focuses it within the context of Johannine Christology:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. John 1:14

And this would make the study of those ancients who contemplated and studied even a part of that word a part of the pre-history of Christianity as conceived of by the Roman Catholic Church in the period in which Agrippa lived.

So this series of posts is in outline is why I wrote that:

Agrippa thought that he could write a defense of Magic that would redeem it in the eyes of Western Europe . . .

Which is important to understanding the relationship between his two major works, his Occult Philosophy and his On the Vanity and Uncertainty of Arts and Sciences. Which brings us back to 'Agrippa to the Reader' and will be my next post here.

[Nungali]

Thanks again, I have only just caught up with posted text here ( I have been doing some 'side-reading' and following up on some links - and having to go off into some basic definitions as well ... but its raining today, more time for reading).

 

The description of the earlier church reminds me, in a way, of the religious concept of 'progressive revelation' but incorporating the 'pagan' traditions ... going back (as progressive revelation does) to / through Zoroastrian sources (which I think have links aside from the Three Wise Men story) ... I just thought of another 3 subjects to look up

 

I'm relying on this thread to 'keep the thread' for me, as I'm wont to get lost in a chaos of background knowledge I need to accrue or adjust . Its good though

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Well, I hope I haven't bored anyone with this long digression into Christian thinking circa 1500, but I assure you that it was necessary. The reason why it was necessary is because there are three great intellectual 'schisms' that divide us at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century and the third millennium and the beginning of the Sixteenth Century and the Middle of the last millennium. By 1900 they were all in place and strongly influence the development of 'Occultism and Spiritual Paths' (The reference is to an interesting book by Mouni Sadhu) in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. These are the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the 'Scientific Revolution' and what has been called the 'Romantic' revolution.

 

I have made this long digression to give insight into one of these, the Reformation and its aftermath. Now you can say, as many reading here might, that, 'I'm not a Christian, what does this have to do with me?' Well it does, unless you grew up in a some part of the world untouched by 'Western Civilization', which is almost no where at this time, you grew up exposed to and reacting to and accepting or rejecting a 'set', which I mean in a mathematical/logical sense, of cultural memes and in general these cultural memes vary a bit between countries that have been or are predominantly Catholic or Protestant. Catholic and Protestant attitudes influenced the direction of the Scientific Revolution and determined the forms which Romanticism was to take. They were to determine what chapters of Aprippa's Three Books Barrett included in The Magus and which he left out, and they also determine why the relation between Agrippa's two major works, On Occult Philosophy and On the Vanity and Uncertainty of Arts and Sciences could even be somewhat confusing to someone otherwise so informative as Charles Nauert and all of this I hope to be able to elucidate by such digressions as this as this thread continues.

 

But first, I need to digress in the digression into historical method and I will start by quoting from one of my favorite books on the Scientific Revolution, The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800, by Herbet Butterfield, because it not only provides insight into some of the problems of history, but also an interesting root metaphor that can be the most valuable idea I share with you:

Of all forms of mental activity, the most difficult to induce even in the minds of the young, who may be presumed not to have lost their flexibility, is the art of handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework, all of which virtually means putting on a different kind of thinking-cap for the moment. (The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800 on Scribd, p. 1, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

putting on a different kind of thinking-cap: This root metaphor and the psychological technique that is implied by it is probably the most important thing that I learned from this book. Granted I was already thinking in terms that made this passage make perfect sense to me, bringing together under the image of a thinking-cap all that I had thought about modeling, etc. was a profound idea, that in some ways presages everything I was later to learn about in studying NLP. To understand Agrippa, you need to think like Agrippa and put on the thinking cap of a believing Roman Catholic of the learned tradition circa 1500. This doesn't mean that you need to keep it on, as a matter of fact you need to learn to put on and take off a series of Thinking-caps and learn to create meta Thinking-caps that allow you to rise to a greater understanding than either of the lesser ones allows you to achieve.

 

So, do yourself a favor, read at least the first chapter of this book, if you read all of the book, you will be better able to understand the Scientific Revolution and be better understand the underlying principles of Agrippa's worldview. You'll thank me for this recommendation, really you will.

 

Finally, I will note for all of you who may consider this to be nothing but an exercise in 'intellectualism' for its own sake. Nothing could be further from the truth. Granted I enjoyed all this research, but mostly because I love solving problems and creating maximizing strategies. The motive for all the historical research which I undertook was to answer questions that came up within the context of my practice and ultimately they have profound practical consequences for how I think about and practice magic. I hope that by reading this thread my research will enlarge and enhance the thinking and practice of all who read it.

 

 

 

Edit: While referencing this I noticed that I had misspelled Barrett, corrected it from Barratt.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Nungali]

Thanks again. Far from bored! Essential background outlines .

 

Yes ... 'thinking caps' ... I think studying anthropology helps there as well, like history it gives one an insight into variant 'mind sets' and belief systems as just that ... belief systems ... or perhaps 'categorizing or analogical systems' ... without an education one can assume that one's belief system (or cap, view, etc) is the system or view of reality and the others are at fault .

 

I have noted that few times there seem to be 'nodes' of thought or philosophy arise through recent history that seem 'against' the Platonic view ... I probably need to get that all in context and proper time line and understand it more ... so the book ref above seems what I need.

 

< ... just bought it ... Stacks another book on the teetering column in the in tray>

Edited May 17, 2014 by Nungali

[manitou]

This is going to be a wonderful project, this thread.

 

In just reading the little bit of Ficino that ZYD referenced, the following essences jumped out at me. I'm not real familiar with these philosophers, so this is no doubt old news to everyone else. But here's what I saw:

 

 

Ficino sees Platonic Wisdom as True Christianity. I have often felt the same way about Plato. His words certainly reflect more of the loving intent of the master Jesus than any modern-day interpretation that I see.

 

Ficino didn't consider someone a friend unless they had 'joined literary learning with uprightness of character'. This is the crux of the matter, IMO. If we're not walking our talk, we're just talking out our butt, pardon the expression. It takes the 'chemical' merger of the refined personality with the intellectual understanding. The personality doesn't 'refine' on its own. This we must do on our own.

 

There is further mention of 'potentially idolatrous 'statue animation". Wow. if we are One, part of the All, then is it not possible to use our Awareness to infuse an object with a capability or intent?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

There is further mention of 'potentially idolatrous 'statue animation". Wow. if we are One, part of the All, then is it not possible to use our Awareness to infuse an object with a capability or intent? (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Thanks for your interest 'manitou'. The keywords here are 'potentially idolatrous' and the ultimate reference is to St. Augustine and part of his discussion of the Hermetic Asclepius, small sections of which discuss the ancient practices of the animation, literally ensoulment, of statues of the pagan gods with 'angels' or 'daimons' (not to be confused with demons) as part of ancient pagan theurgy. This is what an earlier part of the article is referring to here:

 

2.1 The Platonic Theology

Proclus's style of philosophizing, like much pagan later Platonism largely unknown to Ficino's medieval predecessors, shared deep family resemblances with Christianity. Among these aspects one can include: the efficacy of theurgic rituals, which had their Christian analogy in sacraments (see Celenza 2001); and a “monotheism” that respected the necessity of having one supreme being (for later Platonists, “the One,” for Christians, “God”) but that permitted its practitioners to access the divine directly, for pagans, through worship of various gods; for Christians, through the cult of the saints (see Athanassiadi and Frede 1999, 1–20). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Marsilio Ficino, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

You are concerned about this section here:

 

2.4 The 1480s and 1490s

Of the three books of De vita, the third proved most controversial, dealing as it did in places with seemingly heretical themes, including potentially idolatrous “statue animation”, which is to say the possibility of drawing down celestial forces into inanimate objects, thus rendering them animate. For Ficino, the ritualized activation of occult properties (“signed” images and “sympathies”) represented a legitimate part of natural philosophy . . . Yet Ficino came close enough to theological unacceptability that the publication of Three Books on Life signaled the only time, seemingly, that his work drew negative attention from Church authorities. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Marsilio Ficino, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Exactly who these 'Church authorities' is not clear from the quote but it is probably the inquisition, which was run by monks, not necessarily the most learned class of people in the Church. This is the class of 'ignorant' people who would condemn magic to whom Agrippa refers in his letter to the reader. The fact that Ficino did in point of fact receive support from the Papal Court indicates the different perspective of the higher levels of the Church from the lower levels. One need only compare Savanarola to Ficino to get some idea of the difference. It is from this ignorant class of monks that the reformer Luther was to come.

 

For the learned, whose broader perspective lead them to see the ancient pagan religions in a different light, there was no ignorant terror of pagan statues, only a manifestation of divine being that had been appropriate for a certain people at a certain time and which could be remembered and honored in a certain way, the correct way being called doulia, which was a type of reverence used for the saints in regular Christian practice and was acceptable as long as one reserved for 'God', in the sense which they understood, another type of worship called latria, and kept the distinction clearly both in mind and practice. Here from The Catholic Encyclopedia online:

 

(Greek doulia; Latin servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (City of God X.2) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the "discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP. (New Advent, The Catholic Encyclopedia online, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Note that doulia even includes inanimate objects, such as images and relics. Ficino had been relatively conservative in the practices which he recommend, the bold genius of Agrippa was to see the larger implications and to extend them to the whole field of magic. This was the whole basis of his defense of magic.

 

No doubt some poor monk will read this and quip, 'Even the Devil can quote The Catholic Encyclopedia.'

 

This is going to be a wonderful project, this thread.

 

Also, thanks to BaquaKicksAss for starting this thread.

 

 

 

Edit: Added ending "'" to the monk's quip above.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Nungali]

Proclus ... I keep running into him ... he seems to have supplied that 'extra bit' - the more radical emphasis at times .... I have resisted the 'diversion' so far but .... < puts another stack of books on the intray>.

 

... perhaps its time to read some of his writings. I have to get a better handle on this 'soul produced by intellect' concept ( ... and 'intellect' .... and 'soul' )

 

I see the generally idea that is being outlined about Ficino ... I had thought he was relativly tame (accepted in the church, at that time, except for this 'radical' 'statue animation' idea. It seems to be outlined and presented as a variation or development of an older 'standard' belief ? For some reason, I thought it related directly to the bringing the influence of a star into a statue ... specific stars and not general celestial or angelic influences. I have been reading about Ficino and some of the others mentioned.

 

You were right Donald ... Butterfields History of Science is well worth the read and supplies a good contextual background .

 

I hope I can eventually get to re reading Agrippa (with this new background info) before the year is out .

 

Maybe I should call it 'A year of getting ready for Agrippa

Edited May 24, 2014 by Nungali

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Proclus ... I keep running into him ... he seems to have supplied that 'extra bit' - the more radical emphasis at times .... I have resisted the 'diversion' so far but .... < puts another stack of books on the intray>.

 

Proclus is an extremely interesting thinker, but he makes more sense within a thorough understanding of Plato, after all they don't call it Neo-Platonism for nothing, they just call it Neo-Platonism for bad reasons. It would be better called late-Platonism to emphasis the continuity with Plato. Neo-Platonism was introduced as a pejorative term indicating that these thinkers had somehow or other missed the point and gone wildly astray. They are better off viewed as rounding out and expounding matters which Plato didn't address as fully as his later readers might have wished.

 

You were right Donald ... Butterfields History of Science is well worth the read and supplies a good contextual background

 

I'm glad you enjoyed Butterfield, he remains a sentimental favorite of sorts, and would be if for no other reason than his 'thinking-cap' metaphor, but he is also a good author, clear, eminently readable and insightful.

 

I have to get a better handle on this 'soul produced by intellect' concept ( ... and 'intellect' .... and 'soul' )

 

It might be helpful for you, and anyone else who is familiar with modern Western Occultism, to think of Plotinus One, Mind (nous, intellect), Soul and Matter as the middle pillar of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, with Kether as the One, Tiphereth as Mind, Yesod as Soul and Malkuth as Matter. In this case Matter must not be confused with the modern concept of matter, but is hyle, primary substance devoid of all characteristics, the receiver of the forms. Yesod has on one side a realm of images, Hod which provide an environment in space and time, Netzach is the realm of forms in the Aristotelian sense, Tiphereth is the 'Cosmic Mind' which controls and directs form and image to maintain the image of the living cosmos and uses the dividing power of Geburah and the Unifying power of Chesed, to organize the further manifestation of being as the 'Changing image of Eternity'. In this Tiphereth is guided by the Wisdom of Chochmah and the Understanding of Binah. Above is the The One, the Root and Crown of all existence.

 

I hope that is useful.

 

I hope I can eventually get to re reading Agrippa (with this new background info) before the year is out .

 

Maybe I should call it 'A year of getting ready for Agrippa

 

It took me about a decade from first reading Agrippa's First Book in the summer of 1972 to finally get to a point where I thought, 'Hey, this really does work out nicely, doesn't it?'. In that summer I read the First Book three times, and understood very little. In the meantime I had to let go of all that I thought I knew and investigate a much wider and satisfying view of what is probably 'reality', if not it is certainly one of the most fruitful and interesting models of reality that I have ever come across, and I have looked at quit a few, many of which could be viewed as subsets within this larger view. I hope that it doesn't take you or anyone else nearly that long.

[manitou]

... perhaps its time to read some of his writings. I have to get a better handle on this 'soul produced by intellect' concept ( ... and 'intellect' .... and 'soul' )

 

I haven't a clue, never read him. But how different can it be from the concept that we speak of here all the time - that there are two types of knowledge - that which is attained through education, and that which is experiential. In order to make the connection between the two lineages requires temperance of ego and much inner work; getting down to the real deal.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

. . . in my book of the vanity and uncertainty of Sciences I did for the most part retract this book(Agrippa to the Reader, First bold in the original, second is my own, ZYD.)

 

for the most part retract this book: He doesn't say that he retracted all of it, nor does he say why he retracted any of it, we are left to figure out what parts he would still endorse, and which parts he would retract and why. This means that we must seriously look at his book On the Vanity and Uncertainty of Arts and Sciences.

 

It is one of those amusing ironies that Agrippa should write both the books that would inspire generations of magicians and mystics and also skeptics and unwittingly contribute to the Scientific Revolution by calling all of the knowledge of the era into question. This is why Charles Nauert would title his book Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought, Agrippa contributed significantly to it. Now we need to look at both of these works within the context of their times and the aims that Agrippa may have had for them, not those that we think he should have. That is why we need to look at two words in Agrippa's Vanity and Uncertainty of Arts and Sciences carefully and these words are vanity and uncertainty, but first I need to make clear that this is based on my memory of reading and studying Catherine M. Dunn's version of, Of the Vanitie and Vncertaintie of Artes and Sciences, Northridge, CA: California State University Foundation, 1974, back in the period around 1977 and 78. I paid particular attention to the exact criticism of the various types of knowledge as well as the occasional point where Agrippa has key distinctions which are the real motives behind everything else going on. I haven't reviewed this in decades and we are at the mercy of my prodigious, but now overstuffed memory. One of the conclusions to which I came was that of our two key terms one was relatively trivial and the other very important. Now the trivial one is 'uncertainty', which in this case almost comes down to unreliability and in some cases undecidabilty, in other words on a purely practical level some thing either just didn't work, or if it did, it did so unpredictably. Other examples were differences in measurements, like one authorities measure of the procession of the equinox, which was known at the time, as the motion of the eighth sphere. These are the types of things that in many ways are capable of improvement through experiment and observation and rethinking of problems, it was addressing these types of things that was to be the impetus of the Scientific Revolution.

 

Since Agrippa characterizes some of the things in his books of Occult Philosophy as being:

 

. . . for the profit of man, for the turning away of evil events, for the destroying of sorceries, for the curing of diseases, for the exterminating of phantasmes, for the preserving of life, honor, or fortune, may be done without offense to God, or injury to Religion, because they are, as profitable, so necessary. (Agrippa to the Reader,Emphasis mine, ZYD.)

 

If they are profitable, they are practical which means they are more or less reliable, and certainly reliable enough that they can be 'profitable', so that at least to a certain extent Agrippa is affirming that magical arts are not 'uncertain', at least not uncertain enough to be completely forgone, but then that leaves the notion that they are vain, or at least potentially vain.

 

Now vain and vanity are often used in informal ways, like that is a vain pursuit, meaning that it is a waste of time, or so and so is vain meaning that they are overly proud, but in classical philosophy it has a more restricted meaning and is used in regard to a particular philosophical goal and to use it in a way that combines a well known adage with one of the ways that vain is used, we can say, 'it is vain to try to buy happiness with money'. Yes, in classical philosophy happiness is not only an acceptable goal it is the goal, and from this perspective anything that does not ultimately contribute to happiness is a vain pursuit. Now happiness, what the Greeks called eudaimonia , is a little more complex then just being, as the saying goes, 'fat, dumb and happy,' but rather, to put things in their proper order 'wise, healthy and wealthy'. Literally it means 'good spirits', but 'human flourishing' has been suggested as giving a deeper insight, that it is more than just a transient mood, but something that arises from and is sustained by a whole lifestyle and living this lifestyle was the goal of philosophy.

 

There is also a tradition in Christianity of criticizing knowledge which goes back to Ecclesiastes 1, so to a certain extent Agrippa is combining these two in his Vanity of Arts and Sciences, but entering into this would be another long digression and the most important point has been made.

 

So how does this relate to magic and its possible vanity? Well lets rephrase our earlier adage and say that, 'it is vain to try to seize happiness with power', for that is what magic is, it is power and power can be just as much a source of misery as of happiness, just as money can be, so it is in this sense that magic can be a vain pursuit, because if it is guided by folly, then just as a 'fool and his money' are soon parted, so magic that is not pursued with Wisdom in mind, will be the source of unhappiness to oneself and to others. So to go back to again to another earlier rephrasing, the student of magic should strive to be 'wise, healthy, powerful and wealthy', for as Agrippa would certainly agree, none of these things in themselves constitute an 'offense to God, or injury to Religion'. It is in this sense which Agrippa has hinted at when he says, ' I confess that Magick it self teacheth many superfluous things, and curious prodigies for ostentation; leave them as empty things', for empty things are vain things. So now, I think that we can look at what I consider the final piece of advice that can be gathered from this 'Letter to the Reader':

 

But you that come without prejudice to read it, if you have so much discretion of prudence, as Bees have in gathering honey, read securely, and believe that you shall receive no little profit, and much pleasure . . . ,(Agrippa to the Reader,Emphasis mine, ZYD.)

 

So the main thing is to read Agirppa with an open mind and follow the advice that I first gave when I started this:

 

I confess that Magick it self teacheth many superfluous things, and curious prodigies for ostentation; leave them as empty things, yet be not ignorant of their causes.: This piece of advice is excellent. Agrippa is writing a very comprehensive work which deals with both theory and practice. Much of what he writes would be well known to the educated of his day, that is one of the interesting things about it, and the theory which he introduces is as good now as it was the day he wrote it, but the material which he uses to illustrate these principles, while consisting of quotes from some of the most authoritative sources available to him, read like nonsense today. This make the importance of paying attention to the underlying principles and understanding them and then viewing his exposition as possibly outlandish examples, but examples nonetheless, and understanding them as attempts to illustrate those principles, is a good guide to getting more out of these books than would otherwise be the case. (First bold in original, others added, ZYD)

 

and so ends my long winded, but I hope useful, exposition of Agrippa's 'Letter to the Reader'. There is more that I could say about almost every issue, but I have raised the necessary points and provided an orientation to them. It may be necessary to return to some of these themes later, but basically, 'That's all Folks!'

 

[Nungali]

 

Proclus is an extremely interesting thinker, but he makes more sense within a thorough understanding of Plato, after all they don't call it Neo-Platonism for nothing, they just call it Neo-Platonism for bad reasons. It would be better called late-Platonism to emphasis the continuity with Plato. Neo-Platonism was introduced as a pejorative term indicating that these thinkers had somehow or other missed the point and gone wildly astray. They are better off viewed as rounding out and expounding matters which Plato didn't address as fully as his later readers might have wished.

 

<puts more of Plato's writings on top of Proculus' in the 'in' tray >

 

I'm glad you enjoyed Butterfield, he remains a sentimental favorite of sorts, and would be if for no other reason than his 'thinking-cap' metaphor, but he is also a good author, clear, eminently readable and insightful.

 

Still enjoying ... he , for some reason, seems extra understandable, I like that in a potentially difficult (for me) subject.

 

It might be helpful for you, and anyone else who is familiar with modern Western Occultism, to think of Plotinus One, Mind (nous, intellect), Soul and Matter as the middle pillar of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, with Kether as the One, Tiphereth as Mind, Yesod as Soul and Malkuth as Matter. In this case Matter must not be confused with the modern concept of matter, but is hyle, primary substance devoid of all characteristics, the receiver of the forms. Yesod has on one side a realm of images, Hod which provide an environment in space and time, Netzach is the realm of forms in the Aristotelian sense, Tiphereth is the 'Cosmic Mind' which controls and directs form and image to maintain the image of the living cosmos and uses the dividing power of Geburah and the Unifying power of Chesed, to organize the further manifestation of being as the 'Changing image of Eternity'. In this Tiphereth is guided by the Wisdom of Chochmah and the Understanding of Binah. Above is the The One, the Root and Crown of all existence.

 

I hope that is useful.

 

very useful ! Thankyou. (and probably more so after I read it a few times and meditate on it I also find it useful for me to not try to understand it as mind (in the modern sense) but as Nous and not matter (as you say) but Hyle. (A problem I had to get over in my studies ... comparing concepts with modern ones I had like 'mind' ... while at the same time I had undeveloped ideas of my own about 'mind' that seemed closer to Nous.

 

The same with the concept of fire in the elements ... after reading some Butterfield, I realise I wasnt that wrong! Its just my preliminary concepts of what that means now and what I thought it meant in the past were at odds... but that is maybe getting too far off topic.

 

It took me about a decade from first reading Agrippa's First Book in the summer of 1972 to finally get to a point where I thought, 'Hey, this really does work out nicely, doesn't it?'. In that summer I read the First Book three times, and understood very little. In the meantime I had to let go of all that I thought I knew and investigate a much wider and satisfying view of what is probably 'reality', if not it is certainly one of the most fruitful and interesting models of reality that I have ever come across, and I have looked at quit a few, many of which could be viewed as subsets within this larger view. I hope that it doesn't take you or anyone else nearly that long.

 

Seeings as I need vastly more comprehensions of Plato ... to get proculus, to get into the influence that I like in Ficino (and perhaps Mirandola ? ) to comprehend Agrippa better ... to start another and more comprehensive reading .....

 

But, thats what I said I was going to do when I retired ... so I better get 'back to work '

[Nungali]

I'm glad you enjoyed Butterfield, he remains a sentimental favorite of sorts, and would be if for no other reason than his 'thinking-cap' metaphor, but he is also a good author, clear, eminently readable and insightful.

 

That bit got my attention too ! I thought to include my notes on it (for some reason .... however confused or mixed up they may be)

 

“It will concern us particularly to take note of those cases in which men not only solved a problem but had to alter their mentality in the process, or at least discovered afterwards that the solution involved a change in their mental approach.” ....

 

“ ... it is remarkable to what an extent even Galileo discusses the ordinary phenomena of everyday life ... a manner that had long been customary. In fact, we shall find that in both celestial and terrestrial physics which hold the strategic place in the whole movement change is brought about, not by new observations or additional evidence in the first instance, but by transpositions that were taking place inside the minds of the scientists themselves. “

 

“In this connection it is not irrelevant to note that, of all forms of mental activity, the most difficult to induce even in the minds of the young, who may be presumed not to have lost their flexibility, is the art of handling the same bundle of data as before, but placing them in a new system of relations with one another by giving them a different framework, all of which virtually means putting on a different kind of thinking-cap for the moment.” [my emphasis]

 

~ as in the ‘Sufi’ 7 ways of seeing things; planetary, or via ToL, 4x elemental, etc. ‘maps of consciousness’ / maps of ‘reality’ that ‘information’ can be viewed against as a template or to see ‘new’ arrangements and flows between the elements.

 

 

 

It might be helpful for you, and anyone else who is familiar with modern Western Occultism, to think of Plotinus One, Mind (nous, intellect), Soul and Matter as the middle pillar of the Qabalistic Tree of Life, with Kether as the One, Tiphereth as Mind, Yesod as Soul and Malkuth as Matter. In this case Matter must not be confused with the modern concept of matter, but is hyle, primary substance devoid of all characteristics, the receiver of the forms. Yesod has on one side a realm of images, Hod which provide an environment in space and time, Netzach is the realm of forms in the Aristotelian sense, Tiphereth is the 'Cosmic Mind' which controls and directs form and image to maintain the image of the living cosmos and uses the dividing power of Geburah and the Unifying power of Chesed, to organize the further manifestation of being as the 'Changing image of Eternity'. In this Tiphereth is guided by the Wisdom of Chochmah and the Understanding of Binah. Above is the The One, the Root and Crown of all existence.

 

I hope that is useful.

 

I should have added ; and research and understand the concept of 'soul' (aside from its modern 'pop' definitions) ... which I have been doing a bit of over the last year. Reading the above suggests soul has Hod as the image of space / time 'enactments' (which makes sense when I think about that more - considering this is about 'late Platonism' ( ) and a modern trend seems to relate Hod to intellect and science and NOT the soul as such ... in my own system { a type of astro-psychological 'Tree'} Mercury crowns and regulates (hopefully) a Venus / Mars in a triangular relationship surrounding the Moon) and Netzach being the the other side of Yesod (? - I wasn't too clear about that from the wording ? ) being a repository of form from which Yesod draws ? Hmmm ... slightly different - but this is to understand Proculus better (and the 'Neo-platonists' ) ... not my system.

[Nungali]

Yes, in classical philosophy happiness is not only an acceptable goal it is the goal, and from this perspective anything that does not ultimately contribute to happiness is a vain pursuit. Now happiness, what the Greeks called eudaimonia , is a little more complex then just being, as the saying goes, 'fat, dumb and happy,' but rather, to put things in their proper order 'wise, healthy and wealthy'. Literally it means 'good spirits', but 'human flourishing' has been suggested as giving a deeper insight, that it is more than just a transient mood, but something that arises from and is sustained by a whole lifestyle and living this lifestyle was the goal of philosophy.

 

 

Thanks for that snippet too. It has resolved a problem I have had ... happiness

 

I can truly say I have found an inner contentment and happiness ... that many do not understand, I have been abused about that, called callous or a liar. That I might even be evil somehow, feeling happiness while so many bad things are happening in the world. I have countered this by outlining my contribution ( working with helping to alleviate suffering, in a hospital as a volunteer in refugee relocation and integration, etc .... and communicated that I noted that many sick or displaced people - (some victims of torture - that I had to personally deal with) have a better demeanour and inner happiness than the spoilt white westerner I was currently arguing with ! And sure I suffer and have a painful disability and I DO bitch about trivialities but I am .... happy ... inner happy ... I've been lying on the road creamed, from a motorcycle accident, around a blind corner,unable to move, knowing if a car comes... thats it! And looked up to the distant mountains and clear blue sky and thought 'Oh well, its been a good life ... this is a nice place to die ... a good view' ... if thats not REAL happiness ... to find joy every morning you wake up, just because you are alive ... thats real happiness IMO ( I might be a bit fat but I dont think I am stupid ) - I think I am on my 5th 'about to die' ... 'have a few months to live' ... 'wont last long' pffft! - maybe its my 'happiness' thanks and appreciation that keeps me going .

 

Sorry if I am rambling ... but that struck a chord for me.

 

So thanks again ... off to look up more about Eudaimonia

Edited May 26, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

I haven't a clue, never read him. But how different can it be from the concept that we speak of here all the time - that there are two types of knowledge - that which is attained through education, and that which is experiential. In order to make the connection between the two lineages requires temperance of ego and much inner work; getting down to the real deal.

 

.... and trying to comprehend things in a way that is 'beyond' our modern 'mind-set' .

[Zhongyongdaoist]

~ as in the ‘Sufi’ 7 ways of seeing things; planetary, or via ToL, 4x elemental, etc. ‘maps of consciousness’ / maps of ‘reality’ that ‘information’ can be viewed against as a template or to see ‘new’ arrangements and flows between the elements.

 

 

 

 

I should have added ; and research and understand the concept of 'soul' (aside from its modern 'pop' definitions) ... which I have been doing a bit of over the last year. Reading the above suggests soul has Hod as the image of space / time 'enactments' (which makes sense when I think about that more - considering this is about 'late Platonism' ( ) and a modern trend seems to relate Hod to intellect and science and NOT the soul as such ... in my own system { a type of astro-psychological 'Tree'} Mercury crowns and regulates (hopefully) a Venus / Mars in a triangular relationship surrounding the Moon) and Netzach being the the other side of Yesod (? - I wasn't too clear about that from the wording ? ) being a repository of form from which Yesod draws ? Hmmm ... slightly different - but this is to understand Proculus better (and the 'Neo-platonists' ) ... not my system.

 

There are a lot of interesting points in here that I would like to address, but I simply don't have time to do them justice, so I will concentrate on a little clarification.

 

slightly different - but this is to understand Proculus better (and the 'Neo-platonists' ): the system of One, Mind, Soul, Matter which I outlined is that of Plotinus, not Proclus, in the regard Proclus tends to follow Iamblichus, who was to a certain extent reacting against some aspects of Plotinus thought. This is part of the problem involved in 'Neo-Platonism', Plotinus is rather more the last of the middle Platonists, for he brings together all the ideas about Platonism that had been percolating through the previous 300 years, in an admirable synthesis, rather than 'The Founder of Neo-Planism". In this regard he is rather like Einstein, who is considered a revolutionary who made a break with 'Classical' physics, when in reality all he did was to draw out and to make plain the implications of Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism, the implications of which had been ignored for decades. The real revolution started with Maxwell's equations, it was finished by Einstein. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion now about what the differences between the Iamblichan and Procline view and Plotinus' view would be, that can be done at another time.

 

a modern trend seems to relate Hod to intellect and science and NOT the soul as such: This is a 'Romanticist' descendant of of Kant's distinction between 'reason' and 'understanding', where 'understanding' is the ancestor of 'intellect' and 'reason' is the ancestor of 'soul'. In the Romanticist interpretation of Kant, which Kant of course rejected, understanding represented a lesser faculty which gave us the 'understanding' of the 'physical world' through logic, whereas 'Reason' was a higher faculty which dealt with the 'intuitive' apprehension of 'spiritual truth'. In the older views both the intuitive ability to grasp truth and the ability to used 'discursive reasoning' were part of the 'soul', just as 'body' and 'mind', sundered by Descartes, were in a profound sense manifestations of 'soul'.

 

to relate Hod to intellect: In my model of the Tree of Life, which I worked out when I when I was nineteen or so, long before I had even heard of Plotinus, Hod is the 'workshop' of images and images are representations. In the modern view we are not used to think about our sensory experience as being a representation of something 'higher', rather we think of it as being an experience of a material object. This is one of the great divides that separates us from Agrippa and the whole of the ancient world, as well as a lot of cultures. Now there are two types of representations, the difference of which is seen in art, where 'representational' art is an accurate portrayal of sensory experience and another aspect is symbolic representation. Think if the difference between a 'realistic' drawing of a pair of glasses and the symbolic drawing, two circles linked by a semicircle in the middle and two extended hooks ending in semicircles on the outside edges of the circles. The first one is the representation of a particular pair of glasses, the second one describes the set of all possible glasses, yet ironically, it is the drawing which represents the set of all possible glasses which all children instinctively draw and which we criticize as 'crude', while praising an accurate representation of a particular pair of glasses. In the modern sense of intellect to which you are referring, it deals with these symbolic representations, but in the older meaning our sensory experience is an experience of representations also, it is in this sense which I use Hod as the source of images, both those presented to sense and those 'symbolic' images, which would include words, used by 'intellect' in the modern meaning you describe.

 

Hod as the image of space / time 'enactments': A modern analogy would be that 'Hod is the computer that runs the holodeck'.

 

I hope this is helpful.