Occult: Islamic Solomonic Question

[kFoyauextlH]

Someone asked me: "i have a hypothesis, id like to know your view on it or for it to be torn apart by reason.

it is said that solomon was the only one who could control all the demons especially the goetia ones. its also stated that solomon was close to god and good and wise. in the goetia lots of beings are called leaders, be it a duke or a king or a whatever.

solomon comes from the trilogy thorah, bible, quran and in these 3 there is mention of hell and heaven and they are composed of different levels. the higher the level the deeper youre in whether in heaven or hell. hell level 7 is worse then 6 etc. and heaven level 7 is holier then level 6 etc. some even say there is purgatory an in between phase where you get cleaned for heaven. this place might seem like hell, but you still have the option to grow and get out. ( at least thats what i understand of purgatory, i grew up in a believe system where there was only heaven and hell)

now im getting to the part idk, but are drawn many times for churches in the past. i cant remember it anywhere stated in the trilogy that demons live in hell, but i can remember lots of paintings where they are put in hell as punishers. so if this is the case and demons rule hell and solomon controls them all, mustnt he then not be the ruler of hell? a human topdog who makes humans suffer after death by use of the demons who were put under his control by god. and if so and you work with the goetia isnt it then more logical to make a connection with solomon first since hes the big boss and you are trying to work with his employees without his permission?"

I answered:

"That is really interesting, thank you for bringing up all these points.

The most explicit detailed account of Hell (Jahannam/ GeHinnom meaning the Rift of Bitter Wailing or something) in an Abrahamic tradition is likely to be found in the Qur'an. Dante's depictions and other famous and influential descriptions are not considered really official religiously inspired divine writings though the descriptions have influenced many people.

The word Hell comes from the word for the Nordic Underworld, Hel, which was like the underworld or realm of the dead similar to Hades and the Jewish Sheol, the latter two influenced by Near Eastern cosmologies and ideas.

GeHinnom or Jahannam became the term used for a place of burning and punishment outside of the Kingdom of Heaven, and as a similitude was also the name used for the area outside of Jerusalem where waste and trash was burned.

A fiery punishment at the renovation of the World or re-creation of Earth was featured in the Old Testament, or was thought to be by some, and had been a part of Zoroastrian traditions as well in some ways. The idea was more strictly taken as a place of lasting or eternal punishment in the New Testament, then the Qur'an provided the most graphic detail for a scripture considered inspired.

Solomon or Sulaiman was considered to have been an important ruler and King of Israel who was granted by God many miracles and favors, but the Jewish people also had traditions and writings slandering Solomon as deviating into idolatrous cooperation due to sympathy for wives with other religions. This was also an implication that Solomon was considered a cosmopolitan international or inter tribal ruler.

There were traditions that the 72 nations were ruled over by 72 unique idols or Gods which the Jews may have reconciled as Angels of influence and dominion. These Angels of Dominion were associated with the Heavenly Lights in the sky and the constellations. Persia was said to be ruled over by the Bear, likely associated with Ursa Major, and the angel of dominion thus named Dubbiel meaning Bear (Dubbh) (of) El (Allah or God).

According to the Qur'an, Sulaiman was a devout monotheist, the son of King David the Judge (associated with judging disputes and resolving matters wisely or intelligently, which was the main work of a King, a resolver of disputes and final signature on the matter, which is why the term Malik is used in relation to the Day of Decision).

A King would typically sit upon their throne, while disputants would come before the king bringing their cases or issues of state which required decisions to be finalized and authorized. This notion and theme plays an extremely important role in the symbolism of the Near Eastern inspired and influenced Semitic language family writings and the traditions of nearby regions.

Sulaiman was associated with great wealth, treasure, cosmopolitan and international rule, and dominion over the whole of animal life and other lifeforms such as plasma-based Jinns.

This dominion was not a magical zombifying hold over these creatures considered as real and living as any other, but as part of a tribute in the fashion that Kings ruling over territories might have. The reason for this was the miraculous physical ability given to Sulaiman to communicate with and thus negotiate with and resolve issues for nations beyond human nations, and beyond the nations of birds who had a special friendship with David and had taken on the Zabur which they recite to this day and they perform worship during the periods of worship throughout the day. They were operating freely as any human being might. Animals and Jinn are called People and "People just like you" and live in communities, and have tribes and organizational systems and hierarchies and families and dynamics not dissimilar to human beings, who being unable to hear and understand them, consider them the un-heeding ones.

Sulaiman was a human being, and had no power beyond that of any normal human being, but was granted the ability to communicate and hear and understand all life forms, and came to be in charge of a massive army inclusive of animals and jinn.

Adam was the first King of the Earth. The next mentioned is Cain or Qayin who was advised by a bird, a raven.

Solomon loved beauty and aesthetics and comissioned the talented and able jinn to assist in the building of structures and environments beyond human technological capacity at the time. The jinn were also commisioned based on their particular skills like any craft workers. Some were divers, others navigators and explorers, others working with lifting, and some working with glass and heating apparatuses. The projects were continuous and often enormous.

The jinn would appear in their misty or smokey forms and stand before Solomon the King. They would move quickly in their condensed and luminescent forms burning energy and moving at rapid speeds, quickly carving and heating and moving about in a circular fashion constructing and applying force and heat and electromagnetic pressure to objects. Their work was, as it is today, particularly nuanced and polished with mathematical precision and excellence.

The jinns and peoples under Solomon still may have at times maintained other traditions and beliefs, and so were said to have spread these as well in this age of amazing cross cultural communications.

Then one day, Solomon the King, while likely standing upright and observing his vast projects of beauty and with gratefulness in his heart, stopped. He was said to have died standing upright, a symbol as well that he was an Upright Man, who did not die except as an Upright Man and Straight in righteousness. Furthermore, for those who thought there was any magic involved or power which only belongs to God who controls experience itself, or that the jinns are psychic, or that anyone has secret knowledge or power to know things which are not apparent, Solomon remained standing on his three legs, the final part of the riddle of the Sphinx or Phix from Greek stories such as Oedipus the King. Two legs and a cane well balanced.

The jinn continued to labor, ignorant that Solomon was dead. Had they known it, they might have stopped their work or spread the news, but none of them could even tell he was dead or were aware.

Then a small insect gnawed away at the staff, until eventually, Solomon's body fell.

The architects, project managers, animals, jinn, who were all unaware generally of anything, finally stopped their work and the news spread. The wealthiest and most amazing miraculous King of the Nations was dead!

The contracts with the animals and the oaths and negotiations and pacts could no longer be worked out the same way, and it was important to the proud jinn that their race not allow the humans to become wise regarding them, their weakness or ignorance, and so they dispersed among the forests and caves and oceans and into the sky.

The works of Solomon fell to disrepair and were left and deteriorated and were covered up and pieces taken for use in other projects which was the natural tradition. A column here, a piece of glass there, a massive vase there. The pearls and jewelry were dispersed and some taken by families and nations. The treasures were transported around and became heirlooms of lost lore and parts of other structures.

The ocean of glass, the grand parlor floor of Solomon which looked like transparent water, was also only to become the stuff of memory, just as glass is made of sand, all this was to be lost and dispersed like the dust which covers the world and our skins and our structures today.

Humanity, Jinn, and Animal and Plantkind, spread and multiple and disperse as well, though this is often not apprehended by those viewing from within this experience and rate of apprehension, a certain model we work with and are absorbed and convinced by.
[hr]
Solomon was not the real King or ruler though, but was like anyone, the vice-regent of Allah, an administrator and governer, while Allah is the Only King. Any who deny this, will be bound and made to know the Truth: Pain.

Slanderous news and legends were spread by later generations, myths and lies, orchestrated and commanded and controlled by Allah, who would make the legend of Solomon a particular work of Art within the Multifarious masterpiece of current human history.

Solomon is dead, and none among the Jinn knew it. Praying to the dead is like any foolishness, like praying to a stone, or the darkness cast upon all ignorant idolators (like the people of this website and the world at large for the most part).

Nor was Solomon of any particular value of his own accord. Whatever Solomon was given, like anything given to these false attributing claimants, was given by Allah alone. The Greatest Gift Allah gave Solomon was not his wealth, nor his dominion. The Greatest Gift Allah gave Solomon was his Heart! His righteousness (Body), and his Tongue (Speaking Goodness and Whispering and boisterously laughing and crying Grateful Praise).

Praise (All Credit and Blame and Guilt and Responsibility and Fame and Glory and Honor) belongs to Allah Alone, Lord of the Alameen, All things, All Worlds, The Ultimate Reality.

It is not by deeds that Solomon was given anything, but Allah made up Solomon, made up what Solomon did, made up what Solomon was said to do.

Solomon was made to be grateful, and Allah put his prayers in his mouth and brought them forth, saying "Please Make me to be Grateful!". Solomon would not have thought of anything, every character and their character is controlled wholly by Allah, whether good or bad, in the manner of winds, dusts, stars, animals.

All is precisely as Allah makes BE. None die except as Allah wishes. None live except in the exact way Allah says. Allah's words are what happens!

This is a test, in the manner of a chemical test, a drop of a chemical is placed, and the results become MANIFEST. The hearts (thinking and feelings, minds) of those who are in denial of this, irresistably find it distasteful and are mechanically full of hatred. None save Allah can clear them of their guilt and shame which has been given to them, just as the Free Gift of Allah of Greatest Value was the Heart of Solomon, the Heart Corrupted is the Free Curse of the Terror of the Worlds. Malik Hol Alimeen (King Terror of the Alameen).

The wise will prostratevand the foolish will scoff, and who is wise and who is foolish is determined by Allah alone.

I will write more, but now I will go and prostrate myself Insha'Allah. Will you, or anyone else? Are you being made into a fool? Another Test.
[hr]
The question was asked by a person who is thought to like Islam. I am answering using Islamic themes and terminology based on aspects of their question and their possible preferences. Funny you mention the quack thing and have a duck with a "strong arm". Allbthings seem to be covered in beautiful and curious symbols and messages for those who look at the world with vibrant eyes. These things are like vessels ready to be filled with meanings that can be interesting or helpful as well, turning anything and everything possible into things of value and tools of use.
[hr]
The same questioner asked me:

"ok an other question. in judaism there are 72 names of god, in solomonic magic there are 72 demons and in islamic terrorist heaven there are 72 virgins. are these 72 the same only used in different tales or is it normal in abrahamic religions to order in 72's?

and how did god evolve from 72 judaic names to 99 islamic names? (lets not hope that begetting a son in christianity does that to a god )

also for the duckman here: im not talking from religious perspective. religion imo is way to fluid and an outward act whether it be a personal choice or a political one.

im trying to make sense of the books ive read, the trilogy being one of them. as far as ive deciphered them for me they are built upon older ways and lead to war and the forming of tribes/clans. i dont mind this outcome, but i do like to know what tribes will emerge and what they will stand for. my path doesnt end after this life so making choices in this life and gaining knowledge is important for future outcomes."

To which I replied, continuing:

"A quick note on the Speech of Birds.

One day I woke up and heard what sounded like some talking going on. The words were guttural and deep and low, like whispers and low tones which ended in reflexive clicks and squeeks. The conversation was ongoing, and though the reflexive clicks and squeeks were similar to one another, the low lying speech differed and was nuanced and changing. This seemed to be the amazing language of birds and it was like something had just clicked on that I could hear things I could not normally hear, and I praised Allah for this great miracle and display, one of numerous miracles shown to me. I went to sleep eventually, and my hearing and senses were returned to normal.

Solomon had some sway with the winds as well. I have personally experienced a beautiful relationship with the winds and weather and shoecased it as well for witnesses. The winds can rapidly adjust speeds by the will of Allah. I live a fine and normal life, even suffering, but many beautiful things have been shown to me so that for me it would be terribly wicked to deny yhe favors and Magic that is Allah itself. I hope that I am never made a fool or denier of the Truth, and I try to only speak the truth as best as I am allowed and able.

Solomon was a man, of Mankind, the race of Adam. The Jinn are not magical beings, only Allah is Magic itself. The Jinn are also not Demons. Only Allah is the Daemon, the word means Apportioner or Alotter, giver of divine gifts. Allah is known as Moloch or Malik, Rimmon or Rahman, Amon or Amen or Nahum. Allah is known as Attar, At-Tariq (Striker), Lucifer (Light Bearer), Baal Zebub and Baal Zebul (Owner of Flies, Owner of the Loftiest House) which were associated with healing, Aplu or Apollo, Allah is One (Wahid). Allah is known as Astaroth and Ashtara, Allah is known as Belial and Beliar, Azazel and Azrael. Any others by these names, like anyone named Malik or anyone named Akbar or Sadiq or Hakim, Allah is the Prime of those names and attributes, the truest, and even the controller wholly of those who have names or no names at all. All the things they name and say are Angels are often the Names of Allah, Poison El (Allah), Might El, Powerful El, etc. Haurvatat and Ameretat (Harut and Marut) were created and sent by Allah upon the people of Babay El (Gate of Allah). Those names in their meanings are still the names and attributes of Allah.

Allah controls and manages all magic operations and requests, Allah is Magic itself, there is no Power other that Allah, there is no Magic other than Allah, there is no consciousness other than Allah, Allah generates and destroys all experience freely and precisely, choosing every detail, generating from Allah and returning to Allah who is known as Shaddai, Destroyer, the word Sheddu was the word for Demons and there is no other commander of Shaitans than Allah.

Shaitans can be anything, it is a title for any enemies or averse forces. Demons likewise can be a term for any apportioning agent or actor and especially seems to be used now for those particularly incessant. Devil seems to be associated now with wit or trickery but again, Allah is the Great Devil by definition.

Iblis comes from a root word balasa meaning Despair or Despairing since all Semitic roots are verbs or action words. Everything to do with Iblis seems immediately and ultimately to do with despair, despairing, leading to despair.

Iblis is a jinn granted the miracle of longevity and protection. He is still just a jinn though, and so has all the limitations of any jinn. He is not the Power of Evil or Evil itself, that is Allah alone, The Evil Master.

This is the identification of Allah in the Old Testament as well as the New, who Jesus says to fear because Allah is Evil in particular, and Evil means capable of harming and the producer and controller of all and any harm. The source and dispenser of everything, which is the meaning of Rahman and Raheem, what the book of Isaiah says, and other books of the Bible and other scriptures from various cultures.

The Rift of Hnnm is known as the Place of Evil. When Jesus identifies Allah in the New Testament as the Lord of Terror and Evil One, he mentions this in relation to the tortures in the Rift.

The tortures in the Rift are environmental. The people within the rift are abandoned seeming, and they are left to wander almost aimlessly after their former leaders.

For example, The God-King of Africa will be in the rift, and after him will follow those who believed in him as shephard (Pharoah, the one who held the symbols of shepherding and leading along the sheep as their manager and administrator and warden will now lead his flock of sheep to boiling hot water).

Iblis will be there and his followers and lovers in a state of sorrow and misery.

Some of the jinn will be there and some of the humans, but it appears that no wildlife is present. There is vegetation though, alien and horrific, suited to the environment.

Where are the demons? They are in Paradise, a futuristic and lush utopia made of apartment complexes and towers and mansions and rivers and parks.

The demons, which means people like me, and perhaps like you, go about f*cking joyously and rapaciously as we please. In some writings of later Muslims, we the demonic are finally granted what we love, perpetual hard ons.

All anxiety is perpetually removed from us, making us all the more terrifying and demonic and inhuman.

The monstrous and frightening alien angels with their tentacles will be our friends, and Alien servitors will be granted to us, a new creation with massive alien eyes.

Finally we will have crossed the veil, in a new world, and can review and enter simulations freely as Shadow or Shadow Visitors.

We can travel through time and history, not as in watching a movie on a screen, but really go there!

We can visit ourselves and observe and see what we look like from the outside and how cute we were.

It is truly amazing and Allah fills us with praise and we continue to worship Allah.

Some of us may be granted missions to other worlds or turned into other creatures to bring terror upon other worlds as agents of Allah.

Glorious is the time of Demons when we finally can enjoy the Earth.

But until we can f*ck joyously, we are to f*ck cautiously and in everything we f*ck now, f*ck beautifully.

Praise be to Allah, Creator of the f*ckers and those who are f*cked"
[hr]
Great question.

5 plus 2 Emanations,

These 7 have 10 Each plus 2.

The names in the Qur'an are sometimes said to be 81.

The names of All demons, All the names made up regarding Angels, All of these are names and references to Allah. The 72 Evil Stars of Malign influence. The 72 Accomplices of Sutekh. These are all references to Allah and the powers and aspects and attributes of Allah which are prime.

The Qur'an has all these references.

The Qur'an is the Prime Grimoire, who the medieval people said hatefully is the book of the Great Enemy, and they were right, it is the book of Allah, who is the Undefeatable Foe

The Qur'an is the Supreme book of Magic, kept hidden in open sight from the mentally diseased.

The Eye in the Triangle symbol can be considered many things including the Judging Eye of the Measurer and Apportioner, who is the Atisan and Artificer of all experience. Like a pyramid of light, all things lead from and back to Allah.

This is what Secret Orders felt the need to say and spread but hide and obfuscate to the point of forgetting it themselves. The oppression of the idolators was why these things were hidden and encoded.

This is so we can operate in open sight among the kaffirs and jahileen. We can openly see references to God while they can not or they only see Satan (Enemy).

God is managing this project, and continues to control all governments and agencies.

God deceives many and guides all however they are guided.

God has invested in this world Doorways or Portals by which people like myself are guided to operate. We are always on time, never late, and the paths are laid out and followed like tracks.

God can generate doorways and tunnels easily, that is why Allah is known as Lucero Mundo and Yog-Sothoth.

There are also doorways in space, by which angels can travel.

There are a complex network of pathways which are freely opened and closed almost like neural pathways and these exist throughout the heavens and the Earth.

No one knows them but they are regularly traveled even by the unwitting. These can transfer anyone anywhere at all.

The big joke about them is they are only aesthetic, they are not necessary as nothing is necessary and they do not operate in the way people would be made to believe.

People think spacially and dimensionally, but everything is flat, furthermore they think things are outside of them, they don't know they are themselves the flat thing they are experiencing. When there is "travel" even in the sense of walking forward, there is actually no spacial movement in Reality, you remain IN ONE PLACE, all that occurs is your destruction.

You are eliminated and a new frame is generated containing whatever appearance it does. Destruction is one of the most important and crucial aspects for experience and Being in any sense, and Allah is Destruction itself, the Nothing or Non-Information which all things are coming from and going to. That is also the "Place".

Al-Qaeda means The Base.
So again, to answer your question, the 72 theme with 5 and 2 apart, 70 and 2 apart, is repeated again and again. There were the 7 in the immediate heavens, the 2 apart being the Sun and Moon. The 70 Nations with 2 apart, the Sects with the 2 Apart.

The ideas came from the Near East and Mesopotamia where this number was important in numerous ways, as the 360 degree circle was divided into 5 parts. We even have 5 days of the work week and two unique days put apart or made different.

We exist in what is known as the 6th day. What is said to be coming is the 7th day which is the end of the flat roll and then a new set is made present on a different scale or measured differently.

The 6th day or Friday is the Day of Congregation, it culminates in a gathering up which is the beginning of the 7th day.

The 7th day is Saturn Day, representing the Sabbath, the day of ceasing thing operation or activity though Allah never tires or rests and is not a human or creature as they imagine but is literally like Nothing, Magic, Action, Chaos, Ayin, Subhan.

The symbol for the end is the Cube, like the Rubik's cube, made up of 9 + 9 + 9 boxes. This represents a complete set, 27, the number of the lunar month and the conclusion of the moon starting as black and emerging as a sliver and then returning to Nothing. Allah has encoded signs everywhere for those granted clear vision and insight by the grace of Allah alone and no quality or virtue on the part of the individual.

The Cube, Metatron, is the "Scribe" a reference to the complete scroll or encoding of this particle story made up of infinitely nuanced and multiplying 3s and 9s.

This is just a particular type of invention, even these numbers and amounts are just an invention from Nothing and what is coming from Nothing is certainly miraculous but necessarily absurd.

Why? Because there is no Why in Nothing, there is no basis or obligation or reference. A human can not do anything except based on things, they have references, a body, a brain, the ground.

The Miracle of Allah is Allah is literally The Nothing, like Nothing, no basis, no reason, no reference, no origin, and can Generate regardless from Itself, thinking the truly unthinkable, doing the truly undoable and impossible. It is IMPOSSIBLE, and thus Allah is The Miracle, Making What Was Not. None can even claim to bring about anything from Nothing, Magic!
[hr]
The same person then asked:

"artis you mention the cube and as all know there is the kaaba, a cube with a lovely pussy in the corner. people used to kiss the pussy, now it seems forbidden. be it because there are way to many moslems on pilgrimage or an other reason. also what lots of people dont know is that next to the cube there is a stone wall in the form of the new moon and there is also a man in the moon be it a female (hagar meaning rock) she is said to be burried there.

now is there some sense in this or am i seeing things. also if you take the stone wall and make it a circle, the kaaba will be in the center. i was told not to circle the square anymore. does that mean the cube needs freedom or is the 7 times around the kaaba forbidden for me? and why so. there must be something im missing here. also for me the kaaba always makes me think of the movie the cube and cumputer era we have just entered. is islam source code for that? can we program the cube with basic or c++ or in other words can we reprogram the world at large.

coming back to the pussy. if the cornerstone of the kaaba is a pussy isnt the kaaba then by itself the womb? makes me wonder what its pregnant of....

also did you see the inside of the kaaba they have put texts on the wall. now that salafis and wahabis of saudi prob will they are no pictures or statues, but why are they changing the energetic vibe by engraving in stone? all the moslems worldwide send their energies 5 times a day towards the kaaba, do these energies energize these texts? or do these texts alter these energies i wonder.

also isnt it said in islam that the vibrations of stones are not to be altered. and isnt it so that by putting qoran verses on it the vibration changes. if not then whats the use of qoran verses in magick? "

To which I replied:

"Great questions!
Q1.
"artis you mention the cube and as all know there is the kaaba, a cube with a lovely pussy in the corner. people used to kiss the pussy, now it seems forbidden. be it because there are way to many moslems on pilgrimage or an other reason. also what lots of people dont know is that next to the cube there is a stone wall in the form of the new moon and there is also a man in the moon be it a female (hagar meaning rock) she is said to be burried there.
now is there some sense in this or am i seeing things."

A1.
"There are numerous senses in this, origins, values, useful meanings on every level, even in its ceasing.

What you are noticing are some great and important ideas, and if one thinks of as many as possible, it adds all the more value to the symbols involved. This should be done consciously and deliberately, not stating that "It IS so" but rather that "These are some additional concepts which can be used beneficially to remind people of good things".

All language is Code made of Symbols, and All Existence is Language. The whole of everything that is made to BE is called the Speech or Words of Allah. All these words, like any sentence, are indicators or messages. Indicators are arrows, they point to something or are in place of some other reference. The Seen points tonthe Unseeable. All the Words and Worlds point back to Allah and Allah is the only Word, Logos, Vac, The Command itself, Action itself, not Seperate from Action, but One Line, the Same as Action. The names of Allah are all verbs. Allah is the Verb, the Root, just like all root words in the semitic language family or radixes are verbs, action.

Remember the +, where the vertical line can be made to refer to Allah as is at the top point and Allah as does at the bottom point, that Allah iscas Allah does, Allah is Action. The left point can mean Object or Creation as is, and the right, Action as Does, from As Is to As Does creates the impression of cosmological time, but neither Is or Does has any Existence, notice those two points are outside the narrow middle point. We exist at the cross roads, the Reality is the middle, where Allah is and is doing and what Allah is doing is whatever Is and whatever is doing in a moment. The rest is illusion in the moment, is and does for the object does not exist really, we only look from the center thinking and imagining and being told there was or will be past and future on the horizontal bar or can be or cant be on the vertical bar. The cross has to do with 2 and 4. 2 is a reference to Allah plus what Allah generates. 4 represents Death as well as Reality, and anythingbthat IS is Dead, but Allah who is like Death which is Non-Information, is the truly living, but can not be known except through Information, that means Words, things which Inform, which is everything whatsoever. Any word in the dictionaries can be examined and an effort can be made to see if those words can be somehow truthfully used as a reference to the Quality of Allah (Top Point), The Action of Allah (Bottom Point or middle point), the quality of an object or person or creation or creature (the left point) and the active action or ability or power of a creation in action (right point, like the commonly dominant right). The very bottom point can be taken as transgression or in the wrong way, the middle can also be taken as its regular use or reference which itself can be considered in a cubic way, with 3 definitions for its regular use which are the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Then taking those 3 for how the word is regularly used, finding more until 6 and 9 is reached then again until 27 is reached if one wishes to continue finding thorough or cubic understandings of words or concepts. An unfolded box is a cross when split from above."

I will edit and answer each question below.

Q2.
"also if you take the stone wall and make it a circle, the kaaba will be in the center. i was told not to circle the square anymore. does that mean the cube needs freedom or is the 7 times around the kaaba forbidden for me?"

A2.
We are sometimes told lies in order that we fight demonstrate fighting against them or resolve them leading to better understandings. The Square can represent the Plane of Existence or Reality, Circling it round about is obsessing about it without entering it or ignoring it. Square as material reality represents Death as well, the mortality of things and the seasons with decay and rejuvination which all have to do with The World or Dunya or Mundus. The Circle is supposed to be left throught the Gateway of Judgment or Decision, the Triangle, thus leaving behind it the Circle which represents Drive or Desire or Hunger but not yet Choosing. The Triangle is Choosing. After the choice is made a 4th line opens the Triangle into the Square and you are experiencing a flat frame of reality or experience like a photograph. The choice is not truly yours though. You are at the point of needing to Judge, Judging is inserting the triangle in between the Eye that is Blind (blind will) and making it See by judging or choosing and determining things which then play out in Mundus.

So no, you can circle the Kaaba but are best advised not to do so blindly or materialistically but to deeply understand and be of the right decision or Deen, the bound triangle and direction like an arrow or spear pointing."


Q3.
"and why so. there must be something im missing here. also for me the kaaba always makes me think of the movie the cube and cumputer era we have just entered. is islam source code for that?"

A4. Literally missing the /_\ point! Haha. You need to Point or Direct yourself rightly though proper judgment and decision. Then circling the Kaaba does not become a detriment but an exercise in virtue and a meditative practice, without Judgment it is in vain or wasteful like blind circling of hunger or aimless desire or things without a point which is what a circle O is.

The movie the Cube is extremely important and a clear and vibrant message from Allah. It is full of valuable and powerful insights. It is directly teaching all sorts of important things. I say all this without ever having seen it.

Islam or creation has a great deal to do with code and source code and a glossing of computer terminology and symbols will show that it is full of useful references to Allah, reality, the necessities and natures, and can teach about and be applied to a great deal in life. 0101

You may also like to explore what Rudolph Steiner says of Ahriman, another name of Allah, and people who claim Islam is Ahrimanic, including Rudolph Steiner.

Q5.
"can we program the cube with basic or c++ or in other words can we reprogram the world at large."

A5.
"No. We are not present to do so. We are literally "not here" so unable to do anything. Only Allah does anything, including what we appear to do. We don't have independent existences and can not program or choose anything really. What we appear to choose is Allah's choosing. So you can be given an experience where you are literally MADE or Created that moment to feel you are changing things and re-programming, but it is only an illusion. If you know, then you know Chaos chooses Freely alone and everythingbis thus Determined by Chaos or Luck or Loki or Chance or Free Will which are all just epithets of Allah.

Q6.
"coming back to the pussy. if the cornerstone of the kaaba is a pussy isnt the kaaba then by itself the womb? makes me wonder what its pregnant of...."

A6.
"That is a fine idea and useful to meditate on so long as one does not neglect the vast array of potentially useful references with differing messages and themes possible and placed carefully concerning anything you see or hear or hear about or look into. What the Kaaba is Pregnant with is Literally Nothing. It is thus known as The House of Allah, nearby is the Desert called Khali meaning Empty, see Sunyata and Shiva as Void and Shiva and the Kaaba. The Empty Womb and The Empty Room and related themes can be made useful and important."

Q7.
"also did you see the inside of the kaaba they have put texts on the wall. now that salafis and wahabis of saudi prob will they are no pictures or statues, but why are they changing the energetic vibe by engraving in stone?"

A7.
"As Allah wills."

Q8.
"all the moslems worldwide send their energies 5 times a day towards the kaaba, do these energies energize these texts? or do these texts alter these energies i wonder."

A8.
"There is no transfer. If the prayers are meant for the cube they will find it empty. Prayers only reach Allah, and more profoundly, prayers only come from Allah. There is no transfer.

Notice the loop.

Q9.
"also isnt it said in islam that the vibrations of stones are not to be altered."

A9.
"One can be gentle in all their dealings, and walk gracefully upon the Earth. All things are as dead as stones, Allah alone is the Animation. Stones are only a component of experiences, they do not exist independently of what you experience. If you are experiencing a stone or anything, it is part of your overall "body" of experience. It was placed there that moment and moment to moment by Allah. It can be used well or for evil, and it can be given good meanings or be the cause of confusion or stumbling. It has no other purpose than to serve as a message like all things in praise and worship of Allah. You too are like a stone and the Bible calls Allah The Rock, and the Stable Foundation."
Q10.
"and isnt it so that by putting qoran verses on it the vibration changes."

Q11.
"if not then whats the use of qoran verses in magick?" "
[hr]
The Qur'an is the Prime Grimoire of the world. Not only was it literally the book used to teach Classical Arabic whic is what is still studied to investigate Akkadian and Hebrew root word meanings and to understand Semitic languages, but it is all about Magic, which is the religion, the only religion.

This may not seem obvious to people at all, but the magical message of the Quran is not at all obscure or hiddeb or requiring convoluted understandings, it is plainly stated that there is no Magic except Allah who is Magic itself and the power of Black Magic.

The way Magic works is explicitly outlined as well, its history, and methods to use it, all plainly discussed in the open while magically few seem able to see it, as yet another miracle of the true Necronomicon (Portrait in the Name of Death or Portrait of Death's Law, take out the repeated letters and you have NECROMI, Containing many interesting combinations of letters which can be made, including Coren, and Crom from the Plain of Prostrations. These are not suggested to be deliberate on the part of H.P. Lovecraft, but potentially useful and interesting nonetheless) of Abdul (Abd El or Uhl as in Slave of El) Alhazred (Al Hazrat, The Presence, an honorific title).

This is found in practically every story. It covers astrology, dream interpretation, and the mechanics and techniques of magic. Most importantly it coversbthe philosophy and correct understanding of Magic and the Doctrine of Angels or the Religion of Angels. It also covers magical creatures, and much more, and differentiates between fake magic and real magic.

It is all there. There is no book which authoritatively as a divine scripture clearly lines out everything while also providing immense knowledge and assistance in every field including Occult symbology and numerology. It is truly a Glorious Koran and a Gift to the Worlds from Thrice Great Hermes.

So it explains how magic operates on unawareness, how awareness seems difficult to overcome, and how anything generally operates and is possible, the true nature of time, cosmology, reality, the universe, and experience. It explains the gateways and transfer and transmission systems, just everything and anything one would be assisted by regarding a number of topics, especially those regarding the Occult.

[kFoyauextlH]

Added in 13 minutes 27 seconds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekur

"
After nearly 25 years, Wikipedia is still the internet we were promised—created by people, not by machines.
"

Ironic, because that looks a lot like how the machine talks, with the dash thing and the "not", "this, not this" or "not this, but this".

Wikipedia looks to have used a machine to write their latest plea for money, while claiming the machines aren't writing the articles, all the while being overtaken by machine-written articles and totally fabricated information creeping into the website, made up history along with images and links to other fake articles and images, creating a massive web of lies just to show off how devastatingly world-corrupting the A.I. can be for Governments and malign actors wanting to control and distort what the general public can access.

These are supposedly the "good guys" who demonize so much through contemporary and anachronistic sentiments that just exist fleetingly today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

"
The phrase politically correct first appeared in the 1930s, when it was used to describe dogmatic adherence to ideology in totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.[5] Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire;[8] usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[12][13][14] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[15] The modern pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century, with many describing it as a form of censorship.[16]
"

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/155mQ4O42j

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/YCXYZgxKrM

[kFoyauextlH]

https://maou-gakuin.fandom.com/wiki/Seven_Demon_Elders

https://maou-gakuin.fandom.com/wiki/Ivis_Necron

Added in 2 days 48 minutes 29 seconds:

[kFoyauextlH]

[kFoyauextlH]

https://www.pcgamesn.com/solium-infernum/archfiends

https://infernummod.wiki.gg/wiki/Bosses



https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... Archfiends

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... i/Astaroth

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... iki/Lilith

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... ndromalius

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... iki/Mammon

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... iki/Murmur

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... iki/Belial

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... i/Erzsebet

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... /Beelzebub

https://solium-infernum-by-league-of-ge ... /Belphegor

"
Livre des Esperitz (modern english translation"
"Livre des Esperitz", or "The Book of Spirits", is one of the texts used as a basis for "The Lesser Key of Solomon". I could only find a medieval French version of the text, so I translated it to modern English, so here is my translation:

"Here begins the Book of Spirits, which was manifested to the sage Solomon to constrain in earth and make obey to the whim of humans, as before science was found, monsters did not manifest or reveal to others than Solomon, the spirits caused too much evil and pests on Earth and destroyed many goods of this world, and human lineage made multiple persecussions(original sentence barely makes sense); and for the pity of God gave only Solomon the benefit of this saintly science to constrain said spirits and make them obey the human creature, as so their malice reigns no longer on the christian Earth.

(paragraph here describes that the following text will be consisting of the name of spirits. Paragraph goes on to list every name on the list.)

Lucifer was very beautiful and of such stature, like the other good angels, and did not remain in heaven for more than an hour, for he grew proud by looking and contemplating his great beauty in which he was formed; and all those who thought ill with him were cast into Hell in confusion. According to the doctors of necromancy, Lucifer presides in Hell, and all the spirits of Hell obey him as the sovereign of Hell.

Beelzebub, a great and malevolent spirit, was called Anthaon before the time of Solomon. He is the greatest in Hell after Lucifer. It is known that he reigns in the eastern parts, and whoever calls him should face east, and he will appear in a beautiful form and likeness. He teaches all sciences, gives gold and silver to those who compel him to come, gives true answers to what is asked of him, reveals the secrets of Hell if asked, and truly teaches the hidden things on earth and sea. He manifests all treasures resting in the earth, guards against other spirits, and should be summoned in good weather.

Satan is the third spirit, created after Lucifer, and dwells in the air near us. He appears in a graceful form and resides in the north. Whoever calls him should face north. He appears and has the power to deform all men and women if commanded, and is ready to do all evils if commanded.

The duties of the four principal spirits are described in this section, beginning with the first:

The first is called Orient and resides in the east. He takes his name from the part of the world.

The second is called Poymon and resides in the west.

The third is called Amoymon and resides in the southern regions.

The fourth is called Equi and resides in the northern regions.

The office of the first, who is called Orient, is to answer truthfully to what is asked of him, and has the power to gather all spirits and teach them to act, and teaches the master who compels him all of physics; and under him are a hundred legions of angels or evil spirits.

Paymon appears in the likeness of a crowned woman, very resplendent, and rides a dromedary. Whoever compels him should face west, and he tells the truth of what is asked of him and teaches all sciences to the master, and reveals all hidden things, and gives dignities and great lordships, and fully brings all the master's evil doers to mercy; and is lord of twenty-five legions.

Amoymon is a king and appears in the likeness of a half-man and has a long beard, and wears a very bright crown on his head, and loves to be sacrificed to, and gives true answers to what is asked or granted, and gives knowledge of all sciences and great dignities on earth and confirms them, and gives good sense; and has ten legions.

Beal is a great king who is under and subject to Orient, who is great and makes man invisible marvelously, and gives his grace to all things; and under him are six legions.

Agarat is a duke and appears benignly, in the likeness of an old man, and teaches all languages and gives lordships and great dignities on earth; and under him are thirty-six legions.

Barthas is a great prince who appears in a beautiful figure. His office is to give answers to what is asked of him, and teaches hidden things, and also teaches and does for people what is asked of him, and makes a man into any figure the master wants, and teaches perfect astronomy; and under him are thirty-six legions.

Bulfas is a great prince. His office is to cause discord and battles, and when well compelled, he gives a good answer to what is asked of him; and under him are thirty-six legions.

Amon is a great marquis who appears in the likeness of a maiden. His office is to tell the truth of past and future things on earth, and makes anyone love whom they desire; and under him are forty legions.

Barbas is a prince who teaches the sound of birds and the voice of dogs, and reveals all hidden things on earth, and brings them if commanded; and has thirty-six legions.

Gemer is a great king. His office is to teach the virtue of herbs and all sciences, and heal those who are ill when commanded, and also makes people ill; and under him are forty legions.

Gazon is a great duke who gives true answers of past and future things and of present things, and gives grace and love towards all people on earth, and raises to great honors and dignities; and has forty legions.

Artis is a great duke and has two crowns and a sword in hand. His office is to answer all things asked of him and teaches hidden things, and gives good love and grace towards all people; and has thirty-six legions.

Machin is a great duke who is in the likeness and semblance of a strong man, and teaches the virtue of herbs and precious stones, and carries the master from region to region wherever the master wants; and has thirty-seven legions.

Diusion is a great king who appears in the likeness of a handsome man, and gives true answers to what is asked of him, and seeks hidden treasures in the earth when commanded; and has twenty-four legions.

Abugor is a great duke who appears in the likeness of a beautiful knight, and gives true answers to what is asked of him and of hidden things in the earth, and gives good grace towards kings and other lords; and has twenty-seven legions.

Vipos is a great count who appears in the likeness of an angel, and makes a man wise and bold, and tells the truth of what is asked of him; and has twenty-five legions.

Cerbere is a great marquis who gives perfect understanding in all sciences, and makes a man very great in honors and riches; and has nineteen legions.

Carmola is a great prince who gives understanding of birds and to catch thieves and murderers when commanded. He makes people invisible and tells the truth of what is asked of him; and has twenty-six legions.

Salmatis is a great marquis who appears in the likeness of an armed knight, and makes a man into any likeness he wants, and builds fortresses, buildings, castles, and cities when commanded; and makes great wounds appear in any person; and has fifty legions.

Coap is a great prince who makes women fall in love and brings them wherever desired and makes them compliant if commanded; and has twenty-seven legions.

Drap is a great duke who speaks quietly and darkens vision and hearing when commanded; and has eighty legions.

Asmoday is a great king who gives a ring with such great virtue that it makes the wearer fortunate in all things in the world, and gives true answers to what is asked; and has twelve legions.

Caap is a great prince who appears in the form of a knight and gives true answers to what is asked of him, and brings gold and silver from any place commanded; and has twenty legions.

Bune is a great duke who makes bodies move and go from one place to another, and makes a man rich and speak wisely before all people, and gives true answers to what is asked of him; and has thirty-five legions.

Bitur is a great marquis who appears in the form of a handsome young man and gives the love of women from any place they may be, and destroys cities and castles if the master commands, and makes people lose their great honors and dignities of this world if the master commands; and has thirty-six legions.

Lucubar is a great duke who makes a man subtle and full of great ingenuity, and transforms lead into gold and tin into silver, in any manner desired.

Bugan is a great king who makes a man wise and transforms all kinds of metals in any manner desired, water into wine or oil; and has thirty-four legions.

Parcas is a great prince who makes a man subtle. He appears in a beautiful figure. He knows the virtue of herbs and precious stones and brings them when commanded, and makes a man invisible and wise in all sciences, and makes a man become young or old, whichever is desired, and restores sight when it is lost. And he brings gold and silver that is hidden in the earth and all other things, and carries the master all over the world if commanded, and all other people if the master commands; and has thirty legions.

Flavos is a grand duke who gives real answers to what he may be asked, and destroys all adversaries of the master who constricts him; and has twenty legions

Vaal is a great king who gives all answers we ask of him in this world, and gives lordships, dignity, good faith towards all people, and disperses equally what is asked of him; and has thirty-nine legions

Fenix is a grand marquis who appears in a beautiful figure, and has a very soft voice, and is so courteous and very obedient to every thing that we may demand or command of him, and does them quickly and without delay; and has twenty-five legions.

Distolas is a grand marquis who appears in a beautiful figure and gives willing response of what you may ask command of him, and brings stone if commanded, and gives to the master a horse who brings him in an hour to a hundred, or two, or three hundred places or more; and has 20 legions.

Berteth is a grand duke who appears in a beautiful figure and has a crown. He gives true response to what is asked of him, and teaches how to convert all matters of metals into gold or silver, and gives lordships and confirmation if asked of him; and has twenty-six legions.

Dam is a grand count who appears in a beautiful figure, who brings gold or silver and all other things if he is asked, and makes die or languish any person one asks of him. And knows secrets of women, and makes them strip and dance all naked; and has twenty-five legions.

Furfur is a grand count who appears in guise of an angel and makes one have love for all people, and makes one wise in astronomy and philosophy.

Forcas is a  grand prince who teaches the virtues of herbs and precious stones, and makes one invisible and wise and well speaking to all people, and bring treasures buried in the earth when asked of him; and has thirty legions.

Malpharas is a grand lord who erects towers and castles, bridges on water when asked of him, and brings down and switches either people, castles or other fortresses, and brings from one place to another if commanded, and obeys and is courteous to the master who constricts him to do said things; and has thirty legions.

Gorsay is a grand duke who makes someone a good worker in their tasks and needs. He takes bandits and killers and brings them where he is commanded to, and makes them suffer pain and torment to whomever one may want; and has fifteen legions.

Samon is a grand king who appears in the semblance of a young maiden. He gives response to what is asked of him. He teaches of goods and treasures that are buried and makes one have love for all queens and women perfectly, whether virgin or not; and has twenty-five legions

Tudiras Hoho is a grand marquis who appears in the semblance of a young maiden and makes one wise to all sciences, and shapes him into the shape of a bird; and has thirty-one legions

Oze is a grand marquis who gives good response to what is asked of him, and makes one shift from one shape to another, and makes a thing appear like something else than what it is, and can make a bail of wheat be a grand horse, and a twig into a belt of gold or silver, and makes a person frenzied if asked of him ; and has twenty-five legions

Ducay is a grand marquis who appears very benign and gives the love of women and makes one hear all languages, and brings one from a place to another place; and has twenty-five legions.

Bucal is a grand duke who appears in the guise of an angel and gives true response of all one may ask of him, and makes appear large bodies of waters or abysses from air, however many; and has twenty-eight legions.
"

[kFoyauextlH]

PSEUDOMONARCHIA
DAEMONUM.

O curas hominum, ô quantum est
in rebus inane?


Johann Wier, Pseudomonarchia daemonum.
Salomons notes of conjuration

[Ah, human cares! Ah, how much futility in the world!]1


1. Quote in [] is from C. Lucilius, Satires of Persius.

Except as noted in [], translation is from Reginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584), probably by prolific translator Abraham Fleming, who is identified as translator of other Latin texts throughout Scot's work.
<An inventarie of the names, shapes, powers, governement, and effects of divels and spirits, of their severall segniories and degrees: a strange discourse woorth the reading.>2



2. Text in <> was not part of Weyer's original text.
LECTORIS.

[TO THE READER.]3


3. Translation of this "note to the reader" by JHP.
[913]


NE Sathanicæ factionis monopolium usqueadeò porrò delitescat, hanc Dæmonum Pseudomonarchiam ex Acharonticorum Vasallorum archivo subtractam, in huius Operis de Dæmonum præstigiis calce annectere volui, ut effascinatorum id genus hominum, qui se magos iactitare non erubescunt, curiositas, præstigiæ, vanitas, dolus, imposturæ, deliria, mens elusa, & manifesta mendacia, quinimò non ferendæ blasphemiæ, omnium mortalium, qui in mediæ lucis splendore hallucinari nolint, oculis clarissimè appareant, hoc potissimùm seculo scelestissimo, quo Christi regnum tam enormi impunitaque tyrannide impetitur ab ijs qui Beliali palàm sacramentum præstitêre, stipendium etiam iustum haud dubiè recepturi: quibus & perditas has horas libenter dedico, si fortè ex immensa Dei misericordia convertantur & vivant: quod ex animo ijs precor, sitque felix & faustum. Ne autem curiosulus aliquis, fascino nimis detentus, hoc stultitiæ argumentum temerè imitari audeat, voces hinc inde prætermisi studio, ut universa delinquendi occasio præcideretur. Inscribitur verò à maleferiato hoc hominum genere, Officium spirituum, vel, Liber officiorum spirituum, seu, Liber dictus Empto. Salomonis, de principibus & regibus dæmoniorum, qui cogi possunt divina virtute & humana. At mihi nuncupabitur Pseudomonarchia Dæmonum.



[Lest the monopoly of the Satanic faction remains hidden, I wanted to append to the end of this book On the Illusions of Demons this "Pseudo-monarchy of the demons," taken from the archive of the Acharontic (i.e. hellish) vassals. My intent is not to present before all people blasphemies of the bewitched kind of men who are not ashamed to call themselves magi, their curiosities, deceptions, vanity, tricks, impostures, deliriums, deceiving the mind, and obvious lies, but rather that they may be unwilling, when they can be seen in the bright light of day, to let their minds run wild (hallucinari),4 in this most infamous age, where the kingdom of Christ is so attacked by the immense and unpunished tyranny of those who openly perform the sacraments of Belial, who will no doubt soon receive their just reward. To whom I willingly and gladly dedicate these wasted hours, if perhaps through the immeasurable mercy of God, they might be turned around and live: This I beg them with all my soul, that they may be happy and fortunate. But lest anyone who is mildly curious, may dare to rashly imitate this proof of folly; I have omitted passages from this study, in order to render the whole work unusable. Truly this is entitled by an unstable5 kind of person, The Offices of the Spirits, or The Book of the Offices of the Spirits, or, the book called Solomon’s Apprentice,6 concerning the princes and kings of the demons, which may be coerced with divine and human virtues. But (now) to my so-called Pseudomonarchia Daemonum.]




4. Note play on words lucis (light) and hallucinari (to wander in mind).

5. Lat. maleferiato. Cp. Mora p. 175.

6. Regarding "Empto. Salomonis": Later in the text the compiler refers to Solomon as his master, and it is tempting to read "Empto. Salomonis" as "empticiorum salomonis" (Solomon's apprentice) or some other form of "empticius"/apprentice.
PSEUDOMONARCHIA
DÆMONUM.

Primus Rex, qui est de potestate Orientis, dicitur Bael, apparens tribus capitibus, quorum unum assimilatur bufoni, alterum homini, tertium feli. Rauca loquitur voce, formator morum & insignis certator, reddit hominem invisibilem & sapientem. Huic obediunt sexagintasex legiones.

Their first <and principall> king (which is of the power of the east) is called Baëll; who when he is conjured up, appeareth with three heads; the first, like a tode; the second, like a man; the third, like a cat. He speaketh with a hoarse voice, he maketh a man go invisible [and wise], he hath under his obedience and rule sixtie and six legions of divels.

[§ 1.]

[§ 2.] Agares Dux primus sub potestate Orientis, apparet benevolus in senioris hominis forma, equitans in crocodilo, & in manu accipitrem portans. Cuncta linguarum genera docet optimè: fugitantes reverti facit, & permanentes fugere: prælaturas & dignitates dimittit, & tripudiare facit spiritus terræ: & est de ordine Virtutum, sub sua potestate habens triginta & unam legiones.



[2] The first duke under the power of the east, is named Agares, he commeth up mildile [i.e. he appears willingly] in the likenes of a faire old man, riding upon a crocodile, and carrieng a hawke on his fist; hee teacheth presentlie all maner of toongs [=tongues, i.e. languages], he fetcheth backe all such as runne awaie, and maketh them runne that stand still; he overthroweth all dignities <supernaturall and temporall,> hee maketh earthquakes, [lit. "and makes spirits of the earth dance"] [378] and is of the order of vertues, having under his regiment thirtie one legions.

[§ 3.] Marbas, alias Barbas, Præses magnus, se manifestans in fortissimi leonis specie, sed ab exorcista accitus humana induitur forma, & de occultis plenè respondet, morbos invehit & tollit, promovet sapientiam artiumque mechanicarum cognitionem, homines adhæc in aliam mutat formã. Præest trigintasex legionibus.



[3] Marbas, alias Barbas is a great president, and appeareth in the forme of a mightie lion; but at the commandement of a conjuror commeth up in the likenes of a man, and answereth fullie as touching anie thing which is hidden or secret: he bringeth diseases, and cureth them, he promoteth wisedome, and the knowledge of mechanicall arts, or handicrafts; he changeth men into other shapes, and under his presidencie or governement are thirtie six legions of divels conteined.

[§ 4.] Pruflas, alibi invenitur Busas, magnus Princeps & Dux est, cujus mansio circa turrim Babilonis, & videtur in eo flamma foris, caput autem assimilatur magno nycticoraci. Autor est & promotor discordiarum, bellorum, rixarum & mendaciorum. Omnibus in locis non intromittatur. Ad quæsita respondet abundè. Subsunt huic legiones vigintisex, partim ex ordine Throni, partim Angelorum.



[4] [Pruflas, otherwise found as Bufas, is a great prince and duke, whose abode is around the Tower of Babylon, and there he is seen like a flame outside. His head however is like that of a great nightraven. He is the author and promoter of discord, war, quarrels, and falsehood. He may not be admitted into every place. He responds generously to your requests. Under him are twenty-six legions, partly of the order of Thrones, and partly of the order of Angels.]1



1. Scot omits; tr by JHP.

[§ 5.] Amon vel Aamon Marchio magnus & potens, prodit in lupi forma caudam habens serpentinam, & flammam evomens. Hominis autem indutus speciem, caninos ostentat dentes, & caput magno [914] nycticoraci simile. Princeps omnium fortissimus est, intelligens præterita & futura, hinc & gratiam concilians omnium amicorum & inimicorum. Quadraginta imperat legionibus.



[5] Amon, or Aamon, is a great and mightie marques, and commeth abroad in the likenes of a woolfe, having a serpents taile, <spetting out and breathing> [vomiting] flames of fier; when he putteth on the shape of a man, he sheweth out dogs teeth, and a great head like to a mightie raven [*night raven];1 he is the strongest prince of all other, and understandeth of all things past and to come, he procureth favor, and reconcileth both fréends and foes, and ruleth fourtie legions of divels.



1. nycticorax is a nightraven. It is so-called because it is nocturnal, and makes a crow- or raven-like call. This is not a true raven, but a heron.

[§ 6.] Barbatos2 magnus Comes & Dux, apparet in signo Sagittarii silvestris cum quatuor regibus tubas ferentibus. Intelligit cantus avium, canum latratus, mugitus boum & cunctorum animalium: thesauros item à magis & incantatoribus reconditos, detegit: & est ex ordine Virtutum, partim Dominationum. Triginta præsidet legionibus. Novit præterita & futura: tam amicorum quàm inimicorum animos conciliat.



[6] Barbatos, a great countie or earle, and also a duke, he appeareth in Signo sagittarii sylvestris,3 with foure kings, which bring companies and great troopes.4 He understandeth the singing of birds, the barking of dogs, the lowings of bullocks, and the voice of all living creatures. He detecteth treasures hidden by magicians and inchanters, and is of the order of vertues, which in part beare rule: he knoweth all things past, and to come, and reconcileth fréends and powers; and governeth thirtie legions of divels by his authoritie.



2. CLM 849 equivalent is named Barbarus.

3. in signo sagittarii sylvestris: In the image of a woodland archer.

4. (!) Misreading turmas for Weyer's tubas? Better: which bear trumpets.

[§ 7.] Buer Præses magnus conspicitur in signo ☆. Absolutè docet philosophiam, practicam, ethica item & logica, & herbarum vires: dat optimos familiares: ægros sanitati restituere novit, maximè & homines. Quinquaginta legionum habet imperium.



[7] Buer is a great president, and is seene <in this signe> [in the form of a star (☆)]; he absolutelie teacheth philosophie morall and naturall, and also logicke, and the vertue of herbes: he giveth the best familiars, he can heale all diseases, speciallie of men, and reigneth over fiftie legions.5



5. The description matches Coxe 25 p. 181: Centu preses magnus & apparet in signo farim, docet ad plenum brachticam, physicam, ethycam, logycam, ... ("Centu is a great president, and appears in a favorable sign. He teaches business (?), medicine, ethics, logic, ..." etc.)

[§ 8.] Gusoyn Dux magnus & fortis, apparet in forma zenophali.6 Explicatè respondet & verè de præsentibus, præteritis, futuris & occultis. Amicoram & inimicorum gratiam reddit: dignitates confert & honores conformat. Præest quadragintaquinque legionibus.



[8] Gusoin [Gusoyn] is a great duke, and a strong, appearing in the forme of a Xenophilus,6 he answereth all things, present, past, and to come, expounding all questions. He reconcileth fréendship, and distributeth honours and dignities, and ruleth over fourtie [and five] legions of divels.



6. = zenocephalus (dog-headed)?

[§ 9.] Botis, alibi Otis, magnus Præses & Comes: Prodit in viperæ specie deterrima: & siquando formam induit humanam, dentes ostendit magnos & cornua duo, manu gladium acutum portans. Dat perfectè responsa vera de præsentius, præteritis, futuris & abstrusis. Tam amicos quàm hostes conciliat. Sexaginta imperat legionibus.



[9] Botis, otherwise Otis, a great president and an earle he commeth [379] foorth in the shape of an ouglie [lit. 'worst'] viper, and if he put on humane shape, he sheweth great teeth, and two hornes, carrieng a sharpe sword in his hand: he giveth answers of things present, past, and to come, and reconcileth friends, and foes, ruling sixtie legions.

[§ 10.] Bathym, alibi Marthim Dux magnus & fortis: visitur constitutione viri fortissimi cum cauda serpentina, equo pallido insidens. Virtutes herbarum & lapidum pretiosorum intelligit. [915] Cursu velocissimo hominem de regione in regionem transfert. Huic triginta subsunt legiones.



[10] Bathin [*Bathym], sometimes called Mathim [*Marthim], a great duke and a strong, he is seene in the shape of a verie strong man, with a serpents taile, sitting on a pale horsse, understanding the vertues of hearbs and pretious stones, transferring men suddenlie from countrie to countrie, and ruleth thirtie legions of divels.

[§ 11.] Pursan, aliàs Curson, magnus Rex, prodit ut homo facie leonina, viperam portans ferocissimam, ursoque insidens, quem semper præcedunt tubæ. Callet præsentia, præterita & futura: aperit occulta, thesauros detegit: corpus humanum suscipit & aëreum. Verè respondet de rebus terrenis & occultis, de divinitate & mundi creatione: familiares parit optimos: cui parent vigintiduo legiones, partim de ordine Virtutum, partim ex ordine Throni.



[11] Purson [*Pursan], alias Curson, a great king, he commeth foorth like a man with a lions face, carrieng a most cruell viper, and riding on a beare; and before him go alwaies trumpets, he knoweth <things hidden, and can tell> all things present, past, and to come: [he discloses hidden things,] he bewraieth treasure, he can take a bodie either humane or aierie; he answereth truelie of all things earthlie and secret, of the divinitie and creation of the world, and bringeth foorth the best familiars; and there obeie him two and twentie legions of divels, partlie of the order of vertues, & partlie of the order of thrones.

[§ 12.] Eligor, aliàs Abigor, Dux magnus, apparet ut miles pulcherrimus, lanceam, vexillum & sceptrum portans. Plenè de occultis respondet atque bellis, & quomodo milites occurrere debeant: futura scit, & gratiam apud omnes dominos & milites conciliat. Præsidet sexaginta legionibus.



[12] Eligor, alias Abigor, is a great duke, and appeereth as a goodlie [=handsome] knight, carrieng a lance, an ensigne, and a scepter: he answereth fullie of things hidden, and of warres, and how souldiers should meete: he knoweth things to come, and procureth the favour of lords and knights, governing sixtie legions of divels.

[§ 13.] Loray, aliàs Oray, magnus Marchio, se ostendens in forma sagittarii pulcherrimi, pharetram & arcum gestantis: author existit omnium præliorum, & vulnera putrefacit quæ à sagittariis infliguntur, quos obijcit optimos tribus diebus. Triginta dominatur legionibus.



[13] Leraie [*Loray], alias Oray,7 a great marquesse, shewing himselfe in the likenesse of a galant [=handsome] archer, carrieng a bowe and a quiver, he is author of all battels, he dooth putrifie all such wounds as are made with arrowes by archers, Quos optimos obijcit tribus diebus, [which he shoots best within three days] and he hath regiment over thirtie legions.



7. Compare Folger Barsy?

[§ 14.] Valefar, aliàs Malaphar, Dux est fortis, forma leonis prodiens & capite latronis. Familiaritatem parit suis, donec laqueo suspendantur. Decem præsidet legionibus.



[14] Valefar, alias Malephar [*Malaphar], is a strong duke, comming foorth in the shape of a lion, and the head of a theefe [or "barking"], he is verie familiar with them to whom he maketh himself acquainted, till he hath brought them to the gallowes, and ruleth ten legions.

[§ 15.] Morax, aliàs Foraij, magnus Comes & Præses: similis tauro visitur: Et si quando humanam faciem assumit, admirabilem in Astronomia & in omnibus artibus liberalibus reddit hominem: parit etiam famulos non malos & sapientes: novit & herbarum & pretiosorum lapidum potentiam. Imperat triginta sex legionibus.



[15] Morax, alias Foraij, a great earle and a president, he is seene like a bull, and if he take unto him a mans face, he maketh men wonderfull cunning in astronomie, & in all the liberall sciences: he giveth good familiars and wise, knowing the power & vertue of hearbs and stones which are pretious, and ruleth thirtie six legions.

[§ 16.] Ipes, aliàs Ayperos, est magnus Comes [916] & Princeps, apparens quidem specie angelica, interim leone obscurior & turpis, capite leonis, pedibus anserinis, cauda leporina. Præterita & futura novit: redditque hominem ingeniosum & audacem. Legiones huic obediunt trigintasex.

[380]

[16] Ipos [*Ipes], alias Ayporos [*Ayperos], is a great earle and a prince, appeering in the shape of an angell, and yet indeed more obscure and filthie than a lion, with a lions head, a gooses feet, and a hares taile: he knoweth things to come and past, he maketh a man wittie, and bold, and hath under his jurisdiction thirtie six legions.

[§ 17.] Naberus, aliàs Cerberus, Marchio est fortis, forma corvi se ostentans: si quando loquitur, raucam edit vocem. Reddit & hominem amabilem & artium intelligentem, cum primis in Rhetoricis eximium. Prælaturarum & dignitatum iacturam parit. Novendecim legiones hunc audiunt.



[17] Naberius [*Naberus], alias Cerberus, is a valiant marquesse, shewing himselfe in the forme of a crowe, when he speaketh with a hoarse voice: he maketh a man amiable and cunning in all arts, and speciallie in rhetorike, he procureth the losse of prelacies and dignities: nineteene legions heare <and obeie> him.

[§ 18.] Glasya labolas, aliàs Caacrinolaas vel Caassimolar magnus Præses: qui progreditur ut canis habens alas gryphi. Artium cognitionem dat, interim dux omnium homicidarum. Præsentia & futura intelligit. Tam amicorum quàm inimicorum animos demeretur: & hominem reddit invisibilem. Imperium habet triginta sex legionum.



[18] Glasya Labolas, alias Caacrinolaas, or Caassimolar, is a great president, who commeth foorth like a dog, and hath wings like a griffen, he giveth the knowledge of arts, and is the captaine of all mansleiers: he understandeth things present and to come, he gaineth the minds and love of freends and foes, he maketh a man go invisible, and hath the rule of six and thirtie legions.

[§ 19.] Zepar Dux magnus, apparens uti miles, inflammansque virorum amore mulieres, & quando ipsi iussum fuerit, earum formam in aliam transmutat, donec dilectis suis fruantur. Steriles quoque eas facit. Vigintisex huic parent legiones.



[19] Zepar is a great duke, appearing as a souldier, inflaming women with the loove of men, and when he is bidden he changeth their shape, untill they maie enjoie their beloved, he also maketh them barren, and six and twentie legions are at his obeie and commandement.

[§ 20.] Byleth Rex magnus & terribilis, in equo pallido equitans, quem præcedunt tubæ, symphoniæ, & cuncta Musicæ genera. Quum autem coram exorcista se ostentat, turgidus ira & furore videtur, ut decipiat. Exorcista verò tum sibi prudenter caveat: atque ut fastum ei adimat, in manu suscipiat baculum corili [*coruli], cum quo orientem & meridiem versus, foris iuxta circulum manum extendet, facietque triangulum. Cæterum si manum non extendit, & intrare iubet, atque spirituum Vinculum ille renuerit, ad lectionem progrediatur exorcista: mox ingredietur item submissus, [917] ibi stando & faciendo quodcunque iusserit exorcista ipsi Byleth regi, eritque securus. Si verò contumacior fuerit, nec primo iussu circulum ingredi voluerit, reddetur fortè timidior exorcista: vel si Vinculum spirituum minus habuerit, sciet haud dubiè exorcista, malignos spiritus postea eum non verituros, at semper viliorem habituros. Item si ineptior sit locus triangulo deducendo iuxta circulum, tunc vas vino plenum ponatur: & intelliget exorcista certissimè, quum è domo sua egressus fuerit cum sociis suis, prædictum Byleth sibi fautorem fore, benevolum, & coram ipso submissum quando progredietur. Venientem verò exorcista benignè suscipiat, & de ipsius fastu glorietur: propterea quoque eundem adorabit, quemadmodum alij reges, quia nihil dicit absque aliis principibus. Item si hic Byleth accitus fuerit ab aliquo exorcista, semper tenendus ad exorcistæ faciem annulus argenteus medij digiti manus sinistræ, quemadmodum pro Amaymone. Nec est prætermittenda dominatio & potestas tanti principis, quoniam nullus est sub potestate & dominatione exorcistæ alius, qui viros & mulieres in delirio detinet, donec exorcistæ voluntatem explerint: Et fuit ex ordine Potestatum, sperans se ad septimum Thronum rediturum, quod minus credibile. Imperat octogintaquinque legionibus.



[20] Bileth [*Byleth] is a great king and a terrible, riding on a pale horsse, before whome go trumpets, and all kind of melodious musicke. When he is called up by an exorcist, he appeareth rough [=turgid] and furious, to deceive him. Then let the exorcist or conjuror take heed to himself; and to allaje his courage, let him hold a hazell bat [=rod, staff, wand, or stick] in his hand, wherewithall he must reach out toward the east and south, and make a triangle without besides the circle; but if he hold not out his hand unto him, and he bid him come in, and he still refuse the bond or chain of spirits; let the conjuror proceed to reading, and by and by he will submit himselfe, and come in, and doo whatsoever the exorcist commandeth him, and he shalbe safe. If Bileth the king be more stubborne, and refuse to enter into the circle at the first call, and the conjuror shew himselfe fearfull, or if he have not the chaine of spirits, certeinelie he will never feare nor regard him after. Also, if the place be unapt for a triangle to be made without the circle, then set there a boll of wine, and the exorcist shall certeinlie knowe when he commeth out of his house, with his fellowes, and that the foresaid Bileth will be his helper, his friend, and obedient unto him when he commeth foorth. And when he commeth, let the exorcist receive him courteouslie, and glorifie him in his pride, and therfore he shall adore him as other kings doo, bicause he saith nothing without other princes. Also, if he be cited by an exorcist, alwaies a silver ring of the middle finger of the left hand must be held against the exorcists face, as they doo for Amaimon. And the dominion and power of so great a prince is not to be pretermitted; for there is none under the power & dominion of the conjuror, but he that deteineth [=hinders] both men and women in doting [better: "crazy/insane" or "silly"] love, till the exorcist hath had his pleasure. He is of the orders of powers, hoping to returne to the seaventh throne, which is not altogether credible, and he ruleth eightie five legions.

[§ 21.] Sytry, aliàs Bitru, magnus Princeps, leopardi facie apparens, habensque alas velut gryphi. Quando autem humanam assumit formam, mirè pulcher videtur. Incendit virum mulieris amore, mulierem vicissim alterius desiderio incitat. Iussus secreta libenter detegit feminarum, eas ridens ludificansque, ut se luxuriose nudent. Huic sexaginta legiones obsequuntur.



[21] Sitri [*Sytry], alias Bitru, is a great prince, appeering with the face of a leopard, and having wings as a griffen: when he taketh humane shape, he is verie beautiful, he inflameth a man with a womans love, and also stirreth up women to love men, being commanded he willinglie deteineth [discloses] secrets of women, laughing at them and mocking them, to make them luxuriouslie naked, and there obeie him sixtie legions.

[§ 22.] Paymon obedit magis Lucifero [918] quam alij reges. Lucifer hic intelligendus, qui in profunditate scientiæ suæ demersus, Deo assimilari voluit, & ob hanc arrogantiam in exitium proiectus est. De quo dictum est: Omnis lapis pretiosus operimentum tuum [Ezech. 28]. Paymon autem cogitur virtute divina, ut se sistat coram exorcista: ubi hominis induit simulachrum, insidens dromedario, coronaque insignitus lucidissima, & vultu fœmineo. Hunc præcedit exercitus cum tubis & cimbalis bene sonantibus, atque omnibus instrumentis Musicis, primo cum ingenti clamore & rugitu apparens, sicut in Empto. Salomonis, et arte declaratur. Et si Paymon hic quandoque loquitur, ut minus ab exorcista intelligatur, propterea is non tepescat: sed ubi porrexerit illi primam chartam ut voto suo obsequatur, iubebit quoque ut distinctè & apertè respondeat ad quæsita, & de universa philosophia & prudentia vel scientia, & de cæteris arcanis. Et si voles cognoscere dispositionem mundi, & qualis sit terra, aut quid eam sustineat in aqua, aut aliquid aliud, & quid sit abyssus, & ubi est ventus & unde veniat, abundè te docebit. Accedant & consecrationes tam de libationibus quam alijs. Confert hic dignitates & confirmationes. Resistentes sibi suo vinculo deprimit, & exorcistæ subijcit. Bonos comparat famulos, & artium omnium intellectum. Notandum, quòd in advocando hunc Paymonem, Aquilonem versus exorcistam conspicere oporteat, quæ ibi huius sit hospitium. Accitum verò intrepidè constanterque suscipiat, interroget, & ab eo petat quicquid voluerit, nec dubiè impetrabit. At ne creatorem oblivioni tradat, cavendum exorcistæ, propter ea quæ præmissa fuerunt de Paymone. Sunt qui dicant, eum ex ordine Dominationum fuisse: sed alijs placet, ex ordine Cherubin. Hunc sequuntur legiones ducentæ, partim ex ordine Angelorum, partim Potestatum. [919] Notandum adhæc, si Paymon solus fuerit citatus per aliquam libationem aut sacrificium, duo reges magni comitantur, scilicet Bebal & Abalam, & alij potentes. In huius exercitu sunt vigintiquinque legiones: quia spiritus his subiecti, non semper ipsis adsunt, nisi ut appareant, divina virtute compellantur.



[22] Paimon [*Paymon] is more obedient in Lucifer than other kings are. Lucifer is heere to be understood he that was drowned in the depth of his knowledge: he would needs be like God, and for his arrogancie was throwne out into destruction, of whome it is said; Everie pretious stone is thy covering (Ezech. 88 [28.13].). Paimon is constrained by divine vertue to stand before the exorcist; where he putteth on the likenesse of a man: he sitteth on a beast called a dromedarie, which is a swift runner, and weareth a glorious crowne, and hath an effeminate countenance. There goeth before him an host of men with trumpets and well sounding cymbals, and all musicall instruments. At the first he appeereth with a great crie and roring, as in <Circulo> [*the book Empto.] Salomonis, and in the art is declared. And if this Paimon speake sometime that the conjuror understand him not, let him not therefore be dismaied. But when he hath delivered him the first obligation to observe his desire, he must bid him also answer him distinctlie and plainelie to the questions he shall aske you, of all philosophie, wisedome, and science, and of all other secret things. And if you will knowe the disposition of the world, and what the earth is, or what holdeth it up in the water, or any other thing, or what is Abyssus, or where the wind is, or from whence it commeth, he will teach you aboundantlie. Consecrations also as well of sacrifices [offerings, libations] as otherwise may be reckoned. He giveth dignities and confirmations; he bindeth them that resist him in his owne chaines, and subjecteth them to the conjuror; he prepareth good familiars, and hath the understanding of all arts. Note, that at the calling up of him, the exorcist must looke towards the northwest [better: North], bicause there is his house. When he is called up, let the exorcist receive him constantlie without feare, let him aske what questions or demands he list, and no doubt he shall obteine the same of him. And the exorcist must beware he forget not the creator, for those things, which have beene rehearsed before of Paimon, some saie he is of the order of dominations; others saie, of the order of cherubim. There follow him two hundred legions, partlie of the order of angels, and partlie of potestates. Note that if Paimon be cited alone by an offering or sacrifice, two kings followe him; to wit, Beball & Abalam, & other potentates: in his host are twentie five legions, bicause the spirits subject to them are not alwaies with them, except they be compelled to appeere by divine vertue.

[§ 23.] Regem Belial aliqui dicunt statim post Luciferum fuisse creatum, ideoque sentiunt ipsum esse patrem & seductorem eorum qui ex Ordine ceciderunt. Cecidit enim prius inter alios digniores & sapientiores, qui præcedebant Michaelem & alios cœlestes angelos, qui deerant. Quamvis autem Belial ipsos qui in terram deiecti fuerint, præcesserit: alios tamen qui in cœlo mansere, non antecessit. Cogitur hic divina virtute, cum accipit sacrificia, munera & holocausta, ut vicissim det immolantibus responsa vera: at per horam in veritate non perdurat, nisi potentia divina compellatur, ut dictum est. Angelicam assumit imagine in impensè pulchram, in igneo curru sedens. Blandè loquitur. Tribuit dignitates & prælaturas senatorias, gratiam item amicorum, & optimos famulos. Imperium habet octoginta legionum, ex ordine partim Virtutum, partim Angelorum. Forma exorcistæ invenitur in Vinculo Spirituum. Observandum exorcistæ, hunc Belial in omnibus succurrere suis subditis: si autem se submittere noluerit, Vinculum Spirituum legatur, quò sapientissimus Salomon eos cum suis legionibus in vase vitreo relegavit: & relegati cum omnibus legionibus fuere septuagintaduo reges, quorum primus erat Bileth, secundus Belial, deinde Asmoday, & circiter mille millia legionum. Illud proculdubio à magistro Salomone didicisse me fateor: sed causam relegationis me non docuit, crediderim tamen propter arrogantiam ipsius Belial. [920] Sunt quidam necromantici, qui asserunt, ipsum Salomonem quodam die astutia cuiusdam mulieris seductum, orando se inclinasse versus simulacrum Belial nomine. quod tamen fidem non meretur: sed potius sentiendum, ut dictum est, propter superbiam & arrogantiam relegatos esse in magno vase, proiectos in Babilone in puteum grandem valde. Enimverò prudentissimus Salomon divina potentia suas exequebatur operationes, quæ etiam nunquam eum destituit: propterea simulachrum non adorasse ipsum sentiendum est, alioqui divina virtute spiritus cogere nequivisset. Hic autem Belial cum tribus regibus in puteo fuit. At Babilonienses ad hæc exhorrescentes, rati se thesaurum amplum in puteo inventuros, unanimi consilio in puteum descenderunt, detegeruntque & confregere vas, unde mox egressi captivi, in proprium locum porrò sunt reiecti. Belial verò ingressus quoddam simulachrum, dabat responsa sibi immolantibus & sacrificantibus, ut testatur Tocz in dictis suis: & Babylonienses adorantes sacrificaverunt eidem.



[23] Some saie that the king Beliall was created immediatlie after Lucifer, and therefore they thinke that he was father and seducer of them which fell being of the orders. For he fell first among the worthier and wiser sort, which went before Michael and other heavenlie angels, which were lacking. Although Beliall went before all them that were throwne downe to the earth, yet he went not before them that tarried in heaven. This Beliall is constrained by divine vertue, when he taketh sacrifices, gifts, and [burnt] offerings, that he againe may give unto the offerers true answers. But he tarrieth not one houre in the truth, except he be constrained by the divine power, as is said. He taketh the forme of a beautifull angell, sitting in a firie chariot; he speaketh faire, he distributeth preferments of senatorship, and the favour of friends, and excellent familiars: he hath rule over eightie legions, partlie of the order of vertues, partlie of angels; he is found in the forme of an exorcist in the bonds of spirits. The exorcist must consider, that this Beliall doth in everie thing assist his subjects. If he will not submit himselfe, let the bond of spirits be read: the spirits chaine is sent for him, wherewith wise Salomon gathered them togither with their legions in a brasen vessell [*glass vessel],8 where were inclosed among all the legions seventie two kings, of whome the cheefe was Bileth, the second was Beliall, the third Asmoday, and above a thousand thousand legions. Without doubt (I must confesse) I learned this of my maister Salomon; but he told me not why he gathered them together, and shut them up so: but I beleeve it was for the pride of this Beliall. Certeine nigromancers doo saie, that Salomon, being on a certeine daie seduced by the craft of a certeine woman, inclined himselfe to praie before the same idoll, Beliall by name: which is not credible. And therefore we must rather thinke (as it is said) that they were gathered together in that great <brasen> vessell for pride and arrogancie, and throwne into a deepe lake or hole in Babylon. For wise Salomon did accomplish his workes by the divine power, which never forsooke him. And therefore we must thinke he worshipped not the image Beliall; for then he could not have constrained the spirits by divine vertue: for this Beliall, with three kings were in the lake. But the Babylonians woondering at the matter, supposed that they should find therein a great quantitie of treasure, and therefore with one consent went downe into the lake, and uncovered and brake the vessell, out of the which immediatlie flew the capteine divels, and were delivered to their former and proper places. But this Beliall entred into a certeine image, and there gave answer to them that offered and sacrificed unto him: as Tocz. in his sentences reporteth, and the Babylonians did worship and sacrifice thereunto.



8. Note Lat. in vase vitreo = "into a glass vessel" not "brass." Coxe 25 p. 180 similarly reads "in vase vitreo ... in magno vitro vase".

[§ 24.] Bune Dux magnus & fortis, apparet ut draco, tribus capitibus, tertium verò assimilatur homini. Muta loquitur voce: Mortuos locum mutare facit, & dæmones supra defunctorum sepulchra congregari: omnimodo hominem locupletat, redditque loquacem & sapientem: ad quæsita verè respondet. Huic legiones parent triginta.



[24] Bune is a great and a strong Duke, he appeareth as a dragon with three heads, the third whereof is like to a man; he speaketh with a divine voice, he maketh the dead to change their place, and divels to assemble upon the sepulchers of the dead: he greatlie inricheth a man, and maketh him eloquent and wise, answering trulie to all demands, and thirtie legions obeie him.

[§ 25.] Forneus magnus Marchio, similis monstro marino, reddit hominem in Rhetoricis admirabilem, optima fama & linguarum peritia ornat, tam amicis quàm inimicis gratum facit. Subsunt huic vigintinovem legiones, ex ordine partim Thronorum, partim Angelorum.



[25] Forneus is a great marquesse, like unto a monster of the sea, he maketh men woondeffull in rhetorike, he adorneth a man with a good name, and the knowledge of toongs, and maketh one beloved as well of foes as freends: there are under him nine and twentie legions, of the order partlie of thrones, and partlie of angels.

[§ 26.] Roneve Marchio & Comes, assimilatur [921] monstro. Singularem in Rhetoricis intelligentiam confert, famulos item fidos, linguarum cognitionem, amicorum & inimicorum favorem. Huic obediunt legiones novendecim.



[26] Ronove [*Roneve] a marquesse and an earle, he is resembled to a monster, he bringeth singular understanding in rhetorike, faithfull servants, knowledge of toongs, favour of freends and foes; and nineteene legions obeie him.

[§ 27.] Berith Dux magnus & terribilis: tribus nuncupatur nominibus, à quibusdam Beal, à Iudæis Berith, à necromanticis Bolfri. Prodit ut miles ruber cum vestitu rubro, & equo eiusdem coloris, coronaque ornatus. Verè de præsentibus, præteritis & futuris respondet. Virtute divina per annulum magicæ artis ad horam scilicet cogitur. Mendax etiam est. In aurum cuncta metallorum genera mutat. Dignitatibus ornat easdemque confirmat: claram subtilemque edit vocem. Viginti sex legiones huic subsunt.



[27] Berith is a great and a terrible duke, and hath three names. Of some he is called Beall; of the Jewes Berithi [Berith]; of Nigromancers Bolfry [Bolfri]: he commeth foorth as a red souldier, with red clothing, and upon a horsse of that colour, and a crowne on his head. He answereth trulie of things present, past, and to come. He is compelled at a certeine houre, through divine vertue, by a ring of art magicke. He is also a lier, he turneth all mettals into gold, he adorneth a man with dignities, and confirmeth them, he speaketh with a cleare and a subtill voice, and six and twentie legions are under him.

[§ 28.] Astaroth Dux magnus & fortis, prodiens angelica specie turpissima, insidensque in dracone infernali, & viperam portans manu dextra. Verè respondet de præteritis, præsentibus, futuris & occultis. Libenter de spirituum creatore, & eorundem lapsu loquitur, quomodo peccaverint & ceciderint. Se spontè non prolapsum esse dicit. Reddit hominem mirè eruditum in artibus liberalibus. Quadraginta legionibus imperat. Ab hoc quilibet exorcista caveat, ne propè nimis cum admittat, ob fœtorem intolerabilem quem expirat. Itaque annulum argenteum magicum in manu sua iuxta faciem teneat, quo se ab iniuria facilè tuebitur.



[28] Astaroth is a great and a strong duke, comming foorth in the shape of a fowle angell, sitting upon an infernall dragon, and carrieng on his right hand a viper: he answereth trulie to matters present, past, and to come, and also of all secrets. He talketh willinglie of the creator of spirits, and of their fall, and how they sinned and fell: he saith he fell not of his owne accord. He maketh a man woonderfull learned in the liberall sciences, he ruleth fourtie legions. Let everie exorcist take heed, that he admit him not too neere him, bicause of his stinking breath [lit. "because of the intolerable stench which he exhales"]. And therefore let the conjuror hold neere to his face a magicall [silver] ring, and that shall defend him.

[§ 29.] Forras vel forcas magnus Præses est: visitur forma viri fortissimi, & in humana specie vires herbarum & lapidum preciosorum intelligit. Plenè docet Logica, Ethica & eorundem partes. Reddit hominem invisibilem, ingeniosum, loquacem & vivacem: amissa recuperat, thesauros detegit. Dominium viginti novem legionum habet.



[29] Foras [*Forras], alias Forcas is a great president, and is seene in the forme of a strong man, and in humane shape, he understandeth the vertue of hearbs and pretious stones: he teacheth fullie logicke, ethicke, and their parts: he maketh a man invisible, wittie, eloquent, and to live long; he recovereth things lost, and discovereth [discloses] treasures, and is lord over nine and twentie legions.

[§ 30.] Furfur Comes est magnus, apparens [922] ut cervus cauda flammea. In omnibus mentitur, nisi in triangulum intro ducatur. Iussus angelicam assumit imaginem. Rauca loquitur voce: amorem inter virum & mulierem libenter conciliat: novit & concitare fulgura, coruscationes & tonitrua in ijs partibus ubi iussum fuerit. De occultis & divinis rebus bene respondet. Imperat legionibus vigintisex.



[30] Furfur is a great earle, appearing as an hart, with a firie taile, he lieth in everie thing, except he be brought up within a triangle; being bidden, he taketh angelicall forme, he speaketh with a hoarse voice, and willinglie maketh love betweene man and wife [or simply "woman"]; he raiseth thunders and lightnings, and blasts. Where he is commanded, he answereth well, both of secret and also of divine things, and hath rule and dominion over six and twentie legions.

[§ 31.] Marchocias magnus Marchio est. Se ostentat specie lupæ ferocissimæ cum alis gryphi, cauda serpentina, & ex ore nescio quid evomens. Quum hominis imaginem induit, pugnator est optimus. Ad quæsita vere respondet: fidelis in cunctis exorcistæ mandatis. Fuit ordinis Dominationum. Huic subiacent legiones triginta. Sperat se post mille ducentos annos ad septimum Thronum reversurum: sed ea spe falsus est.



[31] Marchosias [*Marchocias] is a great marquesse, he sheweth himselfe in the shape of a cruell shee woolfe, with a griphens wings, with a serpents taile, and spetting I cannot tell what out of his mouth. When he is in a mans shape, he is an excellent fighter, he answereth all questions trulie, he is faithfull in all the conjurors businesse [commands], he was of the order of dominations, under him are thirtie legions: he hopeth after 1200. yeares to returne to the seventh throne, but he is deceived in that hope.

[§ 32.] Malphas magnus Præses, conspicitur corvo similis: sed hominis idolum indutus rauca fatur voce. Domos & turres ingentes mirè extruit, & obvios citò facit artifices maximos: hostium verò ædes & turres deijcit. Famulos suppeditat non malos. Sacrificia libenter suscipit, at sacrificatores omnes fallit. Quadraginta huic parent legiones.



[32] Malphas is a great president, he is seene like a crowe [*raven], but being cloathed with humane image, speaketh with a hoarse voice, be buildeth houses and high towres wonderfullie, and quicklie bringeth artificers togither, he throweth downe also the enimies edifications, he helpeth to good familiars, he receiveth sacrifices willinglie, but he deceiveth all the sacrificers, there obeie him fourtie legions.

[§ 33.] Vepar, aliàs Separ, Dux magnus & fortis: similis syreni: ductor est aquarum & navium armis onustarum. Ut mare iussu magistri turgidum navibusque plenum appareat, efficit: contra inimicos exorcistæ per dies tres vulneribus putrescentibus vermesque producentibus homines inficit, à quibus tamen negotio absoluto sanantur omnes. Imperat legionibus vigintinovem.



[33] Vepar, alias Separ, a great duke and a strong, he is like a mermaid [*siren], he is the guide of the waters, and of ships laden with armour; he bringeth to passe (at the commandement of his master) that the sea shalbe rough and stormie, and shall appeare full of shippes; he killeth men in three daies, with putrifieng their wounds, and producing maggots into them; howbeit, they maie be all healed with diligence, he ruleth nine and twentie legions.

[§34.] Sabnac, aliàs Salmac, Marchio magnus & fortis: prodit ut miles armatus, capite leonis, in pallido equo insidens. Hominis formam transmutat mirè: turres magnas armis plenas ædificat, item castra & civitates. Triginta [923] dies ex mandato exorcistæ homini vulnera putrida & verminantia infligit. Familiares conciliat bonos: dominium exercens quinquaginta legionum.



[34] Sabnacke [*Sabnac], alias Salmac, is a great marquesse and a strong, he commeth foorth as an armed soldier with a lions head, sitting on a pale horsse, he dooth marvelouslie change mans forme and favor, he buildeth high towres full of weapons, and also castels and cities; he inflicteth men thirtie daies with wounds both rotten and full of maggots, at the exorcists commandement, he provideth good familiars, and hath dominion over fiftie legions.

[kFoyauextlH]

[§ 35.] Sydonay, aliàs Asmoday, Rex magnus, fortis & potens: visitur tribus capitibus, quorum primum assimilatur capiti tauri, alterum hominis, tertium arietis. Cauda eius serpentina, ex ore flammam eructat, pedes anserini. Super dracone infernali sedet, in manu lanceam & vexillum portans. Præcedit alios qui sub potestate Amaymonis sunt. Cum huius officia exercet exorcista, sit fortis, cautus & in pedibus stans: si verò coopertus fuerit, ut in omnibus detegatur, efficiet: quod si non fecerit exorcista, ab Amaymone in cunctis decipietur: sed mox quum ipsum in prædicta forma conspicit, appellabit illum nomine suo, inquiens: Tu verò es Asmoday. ipse non negabit: & mox ad terram. Dat annulum virtutum: docet absolutè Geometriam, Arithmeticam, Astronomiam, Mechanicam: ad interrogata plenè & verè respondet: hominem reddit invisibilem: loca thesaurorum ostendit & custodit, si fuerit de legionibus Amaymonis. In sua potestate legiones septuaginta duas habet.



[35] Sidonay [*Sydonay], alias Asmoday, a great king, strong and mightie, he is seene with three heads, whereof the first is like a bull, the second like a man, the third like a ram, he hath a serpents taile, he belcheth flames out of his mouth, he hath feete like a goose, he sitteth on an infernall dragon, he carrieth a lance and a flag in his hand, he goeth before others, which are under the power of Amaymon. When the conjuror exerciseth this office, let him be abroad [*brave],6 let him be warie [=courageous] and standing on his feete; <if his cap be on his head> [! *if he is afraid he will be overwhelmed],7 he will cause all his dooings to be bewraied [=divulged], which if he doo not, the exorcist shalbe deceived by Amaymon in everie thing. But so soone as he seeth him in the forme aforesaid, he shall call him by his name, saieng; Thou art Asmoday; he will not denie it, and by and by he boweth downe to the ground; he giveth the ring of vertues, he absolutelie teacheth geometrie, arythmetike, astronomie, and handicrafts [=mechanics or engineering]. To all demands he answereth fullie and trulie, he maketh a man invisible, he sheweth the places where treasure lieth, and gardeth it, if it be among the legions of Amaymon, he hath under his power seventie two legions.



6, 7. Note these bizarre misreadings in Scot's edition were propagated to the Lemegeton.

[§ 36.] Gaap, aliàs Tap, Præses magnus & Princeps: in signo meridiei apparet: sed quum humanam assumit faciem,8 ductor est præcipuorum quatuor regum, tam potens ut Byleth. Extiterunt autem quidam necromantici, qui huic libamina & holocausta obtulere, & ut eundem evocarent, artem exercuere, dicentes sapientissimum Salomonem eam composuisse, quod falsum est: imò fuit Cham filius Noe, qui primus post diluvium cœpit malignos invocare spiritus, invocavit autem Byleth, & composuit artem in suo nomine, & librum, qui multis mathematicis est cognitus. Fiebant autem holocausta, libamina, [924] munera, & multa nefaria, quæ operabantur exorcistæ admistis sanctissimis Dei nominibus, quæ in eadem arte sparsim exprimuntur. Epistola verò de ijs nominibus est conscripta à Salomone, uti & scribunt Helias Hierosolymitanus & Heliseus.


[36] Gaap, alias Tap, a great president and a prince, he appeareth in a meridionall signe, and when he taketh humane shape8 he is the guide of the foure principall kings, as mightie as Bileth. There were certeine necromancers that offered sacrifices and burnt offerings unto him; and to call him up, they exercised an art, saieng that Salomon the wise made it. Which is false: for it was rather Cham, the sonne of Noah, who after the floud began first to invocate wicked spirits. He invocated Bileth, and made an art in his name, and a booke which is knowne to manie mathematicians. There were burnt offerings and sacrifices made, and gifts given, and much wickednes wrought by the exorcists, who mingled therewithall the holie names of God, the which in that art are everie where expressed. Marie [Certainly] there is an epistle of those names written by Salomon, as also write Helias Hierosolymitanus9 and Helisæus.10


8. CLM 849 fol 66r reads: "Apparet in signo medici cum suscipit figuram humanam; [est] doctor opti[m]us mulierum, et facit ardere in amorem virorum ("He appears in the form of a doctor when he takes on a human form. He is the most excellent doctor of women, and he makes them burn with love for men.")

9. Helias Hierosolymitanus: "(the prophet) Elijah of Jerusalem."

10. Heliseus: "(the prophet) Elisha."

Notandum, si aliquis exorcista habuerit artem Beleth, nec ipsum coram se sistere possit aut videre, nisi per artem, quomodo autem eundem continere oporteat, non est explicandum, quum sit nefandum, & nihil à Salomone de eius dignitate & officio didicerim, hoc tamen non silebo, ipsum reddere hominem admirabilem in philosophia & artibus omnibus liberalibus. Facit ad amorem, odium, invisibilitatem & consecrationem eorum quæ sunt de dominatione Amaymonis: & de potestate alterius exorcistæ tradit familiares, & vera perfectè responsa de præsentibus, præteritis & futuris. Velocissimo transcursu in varias regiones traducit hominem. Sexagintasex præest legionibus, & fuit de Potestatum ordine.



It is to be noted, that if anie exorcist [+wishes to] have the art of Bileth, and cannot make him stand before him, nor see him, I may not bewraie how and declare the meanes to conteine him, bicause it is abhomination, and for that I have learned nothing from Salomon of his dignitie and office. But yet I will not hide this; to wit, that he maketh a man woonderfull in philosophie and all the liberall sciences: he maketh love, hatred, insensibilitie, invisibilitie, consecration, and consecration of those things that are belonging unto the domination of Amaymon, and delivereth familiars out of the possession of other conjurors, answering truly and perfectly of things present, past, & to come, & transferreth men most speedilie into other nations, he ruleth sixtie six legions, & was of the order of potestats.

[§ 37.] Chax, aliàs Scox, Dux est & Marchio magnus: similis ciconiæ rauca voce & subtili. Mirabiliter aufert visum, auditum & intellectum iussu exorcistæ: aufert pecuniam ex qualibet domo regia, & reportat post mille ducentos annos, si iussus fuerit: abripit & equos. Fidelis esse in omnibus mandatis putatur: ac licet se obsequuturum exorcistæ promittat, non tamen in omnibus facit. Mendax est, nisi in triangulum introducatur: introductus autem loquitur de rebus divinis & reconditis thesauris, qui à malignis spiritibus non custodiuntur. Promittit insuper se collaturum optimos famulos, qui accepti sunt, si non fuerint deceptores. Huic subiacent legiones triginta.



[37] Shax [*Chax], alias Scox, is a darke and a great marquesse, like unto a storke, with a hoarse and subtill voice: he dooth marvellouslie take awaie the sight, hearing and understanding of anie man, at the commandement of the conjuror [*exorcist]: he taketh awaie monie out of everie kings house, and carrieth it backe after 1200. yeares, if he be commanded, he is a horssestealer, he is thought to be faithfull in all commandements: and although he promise to be obedient to the conjuror [*exorcist] in all things; yet is he not so, he is a lier, except he be brought into a triangle, and there he speaketh divinelie [*of divine things], and telleth of things which are hidden, and not kept of [*guarded by] wicked spirits, he promiseth good familiars, which are accepted if they be not deceivers, he hath thirtie legions.

[§ 38.] Pucel Dux magnus & fortis: apparet in specie angelica, sed obscura valde: [925] loquitur de occultis: docet Geometriam & omnes artes liberales: sonitus facit ingentes, & sonare aquas ubi non sunt, easdem & calefacit, & harum balnea recuperandæ sanitati servientia certis temporibus, distemperat iussu exorcistæ. Fuit de ordine Potestatum, habetque in sua potestate legiones quadragintaocto.



[38] Procell [*Pucel] is a great and a strong duke, appearing in the shape of an angell, but speaketh verie darklie of things hidden, he teacheth geometrie and all the liberall arts, he maketh great noises, and causeth the waters to rore, where are none, he warmeth waters, and distempereth bathes at certeine times, as the exorcist appointeth him, he was of the order of potestats, and hath fourtie eight legions under his power.

[§ 39.]11 Furcas miles est: prodit similitudine sævi hominis cum longa barba & capillitio cano. In equo pallido insidet, portans in manu telum acutum. Docet perfectè practicam, philosophiam, rhetoricam, logicam, chiromantiam, astronomiam, piromantiam, & earum partes. Huic parent viginti legiones.



[39] Furcas is a knight and commeth foorth in the similitude of a cruell man, with a long beard and a hoarie head, he sitteth on a pale horsse, carrieng in his hand a sharpe weapon [*dart or spear], he perfectlie teacheth practike philosophie, rhetorike, logike, astronomie, chiromancie, pyromancie, and their parts: there obeie him twentie legions.



11. The 1660 Opera Omnia edition numbers the spirits, but mistakenly repeats § 38 here, and subsequent numbers are off by one.

[§ 40.] Murmur magnus Dux & Comes: apparet militis forma, equitans in vulture, & ducali corona comptus. Hunc præcedunt duo ministri tubis magnis: philosophiam absolutè docet. Cogit animas coram exorcista apparere, ut interrogatæ respondeant ad ipsius quæsita. Fuit de ordine partim Thronorum, partim Angelorum.



[40] Murmur is a great duke and an earle, appearing in the shape of a souldier, riding on a griphen [*vulture], with a dukes crowne on his head; there go before him two of his ministers, with great trumpets, he teacheth philosophie absolutelie, he constraineth soules to come before the exorcist, to answer what he shall aske them, he was of the order partlie of thrones, and partlie of angels, <and ruleth thirtie legions.>

[§ 41.] Caym magnus Præses, formam assumens merulæ: at quum hominem induit, respondet in favilla ardente, ferens in manu gladium acutissimum. Præ cæteris sapienter argumentari facit: tribuit intellectum omnium volatilium, mugitus boum, latratus canum, & sonitus aquarum: de futuris optimè respondet. Fuit ex ordine Angelorum. Præsidet legionibus triginta.



[41] Caim [*Caym] is a great president, taking the forme of a thrush [*blackbird], but when he putteth on man's shape, he answereth in burning ashes, carrieng in his hand a most sharpe swoord, he maketh the best disputers, he giveth men the understanding of all birds, of the lowing of bullocks, and barking of dogs, and also of the sound and noise of waters, he answereth best of things to come, he was of the order of angels, and ruleth thirtie legions <of divels>.

[§ 42.] Raum vel Raym Comes est magnus: ut corvus visitur: Sed quum assumit humanam faciem, si ab exorcista iussus fuerit, mirè ex regis domo vel alia suffuratur, & ad locum sibi designatum transfert. Civitates destruit: dignitatum despectum ingerit. Novit præsentia, præterita & futura. Favorem tam hostium quàm amicorum conciliat. Fuit ex ordine Thronorum. Præest legionibus triginta.



[42] Raum, or Raim [*Raym] is a great earle, he is seene as a crowe [*raven],12 but when he putteth on humane shape, at the commandement of the exorcist, he stealeth woonderfullie out of the kings house, and carrieth it whether he is assigned, he destroieth cities, and hath great despite unto dignities, he knoweth things present, past, and to come, and reconcileth freends and foes, he was of the order of thrones, and governeth thirtie legions.



12. Latin corvus is a raven, not a crow (cornix).
[926]

[§ 43.] Halphas Comes magnus, prodit similis ciconiæ rauca voce. Insigniter ædificat oppida ampla armis plena: bellum movet, & iussus, homines bellicosos ad designatum locum mittit obviam. Subsunt huic viginti sex legiones.



[43] Halphas is a great earle, and commeth abroad like a storke, with a hoarse voice, he notablie buildeth up townes full of munition and weapons, he sendeth men of warre to places appointed, and hath under him six and twentie legions.

[§ 44.] Focalor Dux magnus, prodit velut homo, habens alas gryphi forma. Accepta humana figura, interficit homines & in aquis submergit. Imperat mari & vento, navesque bellicas subvertit. Notandum omni exorcistæ, si huic mandetur, ne homines lædat, libenter obsequitur. Sperat se post mille annos reversurum ad septimum Thronum, sed fallitur. Triginta legionibus imperat.



[44] Focalor is a great duke comming foorth as a man, with wings like a griphen, he killeth men, and drowneth them in the waters, and overturneth ships of warre, commanding and ruling both winds and seas. And let the conjuror note, that if he bid him hurt no man, he willinglie consenteth thereto: he hopeth after 1000. yeares to returne to the seventh throne, but he is deceived, he hath three [*thirty] legions.

[§ 45.] Vine magnus Rex & Comes: se ostentat ut leo in equo nigro insidens, portansque viperam in manu. Amplas turres libenter ædificat: lapideas domus extruit, rivos reddit turgidos: ad exorcistæ mandatum respondet de occultis, maleficis, præsentibus, præteritis & futuris.



[45] Vine is a great king and an earle, he showeth himselfe as a lion, riding on a blacke horsse, and carrieth a viper in his hand, he gladlie buildeth large towres, he throweth downe [*erects] stone walles, and maketh waters rough [*restores swollen rivers]. At the commandement of the exorcist he answereth of things hidden, of witches, and of things present, past, and to come.

[§ 46.] Bifrons, monstri similitudine conspicitur. Ubi humanam assumit imaginem, reddit hominem in Astrologia mirabilem, planetarum mansiones absolutè docens, idem præstat in Geometria, & mensuris alijs. Vires herbarum, lapidum pretiosorum & lignorum intelligit. Corpora mortuorum de loco ad locum transmutat: candelas super defunctorum sepulchra inflammare videtur. Huic subiacent viginti sex legiones.



[46] Bifrons is seene in the similitude of a monster, when he taketh the image of a man, he maketh one woonderfull cunning in astrologie, absolutelie declaring the mansions of the planets, he dooth the like in geometrie, and other admesurements, he perfectlie understandeth the strength and vertue of hearbs, pretious stones, and woods, he changeth dead bodies from place to place, he seemeth to light candles upon the sepulchres of the dead, and hath under him six and twentie legions.

[§ 47.] Gamygyn magnus Marchio: in forma equi parvi visitur: at ubi hominis simulachrum assumit, raucam edit vocem, de omnibus artibus liberalibus differens: efficit quoque, ut coram exorcista conveniant animæ in mari exeuntes, & quæ degunt in purgatorio (quod dicitur Cartagra, id est, afflictio animarum) & corpora aërea suscipiunt, apparentque evidenter, & ad interrogata [927] respondent. Permanet apud exorcistam, donec ipsius votum expleverit. Triginta legiones in sua habet potestate.



[47] Gamigin [*Gamygyn] is a great marquesse, and is seene in the forme of a little horsse, when he taketh humane shape he speaketh with a hoarse voice, disputing of all liberall sciences; he bringeth also to passe, that the soules, which are drowned in the sea, or which dwell in purgatorie (which is called Cartagra, that is, affliction of soules) shall take aierie bodies, and evidentlie appeare and answer to interrogatories at the conjurors commandement; he tarrieth with the exorcist, untill he have accomplished his desire, and hath thirtie legions under him.

[§ 48.] Zagan13 magnus Rex & Præses: ut taurus prodit cum alis ad modum gryphi: sed assumpta hominis forma, reddit hominem ingeniosum: transmutat cuncta metallorum genera in monetas illius ditionis, & aquam in vinum, & ediversò: sanguinem quoque in oleum, & contrà: & stultum in sapientem. Præest triginta tribus legionibus.



[48] Zagan is a great king and a president, he commeth abroad like a bull, with griphens wings, but when he taketh humane shape, he maketh men wittie, he turneth all mettals into the coine of that dominion, and turneth water into wine, and wine into water, he also turneth bloud into <wine> [*oil], & <wine> [*oil] into bloud, & a foole into a wise man, he is head of thirtie and three legions.



13. The 1583 edition reads "Zagã" here, but "Zagan" on p. 930. The 1660 Opera Omnia edition misreads Zagam here, but "Zagan" on p. 663.

[§ 49.] Orias Marchio magnus, visitur ut leo, in equo fortissimo equitans, cauda serpentina: in dextera portat duos grandes serpentes etiam exibilantes. Callet planetarum mansiones, & vires sidereas perfectè docet. Transmutat homines: confert dignitates, prælaturas & confirmationes: item amicorum & hostium favorem. Præsidet legionibus triginta.



[49] Orias is a great marquesse, and is seene as a lion riding on a strong horsse, with a serpents taile, and carrieth in his right hand two great serpents hissing, he knoweth the mansion of planets and perfectlie teacheth the vertues of the starres, he transformeth men, he giveth dignities, prelacies, and confirmations, and also the favour of freends and foes, and hath under him thirtie legions.

[§ 50.] Volac magnus Præses: progreditur uti puer alis angeli, super dracone equitans duobus capitibus. De occultis thesauris perfectè respondet, & ubi serpentes videantur, quos & viribus dedestitutos tradit in exorcistæ manus. Dominium habet legionum triginta.



[50] Valac [*Volac] is a great president, and commeth abroad with angels wings like a boie, riding on a twoheaded dragon, he perfectlie answereth of treasure hidden, and where serpents may be seene, which he delivereth into the conjurors hands, void of anie force or strength, and hath dominion over thirtie legions of divels.

[§ 51.] Gomory Dux fortis & potens: apparet ut mulier pulcherrima: ac ducali cingitur corona, in camelo equitans. Bene & verè respondet de præteritis, præsentibus, futuris, & occultis thesauris ubi lateant. Conciliat amorem mulierum, & maximè puellarum. Imperat legionibus vigintisex.



[51] Gomory a strong and a mightie duke, he appeareth like a faire woman, with a duchesse crownet about hir midle, riding on a camell, he answereth well and truelie of things present, past, and to come, and of treasure hid, and where it lieth: he procureth the love of women, especiallie of maids, and hath six and twentie legions.

[§ 52.] Decarabia vel Carabia, magnus Rex & Comes: venit similis ☆. Vires herbarum & lapidum pretiosorum novit: efficit ut aves coram exorcista volent, & velut familiares ac domesticæ morentur, bibant & cantillent suo more. Parent huic triginta legiones.



[52] Decarabia or Carabia, [+a great king and earl,]14 he commeth like a ☆ and knoweth the force of herbes and pretious stones, and maketh all birds flie before the exorcist, and to tarrie with him, as though they were tame, and that they shall drinke and sing, as their maner is, and hath thirtie legions.



14. Omitted by Scot, but so the Latin.

[§ 53.] Amduscias Dux magnus & fortis: [928] procedit ut unicornu: in humana similiter forma, quando coram magistro suo se sistit: & si præcipiatur, efficit facilè ut tubæ & symphoniæ omniaque musicorum instrumentorum genera audiantur, nec tamen conspectui appareant: ut item arbores ad exorcistæ genu se inclinent. Optimus est una cum famulis. Imperium habet vigintinovem legionum.



[53] Amduscias a great and a strong duke, he commeth foorth as an unicorne, when he standeth before his maister in humane shape, being commanded, he easilie bringeth to passe, that trumpets and all musicall instruments may be heard and not seene, and also that trees shall bend and incline, according to the conjurors will, he is excellent among familiars, and hath nine and twentie legions.

[§ 54.] Andras magnus Marchio: visitur forma angelica, capite nycticoraci nigro simili, in lupo nigro & fortissimo equitans, baiulansque manu gladium acutissimum. Novit interficere dominum, servum & coadiutores: author est discordiarum. Dominatur legionibus triginta.



[54] Andras is a great marquesse, and is seene in an angels shape with a head like a blacke night raven, riding upon a blacke and a verie strong woolfe, flourishing with a sharpe sword in his hand, he can kill the maister, the servant, and all assistants, he is author of discords, and ruleth thirtie legions.

[§ 55.] Androalphus Marchio magnus, apparens ut pavo: graves edit sonitus: & in humana forma docet perfectè geometriam & mensuram spectantia: reddit hominem in argumentando argutum, & in astronomia prudentem, eundemque in avis speciem transmutat. Triginta huic subsunt legiones.



[55] Andrealphus [*Androalphus] is a great marquesse, appearing as a pecocke, he raiseth great noises, and in humane shape perfectlie teacheth geometrie, and all things belonging to admeasurements, he maketh a man to be a subtill disputer, and cunning in astronomie, and transformeth a man into the likenes of a bird, and there are under him thirtie legions.

[kFoyauextlH]

[§ 56.] Oze Præses magnus: procedit similis leopardo: sed hominem mentitus, reddit prudentem in artibus liberalibus: verè respondet de divinis & occultis: transmutat hominis formam: & ad eam insaniam eum redigit, ut sibi persuadeat esse quod non est, quemadmodum se esse regem vel papam, & coronam in capite gestare: duratque id regnum horam.



[56] Ose [*Oze] is a great president, and commeth foorth like a leopard, and counterfeting to be a man, he maketh one cunning in the liberall sciences, he answereth truelie of divine and secret things, he transformeth a mans shape, and bringeth a man to that madnes [or, "drives insanity away"], that he thinketh himselfe to be that which he is not; as that he is a king or a pope, or that he weareth a crowne on his head, Durátque id regnum ad horam15



15. and that power endures for an hour.

[§ 57.] Aym vel Haborym Dux magnus & fortis: progreditur tribus capitibus, primo serpenti simili, altero homini duos ☆ habenti, tertio felino. In vipera equitat, ingentem facem ardentem portans, cuius flamma succenditur castrum vel civitas. Omnibus modis ingeniosum reddit hominem: de abstrusis rebus verè respondet. Imperat legionibus vigintisex.



[57] Aym or Haborim [*Haborym] is a great duke and a strong, he commeth foorth with three heads, the first like a serpent, the second like a man having two ☆ the third like a cat, he rideth on a viper, carrieng in his hand a light fier brand, with the flame whereof castels and cities are fiered, he maketh one wittie everie kind of waie, he answereth truelie of privie matters, and reigneth over twentie six legions.

[929]

[§ 58.] Orobas magnus Princeps: procedit equo conformis: hominis autem indutus idolum, de virtute divina loquitur: vera dat responsa de præteritis, præsentibus, futuris, de divinitate & creatione: neminem decipit, nec tentari sinit: confert prælaturas & dignitates, amicorum item & hostium favorem. Præsidet legionibus viginti.



[58] Orobas is a great prince, he commeth foorth like a horsse, but when he putteth on him a mans idol [=image], he talketh of divine vertue, he giveth true answers of things present, past, and to come, and of the divinitie, and of the creation, he deceiveth none, nor suffereth anie to be tempted, he giveth dignities and prelacies, and the favour of freends and foes, and hath rule over twentie legions.

[§ 59.] Vapula Dux magnus & fortis: conspicitur ut leo alis ad modum gryphi. Reddit hominem subtilem & mirabilem in artibus mechanicis, philosophia, & scientijs quæ in libris continentur. Præfectus est trigintasex legionum.



[59] Vapula is a great duke and a strong, he is seene like a lion with griphens wings, he maketh a man subtill and wonderfull in handicrafts [=mechanics or engineering], philosophie, and in sciences conteined in bookes, and is ruler over thirtie six legions.

[§ 60.] Cimeries magnus Marchio & fortis: imperans in partibus Africanis: docet perfectè Grammaticam, Logicam & Rhetoricam. Thesauros detegit, & occulta aperit. Facit ut homo cursu celerrimo videatur transmutari in militem. Equitat in equo nigro & grandi. Legionibus viginti præest.



[60] Cimeries is a great marquesse and a strong, ruling in the parts of Aphrica [=Africa]; he teacheth perfectlie grammar, logicke, and rhetorike, he discovereth treasures and things hidden, he bringeth to passe, that a man shall seeme with expedition to be turned into a soldier, he rideth upon a great blacke horsse, and ruleth twentie legions.

[§ 61.] Amy Præses magnus: apparet in flamma ignea: sed humana assumpta forma, reddit hominem admirabilem in astrologia & omnibus artibus liberalibus. Famulos suppetit optimos: thesauros à spiritibus custoditos ostendit. Præfecturam habet legionem triginta sex, ex ordine partim angelorum, partim potestatum. Sperat se post mille ducentos annos ad Thronum septimum reversurum, quod credibile non est.



[61] Amy is a great president, and appeareth in a flame of fier, but having taken mans shape, he maketh one marvelous in astrologie, and in all the liberall sciences, he procureth excellent familiars, he bewraieth treasures preserved by spirits, he hath the governement of thirtie six legions, he is partlie of the order of angels, partlie of potestats, he hopeth after a thousand two hundreth yeares to returne to the seventh throne: which is not credible.

[§ 62.] Flauros dux fortis: conspicitur forma leopardi & terribili. In humana specie vultum ostentat horrendum, & oculos flammeos. De præteritis, præsentibus & futuris plenè & verè respondet. Si fuerit in triangulo, mentitut in cunctis, & fallit in alijs negocijs. Libenter loquitur de divinitate, mundi creatione & lapsu. Divina virtute cogitur, & omnes alij dæmones sive spiritus, ut omnes adversarios exorcistæ succendant & destruant. Et si virtute numinis [930] ipsi imperatum fuerit, exorcistæ tentationem non permittit. Legiones viginti sub sua habet potestate.



[62] Flauros a strong duke, is seene in the forme of a terrible strong leopard, in humane shape, he sheweth a terrible countenance, and fierie eies, he answereth trulie and fullie of things present, past, and to come; if he be in a triangle, he lieth in all things and deceiveth in other things, and beguileth in other busines, he gladlie talketh of the divinitie, and of the creation of the world, and of the fall; he is constrained by divine vertue, and so are all divels or spirits, to burne and destroie all the conjurors adversaries. And if he be commanded, he suffereth the conjuror not to be tempted, and he hath twentie legions under him.

[§ 63.] Balã16 Rex magnus & terribilis: prodit tribus capitibus, primo tauri, altero hominis, tertio arietis: cauda adhæc serpentina, oculis flammeis, equitans in urso fortissimo, & accipitrem in manu portans. Raucam edit vocem: perfectè respondet de præteritis, præsentibus & futuris: reddit hominem & invisibilem & prudentem. Quadraginta legionibus præsidet, & fuit ex ordine dominat[ionum].



[63] Balam is a great and a terrible king, he commeth foorth with three heads, the first of a bull, the second of a man, the third of a ram, he hath a serpents taile, and flaming eies, riding upon a furious [very powerful] beare, and carrieng a hawke on his fist, he speaketh with a hoarse voice, answering perfectlie of things present, past, and to come, hee maketh a man invisible and wise, hee governeth fourtie legions, and was of the order of dominations.



16. The 1660 p. 662 Opera Omnia edition reads "Balam."

[§ 64.] Alocer Dux magnus & fortis: procedit ut miles in equo vasto insidens: facies eius leonina, rubicunda valde cum oculis flammeis: graviter loquitur: hominem reddit admirabilem in astronomia & in omnibus artibus liberalibus: confert bonam familiam; Dominatur triginta sex legionibus.



[64] Allocer [*Alocer] is a strong duke and a great, he commeth foorth like a soldier, riding on a great horsse, he hath a lions face, verie red, and with flaming eies, he speaketh with a big voice, he maketh a man woonderfull in astronomie, and in all the liberall sciences, he bringeth good familiars, and ruleth thirtie six legions.

[§ 65.] Zaleos magnus Comes: apparet ut miles pulcherrimus in crocodilo equitans, & ducali ornatus corona, pacificus, &c.



[65] Saleos [*Zaleos] is a great earle, he appeareth as a gallant [=handsome] soldier, riding on a crocodile, and weareth a dukes crowne, peaceable, &c.

[§ 66.] Vual17 Dux magnus & fortis: conspicitur ut dromedarius magnus ac terribilis: at in humana forma linguam sonat Ægyptiacam graviter. Hic præ cæteris amorem maximè mulierum conciliat: inde novit præsentia, præterita & futura: confert & gratiam amicorum atque inimicorum. De ordine fuit potestatum. Triginta septem legiones gubernat.



[66] Vuall [*Vual] is a great duke and a strong, he is seene as a great and terrible dromedarie, but in humane forme, he soundeth out in a base [=deep] voice the Ægyptian toong. This man above all other procureth the especiall love of women, and knoweth things present, past, and to come, procuring the love of freends and foes, he was of the order of potestats, and governeth thirtie seven legions.



17. The 1660 Opera Omnia edition p. 663 reads "Wal."

[§ 67.] Haagenti magnus Præses: ut taurus videtur, habens alas gryphi: sed assumpta facie humana, reddit hominem ingeniosum in quibuslibet: cuncta metalla in aurum transmutat, aquam in vinum, & ediversò. Tot legionibus imperat, quot Zagan.



[67] Haagenti is a great president, appearing like a great bull, having the wings of a griphen, but when he taketh humane shape, he maketh a man wise in everie thing, he changeth all mettals into gold, and changeth wine and water the one into the other, and commandeth as manie legions as Zagan.

[§ 68.] Phœnix magnus Marchio: apparet uti avis phœnix puerili voce: sed antequam se sistit coram exorcista, cantus emittit dulcissimos: tunc autem cavendum [931] exorcistæ cum suis sociis, ne suavitati cantus aures accommodent, sed ille mox huic iubeat humanam assumere speciem, tunc mirè loquetur de cunctis scientijs admirandis. Poeta est optimus & obediens. Sperat se post mille ducentos annos ad septimum thronum rediturum. Viginti præest legionibus.



[68] Phœnix [Phoenix] is a great marquesse, appearing like the bird Phœnix, having a childs voice: but before he standeth still before the conjuror, he singeth manie sweet notes. Then the exorcist with his companions must beware he give no eare to the melodie, but must by and by bid him put on humane shape; then will he speake marvellouslie of all woonderfull sciences. He is an excellent poet, and obedient, he hopeth to returne to the seventh throne after a thousand two hundreth yeares, and governeth twentie legions.

[§ 69.] Stolas magnus Princeps: prodit forma nycticoracis: coram exorcista hominis simulachrum suscipit, docetque absolutè astronomiam. Herbarum & lapidum pretiosorum vires intelligit. Viginti sex legiones huic subiacent.



[69] Stolas is a great prince, appearing in the forme of a nightraven, before the exorcist, he taketh the image and shape of a man, and teacheth astronomie, absolutelie understanding the vertues of herbes and pretious stones; there are under him twentie six legions.

Legio 6666.


¶ Note that a legion is 6 6 6 6, and now by multiplication count how manie legions doo arise out of everie particular.



This was the work of one T. R. written in faire letters of red & blacke upõ parchment, and made by him, Ann. 1570. to the maintenance of his living, the edifieng of the poore, and the glorie of gods holie name: as he himselfe saith.

Secretum secretorum tu operans sis secretus horum.


The secret of secrets; Thou that workst them, be secret in them.


CHAPTER III.

Observa horas in quibus quatuor reges, scilicet Amoymon rex Orientalis, Gorson rex Meridionalis, Zymymar rex Septentrionalis, Goap rex & princeps Occidentalis possunt constringi, à tertia hora usque ad meridiem, à nona hora usque ad vesperas.



The houres wherin principall divels may be bound, to wit, raised and restrained from dooing of hurt.

AMAYMON [*Amoymon] king of the east, Gorson king of the south, Zimimar king of the north, Goap king and prince of the west, may be bound from the third houre, till noone, and from the ninth houre till evening.


Better: "Observe the times in which the four kings can be compelled, namely Amoymon (the King of the East), Gorson (the king of the South), Zymymar (the king of the North), and Goap (the king and prince of the West): from Terce until noon, from None until Vespers."

I haven't found Gorson, Zymymar/Zimimar, or Goap as cardinal kings in sources earlier than Weyer. The kings are most commonly listed as Oriens [in SSM: Orienens] (E), Paymon (W), Amaymon (S), & Egin (N) (e.g. Coxe 25, Folger). -JHP

Item Marchiones à nona usque ad completorium, vel à completorio usque ad finem diei.


Marquesses may be bound from the ninth houre till compline, and from compline till the end of the daie.

Item Duces à prima usque ad meridiem: & observatur cœlum clarum.


Dukes may be hound from the first houre till noone; and cleare wether is to be observed.

Item Prælati in aliqua hora diei.


Prelates may be bound in anie houre of the daie.

Item Milites ab aurora usque ad ortum solis, vel à vesperis usque ad finem solis.


Knights from daie dawning, till sunne rising; or from evensong, till the sunne set.

Item Præses in aliqua hora diei non potest constringi, nisi rex cui paret, invocaretur, & nec in crepusculo noctis.


A President may not be bound in anie houre of the daie, except the king, whome he obeieth, be invocated; nor in the shutting of the evening.

Item Comites omni hora diei, dum sunt in locis campestribus vel sylvestribus, quò homines non solent accedere, &c.


Counties or erles [=Counts or Earls] may be bound at anie houre of the daie, so it be in the woods or feelds, where men resort not.

Citatio Prædictorum spirituum.

CHAPTER IV.
The forme of adjuring or citing of the spirits aforesaid to arise and appeare.

Ubi quem volueris spiritum, huius nomen & officium suprà cognosces: inprimis autem ab omni pollutione, minimum tres vel quatuor dies mundus esto in prima citatione, sic & spiritus [932] postea obsequentiores erunt: fac & circulum, & voca spiritum cum multa intentione: primùm verò annulum in manu contineto: inde hanc recitato benedictionem tuo nomine & socij, si præsto fuerit, & effectum tui instituti sortieris, nec detrimentum à spiritibus senties:*


WHEN you will have anie spirit,you must know his name and office; you must also fast, and be cleane from all pollusion, three or foure daies before; so will the spirit be the more obedient unto you. Then make a circle, and call up the spirit with great intention, and holding a ring in your hand, rehearse in your owne name, and your companions (for one must alwaies be with you) this praier following, and so no spirit shall annoie you, and your purpose shall take effect. <(And note how this agreeth with popish charmes and conjurations.)>


Quàm religiosus hic diabolus.

* imo tuæ animæ perditionem.

In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi ✠ patris & ✠ filii & ✠ spiritus sancti: sancta trinitas & inseparabilis unitas te invoco, ut sis mihi salus & defensio & protectio corporis & animæ meæ, & omnium rerum mearum. Per virtutem sanctæ crucis ✠ & per virtutem passionis tuæ deprecor te domine Iesu Christe, per merita beatissimæ Mariæ virginis & matris tuæ atque omnium sanctorum tuorum, ut mihi concedas gratiam & potestatem divinam super omnes malignos spiritus, ut quoscunque nominibus invocavero, statim ex omni parte conveniant, & voluntatem meam perfectè adimpleant, quòd mihi nihil nocentes, neque timorem inferentes, sed potius obedientes & ministrantes, tua districtè virtute præcipiente, mandata mea perficiant, Amen. Sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus Deus Sabaoth, qui venturus es iudicare vivos & mortuos: tu qui es alpha & ω, primus & novissimus, Rex regum & dominus dominantium Ioth Aglanabrath El abiel anathi Enathiel Amazin sedomel gayes tolima Elias ischiros athanatos ymas heli Messias, per hæc tua sancta nomina & per omnia alia invoco te & obsecro te domine Iesu Christe, per tuam nativitatem, per baptismum tuum, per passionem & crucem tuam, per ascensionem tuam, per adventum spiritussancti paracliti, per amaritudinem animæ tuæ; quando exivit de corpore tuo, per quinque vulnera tua, per sanguinem & aquam, quæ exierant de corpore tuo, per virtutem tuam, per sacramentum quod dedisti discipulis tuis pridie [933] quàm passus fuisti: per sanctam trinitatem, per individuam vnitatem, per beatam Mariam matrem tuam, per angelos & archangelos, per prophetas & patriarchas, & per omnes sanctos tuos, & per omnia sacramenta quæ fiunt in honore tuo: adoro te & obsecro te, benedico tibi & rogo, ut acceptes orationes has & coniurationes & verba oris mei, quibus uti voluero. Peto Domine Iesu Christe, da mihi virtutem & potestatem tuam super omnes angelos tuos, qui de cœlo eiecti sunt ad decipiendum genus humanum, ad attrahendum eos, ad constringendum, ad ligandum eos pariter & solvendum: & ad congregandum eos coram me, & ad præcipiendum eis ut omnia, quæ possunt, faciant, & verba mea vocemque meam nullo modo contemnant: sed mihi & dictis meis obediant, & me timeant, per humanitatem & misericordiam & gratiam tuam deprecor & peto te adonay amay hortan uegedora mytay hel suranat ysion ysyesy & per omnia nomina tua sancta, per omnes sanctos & sanctas tuas, per angelos & archangelos, potestates, dominationes & virtutes, & per illud nomen per quod Salomon contringebat dæmones, & conclusit ipsos Elhroch eban her agle goth ioth othie uenoch nabrat, & per omnia sacra nomina quæ scripta sunt in hoc libro, & per virtutem eorundem, quatenus me potentem facias congregare & constringere omnes tuos spiritus de cœlo depulsos, ut mihi veraciter de omnibus meis interrogatis, de quibus quæram, responsionem veracem tribuant, & omnibus meis mandatis illi satisfaciant sine læsione corporis & animæ meæ & omnium ad me pertinentium, per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium [934] tuum, qui tecum vivit & regnat in unitate spiritussancti Deus per omnia secula.



In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the ✠ father ✠ and the sonne ✠ and the Hollie-ghost ✠ holie trinitie and unseparable unitie, I call upon thee, that thou maiest be my salvation and defense, and the protection of my bodie and soule, and of all my goods through the vertue of thy holie crosse, and through the vertue of thy passion, I beseech thee O Lord Jesus Christ, by the merits of thy blessed mother S. Marie, and of all thy saints, that thou give me grace and divine power over all the wicked spirits, so as which of them soever I doo call by name, they may come by and by from everie coast, and accomplish my will, that they neither be hurtfull or fearefull unto me, but rather obedient and diligent about me. And through thy vertue streightlie commanding them, let them fulfill my commandements, Amen. Holie, holie, Lord God of sabboth, which wilt come to judge the quicke and the dead, thou which art A and Omega, first and last, King of kings and Lord of lords, Ioth, Aglanabrath, El, Abiel, <Anathiel> [anathi Enathiel], Amazim, Sedomel, Gayes, [Tolima, Elias, Ischiros, Athanatos, Ymas] Heli, Messias, <Tolimi, Elias, Ischiros, Athanatos, Imas>. By these thy holie names, and by all other I doo call upon thee, and beseech thee O Lord Jesus Christ, by thy nativitie and baptisme, by thy crosse and passion, by thine ascension, and by the comming of the Holie-ghost, by the bitternesse of thy soule when it departed from thy bodie, by thy five wounds, by the bloud and water which went out of thy bodie, by thy vertue, by the sacrament which thou gavest thy disciples the daie before thou sufferedst, by the holie trinitie, and by the inseparable unitie, by blessed Marie thy mother, by thine angels, archangels, prophets, patriarchs, and by all thy saints, and by all the sacraments which are made in thine honour, I doo worship and beseech thee, I blesse and desire thee, to accept these prayers, conjurations, and words of my mouth, which I will use. I require thee O Lord Jesus Christ, that thou give me thy vertue & power over all thine angels (which were throwne downe from heaven to deceive mankind) to drawe them to me, to tie and bind them, & also to loose them, to gather them togither before me, & to command them to doo all that they can, and that by no meanes they contemne my voice, or the words of my mouth; but that they obeie me and my saiengs, and feare me. I beseech thee by thine humanitie, mercie and grace, and I require thee Adonay, Amay, Horta, Vege dora, Mitai, Hel, Suranat, Ysion, Ysesy, and by all thy holie names, and by all thine holie he saints and she saints, by all thine angels and archangels, powers, dominations, and vertues, and by that name that Salomon did bind the divels, and shut them up, Elhrach, Ebanher, Agle, Goth, Ioth, Othie, Venoch, Nabrat, and by all thine holie names which are written in this booke, and by the vertue of them all, that thou enable me to congregate all thy spirits throwne downe from heaven, that they may give me a true answer of all my demands, and that they satisfie all my requests, without the hurt of my bodie or soule, or any thing else that is mine, through our Lord Jesus Christ thy sonne, which liveth and reigneth with thee in the unitie of the Holie-ghost, one God world without end.



Blasphemiae merae, & detestandus nominum diuinum diuinorum abusus.







Insignis meritorum Christi contemptus.

O pater omnipotens, ô fili sapiens, ô spiritus sancte corda hominum illustrans, ô vos tres in personis, una vera deitas in substantia: qui Adam & Evæ in peccatis eorum pepercistis, & propter eorum peccata mortem subijsti tu fili turpissimam, in lignoque sanctæ crucis sustinuisti: ô misericordissime, quando ad tuam confugio misericordiam, & supplico modis omnibus quibus possum, per hæc nomina sancta tui filij, scilicet alpha & ω, & per omnia alia sua nomina, quatenus concedas mihi virtutem & potestatem tuam, ut valeam tuos spiritus qui de cœlo eiecti sunt, ante me citare, & ut ipsi mecum loquantur, & mandata mea perficiant statim & sine mora, cum eorum voluntate, sine omni læsione corporis, animæ & bonorum meorum, &c.

Continua ut in libro * Annuli Salomonis continetur.



Oh father omnipotent, oh wise sonne, oh Holie-ghost, the searcher of harts, oh you three in persons, one true godhead in substance, which didst spare Adam and Eve in their sins; and oh thou sonne, which diedst for their sinnes a most filthie [disgraceful] death, susteining it upon the holie crosse; oh thou most mercifull, when I flie unto thy mercie, and beseech thee by all the means I can, by these the holie names of thy sonne; to wit, A and Omega, and all other his names, grant me thy vertue and power, that I may be able to cite before me, thy spirits which were throwne downe from heaven, & that they may speake with me, & dispatch by & by without delaie, & with a good will, & without the hurt of my bodie, soule, or goods, &c:

as is conteined in the booke called Annulus Salomonis.18

18. For Annuli Salomonis, see BN 7349, 15th century, no. 8. De quattuor annulis or de quatuor annulis sapientissimi Salomonis: Sl. 3847, fols. 66v-81.

O summa & æterna virtus Altissimi, qui te disponente his iudicio vocatis * uaycheon stimulamaton ezphares tetragrammaton olyoram irion esytion existion eryona onela brasym noym messias sother emanuel sabaoth adonay, te adoro, te invoco, totius mentis viribus meis imploro, quatenus per te præsentes orationes & consecrationes & coniurationes consecrentur videlicet, & ubicunque maligni spiritus in virtute tuorum nominum sunt vocati, & omni parte conveniant, & voluntatem mei exorcisatoris diligenter adimpleant, fiat fiat fiat, Amen.



Oh great and eternall vertue of the highest, which through disposition, these being called to judgement, Vaicheon, Stimulamaton, Esphares, Tetragrammaton, Olioram, Cryon [*irion], Esytion, Existion, Eriona, Onela, Brasim, Noym, Messias, Soter, Emanuel, Sabboth [*Sabaoth], Adonay, I worship thee, I invocate thee, I imploie [*implore] thee with all the strength of my mind, that by thee, my present praiers, consecrations, and conjurations be hallowed: and whersoever wicked spirits are called, in the vertue of thy names, they may come togither from everie coast, and diligentlie fulfill the will of me the exorcist. Fiat, fiat, fiat, Amen.



Compare Almadel Firenze, Bibliotheca Medicea Laurenziana, ms. Plut. 89 sup. 38 (=F2 § 30), fol. 276r. Ed. Véronè 2012 p. 115.

Hæc blasphema & execranda huius mundi fæx & sentina pœnam in magos prophanos bene constitutam, pro scelerato mentis ausu iure meretur.


[This kind of blasphemy and swearing constitutes the worst kind of refuse and dregs of the earth, and punishment of these profane magi is well deserved.]
FINIS
"

I wanted to include the Latin since certain words actually have different ideas associated with them at times where the English might choose a much more narrow interpretation for the word which associates less possibilities according to modern usage of the words especially.


I've heard this psychologizing effort before since people want to have their cake and eat it too, they don't want to completely let go of an idea they like, even if the process of holding on means really making the idea lose a lot or all of its charm and much or all of what made it fun for people and for more expansive and inspiring.

I do the same, but to a lesser degree in my opinion, where I have found solutions for myself where I can maintain almost the entirety of what I like about certain ideas, eliminating all that I don't, and making them consistent with what I personally find more believable and even more pious or respectful. I don't think the psychologizing effort people do efficiently achieves that, based on my inerests, preferences, or requirements. I also think that some people may put too much stock into neurology and psychology and where hunankind is currently at with neuroscience and understanding the mind, and I've heard a lot that sounds like puffy bullsh*t that I don't really believe anyway. The people who often talk about thees things seem like they are totally just making things up and playing with imaginary friends, and ti is pretty repulsive to me, even as obnoxious as people saying they hug Jesus Christ every night would be.

All the Gods that I like and want to refer to as encompassing certain symbols and ideas, are to me all "The Greatest", aspects of "The Greatest", and thus none other than the same "Greatest", with no conflict between any since they are all the same One and not like how you and I might perceive ourselves as two different people with differences who aren't just One really, even if we somehow actually are. So these amount to varieties of ways in which people can meditate about this or that aspect or domain of activity in their experiences or reality, since the God of Toaster Ovens and the God of The Sky are the same, except Toaster Ovens and the Sky are different concepts, and when one might want to focus on something more particular, they may make reference to that particular and what relates to it more specifically.

Many people also, in my opinion deluding themselves, think that they should be credited with at least some of the things that seem to occur beyond their means, knowledge, or direct activity. I don't think that they can be credited or held responsible, sometimes not even for ehat we count them as agents in doing directly, but especially not for working miraculous things into existence by some mental connection that can without known means manipulate what occurs.

So my model for things is what I think may be the most ancient and traditional, in many respects at least if not entirely, which is simply to communicate with something that can be considered largely before and operating indepenedntly and beyond oneself, through worship and requests, expecting that what is intended to receive these communications is active, present, and capable of responding powerfully to requests, but not necessarily doing whatever one wishes, since the person does not control it. Going further into my theology anyway, the individual is also just saying what they are being made to say, and the posession of the whole of all realities is already the permanent and perpetual case, with only one living being upon which all experience depends. In that sense, it could be said that everything, according to such a belief, is part of one mind and acts and moves based on a single super intelligence animating everything, including any apparent conflicts.

At the basic level though, I enjoy heightening what I like as something worshipful and generated as a reminder and referent symbol for what has no such form or parameters in actuality. No deity is considered unreal except a few perhaps, so olng as they are sterilized to be in accord with what is considered true and difficult to, in good faith and sincerity, genuinely deny.

These things which they call demons, I call God, each a reference, like a phone number, that can be related to particular ideas for anyone, used to communicate to a real and living power encompassing and immanent in all experiences, of which we only have access to our own.

Out of all the numerous names and epithets and references one can call the present power with, some may be preferable to some people over others, and in some cases it may even appear the symbols which show up in and through and around people and also to them frequently may seem yo be particular to one set of themes than another, and this may also further encourage people to show an affinity towards some symbols and references or emtities over others, though very few people who might now pick up any practices to do with anything outside of the mainstream religions might not have any beliefs like mine, preferring instead a very literal and probably quite imaginary polytheism or a solipsistic personal belief in their own supremacy over their reality and experience, where they may say that any powers are none other than their own and to be credited to something to do wih tthem and their perdonal ownership over whatever they think they have and control. To me, both are highly objectionable and even sacreligious, typically post-Christian, insanities which I can object to in a number of ways, besides also despising the appearances and personalities of such people that I've seen adopting either belief system. All the while, I believe both can give the appearance of working or not working, but that whether anything works or not or seems to work or not is decided by the same one that I believe in, rather than any individual separate beings I consider non-existent as such or really all the same.

"
Aztec influences on European magic, particularly during the early modern period, were characterized by the integration of Mesoamerican ritual tools, divinatory practices, and materia medica into European occult traditions, often following the Spanish conquest
. The most prominent example is the use of Aztec obsidian mirrors for scrying, while indigenous concepts of sorcery and the soul were sometimes blended with European perspectives.
Key Areas of Influence:

Obsidian Mirrors (Scrying Tools): A notable connection is the obsidian mirror used by John Dee, court astronomer and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I, for communication with angels, which originated in Aztec Mexico. These mirrors were associated in Mesoamerica with the deity Tezcatlipoca, the god of night and sorcery.
Shamanism and Shapeshifting: The Aztec concept of nāhuallōtl (shapeshifting magic) and nāhualtin (sorcerers/shamans) provided a different framework for supernatural practices. These concepts, particularly those involving transformation into animals, were documented and sometimes integrated into broader studies of sorcery.
Ritual Use of Hallucinogens: Aztec use of sacred plants and hallucinogenic mushrooms (teonanacatl) for ritual and divination influenced European understandings of, and interest in, entheogens.
Medical Magic: Aztec healers (ticitl) utilized complex rituals and, as described in colonial accounts, sometimes integrated European perspectives and practices into their own traditional belief systems, and vice-versa.
Syncretism in Colonial Mexico: Following the conquest, a syncretism emerged where Mesoamerican magical practices, such as the use of the 260-day calendar for determining fate, were merged with European, including Spanish, astrology and superstition.

Contextual Factors:

The Florentine Codex: Bernardino de Sahagún's Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España provided extensive documentation of Aztec magic, sorcery, and rituals, which became a primary source for European knowledge of these practices.
Cultural Exchange: The movement of items and knowledge from the New World to Europe allowed for the exchange of ideas, though these were often viewed through the lens of European Christianity or occultism.
"



https://firesidefiction.com/shapeshifti ... ican-magic

https://blueline2011.wordpress.com/2011 ... -mmericas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/aztec-philosophy/



https://aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-phil ... be-a-saint

https://upcolorado.com/university-press ... philosophy



https://sebastianpurcell.com/aztec-resources/

"
Florentine Codex
He worked on this project from 1545 up until his death in 1590. The work consists of 2,500 pages organized into twelve books; more than 2,000 illustrations
"

"
Johann Weyer’s
Pseudomonarchia Daemonum (The False Monarchy of Demons) was first published in 1577. It appeared as an appendix to the second edition of his larger work on demonology, De Praestigiis Daemonum, which argued against the persecution of witches and suggested they were suffering from delusions.
"

https://www.livescience.com/john-dee-sp ... rror-aztec

"
Now, a new analysis of Dee's infamous mirror has finally traced its origins — not to the spirit world, but to the Aztec Empire.

Obsidian mirrors such as Dee's were known from Aztec culture, but there were no records on his mirror's origins. However, geochemical analysis enabled researchers to link the mirror's obsidian — a type of volcanic glass — to Pachuca, Mexico, a popular source of obsidian for Aztec people. This finding indicated that the artifact was Aztec and not a copy made from European obsidian, and Dee likely acquired the mirror after it was brought to Europe from Mexico, according to a new study.

Though Dee was a scientist and mathematician, his interests also swung toward the magical and mystical, and in addition to the spirit mirror, he owned other objects related to astrology, divination, alchemy and the exploration of "demonic magic," scientists reported Oct. 7 in the journal Antiquity.

Dee claimed that one of these objects, a purple crystal on a chain, was given to him by the archangel Uriel, along with instructions for making a philosopher's stone — the mythical alchemical marvel that promised the gift of eternal life and the ability to turn base metals into gold, according to the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in London. Dee also possessed a Claude glass, a black glass mirror kept in a sharkskin case, which he used for "peering into the future," according to the RCP.

Dee's obsidian mirror, now in the collection of the British Museum in London, is polished on both sides and is nearly perfectly circular, measuring about 7.2 inches (18.5 centimeters) in diameter and 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick, and weighing about 31 ounces (882 grams). A perforated square tab at the top of the mirror measures about 1.3 inches (33 mm) long and may have served as a handle, according to the study.

The Aztecs used obsidian mirrors for scrying — peering into the future — and for religious rituals. These mirrors were strongly associated with one god in particular: Tezcatlipoca ("smoking mirror" in the Nahuatl language), a creation deity in the Aztec pantheon and a god of sorcerers, according to the British Museum.

Their analysis showed that Dee's mirror — and a circular mirror that was similar to Dee's — were close matches to samples from Pachuca, a region in Mexico that was under Aztec control and "was the most heavily exploited" of the known obsidian resources for the Aztec Empire, according to the study.

At the dawn of the 16th century, obsidian mirrors that were crafted by Aztec people had a specific cultural context "with a set of very specific cultural meanings in the Aztec Empire," Campbell said. When colonizers brought those mirrors to Europe, they also transplanted the idea that mirrors could be used to peer into the future or contact other worlds, he explained.

After Dee acquired his mirror and began using it for magical rituals, "it gained a whole new life and a whole new set of meanings — and it's continued to acquire those," Campbell said. "So, it now sits in the British Museum as an occult artifact. It's got its own biography and its own impact in the world. I think, because of that, it's a particularly fascinating object."
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca

"
Tezcatlipoca's nagual, his animal counterpart, was the jaguar. In the form of a jaguar he became the deity Tepeyollotl ("Mountainheart"). In one of the two main Aztec calendars (the Tonalpohualli), Tezcatlipoca ruled the trecena 1 Ocelotl ("1 Jaguar"); he was also patron of the days with the name Acatl ("reed"). A strong connection with the calendar as a whole is suggested by his depiction in texts such as the Codex Borgia and Codex Fejéváry-Mayer, where Tezcatlipoca is surrounded by day signs, implying a sort of mastery over them.[2]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tep%C4%93 ... ll%C5%8Dtl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%CA%BCawiil

"
Tezcatlipoca is often translated from the Nahuatl as "smoking mirror."

It alludes to his connection to obsidian, the material from which mirrors were made in Mesoamerica. They were used for shamanic rituals and prophecy, and as such Tezcatlipoca is additionally associated with divination.[7]

Tezcatlipoca had many epithets which alluded to different aspects of his deity and also point to his centrality in Aztec worship. Bernardino de Sahagún, in Book VI of the Florentine Codex, refers to Tezcatlipoca with 360 different forms. These include:

Tloque Nahuaque, meaning "lord of the near and nigh"; "the one who owns what surrounds [us]"
Titlacahuan, Titlacahua or Titlacaua, meaning " [of whom] we are [his] servants"; "[he] whose [servants] we are"
Tehimatini, meaning "the wise"; "the one who understands people"
Tlazopilli, meaning "the precious nobleman"; "the precious son"
Teyocoyani, meaning "the creator [of people]"
Yáotl or Yaotzin, meaning "the enemy"; "the venerable enemy"
Icnoacatzintli, meaning "the merciful"
Ipalnemoani, meaning "[he] by whom [we] all live"
Ilhuicahua, meaning "possessor of heaven"
Tlalticpaque, meaning "possessor of the earth"
Monenequi, meaning "the arbitrary"; "the one who pretends"
Pilhoacatzintli, meaning "revered father"; "possessor of children"
Tlacatlé Totecué, meaning "our master, our lord"
Yoalli Ehécatl, Yohualli Ehécatl or Youalli Ehécatl, meaning "night wind"(metaphor for "invisible" or "impalpable")
Monantzin, meaning "your mother"
Motatzin, meaning "your father"
Telpochtli, meaning "[the] young man"
Moyocoyani or Moyocoani, meaning "the one who creates himself." His calendrical name is Ome Ácatl, "Two Reed", and under that name he consecrates himself as another deity.[citation needed]

For Aztec nobility, this "patron deity" is fundamental in the social and natural phenomena justified by religion during this time.[20] Extreme reverence and respect, characterized by ceremonial proceedings in which priests were "to pay homage" to Tezcatlipoca, or where "citizens waited expectantly" for ceremonial proceedings to start under the low hum of "shell trumpets," were commonplace, especially for this deity.[20] Utter respect from the highest position of Aztec nobility, the king, shown through the figurative and literal nakedness of his presence in front of Tezcatlipoca.[20] The king would stand "naked, emphasizing his utter unworthiness", speaking as nothing but a vessel for the god's will.[20] The new king would claim his spiritual nakedness symbolically through words and physical vulnerability, praising Tezcatlipoca with lines such as:

O master, O our lord, O lord of the near, of the night, O night, O wind ... Poor am I.
In what manner shall I act for thy city? In what manner shall I act for the governed, for the vassals (macehualtin)?
For I am blind, I am deaf, I am an imbecile, and in excrement, in filth hath my lifetime been ...
Perhaps thou mistaketh me for another; perhaps thou seekest another in my stead[20]

For kings, lords, priests, and citizens alike, the cyclical nature they observed every day and every year was portrayed not through science or philosophical debate, but utter reverence and respect for the spiritual beings they believed were the cause of these events. It was gods like Tezcatlipoca that solidified this notion, representing both the silent wind, and thunderous war.[24]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ose_(demon)

https://typemoon.fandom.com/wiki/Tezcatlipoca

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtar_Sheran

https://www.occult.live/index.php/Astaroth

See the Golem reference.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifac ... oc-0018769

https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-l ... oca-007546

Anyway, I find all of my preferred references in just about any religious terminology, so among Goetic Spirits, Aztec Deities, Roman Republic and Prior Italic Gods, and there are no ethnic boundaries to these universal referents to real things we experience, which ae considered in such thinking as my own as acts and manifestations of a singular intelligence that pre-existed any sense of materiality or matter, whic itself is from the perspective of the one power, as changeable and thus illusory as any thought or even easier to change effortlessly, something we have no part or say in ever really.

https://the-demonic-paradise.fandom.com/wiki/Ose

"


Three leaders of the legions serving under Ose have been given names. Their names are Agrillat, Beevelios and Olvoban.
His name seems to derive from Latin 'os', mouth, language, or 'osor', that who abhors.
In the Shem ha-Mephorash the demon Ose is a Night spirit ruled by Libra, the Element of Air, and the Tarot Suit of Swords.
"

https://eldenringnightreign.wiki.fextra ... e+of+Night

https://blackwitchcoven.com/demons/leonard/

It requires scrolling down a bit past all the entries to get to the text, it won't let me copy text from the site.

The name Leonard is also close to the word Leopard.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/leopard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard

https://stormbringer.fandom.com/wiki/Arioch

"
Arioch is one of the most powerful of the Dukes of Hell. He has many titles and nicknames including Knight of the Swords, Lord of the Higher Hell, and Lord of the Seven Darks.
"

https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Arioch.html

These aspects are tied closely together though people make things even more difficult for themselves, though most have abandoned any and most all of this and never care for such things, disputing if they even approach any such subject, blocking them from receiving all kinds of fun things if they were different perhaps, rather than accursed, in my high snouted opinion anyway.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_o ... onasticism

"
Great Schema (Greek: μεγαλόσχημος, megaloschemos; Church Slavonic: Схима, Schima)—Monks whose abbots feel they have reached a high level of spiritual excellence reach the final stage, called the Great Schema. The tonsure of a Schemamonk or Schemanun follows the same format as the Stavrophore, and he makes the same vows and is tonsured in the same manner. But in addition to all the garments worn by the Stavrophore, he is given the analavos (Church Slavonic: analav), which is the article of monastic vesture emblematic of the Great Schema. The analavos itself is sometimes called the "Great Schema." It drapes over the shoulders and hangs down in front and in back, with the front portion somewhat longer, and is embroidered with the Instruments of the Passion and the Trisagion.

The Greek form does not have a hood, but the Slavic form has a hood and lappets on the shoulders, so that the garment forms a large cross covering the monk's shoulders, chest, and back. Another piece added is the polystavrion (πολυσταύριον, "many crosses"), which consists of a cord with a number of small crosses plaited into it. The polystavrion forms a yoke around the monk and serves to hold the analavos in place. It also reminds the monastic that he is bound to Christ and that his arms are no longer fit for worldly activities, but that he must labor only for the Kingdom of Heaven. Among the Greeks, the mantle is added at this stage. The paramandyas of the Megaloschemos is larger than that of the Stavrophore. If the monk wears the klobuk, it is of a distinctive thimble shape, called a koukoulion, the veil of which is usually embroidered with crosses.

The Schemamonk shall remain some days in vigil in the church. On the eighth day after Tonsure, there is a special service for the "Removal of the Koukoulion".

In some monastic traditions the Great Schema is never given, or is given to monks and nuns only on their death bed. In others, for instance, the cenobitic monasteries on Mount Athos, it is common to tonsure a monastic into the Great Schema 3 years after the candidate commences the monastic life.

In Russian and some other traditions, when a bearer of some monastic title acquires the Great Schema, his title incorporates the word "schema". For example, a hieromonk of Great Schema is called hieroschemamonk, archimandrite becomes schema-archimandrite, hegumen - schema-hegumen, etc. In the Russian Orthodox tradition, in such cases the part "schema" is commonly truncated to "схи" (sche), and correspondingly the titles are spelt as схимонах (schemonach), иеросхимонах (ieroschemonach), схиархимандрит (schearchimandrit), and схиигумен (scheigumen).
Symbolism on Analavos
edit

Repeated symbols are commonly used on the analavos, the distinctive garment worn by monks that have reached the Great Schema to reference religious imagery, biblical stories, lessons and devotion to Christ.[1][2][3] Symbols include: a rooster representing the denial of Peter. A pillar for the column that Pontius Pilate bound Christ to, the wreath for the crown of thorns, the uprate post and transverse beam represent the patibulum. Four spikes for the nails of the cross. The skull and crossbones represents the Adamah, or the returning to the ground at death of Adam and all humankind. The plaque represents the initialism Jesus, King of the Jews. The reed for the Holy Sponge, the Holy Lance. Ladders and pincers under the base for Joseph of Arimathea lowering the body and descending Christ. The central object is often the cross of Christ.
"

[kFoyauextlH]

Thank you for your patience, and I'll address the first post soon hopefully, but first I'd like to say that if different phenomena receive more activity or reception in certain parts of the human brain, and those phenomena seem yo be related to a certain referent, then it can be said that the area of the brain related to those particular things would be connected likewise to whatever people set as the domain of whatever people say presides over those themes, so where it appears in the cosmos, likewise in the microcosm of the brain, and also the organs of the body connected to those activities.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference

"
In logic, a reference is a relationship between objects in which one object designates, or acts as a means by which to connect to or link to, another object. The first object in this relation is said to refer to the second object. It is called a name for the second object. The next object, the one to which the first object refers, is called the referent of the first object. A name is usually a phrase or expression, or some other symbolic representation. Its referent may be anything – a material object, a person, an event, an activity, or an abstract concept.

References can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other,[1] spacetime coordinates, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object, or an energy projection. In some cases, methods are used that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.[citation needed]

References feature in many spheres of human activity and knowledge, and the term adopts shades of meaning particular to the contexts in which it is used. Some of them are described in the sections below.



The word reference is derived from Middle English referren, from Middle French référer, from Latin referre, "to carry back", formed from the prefix re- and ferre, "to bear".[2] A number of words derive from the same root, including refer, referee, referential, referent, referendum.

The verb refer (to) and its derivatives may carry the sense of "connect to" or "link to", as in the meanings of reference described in this article. Another sense is "consult"; this is reflected in such expressions as reference work, reference desk, job reference, etc.

In semantics, reference is generally construed as the relationships between nouns or pronouns and objects that are named by them. Hence, the word "John" refers to the person John. The word "it" refers to some previously specified object. The object referred to is called the referent of the word.[3] Sometimes the word-object relation is called "denotation"; the word denotes the object. The converse relation, the relation from object to word, is called "exemplification"; the object exemplifies what the word denotes. In syntactic analysis, if a word refers to a previous word, the previous word is called the "antecedent".

Gottlob Frege argued that reference cannot be treated as identical with meaning: "Hesperus" (an ancient Greek name for the evening star) and "Phosphorus" (an ancient Greek name for the morning star) both refer to Venus, but the astronomical fact that '"Hesperus" is "Phosphorus"' can still be informative, even if the "meanings" of "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" are already known. This problem led Frege to distinguish between the sense and reference of a word.

The very concept of the linguistic sign is the combination of content and expression, the former of which may refer entities in the world or refer more abstract concepts, e.g. thought. Certain parts of speech exist only to express reference, namely anaphora such as pronouns. The subset of reflexives expresses co-reference of two participants in a sentence. These could be the agent (actor) and patient (acted on), as in "The man washed himself", the theme and recipient, as in "I showed Mary to herself", or various other possible combinations.

In computer science, references are data types that refer to an object elsewhere in memory and are used to construct a wide variety of data structures, such as linked lists. Generally, a reference is a value that enables a program to directly access the particular data item. Most programming languages support some form of reference. For the specific type of reference used in the C++ language, see reference (C++).

The notion of reference is also important in relational database theory; see referential integrity.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_integrity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_(linguistics)

"
In linguistics, binding is the phenomenon in which anaphoric elements such as pronouns are grammatically associated with their antecedents.[citation needed] For instance in the English sentence "Mary saw herself", the anaphor "herself" is bound by its antecedent "Mary". Binding can be licensed or blocked in certain contexts or syntactic configurations, e.g. the pronoun "her" cannot be bound by "Mary" in the English sentence "Mary saw her". While all languages have binding, restrictions on it vary even among closely related languages. Binding has been a major area of research in syntax and semantics since the 1970s and, as the name implies, is a core component of government and binding theory.[1]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphora_(linguistics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology

"
In linguistics, coreference, sometimes written co-reference, occurs when two or more expressions refer to the same person or thing; they have the same referent. For example, in Bill said Alice would arrive soon, and she did, the words Alice and she refer to the same person.[1]

Co-reference is often non-trivial to determine. For example, in Bill said he would come, the word he may or may not refer to Bill. Determining which expressions are coreferences is an important part of analyzing or understanding the meaning, and often requires information from the context, real-world knowledge, such as tendencies of some names to be associated with particular species ("Rover"), kinds of artifacts ("Titanic"), grammatical genders, or other properties.

Linguists commonly use indices to notate coreference, as in Billi said hei would come. Such expressions are said to be coindexed, indicating that they should be interpreted as coreferential.

When expressions are coreferential, the first to occur is often a full or descriptive form (for example, an entire personal name, perhaps with a title and role), while later occurrences use shorter forms (for example, just a given name, surname, or pronoun). The earlier occurrence is known as the antecedent and the other is called a proform, anaphor, or reference. However, pronouns can sometimes refer forward, as in "When she arrived home, Alice went to sleep." In such cases, the coreference is called cataphoric rather than anaphoric.

Coreference is important for binding phenomena in the field of syntax. The theory of binding explores the syntactic relationship that exists between coreferential expressions in sentences and texts.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomasiology

"
Homonymy can lead to communicative conflicts and thus trigger lexical (onomasiological) change.[15] This is known as homonymic conflict. This leads to a species of informal fallacy of thought and argument called by the latin name equivocation.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms

"
Equivocation can also be used to conflate two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend and one much more controversial. The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

"
An example given by Shackel is the statement "morality is socially constructed". In this example, the motte is that our beliefs about right and wrong are socially constructed, while the bailey is that there is no such thing as right and wrong.[3]

According to Shackel, David Bloor's strong programme for the sociology of scientific knowledge made use of a motte-and-bailey doctrine when trying to defend his conception of knowledge as "whatever people take to be knowledge", without distinguishing between beliefs that are widely accepted but contrary to reality and beliefs that correspond to reality. In this instance, the easily defensible motte would be that what we call knowledge is what is commonly accepted as such, but the prized bailey would be that scientific knowledge is no different from other widely accepted beliefs, implying that truth and reality play no role in gaining scientific knowledge.[2]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

"
A persuasive definition is a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.[1] The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "antisemitism,[2] "democracy", etc. In argumentation the use of a persuasive definition is sometimes called definist fallacy.[a][3][4][5]

Examples of persuasive definitions (definist fallacies) include:

Democrat – "a leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere".[4]
Atheist – "someone who doesn't yet realize that God exists."[5]

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts. A persuasive definition of a term is favorable to one argument or unfavorable to the other argument, but is presented as if it were neutral and well-accepted, and the listener is expected to accept such a definition without question.[1]

The term "persuasive definition" was introduced by philosopher Charles Stevenson as part of his emotive theory of meaning.[6]
"

Now to what you posted long ago:

"
Foreword

I have seen this topic come up numerous times on many blogs and other forums. The problem stems from Aleister Crowley in the section of the Goetia 'The Initiated Interpretation of Ceremonial Magic'.


The spirits of the Goetia are portions of the human brain.


I am not approaching this quote to say spirits are not real, I am aware that Crowley is not an authority when it comes to evocation. I am aware of the differences between physical and visible evocation and the general mental masturbation. I am not an expert on these matters however and so I am not approaching this quote with the intent of proving/disproving the existence of spirits, nor am I claiming that I know how to evoke spirits.
"

I've seen magnificent physically real events that seem to occur in a very directly related seeming way, and I listen carefully to whatever people may say about their experiences, even if they seem to be having thoughts that keep occurring to them, or dreams, or whatever it may be, though the most impressive things seem to be those that would be considered unlikely and a rare chance to occur at all, which happen to occur seemingly in relation to something particularly spiritual seemingly going on, making it seem like a miracle and proof of something beyond a person being coordinated, or something special, like their not knowing something, ending up precisely at the right place and time to experience something specific, especially when they can't be said to be forcing it or making it so themselves.

"
All I will say in that regard to this quote, is that Crowley argues that illusions appear in experience and are real. An illusion does not qualify as non-existent or not-real, it's just a different kind of real. Without complicating the main objectives of this thread, I will bring up the realism of John Searle. To Searle, there are four kinds of real -

ontologically objective (exists independent of experience),

ontologically subjective (exists dependent on experience),

epistemically objective (knowledge that is independent of experience) and

epistemically subjective (knowledge dependent on experience).
"



"

u/t1britrecon avatar
t1britrecon
•
11y ago

Does anybody seriously think they have learned anything useful from this?
1
"

"
I would say that Crowley is arguing a form of ontological subjectivity in his interpretation, that the effects occur through experience. This is why Crowley resists calling the illusion part of realism in my opinion and instead uses Kant's transcendental idealism to say that the spirits are active components or processes of our perception - things in themselves - that are capable of knowing things prior to experience, or sorting out knowledge. I have left the component of will out for now, more on that after I have deconstructed his interpetations.

An illusion is an effect of a mutiple contingent or necessary phenomena occuring in a constant conjunction that would not occur if the mutiple components were to be observed in isolation.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daydreaming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(il ... gic_tricks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_a ... hilosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectiv ... hilosophy)

"
The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is a basic idea of philosophy, particularly epistemology and metaphysics. Various understandings of this distinction have evolved through the work of philosophers over centuries. One basic distinction is:

Something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (such as biases, perception, emotions, opinions, imaginary objects, or conscious experiences).[1] If a claim is true exclusively when considering the claim from the viewpoint of a sentient being, it is subjectively true. For example, one person may consider the weather to be pleasantly warm, and another person may consider the same weather to be too hot; both views are subjective.
Something is objective if it can be confirmed or assumed independently of any minds. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it may be labelled objectively true. For example, many people would regard "2 + 2 = 4" as an objective statement of mathematics.

Both ideas have been given various and ambiguous definitions by differing sources as the distinction is often a given but not the specific focal point of philosophical discourse.[2] The two words are usually regarded as opposites, though complications regarding the two have been explored in philosophy: for example, the view of particular thinkers that objectivity is an illusion and does not exist at all, or that a spectrum joins subjectivity and objectivity with a gray area in-between, or that the problem of other minds is best viewed through the concept of intersubjectivity, developing since the 20th century.

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is often related to discussions of consciousness, agency, personhood, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, reality, truth, and communication (for example in narrative communication and journalism).
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_a ... hilosophy)

"
In philosophy, a subject is a being that exercises agency, undergoes conscious experiences, and is situated in relation to other things that exist outside itself; thus, a subject is any individual, person, or observer.[1] An object is any of the things observed or experienced by a subject, which may even include other beings (thus, from their own points of view: other subjects).

A simple common differentiation for subject and object is: an observer versus a thing that is observed. In certain cases involving personhood, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable where each label is applied only from one or the other point of view. Subjects and objects are related to the philosophical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity: the existence of knowledge, ideas, or information either dependent upon a subject (subjectivity) or independent from any subject (objectivity).



In English the word object is derived from the Latin objectus (p.p. of obicere) with the meaning "to throw, or put before or against", from ob-, "against", and the root jacere, "to throw".[2] Some other related English words include objectify (to reify), objective (a future reference), and objection (an expression of protest). Subject uses the same root, but with the prefix sub-, meaning "under".

Broadly construed, the word object names a maximally general category, whose members are eligible for being referred to, quantified over and thought of. Terms similar to the broad notion of object include thing, being, entity, item, existent, term, unit, and individual.[3]

In ordinary language, one is inclined to call only a material object "object".[3] In certain contexts, it may be socially inappropriate to apply the word object to animate beings, especially to human beings, while the words entity and being are more acceptable.

Some authors use object in contrast to property; that is to say, an object is an entity that is not a property. Objects differ from properties in that objects cannot be referred to by predicates. Some philosophers count abstract objects as objects, while others do not. Terms similar to such usage of object include substance, individual, and particular.[3]

There are two definitions of object. The first definition holds that an object is an entity that fails to experience and that is not conscious. The second definition holds that an object is an entity experienced. The second definition differs from the first one in that the second definition allows for a subject to be an object at the same time.[3]

One approach to defining an object is in terms of its properties and relations. Descriptions of all bodies, minds, and persons must be in terms of their properties and relations. For example, it seems that the only way to describe an apple is by describing its properties and how it is related to other things, such as its shape, size, composition, color, temperature, etc., while its relations may include "on the table", "in the room" and "being bigger than other apples". Metaphysical frameworks also differ in whether they consider objects existing independently of their properties and, if so, in what way.[4] The notion of an object must address two problems: the change problems and the problems of substances. Two leading theories about objecthood are substance theory, wherein substances (objects) are distinct from their properties, and bundle theory, wherein objects are no more than bundles of their properties.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

"
In philosophy, a fundamental distinction exists between abstract and concrete entities. While there is no universally accepted definition, common examples illustrate the difference: numbers, sets, and ideas are typically classified as abstract objects, whereas plants, dogs, and planets are considered concrete objects.[1]

Philosophers have proposed several criteria to define this distinction:

Spatiotemporal existence – Abstract objects exist outside space-time, while concrete objects exist within space-time.
Causal influence – Concrete objects can cause and be affected by other entities (e.g., a rock breaking a window), whereas abstract objects (e.g., the number 2) lack causal powers and do not cause anything to happen in the physical world.
Metaphysical relation – In metaphysics, concrete objects are specific, individual things (particulars), while abstract objects represent general concepts or categories (universals).
Ontological domain – Concrete objects belong to the physical realm (or both the physical and mental realms), whereas abstract objects belong to neither.[2][3][4]

Another view is that it is the distinction between contingent existence versus necessary existence; however, philosophers differ on which type of existence here defines abstractness, as opposed to concreteness. Despite this diversity of views, there is broad agreement concerning most objects as to whether they are abstract or concrete,[1] such that most interpretations agree, for example, that rocks are concrete objects while numbers are abstract objects.

Abstract objects are most commonly used in philosophy, particularly metaphysics, and semantics. They are sometimes called abstracta in contrast to concreta. The term abstract object is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[5] Abstract object theory is a discipline that studies the nature and role of abstract objects. It holds that properties can be related to objects in two ways: through exemplification and through encoding. Concrete objects exemplify their properties while abstract objects merely encode them. This approach is also known as the dual copula strategy.[6]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noneism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexiste ... g's_jungle

"
Meinong's jungle is a term used to describe the repository of non-existent objects in the ontology of Alexius Meinong.[13] An example of such an object is a "round square", which cannot exist definitionally and yet can be the subject of logical inferences, such as that it is both "round" and "square".

Meinong, an Austrian philosopher active at the turn of the 20th century, believed that since non-existent things could apparently be referred to, they must have some sort of being, which he termed sosein ("being so"). A unicorn and a pegasus are both non-being; yet it is true that unicorns have horns and pegasi have wings. Thus non-existent things like unicorns, square circles, and golden mountains can have different properties, and must have a 'being such-and-such' even though they lack 'being' proper.[13] The strangeness of such entities led to this ontological realm being referred to as "Meinong's jungle". The jungle is described in Meinong's work Über Annahmen (1902).[14] The name is credited to William C. Kneale, whose Probability and Induction (1949) includes the passage "after wandering in Meinong's jungle of subsistence ... philosophers are now agreed that propositions cannot be regarded as ultimate entities".[14]

The Meinongian theory of objects (Gegenstandstheorie) was influential in the debate over sense and reference between Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell which led to the establishment of analytic philosophy and contemporary philosophy of language. Russell's theory of descriptions, in the words of P. M. S. Hacker, enables him to "thin out the luxuriant Meinongian jungle of entities (such as the round square), which, it had appeared, must in some sense subsist in order to be talked about".[15] According to the theory of descriptions, speakers are not committed to asserting the existence of referents for the names they use.

Meinong's jungle is cited as an objection to Meinong's semantics, as the latter commits one to ontically undesirable objects;[13] it is desirable to be able to speak meaningfully about unicorns, the objection goes, but not to have to believe in them. Nominalists (who believe that general or abstract terms and predicates exist but that either universals or abstract objects do not) find Meinong's jungle particularly unpalatable.[16] As Colin McGinn puts it, "[g]oing naively by the linguistic appearances leads not only to logical impasse but also to metaphysical extravagance—as with Meinong's jungle, infested with shadowy Being."[17] An uneasiness with the ontological commitments of Meinong's theory is commonly expressed in the bon mot "we should cut back Meinong's jungle with Occam's razor".[18][19]

Meinong's jungle was defended by modal realists, whose possible world semantics offered a more palatable variation of Meinong's Gegenstandstheorie, as Jaakko Hintikka explains:

If you ask "Where are the non-existent objects?" the answer is, "Each in its own possible world." The only trouble with that notorious thicket, Meinong's jungle, is that it has not been zoned, plotted and divided into manageable lots, better known as possible worlds.

— Hintikka, Jaakko, The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic, p. 40.[20]

However, modal realists retain the problem of explaining reference to impossible objects such as square circles. For Meinong, such objects simply have a 'being so' that precludes their having ordinary 'being'. But this entails that 'being so' in Meinong's sense is not equivalent to existing in a possible world.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meontology

"
For Emmanuel Levinas, meontology was whatever had meaning beyond ontology, the ethical primary demand of the other in a face-to-face encounter. According to Levinas, meontology refers not to another being but to an inability to be that leads to a transcendent realm "other than being".[2] However, Levinas suggested that meontology, as the mirror image of ontology, occupies the same logical space. [3] Levinas' conceptualization is encapsulated in a principle for existence or for humanity that states, "Do not go inside, go outside!". It implies that the authenticity of human existence is ensured not by looking inwards (egocentrism) because one does not see oneself without the aid of others.[4] Levinas supported the notion of a continual reinterpretation of history,[2][5] that the traditional history that which reduces singular persons to members of classes or tribes cannot be used to narrate the coming-to-pass of the Infinite in the ethical relation.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-to-face_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou


"
In this regard, self and self-awareness is an illusion. Our bodies are made up of complex components that by themselves, produce no self, but if they are working in constant conjuction they produce the illusion of self, identity and consciousness.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_ ... l_identity

Back to what you wrote:

"
When illusions are understood in this way, it is absurd to extract the claim 'Crowley says spirits are not real' from this quote. If spirits are not real because they are an illusion, then we are not real.

Anyway, enough of that. Reading through his essay reveals many components that people seem to leave out (conveniently) when discussing this particular quote, it usually appears in isolation, which in my book is cherry picking and quote mining. Taken with the context of the rest of the essay, Crowley is arguing for the validity of illusions as real things.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_world_object

"
Real world objects in the context of library science include library non-text-based equipment, tools, devices, and other three-dimensional objects that the user handles, manipulates, or may observe tactilely, and that allow him or her to gain experience and knowledge about the device, learn about how the real world functions, or access digital tools and content.[1] Real world objects originated as a phrase used in computer science in the artificial intelligence community,[2] but has slowly been gaining traction in library science. These items have also been called or associated with names such as non-bibliographic materials, “realia”, non-book materials, non-library materials,[1] three-dimensional objects, and other terms.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realia_(library_science)

"
In library classification systems, realia are three-dimensional objects from real life such as coins, tools, and textiles, that do not fit into the traditional categories of library material. They can be either human-made (artifacts, tools, utensils, etc.) or naturally occurring (specimens, samples, etc.), usually borrowed, purchased, or received as donation by a teacher, library, or museum for use in classroom instruction or in exhibits.

Archival and manuscript collections often receive items of memorabilia such as badges, emblems, insignias, jewelry, leather goods, needlework, etc., in connection with gifts of personal papers. Most government or institutional archives reject gifts of non-documentary objects, unless they have a documentary value. When accepting large bequests of mixed objects, they normally have the donors sign legal documents giving permission to the archive to destroy, exchange, sell, or dispose in any way those objects which, according to the best judgement of the archivist, are not manuscripts (which can include typescripts or printouts) or are not immediately useful for understanding the manuscripts.

Recently, the usage of this term has been criticized by librarians based on the usage of the term realia to refer to artistic and historical artifacts and objects. The noun phrase "real world object" has been suggested as a better term for describing the broader categories of three-dimensional objects in libraries.
"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2702442/

Like thoughts, dreams, or digtal imagery seen on a screen, these things can be comprehended and perceived, appearing to anyone, but being generated by other processes, existing in some other physical form than the way in which they are viewed. It is thought to be an electrical process that allows the generation to our senses, whether from electrical activity in a computer chip or the brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ps ... us-process

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog ... -processes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1319300658

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_possession

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness

Your text continues:

"
What is of interest to my inquiry here, are the terms Crowley uses in the same section of the Goetia that reveal possible links to general philosophy not normally considered of use in occult studies or practices. It is my belief that Crowley and a few occultists of Theosophical creed, were using the metaphysics of their time and not from actual manifestations that occur during a ritual. For reasons that will become clearer later on in regards to the influence of German idealism on Crowleys' explanation, it may be worth pointing out that the word for 'mind' in German is the same as 'spirit'. In Hegel's 'The Phenomenology of Spirit', the title has on occassion been interpreted as 'The phenomenology of mind'.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisteswissenschaft

"
So with the foreword serving as a disclaimer of what this inquiry hopes to achieve and what it doesn't, I hope everyone can understand why I have posted it in the philosophy section and not in the Goetia section.
"

I'm just hoping to bring it back into general use, if you don't mind. So that new activity has flowed in it, like blood.

"
Cause and effect

Crowley uses Herbert Spencer to say that if illusions exist, they are evidence at least of some cause. Crowley then asserts that this is a fact. He then uses the term Akasha, from Hinduism - which means something along the lines of 'essence' the first material substance which came from an astral world.
"

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/ak ... jaamujqzik

https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/akasha

"
From: Chandogya Upanishad (Shankara Bhashya)

(1) This, along with other elements like Heaven, Earth, Air, Water, Fire, Divine Beings, cattle, birds, grasses, trees, beasts, worms, and ants, are made known through articulation.[9] (2) The Fires taught the Religious Student Breath and its Akasha, which is the space within the Heart related to Prana as its substratum.[10] (3) He whose form is like the Akasha; God is like Akasha, in the sense that He is allpervading, subtle and devoid of colour and other qualities.[11] (4) It is a concept that can be understood through Learning, and is one of the many concepts that can be learned.[12] (5) It is the essence of the Region, from which all things in the world are born and into which they become dissolved, representing the ultimate substratum.[13]

From: Mandukya Upanishad (Gaudapa Karika and Shankara Bhashya)

(1) "Akasha" refers to the great expanse of ether, a concept that serves as an analogy for the ultimate reality or universal consciousness into which individual entities merge.[14] (2) The Akasha, also known as ether, is used as a comparison to describe Atman, with the statement that “The Atman is verily like the Akasha”, as mentioned in the Gaudapada Karika.[15] (3) Often translated as 'space' or 'ether', it is used as a metaphor for the nature of Jivas, indicating their eternal and unblemished qualities.[16] (4) The concept of space or ether, regarded as one ultimate reality, despite the variety of forms and functions observed in the empirical world.[17] (5) Ether that is manifested in various forms and is compared to the Supreme Atman.[18]
"

"
Not much to go on here, but there's more later on that gives us a better scope of influences. For now though, we need to understand the foundations of philosophy and how views have changed over time before Crowley.

A very brief history of the foundations in philosophy

Medieval dogma, modern philosophers from Descartes to Locke, all presumed an a priori realm. Much like Plato's forms. They also assume that the cause is greater than the effect, or that it must contain at least an equal amount of the parts contained in the material object. This dualism was taken down by George Berkeley, who claimed that material substances are dependent on the existence of minds and this led to idealism. These philosophers believed that particulars were transcendent, they came out of something beyond reality. Spinoza and Leibiniz then came along with immanence, or pantheism/panentheism which sees reality as all in God, but God is greater than nature, we and all material things are finite modes of an infinite God. Immanance means there is no beyond, if there is an astral plane for instance, it would still be a part of this universe/reality/existence, but God or the essence would still be greater than all of these modes. Leibniz also believed there is a 'Monad' that contains a history and can percieve reality from it's own perspective, humans were the only material things that are composed of many monads, that could reflect on their content.
[/b]
Then came along Hume, who said that causes can't be known. What is here and now is so remote from it's original source that we only ever see a constant conjunction and that ideas and impressions come from the senses in this world and we were not as Descartes and Locke, Berkeley, Spinoza and Leibniz claimed, that God was percieving through us. He took Lockes tabula rasa (blank blackboard) and explained how we can only ever have matters of fact that others have discovered and which are self defining, or we have relations of ideas.
[/b]
"

So I'm back at Akasha and Berkeley, the Mind that consciously and deliberately creates all information and experience, which we can be made to feel is interactive and responsive to us and has a individual personality apart from anybof us, even though everything is encompassed by it and it is truly the only actually living thing. How does Hume end up proving what he is proposing and what are the prerequisite beliefs for his idea to be convincing? If one does not believe anything is actually more than an illusion, the parameters of which are controlled by an intelligence which can not be bypassed or overcome, does Hume's argument even have any space to fit or place to sit?





https://www.britannica.com/topic/philos ... y-and-Hume





https://marxists.architexturez.net/hist ... sophy7.htm



https://branemrys.blogspot.com/2020/10/ ... y.html?m=1

https://www.borges.pitt.edu/documents/0907.pdf

Hume was God's way of hiding from the people who would be Godless, for their hearts were not such that they would suffer submission.

[kFoyauextlH]

Flock Of Seagulls sounds.

"
When the pen hides from my hands
It leaves me free to keep digging
Underground there is a man
Ever glowing, calling me home
Holy visions
Holy visions understand
Holy visions
Holy visions while in my left hand
Holding cheap beads, I'm going up and down the rosary
Holy visions
When the sun drops out of sight
It leaves me free to flutter reckless
Underground there is a girl (a glowing girl)
Burning brightly, calling me home
Holy visions
Holy visions understand
Holy visions
Holy visions while in my left hand
Holding cheap beads, I'm going up and down the rosary
Bright lights and nothing less
Catching my eye, hung around your neck
Cheap beads, a soft scarlet
Catching your eyes, draped around my neck
Holy visions
Holy visions understand
Holy visions
Holy visions while in my left hand
Holding cheap beads, I'm going up and down the rosary
Going up and down the rosary
Holding cheap beads, I'm going up and down the rosary
Holy visions
"



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cons ... lism-rule/

Alright, you continue:

"
Immanuel Kant took what Hume said and tried to debunk him. In doing so he discovered an active part of human cognition that was in his terms 'synthetic a priori' knowledge that is a thing-in-itself, a 'transcendental idealism'. This has no connotation of alternative realism in the mystical sense, it is referring to an active component within cognition and perception that can recognise patterns before they are complete, we can know something without having prior experience of it.

Back to Crowley.

Fichte

Like Berkeley, Crowley explains how Fichte says the 'phenomenal Universe is the creation of the Ego' to which Crowley interprets as the means the third eye 'in the brain'. He says this can be assimilated by Realism but that we 'have no need to take the trouble'. He says all 'sense impressions are dependent on changes in the brain' and that illusions are as real when classed as 'phenomena dependent on brain-changes'.

This puts him in the same transcendentalism as Berkeley, but as he has referenced Fichte, a German idealist who was after Kant and Hume, he is not strictly speaking an idealist, it's a much more subtle version of it.

He then includes the application of 'will' as well as a combination of objects and practices, including the mind which are required to perform ceremony.

He explains how the perfumes and scriptures produce 'unusual brain changes' and the mind 'projects back into the phenomenal world'.This passage is perhaps the most revealing of Crowley's metaphysics. Akasha then, it a form of will - the essence is the will.

Fichte claims that 'the essence of an I lies in the assertion of one's own self-identity, i.e., that consciousness presupposes self-consciousness. Such immediate self-identity, however, cannot be understood as a psychological fact, nor as an act or accident of some previously existing substance or being.' Kant, while smashing the rationalists to pieces and following the limitations of Hume's empriical scepticism, did allow for two worlds to exist. One of experience, phenomena, which is the world we occupy in material existence and another world that was intelligible, beyond our capabilities of understanding - the things in themselves that occupy the noumenal realm.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/timaeus.htm







https://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2019/01 ... c.html?m=1

https://metanexus.net/epistemology-and- ... y-problem/

https://www.saturniatellus.com/2017/05/ ... -of-plato/





https://prometheustrust.co.uk/wp-conten ... teriis.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/81524558/Neopl ... and_Angels



https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... enal-world

"

Kant makes no such assertion. To the contrary, his critique is of the pretenses of metaphysics to discern what the world behind the appearances is like. "Existence", "world" are categories of experience, and applying them beyond any possible experience, to the thing in itself, is illegitimate, according to Kant. As for the noumena, they are ideal entities posited by our reason to unify our experience, not unlike ideal limits in mathematics, see Palmquist, Two Perspectives on the Object of Knowledge. –
Conifold
Commented May 17, 2019 at 4:41
1
As Conifold indicates the definition of Kant's noumenon is that it transcends existence. If it did not then his noumenon would have to have a noumenon. Existence cannot originate with an existent, and attributes cannot belong to an attribute. Perhaps one proof would be the 'problem of attributes', which cannot be solved without positing some sort of noumenon. . . . . – user20253
Commented May 17, 2019 at 10:01
"

https://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP6.html



https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... -phenomena

https://medium.com/epoch%C3%A9-%E1%BC%9 ... 066e0d10bc

From the article above, and what do you think of this?:

"
What is a Noumenon? Ask any (philosophy) person on the street, and you’ll no doubt hear how Kant divided the world into the phenomenon and noumenon, and that we can’t know anything about the noumenon, but have to resign ourselves to dealing with phenomenon, things in themselves vs appearances, etc etc.

But even in this dismissive simplification an inconsistency has already emerged. How could have Kant divided the world into two parts and then gone on, with a perfectly straight face, to deny that we could have any knowledge of the second part? Isn’t the very division itself, and the agnostic claim about unknowability, presenting us with knowledge of what is unknowable? That is, hasn’t Kant, at the outset, committed a self-referential contradiction that any philosophy undergrad could spot with a blindfold on: “I know that the noumenon is unknowable”.

The foolish thing would be to think that Kant has missed something so fundamental. So, we should, instead, suspect the simplified account. That turns us back to the original question, then, which is What is the Noumenon? It cannot be what Kant divides the world into in a simple way, the way we would divide a genus into species. All we have at our disposal is the phenomenon, so for the noumenon as a concept to avoid a simplistic self-referential paradox, it needs to be explicated in the terms of phenomenal reality. Obviously, owing to the definitional nature of the division, it is not a phenomenon, but the agnostic claim, and the division itself, need to emerge from phenomena. So, let’s do that.
Qualification

We would be sabotaged right out of the gate if we didn’t put to rest a very common way of talking about the noumenon that is, nonetheless, obviously flawed. That is the noumenon as cause of the phenomenon. Kant does toy with this idea, or manner of speaking, but never when it counts, that is, whenever he is discussing the problem of the noumenon directly. He can’t. Causality, as Schopenhauer points out, is a category only legitimately applicable to phenomenon by Kant’s own admission. Furthermore, once Kant has placed time and space on the side of the phenomenon, it becomes unclear what we mean by causality when it is applied beyond the context of space and, especially, time. It makes no sense, then, to speak of a supra-sensible causality beyond any possible phenomenon. Furthermore, because of the necessary agnosticism on the question, it makes as much sense to say the noumenon is the cause of the phenomenon as it does to say the noumenon is a dancing circus bear named Rodney. Though it would be nice and simple to define the noumenon just as “that which causes the phenomenon”, this would implode the entire Kantian enterprise. Accordingly, what Kant means by “noumenon” is far more complex, and subtle.
Groundwork

But first, let’s lay some groundwork. It’s important, as Kant seems so committed to the idea of the noumenon despite its perilous potential inconsistency, that we set up the background of how the Critique of Pure Reason births the idea alongside the machinery that forms the true focus of the text.

It could be said that Kant becomes committed to the idea of a noumenon in the opening sentences of the Critique of Pure Reason, when he’s first defining the faculties:

“The capacity (receptivity) to obtain representations through the way in which we are affected by objects is called sensibility.” (B33|A19)

So, even in the opening sentences we have an “object” that we are affected by, and our capacity to be affected is called sensibility. Intuition (the product of sensibility) is defined as that in our knowledge that refers to these objects “immediately” (ibid). It would seem the “object” has already been separated from our capacity to experience it. However, reading the inevitability of the noumenon into this opening does a certain retroactive violence to Kant’s mode of expression. The intuition of the sensibility refers immediately to objects of knowledge. Furthermore, though sensibility has been set up as a passive faculty (thus raising the question, passive to what?), our way of being affected, this does not, yet, entail an epistemic gulf between things in themselves and our being affected by them.

From there, the understanding is defined as the reserve of concepts that provide the form of our objects of knowledge, allowing them to relate to one another. So, to offer a simple example, allowing us to count disparate objects as belonging to a single quantity. There is nothing in my pure perception (intuition) of the various objects in front of me to suggest that they could be numerically identical (each being equal to one thing), however I can truly treat apples and oranges equivalently when I am counting fruit. How many “things” is this laptop in front of me? One? Three? Seventeen? Depends on the operation. The play of concepts allows me to see the laptop as a single unity one moment, and then as a complex amalgam of hardware components in the next, and finally onto a dizzying digit expressing the total number of atoms that make it up. My sensory experience of the object does not change through these conceptual shifts, only what the object represents to the conceptual notion of quantity. This conceptual notion of quantity is given ready-made in my perceptual experience, even though there is nothing perceptual about it. It is the conceptual component, the contribution of the understanding.

This is all to say that we can perform arithmetical operations easily on the objects in front of us because we experience objects through the concept of an object in general. The concept of an object in general is amenable to clean mathematical quantization, in a way the flux of multi-sensory perception isn’t. That’s why I can add a phone to a piece of ash and a stone and a power cable. They all partake in the concept of “object” generally, so I can perform arithmetic upon them as generic “objects”, despite them not sharing any more commonality than their being “objects, generally”.

Now, in the classical Kantian maneuver, it’s argued that we couldn’t derive the concept of an object in general from the particular objects appearing to us, because objects as they appear already presuppose an understanding of objects in general. I.e, we couldn’t learn math by counting things we see, because if we’re counting we’re already doing math, and if we were in a state where things appeared to us as uncountable (countability being completely unknown) it’s hard to see how we could learn counting from uncountable things. Thus, the concept of an object in general is given by the mind a priori and our intuitions (perceptions) fall into these demarcations.

Anecdotally, I remember drawing something as a child, and having the epiphany that objects didn’t actually have bold black outlines as they do in comic books. The fact that this was an epiphany points to the fact that there is something truthful in the “black outline” view of visual experience, despite it not being something in our visual experience. The concept of an object is this virtual outline, or what makes it possible, more or less.

Kant then wonders how it is this concept of an object in general could have arisen in such a way that it could apply to perception so ubiquitously. He represents it through the general formula “Object=X”. Now, it’s not enough we have this notion of Object=X, we need to be able to say how it is possible for the world as it is experienced to be so subject to it. In an awesome passage he derives the general concept of an Object=X out of the Cartesian Cogito. It will be instructive to our discussion of the noumenon to see how the proto-notion developed.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Object = X

Descartes puts forward “thinking” as a solid, absolutely certain given. To understand this it is important to remember that Descartes considered perception itself as a mode of thinking. In fact, Descartes definition of “thinking” in the 2nd Meditation encompasses all of the phenomenological “given” — perceiving, calculating, willing, feeling, refuting, reasoning and so on. All of these, taken in their pure aspects, just are, self evidently. This is what he meant by his definition of “thinking”; all that can be seen to self-presently just be. A moment’s reflection can show us why he needs this tautological definition (of thinking is being, being is —> thinking is): if he attempted to provide a determinate concept of thinking, which would define it more concretely, this would fail the very skeptic operation he was performing (one can always be wrong about/doubt the particular application of a determinate concept).

Anyway, Descartes jumps from this sureity of the present given to the sureity of the self to which this given is given. However, he cannot personalize this self (that would require predicating determinate concepts to it), only point to the given as given and refer the self to this process of the given being given.

Kant builds on this and takes this “I” of the Cartesian Cogito, calling it the “transcendental unity of apperception”. Basically, the content of my given experience is constantly shifting and changing. As I move around my house a myriad of forms and objects unfurl themselves, my thoughts move restlessly from this to that and my eyes dart around. However, all of this transformation is occurring within a unified “frame”. I can never directly find this frame itself but everywhere it is the same, hence transcendental. The unity within it is what provides the possibility for there to be unified particular objects in the first place. As in, when watching a film, we don’t see individual disjointed photographs, but in each viewer these successive images, by sharing a place, and moving regularly through an unfurling time, are unified. It’s that experience itself is unified spatially, from one moment to the next, that allows the content of a film to itself unify across successive times.

Now, consciousness itself might be disjointed and “gappy”, as Daniel Dennett has argued, for example, but it is presented first and foremost as a unity. This transcendental unity of apperception is the prototype for the concept of an object = X. So, the first object is the Cogito as the mere unity of experience, a frame, labelled “I”, and this is then the model of unity and objects in general. Within this general unity, all objects are given within a unity that they are powerless to contradict. Your shoes might not match your belt, but they are both being there together happily in this one experience. Once we’ve got this universal condition of unity, then each object of our experience takes part in this overarching, grand project of “unification”.

This unity, this object = X, with no determinate content (experience is always shifting), provides the ground of the conceptual matrix that not only partitions our sensible intuitions into stable objects, but allows them, via this matrix, to relate to each other in our experience, thus giving rise to the possibility of knowledge as the description of these conceptual relations within the matrix.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
And, Noumenon?

We seem to be a far cry from the noumenon, but we’re only a single step away.

This object = X, the ground of objecthood in general, is what turns us to the noumenon in the first place. The TL:DR of the entire Critique of Pure Reason is that the only legitimate knowledge is that which takes place within this conceptual matrix at those points occupied by possible intuitions. In other words, you can think whatever you want, and follow through the logical implications of concepts as far as you wish, but if you want to make a claim to knowledge (an assertoric claim), this conceptual structure needs to be “fleshed” out with references to sensible intuition. I.e. “The math is sound, but the experiment must be conducted”.

However, these sensible intuitions alone are not sufficient to our knowledge about them: they are just a flux of impressions situated in the forms of space and time. There is always a conceptual excess over pure perception in every object. Even in our transcendental unity of apperception, there is an extra conceptual component added to the whole universe of possible perceptions: their unity. The concept, in its bearing on the perception, always has a +1.

This emboldens the understanding. For every object that it holds in view with its concepts, the intuitions of sensibility only color-in a portion of it; the concept is always a bit bigger than what is merely given in perception. So, there is necessarily a gap, or remainder, with every application of a concept. The name of this gap, or remainder, is “Noumenon”.

“Our understanding thus acquires a kind of negative extension, that is, it is not limited by sensibility, but, on the contrary, it limits sensibility, by calling things in themselves (not considered as appearances) noumena.” (B312|A256) (emphasis added)

The notion is exciting to the understanding, because it can freely play with concepts — remember how my laptop can be as many objects as a I need it to be for the purposes of thought? So, the understanding has the power to extract the gap and treat it as an object unto itself…
Get John C. Brady’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Kant militates against this. The understanding treating the gap as an object would be a positive notion of the noumenon: that is, as an actual object for non-sensible (i.e. intellectual) intuition. However, sensible intuition is the only one we have, so when the understanding takes this gap or remainder of conceptual content over what is given in experience, and attempts to think it as a object in itself, it thinks nothing. Kant, instead, warns that we can only think the noumenon in the negative sense, that is, as a gap, or remainder, or limit. We can’t then take this gap as anything positive, but have to leave it in this negative state — of merely being what escapes the positive presence of sensible intuition by definition. He even assigns it its place in his schema of “nothingness”. The noumenon is a conceptual form of nothingness, alongside its partner, contradiction, and opposite its siblings, the intuitions of emptiness and absence.

“the object of a concept to which no intuition can be found to correspond = nothing; this is, it is a concept without an object, as are the noumena, which cannot be counted among the possibilities, though they are not therefore claimed to be impossible either (ens rationis)” (B347|A290).

This not-possible but not thereby impossible is the character of the problematic, which is opposed to the apodictic (necessary), and the assertoric (permitting of being true or false). The noumenon is firmly in the realm of the problematic, Kant is very repetitive on this point, meaning he’s neither committed to the question of its necessity, or even the question of its existence. It is quite literally nothing at all.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
The Problem of Solipsism

So far seemingly so good. We’ve followed Kant’s arguments through, and disentangled the self-referential paradox. It’s not the case that we can know that the noumenon is unknowable, because the noumenon is nothing at all, by definition. It is beyond the purview of possible thinghood, and is a conceptual illusion arising from the work of the understanding in general. This is satisfying until we remember that what we are talking about here is the real world! That is, the world beyond our experience of it. We’ve fallen into the worst kind of skeptical solipsism, where we have shown the notion of the “real world” beyond our individual sensual perception as illusory, and haven’t replaced it with anything.

Fortunately, even though Kant asserts that the noumenon only has a negative, problematic concept, within the sensibility it has a positive role. That is its role of limiting the sensibility.

“With all this the concept of a noumenon, if taken only problematically, remains not only admissible but, as a concept to limit the sphere of sensibility, indispensable.” (B311|A256)

But why does the sensibility need to be limited. We’ve already discussed how the understanding necessarily over-stretches sensible intuition, creating the gap called the noumenon, but there is a difference between over-stretching (a passive, indifferent relation) and limiting (an active relation).

We need to tread carefully here. The noumenon, as negative extension, can inhabit the realm of the “problematic” quite happily, but if we talk of this negative extension having positive effects, positive force, limiting the sensibility, we seem to be hypostatizing it into an object that could be the cause of a limit, an assertoric hypothesis. This compromises the safety of the problematic nature of the noumenon, and draws it into the network of things which also compromises its purely negative character.

Kant’s knife work around and through these issues is masterful, and worth quoting at length:

“We do not say that thought is in itself a product of the senses and therefore limited by them, but it does not follow that therefore thought, without the aid of sensibility, has it own pure use, since it would then be without an object. Nor would it be right to call the noumenon such an object of the pure understanding, for the noumenon signifies the problematic concept of an object for an intuition and an understanding totally different from our own, of an object, therefore, that is itself a problem. Hence the concept of the noumenon is not the concept of an object, but only a problem, inseparable from the limitation of our sensibility, as to whether there may not be objects entirely independent of the intuition of this sensibility. This is a question that can only be answered in an uncertain way, by saying that since sensible intuition does not embrace all things without distinction, there remains a place open for other and different objects, which therefore cannot be absolutely denied; but they also cannot be asserted as objects of our understanding, because there is no determinate concept for them (our categories are unfit for the purpose).” (B343–344|A287–288) (emphasis added).

Sensible intuition itself has a limitation, it does not embrace all things without distinction, and this limitation is inseparable from a problem, the concept of the noumenon, that refers to the possibility of objects beyond the sensible intuition. It’s important we get the directions right here: the problem that just is the concept of the noumenon (the noumenon is a problematic) cannot cause a limitation in the sensibility, the sensibility needs to find it in itself. However, the sensibility cannot think, only sense, so this limitation in it has to be sensed (intuited). Once it is discovered, it finds affinity with the gap or remainder of conceptual excess, this is the conceptual expression of the problem inherent to intuition.

Erich Adickes (1924) points to this situation and claims that in direct experience there is always a “breath of the transcendent”. That is, in our most direct experience, the sensibility always-already intuits something beyond itself, which is then conceptualized on the side of the understanding as the excessive topography of the concept of an object in general. Graham Bird (2006) instead points to the problem as it is phrased by Kant above, that the gap between the concept and the intuition always raises the question for sensibility that those “unintuited” elements of the concept could possibly be intuited by other possible cognitions. Bird sees Kant, with this entire noumenon endeavor, as merely leaving the door open to the possibility of radically different minds who may be able to intuit directly what we can only conceptually posit, that is, intuitions that could fill the gap between the edges of the concept and the intuitions that color them.

However, a synthesis of these two views is possible. What Adickes emphasizes is that the sensibility has to, with no thought of its own, intuit a limit, or incompleteness, in the pure given of sensation that turns it over to a beyond that it cannot intuit, only conceptualize via the understanding. Bird emphasizes that the sensibility humbles itself in admitting not being able to see it all, discovering a limit posed by the possibility of radically different ways of intuiting, that might be able to flesh out the gaps in the work of the understanding upon it.

The synthesis of these two views points us to the other. The beings we share our world with.
Press enter or click to view image in full size

Let’s take sculpture as an example. Sculpture is perhaps a singular art form in that it’s a play of multiple spatial points of view occurring over time. I can unite the total piece of art, into the unity that it is, only by walking around it and connecting each successive perception into a series. However, such a unity is conceptual only — I can only have the empirical intuition (an intuition composed of sensation) of a single slice at any given time.

But, this is Florence, and that is David; there are many of us here as usual. Each of us, slowly orbiting the sculpture, using our cameras to record the slices relative to our position, intuit that we do not intuit what the other intuits. We know, conceptually, what the other sees, (we were just standing where they are now), but in order for us to combine the two sides of the sculpture into a single empirical intuition, the fabric of space and time would need to be altered, curved. This is impossible because space and time are the forms through which our intuition is given in the first place, not objects, or properties thereof, amenable to alteration. In order to intuit the entire sculpture, we would need to possess “an intuition and an understanding totally different from our own” (B343|A287), one that is not structured around these particular forms of space and time that our intuitions are structured around. With the two of us, standing on opposite sides of the structure, we both intuit the possibility of a unity of apperception beyond the horizon of this unity of apperception that is “I”.

Now, it’s not enough that I just see an other seeing the sculpture. I may happily believe this other lacking in interiority: a zombie or robot. If that was the case, the sensibility would encounter no limit, because the entire object that the robotic other is, through and through, would be the possible object of intuition. A macabre dissection would verify that inside of them are just more intuitions, nothing would escape the purview of sensibility. It’s only when I regard the other as other (that is, as another unity of apperception) that I acknowledge that beyond all possible perceptions I could have of this object that they are (this body and its inner mechanisms), there are inaccessible intuitions within this other, intuitions that my sensibility cannot gain access to, intuitions that occupy currently empty spaces in the gap between my concept of the object and this particular experience I am having of it right now. How does this arise as a problem for my sensibility? When the other speaks.
Noumenal Elephants

Perhaps simplifying the problem will make this more clear. Fortunately there’s a ready-made parable: the blind men and the elephant.

The story is something about a group of blind men groping a poor, silent elephant. Because each of them is groping a different part, they come to radically different conclusions about what it is they are groping. The one feeling the leg says it’s a tree, whereas the one feeling the trunk says its a snake, for example.

Now let’s give this story it’s proper Kantian weight. Being blind, the men’s entire faculty of sensible intuition (within the confines of the story) is limited to sensations of touch in the palms of their hands. This conveniently limits the zone of “perspective”; none of them can take in more than a literal handful of empirical intuition at a given time.

It is also important to make a distinction here: it’s not just that the one feeling the leg jumps to the wrong conclusion in believing he is touching a tree — the entire given of his sensory experience is congruent with the experience of feeling a tree. Yes, he is wrong in the conceptual sense, but what is more important is that while he is experiencing something in the region of “tree-like” thing, which could include the leg of an elephant as well as a tree, his partner is experiencing a “snake-like” thing. So, it’s not just that they disagree on a conceptual level about what to call this thing in front of them, what concept to subsume it under, but, rather, that they are having radically different intuitive experiences relative to where they are standing in relation to the thing. The one’s assertion that “it’s a snake” doesn’t just contradict the conceptual distinctions of the other, but their very fundamental sensory experience of what is happening before them. This is not “Is it a bird? Is it a plane?” but, rather, “Is it a glass of lemonade? Or is it the original cast of Les Miserables?”

Now, it is an important element of the story that these blind men are reporting their interpretations of the experience they are having — that’s the key that makes the story turn. Had they been deaf and mute in addition to being blind, there would nothing stopping one singular “unity of apperception” of one of them (say, the tree theory), from reigning supreme across an enclosed, solipsistic universe. But, as it is, the conflicting reports turn each of their individual intuitions into problems. The thinking “how could he believe this is a snake?” turns the tree-like intuitions into a problem. Suddenly, these intuitions that are perfectly congruent with a tree become non-all, they reach a limitation. What, in the deaf-mute-blind unity of apperception was just unproblematically a tree, suddenly becomes, with the impingement of another possible unity of apperception, an intuition limited by a problem. And that problem? The problem of there being another cluster of intuitions for this object of knowledge that are unintuitable by this sensibility in its formal rendering of space-time.

We only need to, now, step out of our omnipotent perspective from which we can see the blind man’s over-arching error, to assert that the elephant, the object, itself is nothing but a problem that exists between these conflicting intuitions, that arises through the encounter with an other via language.

So, tying all of this together, by way of conclusion, once we have others truly taken as others, intuition, the presentation of the sensory world rolling out before us, reveals itself to be non-all. The other, with their perspective and expressed view (language), poses a problem to it, instigating a limit. The name for this problem is noumenon: the possibility of another sensibility, of another cluster of intuitions showing that our own unity of apperception is merely partial. The partial nature of this unity is irrelevant to the conceptual matrix of the understanding that understands the object nevertheless, despite not being fully colored in by the intuitions of this particular sensibility (admitting of conceptual excess), such that I can tell you about things you are experiencing over the phone. This gap between, on the one hand, my intuitive experience, which, by the laws of space and time through which it is given, necessarily contradicts your intuitive experience (we cannot occupy the same point in space-time), and, on the other hand, the conceptual explication of the object that does not contradict your conceptual experience, is the noumenon. I’m given a consecutively transforming bundle of sensations, if I take you seriously as an other then I intuit that you are given another, but our concepts match up, despite my intuiting the “left half” and you the “right”. This problematic of intuition gives rise to the idea of the thing in itself, and the idea that if the forms of intuition were differently constituted then I could intuit both what I and you intuit at the same time. The name of this problem is “noumenon”, and it is not a possible fact (assertoric), nor a necessary form of my experience (apodictic) but a pure problem. This “real world” beyond all possible perception is nothing but the problem of mutually exclusive perspectives revealed by conversation.

It takes two to make a noumenon.

About the author: John Brady is a perennial student of philosophy and educator situated in Beijing. He gets most of his reading done in traffic jams. He is also a co-editor of this magazine, by way of full disclosure.
"