Wikipedia has an ongoing project on improving articles on the subject of western esotericism (quite interesting one even for "scientifially-minded" if you look at the origins of the Royal Society and the surrounding protosciences). I've been using Wikipedia since its early beginnings, on my primary account loosely contributing for well over a decade and many of my edits from years ago were left unchanged.
A few months ago I've tried creating a small page about a modern-day occultist who seems to have near Indiana Jones status in that community for digging out one well-known magical ritual from medieval archives all over Europe with academic scrutiny (the Abramelin ritual, A Dark Song is a recent interesting movie about it). His name already was mentioned on some related pages.
Went through some lengths searching for more secondary material after they asked for it. Had hours of conversations via Wikipedia IRC to make sure I deliver exactly what is needed (and they claimed my sources are sufficient there). But even several academic papers discussing his work were not enough for the admin in charge, apparently his whole bio needs to be in a secondary source for him to be considered "noteworthy" - which seems to be an impossible demand in this small community.
I get the danger of self-promotion, Wikipedia has a few obvious pages of company CEOs self-promoting, who probably asked some poor employee bloke to write it. But meanwhile Wikipedia is scattered with obvious industry propaganda / damage control (see the suspiciously detailed Monsanto damage-controlling articles on glyphosate or the Séralini affair; and some more recent pharma-related topics) and literal advertisements from several industries. Just check out that page about Justin Bieber portraying that kid as some modern-day musical genius. Industry marketing apartments – of course – do have the resourced to fight for such articles full-time. On top of it this all severely and widely influences public opinion - these articles are much more widely read than those about a well-known author in a subsubculture -, and nobody seems to be interested in doing something about it.
This article was fairly good, all things considered, but you need some background in order to get the most out of it. The kind of magic King does not eventually perform (goetic magic) falls under what's called "ceremonial magic". Key to this sort of magic is time/resource-consuming preparatory work (which besides constructing expensive seals, may include fasting / ritual cleansing).
When King says at the end, "the key unlocks the door but you are the one who has to walk through it", he's partly referring to the preparatory but also imprinting process. The fact that one has to spend a lot of precious personal time and money (if one follows the directions of the grimoire to the letter) means that one becomes invested in the process with many changes happening in the psychological realm. Think of the whole preparatory process as ritual, acting it out strengthens and imprints the work. Or stated another way, one is constructing a new model of reality and simultaneously imprinting it.
When the time for the actual conjuration comes, which could be years after one first sets foot upon the path, the mind has been adequatly prepared to open the doors to the unconscious. Again, King seems to possess an understanding of this when he talks about the brain being the medium for the work. So, ultimately one can say that there's nothing supernatural here and people who have stayed at the supernatural level are either charlatans or deluded fools.
There's a good movie one can watch about ceremonial magic, called A Dark Song. Even though it does have some elements that can be superficially described as supernatural, it's -smartly- playing with the interpretation and does not rigidly impose a supernatural causality.
I've noticed for a while that Netflix seems to be making it a lot harder to rate content and find high quality content. It's like they want you to watch junk. Maybe junk has lower licensing fees so it increases their margins.
I've found some amazing gems digging through Netflix and relying on user ratings. They were films I probably never would have found otherwise. A few somewhat recent examples that come to mind are Enter the Void, The Discovery, Upstream Color, and A Dark Song.
Hacker Cinema
5 comments on Hacker News
Some that I've enjoyed recently (or rewatched):
Good One (2024) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30319516/
Strange Darling (2023) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22375054/
The Creator (2023) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11858890/
The Night House (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9731534/
The Empty Man (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5867314/
Possessor (2020) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5918982/
Booksmart (2019) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489887/
Volition (2019) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6385952/
Welcome the Stranger (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5716280/
Time Trap (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4815122/
Wind River (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5362988/
A Dark Song (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4805316/
I Am Not a Serial Killer (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4303340/
Midnight Special (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2649554/
The Devil's Candy (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4935372/
Mr. Holmes (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3168230/
The Witch (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4263482/
A Most Wanted Man (2014) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/
Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/
Pandorum (2009) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188729/
The Fall (2006) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/
In a Savage Land (1999) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151047/
Office Space (1999) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/
The Double Life of Véronique (1991) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101765/
Don't have Netflix so not sure what's available there, and several might not be wife-friendly. Also I enjoy weird, so YMMV.
Wikipedia has an ongoing project on improving articles on the subject of western esotericism (quite interesting one even for "scientifially-minded" if you look at the origins of the Royal Society and the surrounding protosciences). I've been using Wikipedia since its early beginnings, on my primary account loosely contributing for well over a decade and many of my edits from years ago were left unchanged.
A few months ago I've tried creating a small page about a modern-day occultist who seems to have near Indiana Jones status in that community for digging out one well-known magical ritual from medieval archives all over Europe with academic scrutiny (the Abramelin ritual, A Dark Song is a recent interesting movie about it). His name already was mentioned on some related pages.
Went through some lengths searching for more secondary material after they asked for it. Had hours of conversations via Wikipedia IRC to make sure I deliver exactly what is needed (and they claimed my sources are sufficient there). But even several academic papers discussing his work were not enough for the admin in charge, apparently his whole bio needs to be in a secondary source for him to be considered "noteworthy" - which seems to be an impossible demand in this small community.
I get the danger of self-promotion, Wikipedia has a few obvious pages of company CEOs self-promoting, who probably asked some poor employee bloke to write it. But meanwhile Wikipedia is scattered with obvious industry propaganda / damage control (see the suspiciously detailed Monsanto damage-controlling articles on glyphosate or the Séralini affair; and some more recent pharma-related topics) and literal advertisements from several industries. Just check out that page about Justin Bieber portraying that kid as some modern-day musical genius. Industry marketing apartments – of course – do have the resourced to fight for such articles full-time. On top of it this all severely and widely influences public opinion - these articles are much more widely read than those about a well-known author in a subsubculture -, and nobody seems to be interested in doing something about it.
This is gold for my RPG fantasy campaigns. Thanks to OP for posting.
If anyone wants to see a good film adaptation of some of this stuff watch A Dark Song (2016).
And to a lesser extent You Are Not My Mother (2021) - this one is more folklore based.
This article was fairly good, all things considered, but you need some background in order to get the most out of it. The kind of magic King does not eventually perform (goetic magic) falls under what's called "ceremonial magic". Key to this sort of magic is time/resource-consuming preparatory work (which besides constructing expensive seals, may include fasting / ritual cleansing).
When King says at the end, "the key unlocks the door but you are the one who has to walk through it", he's partly referring to the preparatory but also imprinting process. The fact that one has to spend a lot of precious personal time and money (if one follows the directions of the grimoire to the letter) means that one becomes invested in the process with many changes happening in the psychological realm. Think of the whole preparatory process as ritual, acting it out strengthens and imprints the work. Or stated another way, one is constructing a new model of reality and simultaneously imprinting it.
When the time for the actual conjuration comes, which could be years after one first sets foot upon the path, the mind has been adequatly prepared to open the doors to the unconscious. Again, King seems to possess an understanding of this when he talks about the brain being the medium for the work. So, ultimately one can say that there's nothing supernatural here and people who have stayed at the supernatural level are either charlatans or deluded fools.
There's a good movie one can watch about ceremonial magic, called A Dark Song. Even though it does have some elements that can be superficially described as supernatural, it's -smartly- playing with the interpretation and does not rigidly impose a supernatural causality.
I've noticed for a while that Netflix seems to be making it a lot harder to rate content and find high quality content. It's like they want you to watch junk. Maybe junk has lower licensing fees so it increases their margins.
I've found some amazing gems digging through Netflix and relying on user ratings. They were films I probably never would have found otherwise. A few somewhat recent examples that come to mind are Enter the Void, The Discovery, Upstream Color, and A Dark Song.