Talk:Enochian magic/Archive 1

Untitled
Something about the role of Elias Ashmole collecting and disseminating Dee's work should be added.

Does anyone have any additional information about the BOTA and SOL stances against Enochian? 76.16.34.223 17:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- I have added a little on Paul Foster Case/BOTA's criticism against Enochian Whitjr (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)whitjr 17feb16

I'm planning on making some large scale additions to this article over the next few weeks. Currently, my sources are going to be: - - - Liber LXXXIV vel Chanokh by Aleister Crowley Vision and the Voice by Aleister Crowley Enochian Magic Reference by Benjamin Rowe Enochian World of Aleister Crowley by A. Crowley, L.M. Duquette, C.S. Hyatt Complete Golden Dawn Magical System by Israel Regardie Dee & Kelly's Enochian manuscripts (many various editions and editors) - - - These are all critical texts regarding the system of Enochian magic. However, I am not currently aware of any reference sources that discuss biographical or historical information in depth. All the above texts have, necessarily, some biographical or historical facet but lack the necessary academic distance from the subject to make those facets unshakably reliable. - - - Any suggestions to additional texts would be appreciated. Otherwise, expect to see an article outline posted for discussion with in a week or two. --Bopgun23 06:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) - - - 80.42.154.240 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) This entire Wiki entry needs to be re-written. The total lack of citation and referencing is disappointing. There are a number of texts available which do approach the subject from a more academic angle, specifically G.E. Szonyi's 'John Dee's Occultism, Nicholas H. Clulee's 'John Dee's Magical Philosophy' and Edward Fenton's comprehensive foot notes in his 'The Diaries of John Dee'. All offer a more balanced point of view that any of the above named sources.

Unverified Accusation toward LaVey
I wanted to address the following statement made in the article:

"Anton LaVey's book The Satanic Bible includes a section of "Enochian Keys" purported to have been part of the lost manuscripts of Dr. Dee's, though this has been proofed a lie. LaVey simply took the original enochian keys but gave them another translation that fitted more into his satanic view of the world."

Note that, while this statement has a citation, it cites Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. Having read it myself, I can assure you (feel free to verify this for yourself) that never at any point in the book does LaVey admit to having taken the original enochian keys and "fitted" them to his viewpoint. Thus, this statement is not a fact which is found in the Satanic Bible, but rather, the author's opinion of the Satanic Bible, and it is far from having been "proofed."

I acknowledge that it is very likely that this is in fact what LaVey did. But this statement does not hold up to Wikipedia's standards for either evidence or grammar. I move that this statement be deleted (or at least noted that it lacks proper citation) unless any others object.

Xiaogui17 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite In Process
I am currently in the process of completely rewriting this article (although i will use any cited sources in the current article that seem useful of course). there seems to be a lot o support for a rewrite (if you disagree please let me know, i dont want to do it if everyone opposes it). Right now im just at the point where im collecting facts that i will use to create the article. If you have any points of fact you think might be useful for this article please contribute it here: User:Debeo_Morium/Enochian_Notes. Dont worry about NPOV or any of the typical wiki rules when contributing to my notes. Its only a place to collect relevant facts. It will all be dismantled as i move it into the final article. In the mean time feel free to contribute your input to this effort either here, on my talk page, or at any one of my drafts in User:Debeo_Morium. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Polish in "Four Great Watch-towers"
"The four great watch-towers" are coded in polish. For example in:

we may read "Nim Belg mocno pasa ulał gębę miał nalaną [] łbem nas uwalił [] i napasał glanem [] do mego pana sprosił...". (c=k=ć, u=v=w, a=ą, e=ę, l=ł etc.) So... Try now to learn polish. :)

Some more there. (Sorry by my english). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arusiek (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

..What.
"Compared to other theories of magic, Enochian magic is strikingly complex and difficult to understand.[citation needed] Also, parts of the original manuscripts written by Dee have been lost, mainly due to a fire in his house after his death, thus key parts of the system are missing. "

WTF? I didnt realise there was degrees of magic complexity. It seems rather arbitrary. And I mean, the guy is dead! he died and has not given peices out! This is kinda based on spirit so if he was really a magician he woudlve come back AS a spirit to give his followers the damn final peices of his Machina Magnifica or whatever it is.

Id edit it out but it would just result in the entire article being labelled hilariously short sighted.

However, if anyone DOES have working magic spells in this or any other system and can verify that fact, I'd be glad to hear it. Note that psychic powers, while also fake, are not magic. Neither is anything done by a deity so...Yeah, this article is pretty terrible in basically eevery way possible,

Has this 'difficulty' been reached by an expert in cryptography? Or is it just non neutral POV? Well, if its neutral, then feel free to ad it back in with appropriate refernces. And pre-emptively, a book of amgic is not considerd a reliable resources (Again, barring any demonstrations of magic in a repeatable and falsifiable manner,) especially if its missing peices. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, strictly speaking, magic has always been historically the work of gods - not that I believe in that rubbish. Just wanted to point that out - magic is traditionally the unification between mundane and divine realms. All this stuff with Enochian is just more packaged nonsense. 68.5.169.216 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Crowley section NPOV
The section on Aleister Crowley and Enochian appears to be written from the POV of a follower of his work. For example, there are statements such as: "It was Crowley who recognised and elucidated the Golden Dawn Enochian material..."; and "The book... requires dedicated study". The latter statement seems particularly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia as it is clearly an injunction rather than a neutral statement of fact. There is also the gushing and unsourced statement: "This exploration of the full 30 Aethyrs has been seriously compared to the visionary works of William Blake (etc.)..." This seems like an example of a "peacock" statement intended to extol Crowley's work rather than serious scholarship. --Smcg8374 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've edited this section a bit to tone down the pro-Crowley POV and removed the aforementioned "peacock" statement. This section still needs references though, especially the part about Crowley's influence on Enochian today. --Smcg8374 (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

-- Validity of discussion of magical techniques--

Soemone has commented here regarding whether or not the concept of 'magic' (as an agent causing change in the perceptible world) is valid. That is not the issue. Magicians and those who work with such systems as part of the Western hermetic/ceremonial tradition have an understanding of the components of various magical systems including Goetia, Qabalah, Enochian and others. The Wikipedia entry on Enochian magic attempts to summarise the basic elements of the system which are indeed rather complex (though not as somplex as some pages on Wikipedia regarding scientific and mathematical formulae).

There is no attempt in this entry to advise or train people. The entry is merely educationl, consisting of a summary of (a) elements of the history of the system (b) elements of the philosophy of the system and (c) the notable materials or physical tools required to utilise the system. The latter is comparable to the list of equipment required by a sports player to pursue their particular sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminJones (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Case's criticism of Enochian
I have added a small section on the criticism of Enochian by Paul Foster Case, in order to offer another POV. Whitjr (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC) whitjr 17feb16