Talk:Great Work (Thelema)

Merge
I'm wondering what the difference is, between the Thelema article, and this one. I'm going to suggest that it be merged. Zos 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, there! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

I disagree. Thelema is the belief system, whereas Thelemic mysticism encompasses the rites and practices that help one along the Thelemic path. This is specifically Aleisterian Thelema and needs to be separate.Theseus1776 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I agree. Make it one article. Hinduism is a HUGE article, tightly structured, and informative. The article's structure needs to be informativly design (design AND content). The structure of the "Thelema" article could include headings such as Thelemic Practices with subheadings. (also, after looking into the word "mysticism" I really do not find the word "mysticism" informative at all. The above statement that seeks to define "mysticism" as not the same as belief is also confusing.). Love is the law, love under will -KB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.8.250 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Crowley as only source
This article appears to use only Crowley as a source. That can hardly be NPOV. The article needs to be improved by the use of third-party sources, for example, Lon DuQuette's book, Rodney Orpheus' book might have good information, though they are still "in-universe". If even more neutral sources could be found, that would be even better. 130.237.152.213 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A few contrasting opinions at all would be pretty nice. Seriously, even explaining the position of the Catholic church to Thelema would be good enough. As it is, the article might as well be a pamphlet by the O.T.O., it's just so empty of all critical evaluation. --84.186.186.110 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is reliable sources. Most articles on this topic are from an personal, experiential point of view. jonathon (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely think this needs alternate POV. Right now it presents the K&C of the HGA and Crossing the Abyss as fundamental parts of Thelemic mysticism, whereas they are actually parts of the A.A. mystical system - not the same thing! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

93/93 Before a mass some fellow Thelemites & O.T.O. members had a "class" / lecture about "mysticism." It ended with the idea that mystical experience is a phrase that originates from modernism. This posting seems to ignore the fact that one can't easily define "mysticism." Some reference to William James' Varieties of Religious Experience perhaps?? (It may very well be the first time the word mysticISM appeared in print. ... on another separate note:  This article could really be easily edited to list Neoplatonic ideas of return to the divine which is very apparent in Thelemic writings (but not exclusive to Thelema).  I think a good method to go about editing this page is brianstorming other concepts within Thelema, but which are not EXCLUSIVE to Thelema.  (for example: alchemical transformation, Neoplatonism, meditation, theoria, contemplation, use of cataphatic theology as well as apophatic theology). This could make this article not strictly Crowley. 93/93  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Magick versus Mysticism
Thelemic mysticism is a complex mystical path designed to do two interrelated things: to learn one's unique True Will and to achieve union with the All. The set of techniques for doing so falls under Crowley's term Magick.

The words above, quoted from the article, describe Magick as a practice whose purpose is the achievement of the goals of Mysticism.

The premice is inaccurate because, in the scope of Crowleyan Thelema, Magick and Mysticism are seen as two contrary things: the essence of Magick is division, and that of Mysticism dissolution; the Magickal philosophy is either dualistic (2) or pluralistic (2+), and the Mystical either monistic (1) or nihilistic (0); Magick is driven by the “Will to Live” (see “The World as Will and Representation” by Arthur Schopenhauer), whereas Mysticism is driven by the “Will to Die” (see „Todestrieb“ or “death drive”, a Freudian concept).

The practice is dimorphic, one directing outward, and the other inward. Compare this with extroversion and introversion as understood in Jungian psychoanalysis. Consider “Apollonian and Dionysian”.

For reference, I'll mention “The Antecedents of Thelema”, Crowley's commentary on verse 26 of the second chapter of Liber Legis, and the essay “The Dangers of Mysticism”. Mortimer Lanin (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Thelemic mysticism"? Clarifying topic, renaming, and disentangling messes

 * This article is a bit unfocused; an assortment of various Thelema-related things. Some of the previous posts on this talk page seem to agree. Does Crowley ever actually use the phrase "Thelemic mysticism" in the way this article does; ie. to this particular subset of concepts/practices described in the books of Crowley (and, subsequently, his fans)? The phrase is definitely used by Thelemites, but afaik it's only used in a vague, general, undefined way to refer to mysticism expressed in the vocabulary of Thelema as opposed to some specific thing called "Thelemic mysticism". However, I'm not that deep down the Thelema rabbit-hole so I may be wrong. Searching the term online gives a few relevant hits (including books by Thelemites about Thelema), however most hits are just Wiki-mirrors reflecting/quoting this article.
 * Comparing the current and original versions of this article, it seems the article's intended topic is the path of progression of a practitioner of Thelema. The original version had additional paragraphs under "Milestones" and emphasised the phrase "mystical path" in the lead, suggesting that was the original focus, with the rest being included as background on the prerequisites along the path's milestones. However, it looks like over time the article has been eroded down and lost focus.
 * This considered, I don't think "Thelemic mysticism" is a good name for this article; it's vague and that vagueness encourages unfocused changes and tangents on topics that sound "mystical", which is basically all of Thelema. The "mystical path" that this article is supposed to describe is what Crowley calls "Great Work", if I'm not mistaken.
 * I suggest renaming this article to Great Work (Thelema), moving some of the material from Great Work (Hermeticism) here, and adding a main article link on that article to this article (actually, it already has one). Redundant, unfocused, tangential material already covered by Thelema or Ceremonial magic (and related articles) can then by trimmed back in this article. This would clarify what information belongs where and would unburden Great Work (Hermeticism) of the undue weight currently given to 19th/20th-century ceremonial magic. (Great Work (Hermeticism) is currently way too heavily laden with ceremonial magic and Thelema especially.)
 * I support the proposed merge from True Will, given the state that article is in, since the topic still would be relevant to Great Work (Thelema) (the "Great Work" being the 'accomplishment of True Will', as it's described at the end of the Gnostic Mass). -- Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think? -- Scyrme (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for looking into this. I don't know that Crowley used the term, but Lon DuQuette certainly does (a whole section in The Magick of Aleister Crowley iirc), and he's pretty definitive for current practice and terminology. I think the article may be following his outline, but I don't own the book, so... I believe David Shoemaker also uses the term, and at least one other author whose name I can't recall atm. So I think it is a real subject called by this term, for what it's worth. I suspect the academic coverage does the same, I can check jstor... However your idea of merging it into Great Work has some merit. The further "milestones" were really specific to A.'.A.'. Enochian work and in no way mystical milestones but rather magical milestones, thus their removal to that article. Skyerise (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * nope, Nothing in The Library for both words together, so I agree. Since Great Work (Thelema) is a redirect, the easiest way to proceed is to get the redirect deleted then just move the existing article there. Then we can add intro and whatever else from Great Work (Hermeticism) is relevant. Skyerise (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you think? Skyerise (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'm just wiki-puttering-around right now, will get back and ponder this tomorrow. On a quick scan it looks like an interesting discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about all the long posts; take a look at the summary below to get the gist of what what's being proposed here. -- Scyrme (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Ch. 10 of DuQuette's The Magick of Thelema (which is the revised edition of The Magick of Aleister Crowley; they have essentially same Ch. 10 judging by the preview on Google Books) is entitled "Thelemic Mysticism", but it's simply an outline of Liber NV and Liber HAD, detailing the invocation of Nuit and Hadit. There's nothing to indicate that DuQuette is using "Thelemic mysticism" as this article does. Shoemaker's Living Thelema covers several of the topics in this article but doesn't actually use the phrase "Thelemic mysticism". However, it does have one instance of the phrase "Thelemic magick and mysticism"; otherwise, Shoemaker simply refers to "mysticism". In searching to see if Shoemaker may have used the phrase elsewhere I found a blog post reviewing Living Thelema that uses the phrase "Thelemic mysticism", and an outline of a seminar which had Shoemaker as a guest which has "Sex Magick & Thelemic Mysticism" as an event. I suspect the event relates to the chapter on "Sexual Mysticism" in Living Thelema. I've not found anything that contradicts my earlier statement that Thelemites use the phrase in a general, non-specific way.
 * I think one of the sources that may have originally shaped this article is the short section on Aleister Crowley in York's Pagan Mysticism, ch. 8, pp. 205-206; it refers to "Thelemic mysticism" explicitly and briefly mentions several of the topics in this article. The book is currently listed in this article's "Further reading", which suggests it may actually be a mislabelled list of sources. I had looked it up because it seemed a bit irrelevant for "further reading", judging by the title alone, but having looked it now seems its very relevant.
 * Regarding the "Milestones", I can see why "Magus and Ipsissimus" was moved over to A∴A∴, but "Babalon, the City of the Pyramids, and the Night of Pan" seems at least as relevant to this article as "Holy Guardian Angel" and "Crossing the Abyss"; it also logically follows from "Crossing the Abyss", so I think it's better not to separate them. The only line that makes it explicitly relevant to A∴A∴ is "In the system of A∴A∴ they are called Masters of the Temple." but even that line implies broad applicability for the information beyond the A∴A∴. It's also needlessly redundant to have both this article and A∴A∴ reproduce the same material under "Milestones". I suggest combining the section "Magus and Ipsissimus" with "The Order of the S∴S∴ (Silver Star)" at A∴A∴, and keeping "Milestones" here (perhaps minus specific references to the A∴A∴). The material from "Milestones" specifically relevant to the A∴A∴ can then be summarised at relevant points under "Initiatory structure", with links to this article (at the new title of Great Work (Thelema)) and to other relevant articles where the relevant topics are mentioned.
 * TL;DR summary:
 * Get Great Work (Thelema) deleted so Thelemic mysticism can be moved there. (Actually, I think we can just request a technical move; should be uncontroversial if we're all in agreement.)
 * Merge True Will with Great Work (Thelema).
 * Disentangle Great Work (Thelema) and Great Work (Hermeticism) by moving relevant material and trimming undue weight from Great Work (Hermeticism).
 * Disentangle Great Work (Thelema) and A∴A∴ by moving relevant material and sorting out A∴A∴'s structure.
 * I think we're in agreement on everything except 4, which I've only recently suggested above. If this discussion is getting a bit much, we can focus on 1 and 2 for now, and start a new section to discuss 3 and 4. -- Scyrme (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. before we request the technical deletion, have you had a chance to think about this? Would you support or at least not oppose this? Skyerise (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Haven't felt compelled to read it or get involved until later. You've got this. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Read some of it, why do you want to delete 'True Will'? Major concept and the article is well defined and written. Are you all saying that True Will and Great Work are so entwined that they are either the same thing or a subtle progression, and need merging. I thought this discussion was about moving 'Great Work (Thelema)' to its own article and keeping the name, but seems you're seeking a grand unification of True Will, Great Work, Guardian Angel, and the core of the mysticism page. If so maybe a title like 'True Will and Great Work' may be suitable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just saw all the work put into this page in the last couple weeks, so there is obviously some inspiration going on. Interesting. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We want to merge it, not delete it. I support Skyerise's merge proposal because True Will is badly referenced, relies too heavily on primary sources, is fairly short, and has been in that neglected state for years. There's not that much to True Will when isolated from its context, so the article is left with defining what it means followed by listing some places Crowley refers to the term. I'm not really sure the article could be bettered much. Material worth keeping could be just as effectively covered by a section of a larger article such as Thelema or the proposed Great Work (Thelema), where the information could be contextualised. Since accomplishing the True Will is the Great Work, this seems like the best place to merge to.
 * I think multiple topics in title like "True Will and Great Work" is against the Wikipedia guidelines (not sure though), and it would also contradict the point a bit (the point being to make it clear which articles are supposed to be about what by renaming this article and moving material to reduce redundancy).
 * All that said, I'm not opposed to retaining True Will as a separate article if you think the topic could be made into something more substantial than a list of things Crowley wrote somewhere. -- Scyrme (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 'True Will' summarizes the concept well, although yes, sources aside from Crowley's writings must fit. It's not like the New York Times has run a series of feature's on "The Belief System of Aleister Crowley" to draw from. Losing any of it to a merge seems counter-intuitive, as True Will is central to Thelema, yet if you two have a clear path forward in mind (and are sure of that path) it'll be interesting to read what emerges from the cocoon. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead wording and reversion which puts Crowley's entire mysticism approach under some kind of star worshipping concept (?) inclines me to lean oppose on the merge. If that's where this is leading, lumping True Will and Great Work into Astrotheology where Crowley or Thelema aren't mentioned or cited (and although Sirius has had a good recent 50 year run) then moving ahead carefully seems vital. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you think the worship of Nuit is, then? Astrotheology also covers all magical use of the planets, invoked using names of God, i.e. worship. Skyerise (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then maybe cite Nuit specifically in a sentence expansion and not rely on the entire concept astrotheology. I don't think Crowley's understanding and communication of True Will and Great Work have much to do with the stars themselves as their defining feature (combining three articles in a grand merge, which seems to be what you are proposing, should be done extremely well). As for the long quotes, most are in the Notes, which are read by only the really interested, and seem fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The stars and their invocation, herbs, stones, etc. have been a focus of ceremonial magic since the Renaissance at least (see Behenian star). All the tables of correspondences are astral - what planet, or what sign (with a ruling planet) - does what you wish to accomplish correspond to? How do you invoke that planet's energy to bring to bear on the situation you want to change, etc? How do you call upon a planetary deity to compel a planetary spirit into a sigil? It's all spelled out in Thompson's book - which is a good secondary source for this material. Skyerise (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, ceremonial magic (and I saw that you've nuked the Magick article, I guess as part of the Great Merge to coin a term) but the real results of True Will, Guardian Angel, and Great Work come after the ceremonial has accomplished its purpose (best wording for ceremonial magic I've heard is that its used to convince the subconscious that the person is serious). My main teacher, same one who said the above, said that the energy needed to 'change' is just about the amount of energy needed to pick up a matchstick, usually done by a soft thought "best possible results" and then move on. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're going to tell me that "magick" isn't a synonym for ceremonial magic? Skyerise (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're a "beleiver." We don't need more in-universe views, more or longer Crowley quotes, etc. We need general articles which include Crowley, not separate articles which idealize him and his beliefs, presenting him as the "origin" of things that long predated him. Skyerise (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not specifically in Crowley, but True Will and Great Work (Thelema) are about his concepts and should stay Crowley-and-Thelema-centric. Ceremonial good to a point, as mentioned above, yet the end result comes, say, i.e. yogaic healers heal by knowing a person is well because in their universe they never lie. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And don't worry, this will work itself out. You're merging a big bite of the apple, sounds fun actually. Will leave the discussion alone for awhile, please proceed with what you've envisioned. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok then. In any case, "Thelema" has evolved past Crowley. New sources include Grant (definitely included astrotheology). Lees (again, includes astrotheology), Nema (same). And what term do you think I coined? The historic background of all the different variant ways of referring to the concept are discussed in the article, none later that the 18th century... somebody coined it, yeah, but it wasn't me. Skyerise (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Was referring to the Great Merge of all the major Crowley concept articles, a term I've coined to describe what seems to be the intent. Keeping to the origins and how Crowley combined them himself maybe should be the ongoing foundation of the article, with the others summarized as further theories and practices. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well you know the whole article was written by the guy who started Thelemapedia, I forget his name. It came in all POV and unsourced (a direct copy from Thelemapedia), was the subject of many battles between OTO and non-OTO Thelemites. Eventually it was challenged by skeptics and they were forced to add an absolute minimum of primary citations, which were considered sufficient then but certainly aren't now. All those folks seem to be gone now so we can clean up their messes. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a lot more being discussed here than what was proposed, and honestly I'm a bit lost. "Great Merge" isn't really a fair description; only one article is has been suggested for merging, or at least only one here. I know Skyerise has recently merged other articles, so maybe that's what's being referred to here. To be clear, my proposals above are independent of that. I brought up the merge because it had already been proposed when I got here, and I didn't want my proposal to clash with another editor's plans. -- Scyrme (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the two issues are separable. I've requested the deletion. Let's leave True Will out of it for now. An alternative is that that article gets brought up to standard and gets more outside views and secondary sources. The primary reason I thought it should be merged is that it's really not a self-supporting article until that's done, and also it would seem to me that it is the whole basis of the Thelemic approach to the Great Work. All the other techniques are in support of it or applied in order to find it. I don't see how the Great Work can be put in context without it up front. Skyerise (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Replaced lead with Great Work (Hermeticism)
Ok, the page is moved and the lead is installed. The subheading "Thelemic mysticism" is just for convenience while we figure out how to reorg/present the material. I left the milestones heading outside of it, because basically the current article structure is Method Result. I think I will take the history section out of TM so we have History, Method (Thelemic mysticism), Results (Milestones). Skyerise (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed Great Work (Hermeticism) down to a brief summary. I'll let you work on the rest for now so we don't step on each others' toes by editing simultaneously, but I'll be back tomorrow to see what's new and sort out anything you've decided to leave for me to do. -- Scyrme (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much done for now. Check out the reorg of the navbar. You like? Skyerise (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Swan reference
Per this link, it does not appear this paper has ever been published in a journal. The title doesn't turn up much. My assumption is that it is a master's thesis and not RS. Leaving it for now, but we should have a better ref for whatever it supports. Skyerise (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

 * I support many of your changes. However, I'm not sure about why you deleted: "This unification of opposites, the individual and the universal, is reiterated by Crowley in his book Magick Without Tears [... quote]"


 * It was meant to link the former section to the latter; I don't see why it needed to mention "True Will", since it was there to elaborate on "interplay between the deepest Self and the entire Universe" not to be an example of a place Crowley said "True Will". The associated quote is short, informative, and very relevant to "Great Work". I had thought about putting a third subheading in entitled "Union with the All" to link the other two, but it would have been a bit short for a section of its all and seemed to me to be a fine way to conclude the "True Will" section. I'm not sure what referring to by "vague definition". Did you mean the quote itself? It was never supposed to be a definition. I designated a whole major-heading section for discussing meaning and named it so to make that clear. Your revisions have removed the need for a linker, but the remaining "Basis" sections ends very abruptly; I still feel the deleted line makes a decent conclusion that ties the section into the article well.
 * Presenting "True Will" as the "basis" leaves the relationship of True Will to the Great Work a bit unclear, and frames it in a way that isn't attested in the sources (afaik). Even you admit you're not sure if there are other "bases"; the fact is there's no answer to that because that's not how it's discussed. I still think it would be most helpful to have "Meaning section" covering True Will, its relationship to union, and union itself. If you hate that idea, how about making "True Will" the major heading and adding a subheading on "In relation to union" above the paragraph relating True Will to Nature? -- Scyrme (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Put it back if you like. Since neither of us know of any other bases... we should just title it True Will, up a level. It's not a method or a meaning. The rest of the article can only make sense in its context. I was just trying to be open in case the Great Work of Thelema were based on some other things as well, but I don't think it is. True Will is the premise which leads to all the methods. Skyerise (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * But to answer your real question: any system of practice has a basis, methods or practice(s), and a fruit or result(s). I can't cite this b/c as far as I know this system of ritual analysis has never been applied to Thelema, but that doesn't prevent us from structuring the article according to basic logic. This way of looking at ritual goes on to suggest that method should be divided into three as well: first the worldview, cosmological or mystical, which is prerequisite to the action making sense; then the actions or sets of actions that constitute the actual practices; and finally the conduct which is to be maintained outside of - in-between - actual practice sessions, such as being in retreat, or the opposite, celebacy, or the opposite, etc. In this case, True Will is the basis; all the various beliefs in qabalah, and astral correspondences are the worldview which must be adopted. The actual practices are contemplation, divination, magick, etc. They depend both on the basis and the worldview. We haven't gathered the material for the outside practice conduct, as Crowley didn't really cover it as such, but it's implied in some of his quotes about how True Will/Great Work should be integrated into daily life. I'm not worrying about the milestones section right now. Anyway, does that make sense? Skyerise (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the reason I put in the basis section was that the basis is also usually threefold. Or perhaps there are three aspects of True Will which we haven't yet logically teased apart. Skyerise (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not a meaning, but it is part of the meaning. "Meaning" is singular, it doesn't suggest the section is a list of isolated definitions. I think True Will is more than a "premise"; it's part of the process.
 * What you said make sense, but I don't think I agree with you. Ritual analysis applies to rituals, but the Great Work is more than a ritual. Treating it as a big ritual seems like a mistake to me. Does Crowley (or any subsequent Thelemite, or relevant 2ndary source) frame it that way? Regardless, I've implemented the suggested compromise for now. Are things basically sorted for now? We can discuss this further tomorrow if you want to refine things further. And do you want to re-open the discussion on merging True Will tomorrow? Or do you want to work on the article some more first? -- Scyrme (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that, in the absence of True Will, which is viewed to exist even if you have not found it, the practices have neither goal nor foundation. How can that which is to be discovered be a part of the process of discovering, except at the time that the discovery becomes conscious? It's what has to be taken on faith - that there is a True Will, much as Buddhists take as given that there is a state called Enlightenment that can be achieved, that there are methods by which it can be discovered, and then there is the nature of the state once it has been. It's both the basis and the result, which parallels other such organizations of the Great Work into systems. Skyerise (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

True Will
Looking around, the 'best', and I use that word loosely, material is at Thelema. As it's also a major item here, I now think improving the existing True Will, then writing a better summary both here and in Thelema, is the way to go. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll remove the merge tags soon. Skyerise (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Adept"

 * The article frequently refers to the "adept" when it basically means "follower [of Thelema]" or "anyone attempting this". I think it's bad for the tone; this is supposed an encyclopedia not a guide for aspiring initiates. Arguably it's appropriate jargon, but I'm not sure. What do you think? I'm leaning towards using ctrl+f to find and replace it. -- Scyrme (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Adherent? Practitioner? Maybe both depending on context? Skyerise (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've gone with "practitioner" for most instances. Reads better now, I think. -- Scyrme (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)