BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Philip Cooper's Basic Magick

 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
02:19 / 19.08.03
Soooo a couple weeks ago my family went to the NY State RenFair, and, being as I can hardly support myself, I could not spend a wad on interesting vestments or ornate bongs or the like. Instead, I dropped a mere $13 on a book from the row of Tarot and palm readers called Basic Magick by one Philip Cooper. I pulled it from a bookcase in a dark corner of one of the stands, and was told to ask the Tarot reader across the path about it. I asked if she'd recommend it as a good, no-horseshit intro to understanding magick, which she did, then advised me to avoid anything by Llewellyn (I know I'm misspelling but who cares) and to follow this read up with Crowley's Liber IV. I'm about halfway through it, at a point at which he's advised that one should really familiarize oneself with the techniques laid down in the first half before proceeding onto the second, and despite my natural curiosity I've complied.

I have to say that of all the different texts I've read on the topic of magick in practice (which, admittedly, is not terribly many), this has to be one of the clearest, non-fey, rational explanations of what it is and how it works. There are no codes, no secrets, no patronizing tones. It's clear it is just a map, a blueprint for an interface, and tries to remain scientific while still investing some leap of faith in the effectiveness of the art. I really feel as though I've got a fix on what it all means from this half of one book. I may be fooling myself, but then, who's to say who's fooling who when it comes to this sort of thing?

Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there as a recommendation, and to see if anyone else had any experience with this book or anything else by Cooper. Holla back.
 
 
illmatic
07:46 / 19.08.03
So do you want to give us a quick rundown on what he covers, where he's coming from?
 
 
FinderWolf
16:29 / 19.08.03
Is this book hard to find?
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
18:27 / 19.08.03
I believe Philip Cooper has also made a book called Basic Sigils and one on Visualization.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
23:32 / 19.08.03
Yeah, I realized after I'd written that last night that I really hadn't said anything specific about the book itself. Oops.

It's strength is that from the get-go Cooper takes great pains to say that this should be regarded as a kind of science, and that mythological entities really don't figure into the deal, other than being Jungian archetypes one might employ. Also, he preemptively counters any fundamentalist arguments of such practices being "evil" (which is a meaningless in this context) by saying that even the language in the Bible can be read as endorsing a reach towards becoming God. In the end, however, he says that one has to disown oneself of certain ideas in favor of more self-actualized ones, come up with one's own set of symbols, and that someone else's spells, far more often than not, will do one not a lick of good since it won't mean the same thing to you that it means to them.

He then launches into a discussion of techniques, which he's stripped down to their essentials, and urges new practitioners to be solid with each before proceeding to the next. He begins with what I guess would be a meditation for activating the chakras as corresponding to the central aspects of the Qabbalic Tree of Life, and explains what each's significance is and why they make sense. He then describes exercises for creative visualization, which leads into the construction of one's inner temple, which is followed up by suggestions for one's physical workspace. From there he goes into the construction of the encircled cross, which eventually becomes the Cosmic Sphere, and what each of the cardinal points of said sphere represent and how they are used in workings. So at this point he's pretty much laid the groundwork for "booting up the OS," and from there talks a bit about how to "navigate the desktop." (These metaphors are mine, not his.) There's some discussion of casting sigils and creating servitors, and while I'm certain there are major items I'm leaving out (I'm at work), that is essentially the sum of the first hundred+ pages of this book, which I intend to reread with the intent of doing the work as prescribed. There are some diagrams, and some examples, and tips on proper headspace and such.

I'm not doing it enough justice, but I must say that I sense that what I've read is "true," and said "truth" is structured well enough that I feel I at least have a working knowledge of the topic. There is no flowery language to somehow lend it extra mystical "credence"; I can tell that his primary concern is comprehension rather than obfuscation, thus he debunks certain aloof attitudes prevalent in the art that he feels are counterproductive or downright ridiculous.

As an extra little bit of legitimacy, it should be noted that Cooper apparently lives in Northampton, UK. One would think he's had contact with Alan Moore, but whether they've found their views more compatible than not is anyone's guess.

So, that's my piece. Thoughts, questions, comments, sneers?

VJB2
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
18:32 / 20.08.03
and that mythological entities really don't figure into the deal, other than being Jungian archetypes one might employ.

In order to avoid de-railing this thread into yet another debate over the objective/subjective nature of entities, I think I'll limit my initial comments to 'Grrr!'
 
 
h3r
19:02 / 20.08.03
i think it usually is part of a "breaching experiment" strategy (as defined by harold garfinkel) to deny the "real " existence of entities. that way insights can be accomplished easier.

can anybody make a definitive claim on whether "they" exisit within us or independently from us? i dont think so...... at the moment i would say, there are independent entities with their own agends and such.
ok thats off the subject, but gypsy lantern asked for it....
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
19:10 / 20.08.03
can anybody make a definitive claim on whether "they" exisit within us or independently from us?

No, which is no more than I would expect anyone to believe, regardless of what I personally may or may not think. But the assertion that all entities somehow definitively are just Jungian archetypes is as sloppy and reductive as any other bold subjective assertion concerning the mysteries.
 
 
Warewullf
20:28 / 20.08.03
Is this book hard to find?

Nope.
Phillip Cooper Basic Magick

Phillip Cooper Sigil Magick
 
 
h3r
20:59 / 20.08.03
"the assertion that all entities somehow definitively are just Jungian archetypes is as sloppy and reductive"

this statement might have been made ON PURPOSE to mislead the student, so the student has a certain approach to learning and gathering information. I could imagine that P.Cooper is not necessarily expressing his own opinion, but an opinion which he believes to have a great potential of furthering the students success. (similar to what Carlos Castaneda did with his books. And now I'm back to the previously mentioned H.Garfunkel, who was Castanedas mentor....)
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:26 / 21.08.03
this statement might have been made ON PURPOSE to mislead the student, so the student has a certain approach to learning and gathering information.

Whilst I think that the whole "Ah, but he didnt really mean what he wrote down in his book" argument rests on fairly shaky ground, I'd probably agree that this approach to the question is more likely to grab the reader and get them doing stuff. The psychological model makes perfect sense rationally, despite its arguable limitations. The reader isn't expected to take anything on faith or invest belief in any seemingly mad ideas, which is probably just the right tone for this sort of introductory book.
 
 
XXII:X:II = XXX
02:19 / 27.08.03
I think y'all are making a bit too much of my statement. As I understand him, Cooper doesn't go out of his way to poopoo using such entities, nor does he identify them as Jungian archetypes; I did. But I do think he was trying to avoid any literalism, and encourage more of an investment of belief in the self than anything other. And no, I don't think it was a case of, "Maybe I'm not saying everything I want you to get"; he's very clear that he's trying to be clear, and does squint a bit at any source of magickal procedure that does intentionally try to keep secrets, rather than trying to teach until those "secrets" are just the natural next step.
 
  
Add Your Reply