Book Report A review of Franz's Initiation into Hermetics

[dema354]

This is to wrap up the review found back on this thread: A look into Franz's Initiation into Hermetics that I started.

🕯 Reevaluating the Law of Silence​

Franz Bardon, along with many traditional esoteric systems, elevates the so-called Law of Silence—the principle that one must not reveal their magical practices, attainments, or ambitions. This is often justified as necessary to protect the sanctity of the work, preserve inner equilibrium, avoid interference by profane or hostile forces, and honor the subtlety required for certain types of spirit work.


However, a modern reassessment challenges the universality of this law:

• Situational Efficacy: Some magical operations or spirits may indeed benefit from secrecy, especially those rooted in pacts, initiations, or egregoric bindings where disclosure violates a metaphysical contract or disrupts symbolic alignment.
• Not All Spirits Are Averse to Noise: Even in traditional lore, numerous spirits are invoked with trumpets, bells, chants, and fanfare. Public ritual and spectacle were a part of many magical traditions, from Eleusinian mysteries to shamanic theatre. Silence, then, is not a metaphysical necessity—it is a stylistic choice based on context.
• Modern Openness and Shared Gnosis: In postmodern magical communities, especially within chaos magic, openness can function as a strategy of memeplex distribution—spreading new magical frameworks and breaking hierarchical gatekeeping. Sharing experiences doesn't necessarily destroy efficacy unless doing so undermines one’s own symbolic power or belief structure.
• Advice, Not Absolute: Rather than treating the Law of Silence as an immutable commandment, it may be more accurate to view it as prudent advice: not everyone is ready to hear, understand, or respect magical truths. Discretion becomes tactical rather than metaphysical.

Silence is not a law; it is a protective veil. Use it where needed, lift it where growth demands it.

​

XIV. Conclusion: Synthesizing Tradition and Innovation for Modern Magical Practice​

Franz Bardon’s Initiation into Hermetics remains a landmark work in Western occultism, offering a detailed and disciplined roadmap to magical development. However, as this reassessment has shown, the system is neither flawless nor universally applicable in its original form.


By critically examining Bardon’s assumptions—about moral prerequisites, the necessity of strict linear progression, the nature of imagination and plasticity, and the criteria for physical manifestation—we uncover opportunities to refine, adapt, and modernize his teachings.


The integration of contemporary psi research confirms that Bardon’s stages align in meaningful ways with documented phenomena like remote viewing and micro-psychokinesis, grounding his work partially in empirical possibility.


Meanwhile, the lens of postmodern chaos magick invites a pragmatic and flexible approach—emphasizing belief as a tool, modular practice, symbolic resonance, and personal gnosis. Techniques such as sigilization, servitor creation, and paradigm shifting offer powerful accelerants and alternatives to some of Bardon’s more time-consuming or cognitively demanding steps.


The personalized training routines outlined here provide a balanced framework that honors Bardon’s spiritual architecture while empowering practitioners to innovate according to their unique cognitive styles, cultural backgrounds, and practical goals.


Ultimately, the modern magician benefits most by embracing both tradition and innovation, cultivating discipline without rigidity, and maintaining a rigorous commitment to results, well-being, and ethical integrity.


This postmodern reassessment is not an endpoint but an invitation: to continue evolving magical practice through dialogue between the past’s wisdom and the present’s discoveries.

​

B. Suggested Training Routine​

Here is a simplified, postmodern-compatible training structure:

Stage 1: Foundational Awareness

• Develop mindfulness (observation without judgment)
• Learn breath control and physical stillness
• Record subtle sensations or psi impressions

Stage 2: Imagination & Projection

• Practice multimodal imagery (sound, texture, smell, etc.)
• Begin consciousness transference exercises
• Keep a dream journal

Stage 3: Energy & Manifestation

• Learn basic bioenergetics (qigong, energy ball, etc.)
• Experiment with influencing random systems
• Attempt micro-PK exercises

Stage 4: Paradigm Play

• Work with different magical paradigms (elemental, servitor, Enochian)
• Challenge beliefs to enhance magical adaptability
• Incorporate chaos magic tools like sigils and gnosis

---

Appendices​

Recommended Reading​

• The Chaos Protocols by Gordon White
• Condensed Chaos by Phil Hine
• Real Magic by Dean Radin
• The Field by Lynne McTaggart
• The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks and Richard Kammann
• Hands of Light by Barbara Brennan
• Remote Viewing Secrets by Joseph McMoneagle
• Initiation Into Hermetics by Franz Bardon (for comparison)
• Marco Schlosser et al. (2019)
• Britton et al. (2020)
• Ironic Process Theory (Daniel Wegner)

Troubleshooting Common Issues​

• Aphantasia – Use conceptual modeling, kinesthetic cues, and emotional resonance instead of visualization.
• No Results? – Review your brainwave state; check for exhaustion or overexertion.
• Spontaneous Fear or Chaos? – Ground with sensory routines or sigils of containment.
• Doubt or Cynicism – Use it as fuel. Challenge your disbelief experimentally.

>

Review aside Step 4 of the Magical Schooling of the Spirit was actually quite easy at least as far as it went for transferring my consciousness to a place and not a person or an object. Funny thing is, given my experiences I may have accidentally achieved a feat in this before. Then again, given the spontaneity of that event if Bardon were here today he'd likely say that it doesn't count, duration of the event aside. Next week will mark the end of my journey with Franz's Initiation into Hermetics that is unless I find something else of value or rather of interest to me. Don't get me wrong. I have little to no interest in completing Franz's course, all 10 lessons that is nor do I find it necessary to abide by Franz's system in order to be a true magician. Will I then still keep practicing the lessons I do find an interest in? For now and like I said, even if I complete a step or so I’ll still go over it again for a week, maybe more to ensure retention.

And to address a certain someone, gnosis as it pertains to chaos magick is less of a state of mind vacancy of which it's arguably not even that as it is to a single purpose of focus. In other words, by entering a state of gnosis your mind isn't made empty, no. Instead you focus, in an active sense, all or most of your thoughts to one thing, ambition, ideal or what have you with minimal to no other thoughts that are entertained at least to the degree of the one target of focus unless they are closely related in the sense of being complementary. You don't make your mind empty, not literally nor even metaphorically. You instead concentrate on your target(s) while either ignoring or generally paying little mind to nontargets. Of course since belief is a tool, you may choose to believe that when you enter a state of gnosis you are emptying your mind and just like how some may view a vacant mind, whether literally or metaphorically, as necessary for magick, I do not.

 

[whatever0935]

This is to wrap up the review found back on this thread: A look into Franz's Initiation into Hermetics that I started.

🕯 Reevaluating the Law of Silence​

Franz Bardon, along with many traditional esoteric systems, elevates the so-called Law of Silence—the principle that one must not reveal their magical practices, attainments, or ambitions. This is often justified as necessary to protect the sanctity of the work, preserve inner equilibrium, avoid interference by profane or hostile forces, and honor the subtlety required for certain types of spirit work.


However, a modern reassessment challenges the universality of this law:

• Situational Efficacy: Some magical operations or spirits may indeed benefit from secrecy, especially those rooted in pacts, initiations, or egregoric bindings where disclosure violates a metaphysical contract or disrupts symbolic alignment.
• Not All Spirits Are Averse to Noise: Even in traditional lore, numerous spirits are invoked with trumpets, bells, chants, and fanfare. Public ritual and spectacle were a part of many magical traditions, from Eleusinian mysteries to shamanic theatre. Silence, then, is not a metaphysical necessity—it is a stylistic choice based on context.
• Modern Openness and Shared Gnosis: In postmodern magical communities, especially within chaos magic, openness can function as a strategy of memeplex distribution—spreading new magical frameworks and breaking hierarchical gatekeeping. Sharing experiences doesn't necessarily destroy efficacy unless doing so undermines one’s own symbolic power or belief structure.
• Advice, Not Absolute: Rather than treating the Law of Silence as an immutable commandment, it may be more accurate to view it as prudent advice: not everyone is ready to hear, understand, or respect magical truths. Discretion becomes tactical rather than metaphysical.

​

XIV. Conclusion: Synthesizing Tradition and Innovation for Modern Magical Practice​

Franz Bardon’s Initiation into Hermetics remains a landmark work in Western occultism, offering a detailed and disciplined roadmap to magical development. However, as this reassessment has shown, the system is neither flawless nor universally applicable in its original form.


By critically examining Bardon’s assumptions—about moral prerequisites, the necessity of strict linear progression, the nature of imagination and plasticity, and the criteria for physical manifestation—we uncover opportunities to refine, adapt, and modernize his teachings.


The integration of contemporary psi research confirms that Bardon’s stages align in meaningful ways with documented phenomena like remote viewing and micro-psychokinesis, grounding his work partially in empirical possibility.


Meanwhile, the lens of postmodern chaos magick invites a pragmatic and flexible approach—emphasizing belief as a tool, modular practice, symbolic resonance, and personal gnosis. Techniques such as sigilization, servitor creation, and paradigm shifting offer powerful accelerants and alternatives to some of Bardon’s more time-consuming or cognitively demanding steps.


The personalized training routines outlined here provide a balanced framework that honors Bardon’s spiritual architecture while empowering practitioners to innovate according to their unique cognitive styles, cultural backgrounds, and practical goals.


Ultimately, the modern magician benefits most by embracing both tradition and innovation, cultivating discipline without rigidity, and maintaining a rigorous commitment to results, well-being, and ethical integrity.


This postmodern reassessment is not an endpoint but an invitation: to continue evolving magical practice through dialogue between the past’s wisdom and the present’s discoveries.

​

B. Suggested Training Routine​

Here is a simplified, postmodern-compatible training structure:

Stage 1: Foundational Awareness

• Develop mindfulness (observation without judgment)
• Learn breath control and physical stillness
• Record subtle sensations or psi impressions

Stage 2: Imagination & Projection

• Practice multimodal imagery (sound, texture, smell, etc.)
• Begin consciousness transference exercises
• Keep a dream journal

Stage 3: Energy & Manifestation

• Learn basic bioenergetics (qigong, energy ball, etc.)
• Experiment with influencing random systems
• Attempt micro-PK exercises

Stage 4: Paradigm Play

• Work with different magical paradigms (elemental, servitor, Enochian)
• Challenge beliefs to enhance magical adaptability
• Incorporate chaos magic tools like sigils and gnosis

---

Appendices​

Recommended Reading​

• The Chaos Protocols by Gordon White
• Condensed Chaos by Phil Hine
• Real Magic by Dean Radin
• The Field by Lynne McTaggart
• The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks and Richard Kammann
• Hands of Light by Barbara Brennan
• Remote Viewing Secrets by Joseph McMoneagle
• Initiation Into Hermetics by Franz Bardon (for comparison)
• Marco Schlosser et al. (2019)
• Britton et al. (2020)
• Ironic Process Theory (Daniel Wegner)

Troubleshooting Common Issues​

• Aphantasia – Use conceptual modeling, kinesthetic cues, and emotional resonance instead of visualization.
• No Results? – Review your brainwave state; check for exhaustion or overexertion.
• Spontaneous Fear or Chaos? – Ground with sensory routines or sigils of containment.
• Doubt or Cynicism – Use it as fuel. Challenge your disbelief experimentally.

Review aside Step 4 of the Magical Schooling of the Spirit was actually quite easy at least as far as it went for transferring my consciousness to a place and not a person or an object. Funny thing is, given my experiences I may have accidentally achieved a feat in this before. Then again, given the spontaneity of that event if Bardon were here today he'd likely say that it doesn't count, duration of the event aside. Next week will mark the end of my journey with Franz's Initiation into Hermetics that is unless I find something else of value or rather of interest to me. Don't get me wrong. I have little to no interest in completing Franz's course, all 10 lessons that is nor do I find it necessary to abide by Franz's system in order to be a true magician. Will I then still keep practicing the lessons I do find an interest in? For now and like I said, even if I complete a step or so I’ll still go over it again for a week, maybe more to ensure retention.

And to address a certain someone, gnosis as it pertains to chaos magick is less of a state of mind vacancy of which it's arguably not even that as it is to a single purpose of focus. In other words, by entering a state of gnosis your mind isn't made empty, no. Instead you focus, in an active sense, all or most of your thoughts to one thing, ambition, ideal or what have you with minimal to no other thoughts that are entertained at least to the degree of the one target of focus unless they are closely related in the sense of being complementary. You don't make your mind empty, not literally nor even metaphorically. You instead concentrate on your target(s) while either ignoring or generally paying little mind to nontargets. Of course since belief is a tool, you may choose to believe that when you enter a state of gnosis you are emptying your mind and just like how some may view a vacant mind, whether literally or metaphorically, as necessary for magick, I do not.

I'm sorry, but this feels like it was written by AI.

 

[dema354]

I'm sorry, but this feels like it was written by AI.

I had my ideals, i.e. the review itself, organized, yes but let's entertain your impression for a moment here. Let's supposed hypothetically you are correct. Let's say for the sake of inquiry my whole review, including the aftermath was written by AI including the idea itself. How would I be able to go about doing this and ending up with such a result? Could I simply type in 'Write a review about Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics'? Perhaps and perhaps if one were to run this prompt enough times they'd end up with something like this, but this method isn't effective. In that case how about using the prompt 'Write a review about Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics that rejects the concept of mind vacancy' Well now we've limited our scope somewhat and so the generator should start pumping out review that reject the concept of mind vacancy. Obviously this review entails more than just the rejection of the ideal of mind vacancy so we'll have to use multiple prompts instead to make sure the ai can remember the points which it is being tasked to incorporate into a review. So here are some prompts we can try out.

1. 'Write a review about Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics that rejects the concept of mind vacancy.'

2. 'Give an example of how morality isn't necessary for magick'

3. 'Incorporate a way to use RNG tests to test for Bardon's 5th step of the magical schooling of the spirit.'

Now for those of you who don't know, Bardon's 5th step of the magical schooling of the spirit is when his exercises start requiring physical results. Phenomena such as spontaneous combustion, cloud making and the such begin here. For those of you who happen to know how microPK tests are run you might realize if a person were to use the 3rd prompt there's a good chance they have some ideal what it is that makes the 5th step of the magical schooling of the spirit in Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics unique.

Anyways, try to (without copying and pasting my review or even a link to it) generate an exact copy of it using your own prompts in no more than 10. Can you do it? Well given enough tries there's bound to be someone who can do that just based off of chance. Eventually someone will succeed. So what can we say about that particular someone?

Well if you ask me, I'd say there's a very good chance they might be very well versed in these matters which is to say they know enough about the topic in order to figure out which prompts to use to generate this very review. Such knowledge, in my opinion, likely means they couldn't have relied on AI entirely in order to generate this postmodern reassessment and that some of the ideas originated from them. Perhaps they used AI to help gather research data. That could work however unless they know what it is they are looking for they'll essentially be grasping at straws.

You may decide how much if any of my review was written by AI or how I might've used AI to help me write my review.

As for you, whatever0935, I estimate there's about an 80% chance you're not really interested in figuring out whether I had used AI in my review or not though I don't need to be psychic in order to deduce/infer this nor how this statement or the rest of this reply may be taken out of context.

Post automatically merged: Aug 3, 2025

Well this is now the 5th and final week of my journey with Franz Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics. As I said I have little to no interest in completing Franz's course, all 10 lessons that is nor do I find it necessary to abide by Franz's system in order to be a true magician.

Like I've said earlier, Franz's 5th step of the magical schooling of the spirit is when the exercises first start requiring physical results... of which I've just realized I misattributed that. That would be the magical schooling of the soul if we are going by Franz's system. The 5th step of the magical schooling of the spirit is when phenomena such as remote-viewing, clairvoyance, literal perspective switching or even sharing and the such begins and phenomena such as weather making and spontaneous combustion along with the such are first introduced in the 5th step of the magical schooling of the soul. Regardless though for this week I had decided to work on the 5th step of Franz's Initiation into Hermetics which implies I was trying to conduct a test which would result in a physical result. Some may question whether I, given that there are parts of Franz's system that I don't subscribe to such as the supposed necessity of mind vacancy, law of silence and karmic aligning and the such, would be able to even conduct results that would satisfy the 5th step of Franz's Initiation into Hermetics system. Some may even wonder how I even got here this fast. Well like I've mentioned earlier, I'm not exactly new to magick or in this case perhaps I should use the word, anomalous phenomena.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Anyways, you can decide whether you want to believe the events in that analysis happened or not though I suppose if you did, one could point out that one instance of possible spaciotemporal displacement hardly counts as satisfying the 5th step of the magical schooling of the soul especially given its spontaneous nature to which I say you probably have a point, at least if we are going by Franz's standards Even presuming that the event alluded to in that analysis did happen, if Franz Bardon were here today I'd say there's a very good chance he'd say it doesn't count. It's not enough to witness or even experience a supernatural or even an anomalous phenomenon that results in a physical change. One has to also direct it, i.,e. no spontaneity. Of course for this week since phenomena such as spaciotemporal displacement is very hard as in rare to come by not to mention they require extensive analytical testing for probability models, skeptical alternatives, and memory integrity scoring, I decided to use something much more practical and easier to measure:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Behold! The website I used to help me with my training of the 5th step of the magical schooling of the soul. While I used the bellcurve experiment, it doesn't really matter which one you use so long as you don't pick the demo option as that uses a pseudo random number generator. This is important because if you were to get a bunch of highly statistical results, one could say that you were gaming the system which can be done with a pseudo rng just by knowing the seed. The same however cannot be said of a true rng. Since this is not a parapsychology forum, I will try to keep this concise. In parapsychology, one of the methods which they use to measure for possible psychokinetic phenomena is by using a true rng device and tasking the subject to influence it to get results beyond chance. This device, which emits a form of entropy such as radioactive decay, is hooked up to a computer which then spits out results. It's sort of like flipping a coin 1024 times for a single run. Every time the coin lands on heads the counter goes up by 1 which means on average each run is likely to net a score of 512. That's what you would expect to get by chance per run. Since 1 run is not indicative of anything, whether psi or not, it's standard to do more than 1 run, at least 100. To answer whether it can be reasonably said that the subject has psi or not the total score is then compared to the expected score by chance to see if it's significantly different. For one tail tests that measure hits vs misses this means as long as the subject manages to score a cumulative score that has no more than a 5% of occurring by chance, then they satisfy the null-hypothesis or to put that another way we can safely say those who pass the null-hypothesis have a 95% of being psychokinetic. For example, let's suppose a subject is tasked with running 100 runs with the objective of trying to get as many heads as possible. Each run spits out a score between 0 and 1024. After 100 runs the average expected score by chance would be 51200. So long as the subject manages to get a cumulative score that is either <= 50937 or >= 51464 they would have satisfy the null hypothesis. In the case of them scoring less than 50938 points that would be indicative of psi-missing and in the case of them scoring at least 51464 that would be indicative of psi-hitting. Of course comparing hits to misses isn't the only way parapsychologists use to measure for psi when it comes to statistical tests but it is the most prevalent. This is because psychokinesis is generally understood to run by intent, that it can be called upon by will however if we were to include phenomena such as rspk or recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis or as it used to be called back then, poltergeistic activity...

Aside from comparing hits vs misses another way to measure for the presence of psi is to count for all of the tail events that happen in a session to see if it significantly exceeds the amount expected by chance. Unlike the hits vs miss method, this standard does not care about the subject's cumulative score. It only cares about whether they get enough tail events. Since for a 1 tail test (hits vs misses) the cut off point is at 5%, for a 2 tail test that means the cut off point is at 2.5%. To give an example using this method, if a subject were to run 40 runs in a session, on average they would expect to see 1 tail event, i.e. one of their scores had no more than a 1/40 chance of occurring. To figure out the bare minimum number of tail event (1/40) hits the subject would need in order to achieve significance at Z-score we can use the following formulas:

if k > n ⋅ p + Z ⋅ n ⋅ p ⋅ (1 − p)
then null hypothesis/has psi = true

To break this down further, k is the number of tail events that occur in a session, n is the # of runs in a session, p is the probability of the tail event and Z is the deviation from expectation in standard units. So using the example above we have the following formula:

100 * 0.025 + (1.96 * sqrt [100 * 0.025 * 0.975])

As long as the subject manages to get at least 6 of these tail events where the run had no more than a 1/40 chance of occurring, then they satisfy the null-hypothesis, which is to say this is the bare minimum needed in order for it be said that statistically speaking there's a presence of psi.

While most parapsychologists like to use the hits vs misses to measure for psi, I, along with a few others prefer to use the method of counting excess tail events. This is because unlike the former this method is not prone to being affected by noise. What do I mean? Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times. On average you would expect to get around 50 heads and 50 tails. So, for the sake of example let's suppose after flipping a coin 100 times for the first 50 flips you managed to get all heads and for the remaining 50 flips you got all tails. Now while the cumulative result is what you would expect to get by chance, the process of how you got there is anything but. There's a 8.8817841970012523233890533447266e-16% chance of getting either 50 heads or tails in a row. That is not normal. The main issue with the hits vs misses standard for measuring for signs of psi is that it doesn't take into account whether the subject might be equally prone to getting an equal amount of psi-hits and misses. As I gave in the example involving flipping a coin 100 times where the objective is to get as many heads as possible, getting 50 heads in a row would be a sign of extreme psi-hitting whereas getting 50 tails in a row would be a sign of extreme psi-missing. Combine the two and it seems as though the subject does not have any psi. As for myself I decided to use the method of excessive tail event counting to measure for psi in order to avoid having my results cancelled out by noise.

Here are my results:

...

Okay, since I apparently can't share the images I'll just give you a summary of the report. Out of 500 runs my cumulative score is 255817/512000 which gives me a Z-score of 0.51 or in other words if we were to use the standard method for measuring for psi, there's no sign of it, however this was not the standard I was using to measure for psi. As I said I was using the method for counting excessive tail events which is to say I was counting how many times I got a run with no more than a 2.5% chance of occurring. Since I ran 500 runs, using the formula given earlier to determine the minimum amount of tail events needed to be of significant value, this means I needed to get at least 20 of those tail end results, i.e. at least 20 of my runs had to have no more than a 2.5% chance of occurring each. They don't have to be in a row. All that matters is that I have at least 20 of them.

I got 28. That's 8 more than the bare minimum needed. Out of 500 runs there is a p ≈ 0.00856% chance (about 1 in 11,680) of getting 28 tail end results. Sometimes I was actively concentrating, other times I was merely paying attention. Regardless though my mind was never even in a metaphorical vacancy and still I managed to get these results (which were also sporadic as well)

Take of this as you will and thank you for reading my report and journey through Franz Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics.