Are you trying to win the lottery with magic?

[SeekerPS]

Approximately 300,000 to 500,000 people win some kind of lottery prize every day worldwide, but let's say you are not aiming for winning just $50-$500, let's say that you want the millions, right? In 8.1 Billion people, approximately 2-3 persons daily become millionaires thanks to lottery. That’s still less than 1 in 5 million chance even after a year of daily play.


So, let's assume you are a magician, you can cheat probabilities, Don't you? After all, mathematically speaking, the chance still exists. It's not impossible. If you can make your crush fall in love into you, or win that job you dream of, why wouldn't you be able to win the lottery?

In my personal experience, I have used NAP with modest success (I got a better job but after some time) and I have used goetic spirits for naughty things (mainly love/sex related and curses). But I have tried the NAP spell for winning contest without any result that could say it is remotely working. I have been toying with the idea of trying something more complex, but I'm still gathering the equipment.

I would like to know your experiences, if you have, or your insights, if you have any, about this topic. Some people says that chances are too low, but, at the end of the day, each day, at least 1 person wins the lottery in the world. Other says that you are competing against other magicians, to which, at least from my experience, I would say we are not so packed up geographically as for that to really impact and the worst that could happen is a shared prize by 2-3 practitioners. A lot of people are armchair magicians and don't practice, etc etc. The last argument I have seen is about Karma, but that seems ridiculous to me, you are not doing any evil by playing the lottery.

 

[otherworldlymage]

I’ll push back with what’s probably an unpopular point: Didn’t Agrippa himself die penniless and socially ostracized? That matters. Because either magick works as-is and gives you everything you want because belief alone drives it (Agrippa should’ve been untouchable, wealthy, powerful)…
Or magick works, just not in the fanciful “wish and receive” way we wish it did.

You can’t have it both ways. At some point you have to pick a side: either the theory is airtight, or the reality of lived lives, Agrippa’s included, proves magick doesn’t operate as a cosmic vending machine. Is this being a nay sayer, or being realistic and questioning?

You're confusing the point cormundum was making with a source he provided for another point. He never claimed Agrippa was operating or successful in money magic.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 8:50 PM

Money magic has a lot to do with you having a plausible opportunity + belief + magical operation around the opportunity.

You still need a plausible opportunity to get there but where people go wrong is limiting the number or figure or success metric result they define to a smaller result

Most people here seem very skeptical and standoff about money magic

it seems I will be disliked like @Robert Ramsay is on this forum in my own way

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 8:51 PM

Also the opportunity doesn't even need to make logical sense to other people as long as its possible and you believe it can occur

 

[FireBorn]

I don’t think I did confuse the point. If belief alone were all it takes, then why didn’t Agrippa rule an empire? Why wasn’t Crowley worshipped like the deity he wished to be? Those outcomes don’t line up with the “belief is enough” model.

I went back and re-read Cormundum’s post to make sure I hadn’t misread it. Nope, my comment still stands. I’m not attacking anyone, just asking tough questions that force us as practitioners to re-evaluate the frameworks we hold. Does it stand under questioning? Is it solid? Or is there a deeper current we’re missing?

These are uncomfortable questions, but they’re meant to sharpen, not start fights. That’s the intent. And I’m not going to chase the strawman about Agrippa “not doing money magick,” because that was never the point.

 

[otherworldlymage]

I don’t think I did confuse the point. If belief alone were all it takes, then why didn’t Agrippa rule an empire? Why wasn’t Crowley worshipped like the deity he wished to be? Those outcomes don’t line up with the “belief is enough” model.

I went back and re-read Cormundum’s post to make sure I hadn’t misread it. Nope, my comment still stands. I’m not attacking anyone, just asking tough questions that force us as practitioners to re-evaluate the frameworks we hold. Does it stand under questioning? Is it solid? Or is there a deeper current we’re missing?

These are uncomfortable questions, but they’re meant to sharpen, not start fights. That’s the intent. And I’m not going to chase the strawman about Agrippa “not doing money magick,” because that was never the point.

Its obviously not just belief. Its a combination of factors, like a safe is a combination of clicks to unlock it.

And your goal should be very high as money is an arbitrary unit. It doesn't become "harder" to earn more. It actually is easier

Crowley and Agrippa probably weren't doing it right. And Crowley didn't want money. And he also said he didn't want to be the fad fetish of a group of people. His intentions was more focused on being a troll and annoying the media. Which he succeeded at. We are discussing him now

 

[cormundum]

I’ll push back with what’s probably an unpopular point: Didn’t Agrippa himself die penniless and socially ostracized? That matters. Because either magick works as-is and gives you everything you want because belief alone drives it (Agrippa should’ve been untouchable, wealthy, powerful)…
Or magick works, just not in the fanciful “wish and receive” way we wish it did.

You can’t have it both ways. At some point you have to pick a side: either the theory is airtight, or the reality of lived lives, Agrippa’s included, proves magick doesn’t operate as a cosmic vending machine. Is this being a nay sayer, or being realistic and questioning?

He had the favor of nobles and the Church for most of his life. Agrippa died young (49) but penniless doesn't seem right at all. A petty noble imprisoned him at one point, but his life as a European intellectual — searching for royal patronage etc. — was no different from someone like Leonardo da Vinci.

It's like how everybody says Crowley died impoverished, when he really just did what many English intellectuals of the time did and exchanged lectures for rent in an old folk's home and had his students take care of him and cover his additional expenses. I'm not sure his great goal was fabulous wealth, either; he truly desired to be a mystic and a teacher and that was clearly his Will, and he had the finances to do that for his entire life, until death.

 

[FireBorn]

Its obviously not just belief. Its a combination of factors, like a safe is a combination of clicks to unlock it.

And your goal should be very high as money is an arbitrary unit. It doesn't become "harder" to earn more. It actually is easier

Crowley and Agrippa probably weren't doing it right. And Crowley didn't want money. And he also said he didn't want to be the fad fetish of a group of people. His intentions was more focused on being a troll and annoying the media. Which he succeeded at. We are discussing him now

Thanks for proving my point. If even you’re admitting it’s not just belief, then Agrippa’s life and end matters, because it shows 'belief only' doesn’t work. Which was my whole argument.

As for Crowley, saying “he didn’t want money or influence” is just rewriting history to protect the framework. He wanted plenty of both, he said so repeatedly, and his failures in those areas are documented. If we can only call successes “magick” and excuse every failure with “they didn’t want it” or “they weren’t doing it right,” then magick stops being practice and becomes unfalsifiable dogma. And dogma is the opposite of practice. I hate dogma lol.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 9:26 PM

He had the favor of nobles and the Church for most of his life. Agrippa died young (49) but penniless doesn't seem right at all. A petty noble imprisoned him at one point, but his life as a European intellectual — searching for royal patronage etc. — was no different from someone like Leonardo da Vinci.

It's like how everybody says Crowley died impoverished, when he really just did what many English intellectuals of the time did and exchanged lectures for rent in an old folk's home and had his students take care of him and cover his additional expenses. I'm not sure his great goal was fabulous wealth, either; he truly desired to be a mystic and a teacher and that was clearly his Will, and he had the finances to do that for his entire life, until death.

None of that makes it better. Come on now.

 

[cormundum]

I don’t think I did confuse the point. If belief alone were all it takes, then why didn’t Agrippa rule an empire? Why wasn’t Crowley worshipped like the deity he wished to be? Those outcomes don’t line up with the “belief is enough” model.

I went back and re-read Cormundum’s post to make sure I hadn’t misread it. Nope, my comment still stands. I’m not attacking anyone, just asking tough questions that force us as practitioners to re-evaluate the frameworks we hold. Does it stand under questioning? Is it solid? Or is there a deeper current we’re missing?

These are uncomfortable questions, but they’re meant to sharpen, not start fights. That’s the intent. And I’m not going to chase the strawman about Agrippa “not doing money magick,” because that was never the point.

You obviously have never actually read Crowley. He didn't want to be a deity or a guru. He wanted to advance closer to God and be annihilated in gnosis, which I believe he succeeded in. OTO Thelemites being cultish idiots doesn't change what Crowley himself actually taught.

 

[otherworldlymage]

There is many quotes by Crowley on his distaste of money and how it doesn't have a purpose beyond what you exchange it for. He also was not wanting to be a popular cult leader and said so a few times.

 

[FireBorn]

You obviously have never actually read Crowley. He didn't want to be a deity or a guru. He wanted to advance closer to God and be annihilated in gnosis, which I believe he succeeded in. OTO Thelemites being cultish idiots doesn't change what Crowley himself actually taught.

Easy killer, just becuase you dont believe in Thelema doenst give is license to shit on those who follow that path. I was making a larger point, remove Crowley from it altogether, I wasn't making a point to give a ramp to shit on another path.

Strange pivots you have made thus far. Not sure how you want to proceed, which side you want to be on here. You have proven my point, then pivoted yet again. Slippery pone you are. lol

 

[cormundum]

As for Crowley, saying “he didn’t want money or influence” is just rewriting history to protect the framework. He wanted plenty of both, he said so repeatedly, and his failures in those areas are documented. If we can only call successes “magick” and excuse every failure with “they didn’t want it” or “they weren’t doing it right,” then magick stops being practice and becomes unfalsifiable dogma. And dogma is the opposite of practice. I hate dogma lol.

Crowley is easily the most influential, in/famous magician to have ever lived. You can't have a discussion about magick without bringing him up at least once. I heard of him from my non-practitioner parents as "le ebil Satanist" and all that stuff. If one talks about or thinks about magick, Crowley comes up as the first example in the minds of nearly everybody in the Anglosphere. All the modern Solomonic writers are busy trying to refute Crowley. LHP authors and RHP authors alike use him as an example, whether of being right about something or dreadfully wrong.

Nobody (outside of magickal autism land) knows who the fuck Israel Regardie, Aaron Leitch, Samuel L. Mathers, David Chaim Smith, E. A. Koetting, Michael Cechetelli, or S. McConnely are. Most of those people have at least heard of Crowley and his notoriety as some sort of "magical" or Satanic figure. He got his influence in the world. Maybe he wasn't loaded, but I genuinely think he didn't give a shit since he coasted off his inheritance his whole life, and whenever he was lacking money somebody showed up and gave it to him.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 9:36 PM

Easy killer, just becuase you dont believe in Thelema doenst give is license to shit on those who follow that path. I was making a larger point, remove Crowley from it altogether, I wasn't making a point to give a ramp to shit on another path.

Strange pivots you have made thus far. Not sure how you want to proceed, which side you want to be on here. You have proven my point, then pivoted yet again. Slippery pone you are. lol

Nope, I'm pretty straight-up. No slipperiness here. Your example of Agrippa or Crowley being penniless is not factual, and is primarily based on silly occultist urban legends that are easily refuted. The only magician I can really think of who fits that archetype is John Dee, honestly, but he ended up being the driving force behind the British Empire using his Angelical Magick... So his success was something significantly larger than himself, which I doubt any magician alive can claim today.

 

[FireBorn]

Crowley is easily the most influential, in/famous magician to have ever lived. You can't have a discussion about magick without bringing him up at least once. I heard of him from my non-practitioner parents as "le ebil Satanist" and all that stuff. If one talks about or thinks about magick, Crowley comes up as the first example in the minds of nearly everybody in the Anglosphere. All the modern Solomonic writers are busy trying to refute Crowley. LHP authors and RHP authors alike use him as an example, whether of being right about something or dreadfully wrong.

Nobody (outside of magickal autism land) knows who the fuck Israel Regardie, Aaron Leitch, Samuel L. Mathers, David Chaim Smith, E. A. Koetting, Michael Cechetelli, or S. McConnely are. Most of those people have at least heard of Crowley and his notoriety as some sort of "magical" or Satanic figure. He got his influence in the world. Maybe he wasn't loaded, but I genuinely think he didn't give a shit since he coasted off his inheritance his whole life, and whenever he was lacking money somebody showed up and gave it to him.

Influence? Sure, he had that, but that wasn’t what I was questioning. I’m pointing out how every contradiction in his life gets rewritten as proof of success. If he failed materially, it was “he didn’t care about money.” If he failed socially, it was “he didn’t care about followers.” If he succeeded in notoriety, that’s magick too.

That’s exactly what I mean by unfalsifiable dogma. If every outcome counts as success, then there’s no longer any way to measure whether a method works or not. That’s not practice, that’s rationalization. And magick deserves better than that.

 

[otherworldlymage]

Influence? Sure, he had that, but that wasn’t what I was questioning. I’m pointing out how every contradiction in his life gets rewritten as proof of success. If he failed materially, it was “he didn’t care about money.” If he failed socially, it was “he didn’t care about followers.” If he succeeded in notoriety, that’s magick too.

That’s exactly what I mean by unfalsifiable dogma. If every outcome counts as success, then there’s no longer any way to measure whether a method works or not. That’s not practice, that’s rationalization. And magick deserves better than that.

He wanted influence and an adventurous life and he got it.

 

[FireBorn]

Crowley is easily the most influential, in/famous magician to have ever lived. You can't have a discussion about magick without bringing him up at least once. I heard of him from my non-practitioner parents as "le ebil Satanist" and all that stuff. If one talks about or thinks about magick, Crowley comes up as the first example in the minds of nearly everybody in the Anglosphere. All the modern Solomonic writers are busy trying to refute Crowley. LHP authors and RHP authors alike use him as an example, whether of being right about something or dreadfully wrong.

Nobody (outside of magickal autism land) knows who the fuck Israel Regardie, Aaron Leitch, Samuel L. Mathers, David Chaim Smith, E. A. Koetting, Michael Cechetelli, or S. McConnely are. Most of those people have at least heard of Crowley and his notoriety as some sort of "magical" or Satanic figure. He got his influence in the world. Maybe he wasn't loaded, but I genuinely think he didn't give a shit since he coasted off his inheritance his whole life, and whenever he was lacking money somebody showed up and gave it to him.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 9:36 PM

Nope, I'm pretty straight-up. No slipperiness here. Your example of Agrippa or Crowley being penniless is not factual, and is primarily based on silly occultist urban legends that are easily refuted. The only magician I can really think of who fits that archetype is John Dee, honestly, but he ended up being the driving force behind the British Empire using his Angelical Magick... So his success was something significantly larger than himself, which I doubt any magician alive can claim today.

Whether it was Agrippa, Crowley, or Dee, or the next door neighbor the point isn’t to argue over pennies and patronage. It’s that magick clearly doesn’t operate on “belief alone = guaranteed outcome.” If it did, the lives of our most famous magicians would look very different.

That’s not a dismissal of magick, I practice, and I know it works. But it works within law and limit, and pretending otherwise just turns the craft into dogma.

If every outcome, success or failure, can be reframed as “what they really wanted,” then we’re no longer testing magick, we’re just excusing it. And I don’t think anyone here really wants that. Stop moving the goalposts, its unbecoming.

 

[otherworldlymage]

Influence? Sure, he had that, but that wasn’t what I was questioning. I’m pointing out how every contradiction in his life gets rewritten as proof of success. If he failed materially, it was “he didn’t care about money.” If he failed socially, it was “he didn’t care about followers.” If he succeeded in notoriety, that’s magick too.

That’s exactly what I mean by unfalsifiable dogma. If every outcome counts as success, then there’s no longer any way to measure whether a method works or not. That’s not practice, that’s rationalization. And magick deserves better than that.

Magic will never have proof in the scientific way because of the way it operates as an unseen thing

Whether it was Agrippa, Crowley, or Dee, or the next door neighbor the point isn’t to argue over pennies and patronage. It’s that magick clearly doesn’t operate on “belief alone = guaranteed outcome.” If it did, the lives of our most famous magicians would look very different.

That’s not a dismissal of magick, I practice, and I know it works. But it works within law and limit, and pretending otherwise just turns the craft into dogma.

If every outcome, success or failure, can be reframed as “what they really wanted,” then we’re no longer testing magick, we’re just excusing it. And I don’t think anyone here really wants that. Stop moving the goalposts, its unbecoming.

Where did anyone in this thread say that belief alone was a guaranteed outcome? We both have been saying its a requirement or a factor. Not that its the only thing. But that your money magic will not work if you think you can't earn money in vast amounts.

 

[cormundum]

Stop moving the goalposts, its unbecoming.

Nobody's moving goalposts here. I said my piece already, quoting Agrippa, which basically makes clear that all the rituals and whatnot are unnecessary at the end of the day, and it is our belief that is the primum mobile of magickal results.

At this point it looks more like you're mad that I commented in the LHP forum (by accident, mind) when someone asked a question about why the grimoires all invoke God, the God of the Christian world with a well-reasoned explanation about why that is and the theological underpinnings of the grimoires.

 

[FireBorn]

Magic will never have proof in the scientific way because of the way it operates as an unseen thing

I agree 100%. It is all subjective.

I have zero issue debating with you, but when you move the goalposts around, switch sides, change postures, its not something I want to take part in. I am just asking really tough questions here. Existential to an extent for some I get that, but man, stand on something. We do agree on more than we disagree on though, this much is true.

Credit to you for hanging in there. Lots of ppl get in their egos and rage out, you didn't. You held and pushed back. Respect. I hope I challenged your framework a bit, maybe a few of my questions shook something in you just enough that you will think on it in the quiet hours. Not to haunt you maliciously, but to maybe challenge what doesn't belong. This is how we grow and learn. Maybe I will have the same happen to me later tonight when Im not paying attention. I welcome the crucible.

Post automatically merged: Thursday at 10:01 PM

Nobody's moving goalposts here. I said my piece already, quoting Agrippa, which basically makes clear that all the rituals and whatnot are unnecessary at the end of the day, and it is our belief that is the primum mobile of magickal results.

At this point it looks more like you're mad that I commented in the LHP forum (by accident, mind) when someone asked a question about why the grimoires all invoke God, the God of the Christian world with a well-reasoned explanation about why that is and the theological underpinnings of the grimoires.

To be honest man, I forgot all about that. I dont really care where you post dude. I have 2 feelings man, you aren't touching either one. Its called a debate. No feelings required. Just a debate of ideas and challenges. Thats great shit! We sharpen ourselves and each other with honest challenging debate. Some cant hang, cool. I can assure you, I have no lingering feelings. This is all fresh haha

Seriously, I have no ill will towards you at all. I dont pay attention that deeply. If someone's framework cant hold up under questioning, I say get out of the crucible. Someone elses weak framework isn't my responsibility.