Talk:Occult/Archive 1

Archive 1

Occult King of the Hill

I have recently come to the conclusion that self proclaimed occultists, often feel obligated to dismissing the ideologies of previous occultists. This is most notable with Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley. I am not accusing these men of anything, I simply want to know if others have noticed the neccesity of occultists to break away from traditional occult ideas and dismiss them as rubish. In reality many of theses examples blatantly steal from the previous.

This is a better subject for a newsgroup. I'm sure there are authors who state that Crowley and LaVey broke with tradition. What they say may or may not be worth including in some of the articles here. What we think about the issue is of no interest though. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Crowley had a lot to do with modern NeoPaganism, as he helped both Gardner and Nichols develop Wicca and Druidism respectively. SundarkAdept (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Occult Belgium

quote: Between World War I and World War II the centre of occult and mystical activity in Western Europe was shifted from France to Belgium. Belgium became the main centre for many esoteric brotherhoods and secret societies of which many branches still exist today.

Being a Belgian myself, I must say I never heard about this myself. I certainly never learned about this in the national history lessons. Could the author please be more specific on this. (This same sentence can also be found in Belgium.) Fortinbras 10:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ordo Mentis

Since that time many authors have added insight to the study of the Occult by drawing parallels between different disciplines. One of the most notable organizations is Ordo Mentis which created a system of magick from the roots of many different systems and styles.

I've been reading on occult topics for years and never heard of Ordo Mentis and what I find on the Web suggests this is more advertising hyperbole than fact.

Adistius 01:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Movecraft

The article contains this passage:

Occultism has seen countless resurgences throughout history, possibly because some people who investigate the occult seek for movecraft,...

What is movecraft? Neither wikipedia nor Merriam Webster's dictionary defines it. Funkyj 21:19, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Scrying

I would like to invite editors on this page to comment on a discussion taking place at talk:Scrying, a user there has stated that Dowsing and Physiognomy are forms of Scrying, and that Scrying is in fact another word for divination, I would very much like to see further comments on this definition. Thanks - Solar 09:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have had to delete the word "superstition" and the category "suprstition" from many factual articles on folklore as well. Additionally, the article on curses i just edited contained a flat statement that curses are "psychological" in effect, the spurious category "fictional curses," and a lengthy diatribe against Gypsiess (Roma) and priests of various religions, charging them with laying fraudulent (curses for money. The doctrine of prositivsm is all well and good, but its adherents should not meddle in factual articles that describe opposing viewpoints to theirs. If these were articles on mainstream religions, the interjection of words like "superstition" and "fictional curses" and "fraudulent" would be viewed as vandalism; in the context of articles about the occult, there is much more laxity permitted toward insults of this sort. I shall be monitoring various occult- and magic-related pages for these biased POVs and deleting them, and i invite oters to do so as well. Catherineyronwode 18:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

What in the world does invious mean? It's not in the dictionary.

It was a misspelling of the word envious or appropriation of the extra-Anglic word invidit.

It might also be a typo of "invidious"

Septegram 12:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Points of view from different faiths

Could anyone supply information on how the expression "occult" is understood from the points of view of various religious faiths? Even that from a secular point of view is welcome. I am requesting this because the article is heavily imbalanced as it exposits almost exclusively Christian points of view.

Pioneer of Occult

Nobody ever mentioned who was the pioneer of Occults? PassionInfinity 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly because no pioneer exists in such a generalised topic as The Occult. We might speak of the Western Occult tradition, in which case the "pioneer" would be Albertus Magnus, Christian Rosenkreutz, or Paracelsus depending on our outlook. We must understand it was not Edward Alexander Crowley nor Anton LaVey, as these gentlemen were modern phenomena and their explorations had been done many centuries prior to their birth. (-anonymous)

I'd say that Hermes Trismegistus could be called the pioneer of the Occult. The text of Emerald Tablet is probably the earliest Occultist manifesto, especially the second paragraph:

"That which is below is as that which is above, and that which is above is as that which is below, to perform the miracles of the one thing"

Krambambuli (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

-ology

Hi I am just letting you know that I removed the references of astrology and numerology from the occult and christianity section, becuase even though to some christians astrology can be scams and consider it unwise to believe it's misterious powers (mostly devout or fundementalists do so) I don't consider it to be occult, cuz it is not associated with demons and\or the devil

Perhaps you need to start by actually reading the article Occult and figure out what the word means before you go through wikipedia removing Category:Occult from dozens of articles, Marc. The word doesn't imply any relation to demons and/or the devil, as should be obvious from the article. Please don't make changes to articles whose subject matter you are unfamiliar with! Fuzzypeg 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosicrucianism and Christianity

Removed paragraph as it is completely unsupported by fact. Rosicrucianism is part of the occult and an important precursor of Freemasonry.Fyodor Dos 02:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where's your proof? That's as unsubstatiated as what was there originally. Also it helps when moving material as stated in an edit summary to actually move it, rather than delete it and just say you moved it. MSJapan 02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion begun when request for discussion from you made. Who was I to discuss this when, when there had been no edits on this page in three weeks? It is very well documented that Rosicrucianism is part of the occult and not part of Christianity. It is a very inflamatory statement to try and connect Rosicrucianism to Christianity. One can easily go to the Offical website of the Roscicrucians and find the intimate connection between it and Freemasonry. Perhaps you should avail yourself of that resource so as better to inform yourself before interjecting yourself in this discussion any further.Fyodor Dos 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to read it, the text in question is this:

Furthermore, there are mystical branches of Christianity such as Rosicrucianism that permit divination, blessings, and calling the attention of angels to an issue, which they view as perfectly righteous, often supportable by gospel because they claim the old commandment against diviniation was superceded by Christ's birth. They also note that in the Gospels the Magi were written to have used astrology to locate Bethleham and that foul spirits are immediately expelled by any Christian who has been cleansed of sin by Christ's death (in some cases supplemented by baptism ritual).

I have a few observations: Firstly, the Rosicrucian manifestos incorporate a quantity of Christian imagery and hold the figure of Jesus to be the son of God, and although they obviously depart somewhat from the orthodoxy, this is what one would expect from a mystical branch of a mainstream religion. It seems like a mystical branch to me. Secondly, I wouldn't take any group's claim of being the "official rosicrucians" seriously. For information regarding historical Rosicrucianism, we have the manifestos to go on, and little else. Thirdly, the text is worded to describe "mystical branches" plural, yet the description given sounds specific to one branch. This gives the reader a strong hint that citations are needed (and they are). Fourthly, Rosicrucianism is part of the occult, in the sense that the manifestos have had a huge (really huge) influence on pretty much all European magical traditions since. Exactly what the original authors practiced or thought is virtually beside the point now, in this regard, since their writings were adopted wholesale by occultists across the continent. Fuzzypeg 06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally most occult organizations and writers try and claim they have the real hidden truth about Christianty as part of their self-aggrandizement, to deceive potential christian or catholic recruits, or as part of subtle insult to christian orthodoxy, i.e. a form of satanism or sacriledge of christian holy beliefs or items. There is not a single Christian denomination which has any Rosicrucian Rites or beliefs, in fact most major Christian Church's have denounced Rosicrucianism as simply another 'Rite' of Freemasonry. As an aside it may interest some readers to know that in Catholic and Christian tradition it is claimed that Satan seeks to imitate Christ and Christology, which may provide a reason, for those who chose to believe it, for the many crosses and the like found in the occult. Simple mockery.Fyodor Dos 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew we'd get to it eventually. MSJapan 14:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Many occultists have an interpretation of christianity which they incorporate into their work. There are a few (a minority) of these who consider it a blasphemy, poking fun at the stuffy Christian establishment. There are an even smaller minority who take the act of blasphemy seriously. Of this small minority, some are Satanists.

Now you or any other Christians can choose if you like to interpret our use of Christian imagery as insulting if you wish, however please don't say that we intend it to be insulting. I and most other occultists employ our symbolism in good faith. We consider ourselves to be spiritual people, and our symbolism is employed for our own purposes, rather than to offend others. Please don't take crap authors like Dan Brown as representing us either.

Regarding Christian denominations and their lack of any Rosicrucian beliefs, this is pretty much my observation as written above. I wouldn't use your wording though, because then you've got to explain why you don't consider groups with Rosicrucian interests to be "Christian denominations" (is it simply because they're small, or they don't organise themselves as "churches"? Or is it because you don't agree with what they do?). Exactly what they are doesn't matter anyway ("denominations", "organisations", "societies", whatever) – the fact remains that they often consider themselves Christian and have highly spiritual intentions.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat for you. Fuzzypeg 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the disputed section back in, with the changes I feel are appropriate to meet the concerns I raised above. This removes a short piece of text regarding evil spirits being kept at bay after accepting Jesus. Hopefully all parties are relatively happy now. I suggest before we have any more major changes or removals to this section, it should be discussed here and some consensus reached. I don't like seeing repeated reversions without due discussion.

I have also removed the sentence equating occult with esoteric. MSJapan's observations regarding this I agree with, and I think they should be addressed before you repeat your edit. Also, the reference added was inappropriate. Fuzzypeg 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That should be evil spirits being kept at bay after a person has accepted Jesus Fuzzypeg 02:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, but at least according to the {{Rosicrucian]] article, there is an entire branch of esoteric Christian Rosicrucianism, so I think to divorce the two is absolutely counterfactual. There is clearly a Christian-influenced Rosicrucianism (or vice-versa), so to say otherwise seems POV, as if "Christianity is above such foolishness because it is the true religion", perhaps. MSJapan 15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fyodor Dos, you should be aware that a large number of Freemasons would be very unhappy to have Freemasonry included in any list of occult things. I find that a bit silly, since I think that's precisely what Freemasonry is (occult), yet I would avoid offence and leave Freemasonry off the list. Also, I don't see why you're insisting that Rosicrucianism is not a branch of Christianity. You have said nothing to convince me that it's not, but you have said a few things hinting that you consider it Satanic and are attempting to protect Christianity from having blasphemous mockeries equated with the true faith. Please clarify on this point and demonstrate to me that you are not simply trying to claim the exclusive right to define Christianity.

In the meantime, three modern Rosicrucian orders that specifically claim to be Christian: Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, Fellowship of the Rosy Cross, the Rosicrucian Fellowship.

The last edit left the article in a bit of a mess (sentence out of place and out of context), so I'm fixing it. I'm trying to avoid using the word "branch", since you obviously take exception. Now I repeat, please sort the issue out here on the discussion page before you edit the article again. That means give your reasoning and allow time for discussion. This is a contentious issue, and two other editors disagree with you and are supplying their evidence. Fuzzypeg 18:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Occult is direct opposition to Christianity, it's certainly not intended that way. Maybe it's just that Christians see it as an opposition because those that study the occult don't agree with them.

History Subhead deleted as meaningless and untrue.

The former History subhead of this article read as follows, and i deleted. My reasons follow:

Occultism has seen countless resurgences throughout history. H. P. Lovecraft, Anton LaVey, Gerina Dunwich, Robert Owen Scott Jr., Aleister Crowley and Robert Anton Wilson have ensured occultism a permanent place in western popular culture.

• 1) A history properly begins with origins, not with "resurgences".
• 2) The resurgences of interest in occultism are not "countless" but finite and countable.
• 3) H. P. Lovecraft was an author of fantasy fiction, not an occult author.
• 4) Robert Anton Wilson ditto.
• 5) NOTHING -- and certainly no quantity of authors -- can assure any form of expression -- including occultism -- a "permanent" place in "western popular culture". If that were so, we would all still be attending gladiator combats in which slaves faced off against lions using only a net and spear as weapons, or we would be dressing in blackface and singing minstrel songs. The essence of popular culture is that it changes for reasons of faddism and that, lacking an academic anchor point and funding such as is granted to so-called "high" culture, it is extremely volatile and changeable.

I think this article does need a History section, but the text above is not it.

Catherineyronwode 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup/Rewrite

This complete article definitely needs a rework. As stated on the talk page multiple times there is way too much supportive argument for occultism, parts read more like a manual on magic than an encyclopedic ressource. Second there is numerous historical and factual inaccuracies, an utter lack of sources (even biased sources by proponents of occultism would be fine, it's not like this article is going to prove magic) and there is no noticeable structure to the article as a whole, it is all very stream-of-consciousness. I'm going to set the flag, but I haven't got the time to do much myself. The article on esotericism makes a fine example how to do it better, though. --80.134.107.71 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to do a rewrite on the current framework, but I gave up, as there's very little of substqance in the article. I think the only way this is going to get fixed is to start from the ground up and just replace the current version when the new version is complete. MSJapan 04:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please sign comments with ~~~~. And if there is a break in conversation, add a new header, as I have just done. It makes it very difficult to see who is saying/suggesting what, where and when! Zos 19:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest with Wikipedia?

Perhaps the occult is not a topic of discussion which is compatible with the methodology Wikipedia uses to standardize entries?

If the occult does not fit into the same classification system as science with self-standing subcomponentalization, nor into the classification system of religion with scientifically documented history nor classification of ancient scripture, and since taking it upon the hearsay of what others believe, since it appears to be a belief system with no standardized core framework, perhaps it is time a new template system is created for the occult, since the occult is a subject which seems to not be able to be defined without a loss in neutrality?

Even so just stating this is forced into a snake-eating-its-tail relationship. This goes against the modular definition system of Wikipedia!

TRK 21:55, 19 September 2006 (GMT-7)

Many difficult subjects are covered in Wikipedia, and the occult is no exception. It is covered by the same key policies, namely verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. It is quite acceptable if various authors' non-neutral views and opinions are presented in these articles, as long as they are the views of notable authors, and the Wikipedia article itself remains neutral. To achieve neutrality when there are opposing views on a subject, each of the significant viewpoints is presented in the article, and the reader is allowed to form their own conclusions.

You make it sound as though there are no consistent philosophies within occultism, and therefore no prominent viewpoints which the article can express. This is not the case. There are major traditions of occultism within the East and the West; and there have been major influential figures and groups; therefore we can easily categorise different types of occultism, we have documented history to draw from, and we have a relatively small number of significant core frameworks. No problems! Saying that, this article in its current state has room for much improvement. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Flow of the article

I changed the intro a bit, the intro should in fact briefly describe what follows in the article. Also, there is a major potential for this article to become rather large. Headers should include main article briefly describing those other articles. Zos 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Templi Orientis to show how a re-write can be benificial to the rest of the material in the article. Zos 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Internet and Belief

The "Belief" heading notes that people related to the occult are open, and information can be found freely on the internet. I have to wonder why this is cited, without so much as a single Internet Reference link at the bottom of the page. I am not asking for a link, but I would like this information backed up. --Spesek 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• First, please sign your comments!

The belief section is not cited, its a small paragraph/statement. The editors of this article are currently calling for a rewrite so if you wish to add, by all means add to it. Zos 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following, as I think it fails NPOV:

As there are huge amounts of authors of the occult in the modern age, it is important for the student to question the validity of all books and to cross reference numerous times with other authors on the same subject. 'Beware False Prophets'. Most mass printed Occult knowledge is however, only for beginners. The sourcing of the more in-depth and advanced work can be a 'trial-of-spirit' in itself.

This presupposes there is such a thing as "occult knowledge" and that it is testable via "trial-of-spirit", neither of which is a agreed-on fact. Gene Ward Smith 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is the fact that having some religious belief is "traditional" . This word has also been removed. :-) —Hanuman Das 03:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the whole thing. It seems to say nothing about the beliefs of occultists, but merely scoffs at how all their supposedly secret knowledge is actually freely available. This ignores the broader meanings of "occult" which are discussed above in the article. It also made the unsupported assertion that occultists are attempting to promulgate the idea that occultism is a good alternative to mainstream religion. What a stunning example of riding the high horse! Fuzzypeg☻ 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

npov tag

Somebody please re-write this article to not sound like it was written by someone who is trying to justify occultism.

Why? Seems to me like the Christianity article was written by a Christian, and not an occultist. Or is it that Christians want to determine everyone's identity according to their own opinion?

very very very good point, why not have all the opinions and inf on here, then people can actually learn somthng and make there own decisions

First paragraph

Can somene familiar with Crowley please fix the first paragraph? I rv'ed, but the intent of "it" in "it was brought out into the open" is actually unclear, and if it's Kabbalah, the sentences are out of order. If it's something else, it needs to be explicitly stated. MSJapan 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The text in between is parenthetial. You reverted me for what reason? —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't think your changes were correct. The original reads "The word "occult" is somewhat generic, in that most everything that isn't claimed by any of the major religions is considered to be occult (and many things that are). Even Kabbalah has been considered an occult study, perhaps because of its popularity among magi and Thelemites. The biblical three wise men who visited the Infant Jesus are said to have been magi of Zoroastrianism. It was later adopted by the Golden Dawn and brought out into the open by Aleister Crowley and his protégé Israel Regardie. Since that time many authors have added insight to the study of the Occult by drawing parallels between different disciplines."

Well, if it's parenthetical (as you made it), it's a non sequitur because the relationship between magi, Thelemites, and the Three Wise Men, and Kabbalah is unclear (the Wise Men predate Crowley's Thelema, and predate Kabbalah as well). Moreover, I don't see how Zoroastrianism figures in here at all. So there's a fundamental problem with this paragraph, and since your edit did not solve it, I reverted it and commented here to bring it to somebody's attention so it can be fixed properly by someone who can elucidate that section. MSJapan 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your first mistake was reverting, as you have not provided a good reason. Your second mistake was failing to check the page history for the intent of the original author. Your third mistake was assuming that I'm unfamiliar with the topic. This kind of behavior does not improve the article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Western mystery tradition

Can someone merge or redirect the article about the occult to; Western mystery tradition. Since occult is used to describe magickal or esoteric traditions that have there origin primarily in Europe and North America and draw many influences from North Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East. As a example i will use zenbuddhism and Taoism. Both are esoteric in nature; since they make use of the physical world around themselves to define there own inner world and vice versa, but these two schools; even though they influenced western thought at the end of the 19th century, are rarely if ever grouped under the heading occult. Let use then define occult as being the sum of western thought and schools centered around metaphysics, empirical psychology and the manipulation of the physical universe through magickal use.

First use of the word Occult

I believe that the first time the word "Occult" was used was when Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa wrote his Libri tres de occulta philosophia in the year 1531. His teacher, Johannes Trithemius was also the first person to use the words "Steganography" and "Cryptography" (in that order, in the year 1499 -- unofficial release of Steganographia). This also links the words ockultism with steganography & cryptography, to hide. Esoterism, initation and similiar concepts later invented inherited their ancestors connection to steganography. I am not sure if I can write this here without violating the "Original Research"-tabu of Wikipedia. Does someone else have sufficent proof for this?

Crakkpot 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You can say a certain amount without violation WP:NOR. You can say that Agrippa contains an early occurrence of the word "occultism", and you can mention that he was a student of Trithemius. Depending on how it's worded, you may be able to get away with mentioning that Trithemius' "steganography" and "cryptology" relate to 'hiding'. You can't really say it's the earliest occurrence of the word, unless you're quoting some other scholar, and neither can you suggest that there is a connection in the origins of the words, unless you are quoting a published source. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Much of this page just romanticizes occultism. Here's some of the main problems:

"it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual "reality" that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences."

"To the occultist it is the study of "Truth", a deeper truth that exists beneath the surface: 'The truth is always hidden in plain sight'."

"perhaps because of its popularity among magi (the biblical three wise men who visited the Infant Jesus are said to have been magi of Zoroastrianism) and Thelemites. Kabbalah was later adopted by the Golden Dawn and brought out into the open by Aleister Crowley and his protégé Israel Regardie. Since that time many authors have emphasized a syncretic approach by drawing parallels between different disciplines."

"to add validity to occult knowledge in a day and age where the mystical can easily be undermined as flights-of-fancy. An oft-cited means of gaining insight into the occult is the use of a focus. A focus may be a physical object, a ritualistic action (for example, meditation or chanting), or a medium in which one becomes wholly immersed; these are just a few examples of the vast and numerous avenues that can be explored."

This section is a one-sided attack on conventional science:

"Occultism is the study of the inner nature of things, as opposed to the outer characteristics that are studied by science. The inability of science and mathematics to penetrate beyond the relationship between one thing and another in order to explain the 'inner nature' of the thing itself, independent of any external causal relationships with other 'things' is dealt with in some detail by the German Kantian philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in his treatise entitled The World as Will and Representation, in which he designates this 'inner nature' with the term 'Will'.

The occultist Aleister Crowley likens the approach of conventional science to the process of measuring ten yards with a stick about which we really know nothing but that it is one tenth of the ten yards in question. Every "fact" we hold true of the physical universe is merely an idea stated in relationship to other ideas, and if we try to establish any such "fact" in absolute terms we find it is impossible. If A is defined as BC, where B is DE, C is FG and so onwards the terms of dependency increase exponentially, and we even come to the point where Z is circularly defined in terms of A.[1]

Schopenhauer also points towards this inherently relativistic nature of mathematics and conventional science in his formulation of the 'World as Will'. By defining a thing solely in terms of its external relationships or effects we only find its external, or explicit nature. Occultism, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of the 'thing-in-itself'. This is often accomplished through direct perceptual awareness, known as mysticism.

Many occultists, particularly those who follow the system of "chaos magic" believe that modern quantum physics is confirming the occult position. In relation to the definition of occultism two things are noted: firstly the dependence of experimental results on the set up of the experiment itself (re: the dependence of the answer on the original terms of the question demonstrating the self-referential cycle). Secondly the fact that at a fundamental, sub-atomic level there are no 'things' but only relationships - a paradox given that relationships are dependent on things to be related - is said to demonstrate the inherent limitations of the scientific method. In the language of quantum physics, taken from the work of David Bohm, occultism concerns itself not with the explicate order, but with the implicate order."

And finally, the Religion and the occult section. Maybe all the editors live in very tolerant places but where I grew up mainstream religion and the occult didn't get along so well. Reading this section they seem like best buddies, nobody'd guess that up until fairly recently you could get tortured or killed for occult practices. In fact, it's been argued that the whole reason these things are occult (secret) is because of this massive intolerance. Much of the occult isn't so occult anymore...

Assuming I have the inclination, I'll be back to edit this page. I recommend removing the first 4 parts I mentioned and moving the occult's criticism of science to it's own section. The Religion and the occult needs to be expanded with a seperate section for each major religion and the religion's mainstream views of the occult, past and present. And the article needs a picture or two. --Calibas 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that this article has become a little messy, but I don't entirely agree with your assessment of what these sections are saying. Several of these sections are simply expressing what occultism is in the eyes of occultists, and in most cases the wording makes it quite clear that this is not necessarily the point of view of the article. The discussion of the ideas of Schopenhauer and Crowley is a bit unclear, and the wording could be improved, but if these are key figures in the philosophy of occultism then we can't very well just remove them because we don't like what they say. If you feel there should be an opposing point of view presented, then find one and present it.

I agree that some of this material is unreferenced, and needs some serious clean-up. Talking about the "language of quantum physics" and David Bohm sounds like a hoary pile of original research, for instance, and I'd like to see citations of which occultists believe modern physics confirms the occult position.

If I find some time I might try to do some clean-up myself. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of fix-up, and I'll try to come back and do some more. There's plenty of work needed here; the article seems to have been invaded on both sides by the kooky original-researchers and the POV they're-all-satan-worshipping-baby-eaters brigade. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV (again)

"Though most modern scientists are atheists"

Remove because this is quight frankly a rediculas statment, with its only justification being a survay by an athist group. Like Mars saying "everyone loves chocolate".

BTW, Yes I am Christian, but I am also a "scientist" (Quotation as it is a poor word to use, as so is half the world) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.65.170 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't find your quoted phrase in the article. All the mentions of science and scientists seem fine to me. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Objection!

If one takes a religious standpoint (either main-line Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, main-line Judaic, probably even conservatively Islamic) this is an article vastly biased against main line religion, and addresses the religious-occult connection very vaguely and without giving anti-occultist views much of a hearing, even tacitly dismissing them as silly.

If one takes a purely secular approach, this article is nonsence as it essentially assumes the existence of "the occult," instead of treating it as a persistenly recurring set of sociological conditions.

Finally, there are bizzare historical aberrations here - "predates western civilization"? Technically Babylon is an ancestor of Wester Civilization. "Appeared in the 19th century"? Not really. Folk beliefs in spirits hit upper crust society during a time of 19th century Romanticism.

This is a non-serious, essentially silly article.

Agreed, the entire article is very biased, and more suportive of Ocult practice then an article on Wiki should be (suportive of a topic i mean). Not to mention the fact that it paints christians as great big old goobers who all belive that oujie boards will damn us to hell.

what are you tryng to say, that because this doesnt give a christian perspective its wrong?, when writing about occultism or any topic you have to ::give reasons why it exists and why people belive in it, this may seem like favour, but then people will cmpare this to the other opinions from difrnt ::people and make a decision themselves.

im sick of going on to the discusion boards and finding reems of text by a vocal internet based gaggle of angry christians. and yes, that is opinion, ::however i fear its not enough to balance out your oppresive and oh so cunningly worded POV's dotted all over the discusion boards.

I have edited the section of The Occult and Christianity. I am not sure we need the paragraph starting, "A common argument held in Evangelical circles is that to believe that the spirits...", or maybe it would be better to cite the beliefs of particular evangelical organisations that hold such beliefs. -- BenStevenson 17:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From this atheist’s POV all belief in supernatural falls under the occult and as such all of the current popular religions may also be considered such. All religious systems claim use and/or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies the existence of which is unfalsifiable. In the end it shouldn't matter which mystical tome or dream vision the invisible magical creatures reside in, being beyond the constraints of natural law, they are also beyond the range of ordinary knowledge, and scientific examination, and all of occult origin to the outsider.

The very concept that Christianity has some self proclaimed right to define occult is a misconception maintained for too long. Those who think that evil need be studied for prevention are the ones who least have a right to define the occult. The Christians are the ones who have associated Satan, and evil with the occult, and they have become a burden in every plausible way. They are a thorn in all the world. The very fact they express their opinions on this page is vial and worthy no more.

Occult and Paganism are both umbrella terms used to describe an ever expanding ocean of different topics. Neither is a discrete practice or belief system. And what you call Main Line Religions… aren’t, and they are slowly dying out. They are more properly referred to as Abrahamic Faiths. SundarkAdept (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Structure cause's implyed/Unintentinal NPO

    These include the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons, heavy metal 
    music, and sometimes even Catholicism. However, as there is nothing 
    secret nor hidden, the term 'occult' would not denote role-playing 
    games, "Harry Potter" books or heavy metal music.

the last sentence includes "Harry Potter" as things deemed occultish, while the prior does not, then it leaves out Catholicism implying unintentionaly(hopefully) that Catholicism is infact an Occult.

I would like to let the authour know that he should change this or within 24 hours i will.

This article is ridiculous. 'Occult' is a subjective label that has meant many different things in different cultural contexts. This article seems to be trying to offer the wishy-washy new age adaptation of the word, but this is only one aspect. The final section on tantrism is completely ridiculous and looks like it was written by some sort of fundamentalist with little or no facts.

Someone has commented that wikipedia should not favor occultism? This is preposterous, as this view is based within your own point of reference. It can likewise be said that wikipedia should not favor Christianity or frisbees.

It seems to me like all of the people on this talk page, including myself, are intelligent and aware enough to write a comprehensive and objective article. If I had the time, I would. This article should remain labeled as suspect until someone is willing to put in the time.

I have an idea with what to do about this article!

The word occult simply meaning hidden is inappropirate for an article in its own right. The blue prints to a Wal-mart super center are occult by nature that they are kept secret. There are things ignorantly associated with the occult such as, well anything except the word hidden. We can list all the possible other articles associated with the occult and make it merely a redirection point. It does not have the ability to stand on its own, because all the word means is hidden, this is more like a dictionary definition, then anything else. So in conlcusion make this article a redirection point to all other "Occult ideas" like Crowley or Satanism and magic and magick and the infintite list of things considered occult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeZ9Alt (talk • contribs)

I disagree. The word "occult" does not simply mean "hidden". It has a much richer meaning than that, which is explained in the article. According to what you're saying, participation in a treasure hunt at a kid's birthday party would constitute "occultism"! Or trying to find your missing car keys! Perhaps the article needs improving, but that doesn't mean that an article is undeserved or inappropriate. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid to say that is does simply mean hidden, and the examples you supply are occult concepts. If you wish to further the distortion of a word that the christian society created, then I dont think you have Wikipedia in mind. In truth the knowledge considered occult isnt, and society and little shits running around referencing astrology have no right to call the matters they speak of as occult. It has lost its meaning. Any truly occult idea wouldn't even have an article. Nothing is explained in the article except the fact that no ones what they are talking about. I supplied an idea, you should resepct that. Also no one else is suggesting anything.

Please look at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/occult for a definition. Now, your angry and insulting manner is way out of line here. Please either clean up your act (and wash your mouth out with soap) or go elsewhere. Read WP:CIVIL if you want to read the policy. Also, a hint for life: if you demand that others respect you while in the same breath you make it blatantly obvious that you have no respect for them ("little shits"), they will correctly conclude that you're a complete knob. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didnt suggest respect for me, I wrote of respect for the fact that I am trying to help. Due to the vastness of material that would need to be covered I recomended making this a redirector to other articles. My coments about the abusers on this page seems to bother you more than the article itself. I fail to see what your defending. So in a manner of good sportsmanship I will leave my comments about the abusers of this page out of suggestions. I have no desire to suggest anything for your life, how ironic that I respect you.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in your own words I'm not going to bother spelling it out to you. If you have any further comments to me or any further insults to get off your chest please do so on my talk page rather than polluting this space where people are trying to get work done. If you have any further comments to make regarding the article, then you will strictly avoid any insults or insinuations of bad faith on the part of other editors. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the vastness of material that would need to be covered I recomended making this a redirector to other articles.

We have other articles that cover very vast categories of material, such as Religion, Science, Thought and Reality. Their approach is to paint a broad picture, and to provide lots of links to more detailed articles on different aspects of the subject. Why do you think Occult should be treated any differently? Fuzzypeg☻ 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well it seems as though some one has already done what I wanted, so I'm done.

I found this article to be hard to read. The introductory paragraph is in dire need of work. It could do with it all making easier to understand Delighted eyes 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few days, and I will add the full definition by Goodrick-Clarke. Zara1709 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Information verified against sources?

The tag states that information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable. What are some specific issues that need to be verified?

Please list the items below. Thanks. J. D. Redding 15:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many to make a list useful. Almost every statement made after the TOC needs to be cited. MSJapan 06:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not currently logged in. Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page.

Occult and Science

I think something should also be added concerning the extensive study, research and use of the scientific method in Occultism as opposed to mysticism. Butler wrote extensively on the necessity of good occult practice requiring reference to other materials and examination of logical progression in order to verify results, insights and inspiration. The same method is discussed by Crowley when he mentions pathworking and testing an entity based on one's study of occult correspondances in order to verify the validity of an encounter/experience.

In many systems of training belief is augmented by experimentation and practical psychology but I'm not certain how this would work in context. Perhaps the connections to sciences like psychology would be appropriate as only reference to alchemy/chemistry appear in the article. Methods such as psychodramatic rutial, astrology as personality analysis etc... can all be associated as having a basis in psychological theory. Meditational keys as well perhaps. Frater SG (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

'Occult" is a Hungarian word.

OK = eye
When you have eyes, you can observe and thus learn. Consider sayings like "Do you see my point?".

While one is gathering information one is learning:
OKUL = learning/learns

When the learning process is done one becomes a learnt person. The 't' in Hungarian forms past tense.
OKULT = learnt

Further information about Hungarian words in English is available:
http://www.varga.hu/
PLSsearch for the English flag for the English article: "An old Hungarian dialect found on the British Islands".

In this light pls consider re-writing the article.

No, occult derives from "occluded" as in "hidden." Which makes sense as the occult is all about esoteric "hidden things." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.182.131 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

3 March 2009. Magi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.161 (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.219.29 (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

↑Don't be an ignorant ass. --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

All wrong! Occult from Latin "occultus" (hidden, secret). And at least someone cares about the Hungarians, namely themselves and their neighbors. OKULT = learnt seems interesting but irrelevant. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd question about aligned buildings, etc.

I know its probably not the place to ask, but I don't care -- I don't want to eff with wikipedia's forums. Some years ago I came across a book talking about the man-made phenomena of placing buildings in a series of towns, i.e. a church with a tall steeple in the center of town, so that they line up with a similar tall building in the next town, which lines up with a structure on a hilltop nearby, and so on. You can draw a perfectly straight line through the series of markers, and they can go for many many miles. Apparently there are a number of places in the UK where this can be observed. What's the name of this? --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The alleged alignments in question are popularly known as ley lines. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Badly Written

The article is obviously badly written and incoherent. Alot of personal point of views and personal insertions are made in the article. Not to mention seemingly random subject insertions. Theres also alot of vague statements made as well.

There is also a mixture of mysticism vs occult practices mixed in as well. Perhaps put 'occult mysticism' under another wiki article or new wiki article.

Ifa123Henry123ifa (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

historical origin of the word occult

I may be wrong, but I believe that the word "occult" became associated with esoteric religious knowledge and practices in reference to the ability of ancient astronomer-priests in Egypt who accurately predicted the occultation of planets and stars by the moon. The knowledge(which was in fact scientific, as it was the result of careful observation over long periods of time)which allowed for these predictions was kept as a secret by these institutions, hence the association with occultation- a scientific term, and the occult- a term which has come to denote hidden knowledge of a religious or mystical nature. This connection would, I think, provide an interesting context for at least the meaning of the word, and also highlight the fact that religion and science were not always adversaries; in fact they have the same root: humankind's effort to understand the nature of our world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.28 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

RS for Occult Science

Given that Occult Science it to be merged here: Here is the WP:RS that I recently provided from the talk page of Occult science

@Layzner: @Rhododendrites: @Midnightblueowl: I am trying to collect some of the WP:RS that was described in the WP:AfD and add it to the article, if appropriate. I haven't figured out the best way to add it. I am open to suggestions. (If it is redirected the same issue will come up).

Essays/Articles:

• Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2013). "The Notion of "Occult Sciences" in the Wake of the Enlightenment". Retrieved 6 March 2017. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (added)
• Olcott, Henry Steel, "Theosophy, Religion and Occult Science" [1]
• Grafton, Anthony Secrets of Nature
• Newman, William R. [2]
• Steiner, Rudolf [3]
• Steiner, Rudolf [4]
• Wilson, Leigh, Modernism and Magic, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2012 [5]
• Scientific American: [6], [7]
• Possibly useful: Bauer, Ralph "Alchemical Errand into the Wilderness"
• Possibly Useful: Vickers, Brian, "Critical Reactions to the Occult Sciences During the Renaissance"
• Debus, Allen G., Scientific Truth and the Occult Tradition: The Medical World of Ebenezer Silby (1751-1799)

Already in the article, but mostly without in-line references:

• Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (2006). Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill. p. 716. ISBN 9789004152311.
• Edward Tylor, his 1871, "Primitive Culture" [8]
• H.P. Blavatsky, "Occult or Exact Science?" The Theosophist, April–May 1886
• H.P. Blavatsky, "Occultism versus the Occult Arts", Lucifer, May 1888
• Rudolf Steiner, Occult Science

Writers:

• Historians
  • Wouter Hanegraaff
  • Henry Steel Olcott
  • William R. Newman
  • Anthony Grafton

• Anthropology
  • Edward Burnett Tylor

• Cultural Studies
  • Leigh Wilson

• Theosophy:
  • Rudolf Steiner
  • Helena Blavatsky

Related Subjects:

• Occult#Science_and_the_occult
• Western esotericism
• Onmyōdō
• Theosophy

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Background: Occult science is now a redirect to Occult following this AfD. Before being made a redirect, occult science was permalink. Talk:Occult science has not yet been made a redirect.

A source might be reliable for reporting what proponents believe, or for speculation about why proponents believe in occultism. However, by definition, any source which attempts to show a science behind the occult is not reliable in Wikipedia's terms. See WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a different meaning of science as I explained at the article's AfD here. This is a term that is used in the literature by academic historians and by Steiner and the theosophy crowd. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I see there is a typo, so I will rewrite with the correction:

...That would be like saying we cannot have an alchemy article because it suggest alchemy is chemistry. Science has many more definitions than fields that use the scientific method. See definitions from Merriam-Webster, which includes examples of "Science of theology" and Christian Science, two fields that are hardly scientific. Consider also the word's etymology [9].

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog's version

I didn't realize that Jytdog had rewritten the Occult science section since it was not under Occult Science in the article, but directly above it.

I'm not sure his changes are an improvement compared to the original from the Occult science page, which I restored. This is his revised language:

Occultists sometimes call their investigation into the occult, "occult science". is the systematic research into or formulation of occult concepts in a manner that resembles the way natural science researches or describes phenomena. theosophists; examples include Helena Blavatsky who described her work as "The science of the secrets of nature — physical and psychic, mental and spiritual", Rudolf Steiner, whose Occult Science, a sequel to his earlier work Theosophy, deals with the evolution of the human being and the cosmos, as well as referring to the attainment of supersensible knowledge, and Alice Bailey, who brought the idea of occult science into association with esoteric astrology.

It seems to me now that we have more WP:RS we can add to what is on the page now rather than delete, especially given the number of historians who talk about it. I prefer bullet lists when there are three or more unique definitions, which appears to be the case here, but I am not sure of the number of unique definitions at this time. Clumping it all into one short paragraph does not make sense to me given the amount of WP:RS I identified above.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is how the article looked when I did the merge. There was no "occult science" section. There was a section called "Science and the occult" which made a weak effort to discuss the relationship between the occult and science. Your edit here renamed the section to "Occult science" after I did the merge here. I do not like to interact with you and this kind of thing is one reason why. I wanted to correct your blatant misrepresentation of what I did and what you did but I am now getting the hell far far away from you and unwatching this article. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Original Research re: Schopenhauer

I agree with Clean Copy's deletion. Everything there said about Schopenhauer is probably true, but I agree that we can't connect it to the Occult without secondary sources.

I also agree with removing these statements, unless we can find secondary WP:RS for them:

• "To the occultist, occultism is conceived of as the study of the inner nature of things, as opposed to the outer characteristics that are studied by science"
• "Occultism, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of the "thing-in-itself".
• This is often accomplished through direct perceptual awareness, known as mysticism."

I might try to ping the editor who inserted that material to see if that person has WP:RS to justify it.

--David Tornheim (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

recent changes

@Celestina007 and Editor2020: Thanks for your interest in this article. I see both of you mdke substantial changes to the article, including some reverts: Editor2020 [10]; Celestina007 [11] and [12].

Let's discuss these changes and see if we can gain agreement rather than potentially get into an editor war, etc.; otherwise, I might revert back to the last stable version of May 9, 2017. I would like to see some WP:RS for additions and justification for why certain things were deleted. I do agree with a number of the edits and disagree with a number. I suggest we start with those you feel are the most likely to stick. The better supported by WP:RS, the more likely we can all agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim hello dear, i made no reverts to the page, rather i included a good number of texts which were almost all removed by @Editor2020 however i am inclined to believe he thought of them, (most notably the Obeah article) as WP:UNDUE and deemed it fit to remove it, there is no edit war here neither is it looming as i later changed my mind and did not revert nor re-include the Obeah article, all i wanted was a reason as per his actions. Furthermore the article did undergo a clean up and restoring to an earlier date would somewhat be refered to as disruptive editing due to the fact a great number of copyedits were done due to the efforts of Editor2020 (of which he does deserve credit) You also mentioned about using reliable sources, i completely agree with you on this but in actuality we are aware that reliable sources rarely discuss in-depth about the Occult hence we often use the few select available to us. On a jovial note, it is thrilling for me that people with knowledge of the occult science and its many branches still exist and not just me :) Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on my discussion with Celestina007 there doesn't seem to be any threat of an edit war. If you would like to add or delete anything please do so. Editor2020 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Secret Knowledge

Why does "secret knowledge" redirect here? I'm sure there are lots of forms of secret knowledge that don't involve ghouls and witches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.204.133 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Cryptography

Can encryption be considered occult? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Then, the N**is used the Enigma machine linked to encryption. They embraced themselves in anything the occult related, especially

if it was Wikings related or the black sun related. The author distances from the third reich for legal reasons to avoid being considered a criminal actor. Now what with anything the occult related? Christians, at least under normal circumstances, hate occult activity. Its only christian freemasons and rotarians also embracing anything the occult related. Weird ...

Hate-occultism is illegal in Germany, rest is strangely not, but some forms are not recommended to others without them knowing what they are doing here in case they do not want to prematurely kill rather themselves than others. This does not mean this form of it is illegal to do.

Just merely not recommended to do, if somebody does not want to die. 2001:16B8:571C:FD00:5D2D:72E4:8A53:6298 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)