Talk:Occult

Occult King of the Hill

I have recently come to the conclusion that self proclaimed occultists, (or not) often feel obligated to dismissing the ideologies of previous occultists. This is most notable with Anton LaVey and Aleister Crowley. I am not accusing theses 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.

Occult or Esoteric?

I would like to clarify on some of the below listed remarks from people with honest questions but highly subjective views.The word Occult does in a glib definition mean 'Hidden' but the dogma the organizations claiming to be the Temples and Churches of God have often been to discourage ridicule and eradicate this traditions much as the Pharisee's did to Christ. I am a Christian Occultist myself and I think that if anyone wants to change this article they would have to be well acquainted with the tradition in question if you tell me that the Occult is a dark practice, I insist that you give Reference. Much of the Occult has to do with Exorcism and this is in fact a Occult Tradition maintained by most Orthodox Christians. Transubstantiations is another specifically Catholic Practice this is Occult. As is Baptism and a countless many traditions including the reciting of psalms to cure men or the calling down of the presence of the Lord to work a miracle through a man. Is this not Holy Possession much Like that of Voudo the Only real difference is i believe it is a demon posses the Houngan and a Spirit of the Lord the Preacher/Priest. If you still believe that the Occult means a Working against the will and plan of God in a Satanic way then Question away I will answer all Questions. Because I think it is about time the Occult is claimed by its rightful heirs the Monotheists.

---

Isn't it that occult carries a much darker emotional backdrop than magic or esoteric does ? From a rational view point there may be incorrectly perceived opposition to Christianity since Christianity has adopted some heathen rituals which follow an occult logic. But at its heart an occult act implies a physical or mental sacrifice to me. The object scarified(crop, animal) or my submission to higher powers is a symbolic sacrifice which constitutes the occult act substitutional psychologically. // sorry if my English style is not the best - I'm no native speaker. 02.09.2004

---

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't merge Esoteric knowledge and Occult (and probably esotericism). If these articles need to be differentiated more strongly then we need to write text that does this.

Only issue I imagine occurring is one of interpretation: the 'Occult' often implies (incorrectly, of course) an opposition to Christianity &/or other non-Occult oriented fields of interest..in my opinion, other than this (if it's in the least important) there'd be no issue.

---

There does seem to be quite a bit of overlap in the articles.

I usually think of "esoteric" as something that is still somehow within the confines of a more esoteric tradition or religion - like Sufism to Islam, or maybe Gnosticism to Christianity (although perhaps not all Gnostics would fit in this category).

To me, the "occult" involves those traditions or practices that fall outside of a religious category - like Magick, Hermeticism, Alchemy. - RL Barrett 22:23 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

This whole article (Occult) strikes me as redundant as well. Anything that could be covered in here is done much better in the previously mentioned pages, as well as Magic and New Age. Is there any need to keep it up except the definition?

---

Occult is derived from a Latin word meaning hidden. For all the ages of man there have been hidden things, and will continue to be. Occult is not nessecarily associated with magic satan or any other title thereof, it simply is not known. The fact of the matter is there will always be the occult. There may not be government conspiracies, but there can and have been secrets kept for the fact they can be kept.

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)

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, they do not deserve they tax evasion. The very fact they express their opinions on this page is vial and worthy no more.

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.

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)

-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.