>>19645088
Today's message will be very quick.
Let me know if you need help with Schopenhauer. Most philosophers (especially egregiously Hegel) were insufficient prosaists, but Schopenhauer is elegant and lucid. His semantics follow cleanly, one to one, clear and organized syntax, so that your understanding is not deceived by incessant clausal games. In fact, upon reading a sentence you don't understand, reread it and then slowly splay out every idea in sequence. This works because what he says is useful, and useless/bad terms are often a vague semantic melee (Hegel!!!). In discourse proper, always remember that if a term is "hard to describe," it's probably bad.
>>19645655
There's a reason why the higher you go in philosophy, the closer you get to magic.
A witch (or magician, as the greatest magicians were, for good reason, philosophers first (Wittgenstein, Nagarjuna)) should look to all things in general to develop their magic, as should a philosopher across all disciplines, proximal and extraneous, to know the game he's playing. Wittgenstein's Remarks posit that the end of metaphysics (religion too) is magic, and he's correct. What he said goes in line with the bygone magics we find in esotericism and eastern philosophy.
Let it be known that a magical grimoire is just the musing or continuum of one's developed form of magic sought to be shared or contained, aka a philosophical thesis. How a magician attains magic is with solemn respect to the universe magic has outlined to be drawn by the will, which is just another way of saying metaphysics. I'm considering a real venture into this soon, actually (in a few threads). Maybe I'll write a few pages together.
>>19645788
I've got your back (in a few weeks).