Some questions from a novice.
bria...@camalott.com
Hello and good day/evening/dead of night/whenever you happen to be
reading. :-) I am a not-even-novice who has a couple of related
questions about magickal practice and how it affects the magus and the
world at large.
A bit of introduction and background is no doubt in order. I've long
been a student of the occult, and it gives me no greater joy than to
pore through some ancient tome and try to find some bit of esoteric and
archaic knowledge. Naturally, during these studies I picked up a few of
the "old standard" grimoires and perused them.
My first attempt at magick, which grew out of that interest, was
flawed from the start. Filled with faux visions of hurling fireballs
'round the firmament, I soon became disenchanted with the numerous
modern volumes and reprints of ancient books I'd acquired. I put them
away and went on with my life.
Lately, however, I've experienced what I can only describe as a
spiritual reawakening. I started persusing those old, dust-covered
volumes again and found among them truths and the beauty -- and subtlety
-- of magick that I'd missed before. I am once again inspired to learn,
and I believe this time it's for the right reasons.
Now, on to my queries.
At the core of both questions is something that I consider essential
to my continued progress with magick: How much can the magician's
reality affect the reality of another?
I tend to follow the line of thought that magick is preceded by a
shift in awareness which primarily affects the magus' personal reality.
Once this shift is effected, it becomes possible to enact the more
traditional definition held by Crowley and others: "Change according to
the Will."
Personal transformation through magick and ritual is common, and it
seems to be a primary use of the Art. But by its very nature, magick is
also assumed to offer the practicioner the means to affect the world
itself, at least according to what I've read and those who I've managed
to speak with personally.
So with that in mind, let us examine the following sequence:
A) MAGUS casts spell with intent to do Y to X.
B) X is in no way aware of MAGUS, his intentions or even his spell.
This brings us to the logical question:
C) What happens next, exactly? Y? Something different? Nothing at
all?
If we assume that each of us perceives the universe in an individual
way and that magick helps us redefine that "universe," then personal
change is logical and in no way conflicting. But how much can we affect,
say, the personal realm of our neighbor's reality?
I can illustrate my question another way:
Say you and a friend drop stones into a pond, fairly close to each
other. Each produces a pattern of ripples, which radiate out from the
center. The stone that created the ripples is an act of will, in this
case magick
Eventually, the waves will intersect and affect each other. I guess
the question, in this form, would be "How much can the waves I produce
really affect the 'natural' waves being produced by others' mundane
actions upon their reality?" Is it essential they know and believe what
I'm doing?
That's the first dilemma. Here's the second:
I really hate to use this, but here it goes. :-) When I was a child,
one of the most infamous and terrible entities we were certain haunted
the darkened hallways of each and every child's home was a mysterious
figure by the name of "Bloody Mary."
Yes, I realize I'm resulting to the use of some playground myth in
an attempt to understand magickal thought, but bear with me, okay? ;-)
Back when I was in college a few years ago, a friend who did
practice magery and I got into an interesting discussion about this
childhood legend. It seems that even though his schoolyard was hundreds
and hundreds of miles away, the vile mechanizations of Mary still held
sway.
For the uninitiated, "Bloody Mary" was summoned to our plane, or so
it was told to me in the school cafeteria, by secreting oneself in a
darkened room, finding a mirror, and chanting her name three times while
gazing into the reflecting glass. She would then appear to do Horrible
Things, which were never really outlined because they were ... er ... so
horrible.
This schoolboy legend formed the core of our debate and it forms the
core of my next topic: The veracity -- or lack thereof -- of spontaneous
magick.
I started thinking about how much I believed in Mary when I was
young and how absolutely frightened I was of mirrors for quite some time
after listening to the initial story.
I thought of all that belief among my friends. All the fear produced
collectively.
I thought that surely we weren't the only kids in my hometown who at
one time believed. And it was a pretty complete belief for me at the
time, I assure you. (I was five. Cut me some slack, okay?) :-)
I thought of how far-flung that particular belief must have run if
it had reached my friend in his far-away schoolyard. I thought of all
those children -- and perhaps some adults -- believing and fearing.
Then I thought to myself: What a situation ripe for a spontaneous
expression of magick.
The will, in this case, is the belief, especially among those who
were brave/foolish enough to try the ritual itself. The method by which
the necessary reality shift would be accomplished is the fear the story
and the (imagined?) entity produced.
Can such a thing happen? I don't mean necessarily that thanks to me
and my pals there's some ancient hag that can zap in through mirrors and
grab children running around. But I know lots of magi who work with
archetypical spirits and such, and it occurs to me that such an entity
would have considerable potential for such workings. (Although I'd
consider it ill-advised to use her.)
So, can we create something like Mary just by collective force of
will? If not just childhood legends why not gods and goddesses as well?
Are they all just expressions of enough collective reality shifts? Or
can they somehow exist on their own?
Whew. Sorry for the length of this post, but I really wanted to get
these out there. I look forward to hearing from everyone. Your thoughts
are most valued and valuable.
Thanks again,
Brian
bria...@camalott.com
-------------------------- http://forumsweb.com -------------------------
Free private/public online conferencing and Usenet newsgroups
dcl...@best.com
In article <brianbet...@forumsweb.com>, <bria...@camalott.com> wrote:
>Hello and good day/evening/dead of night/whenever you happen to be
>reading. :-) I am a not-even-novice who has a couple of related
>questions about magickal practice and how it affects the magus and the
>world at large.
you must stop the words.
the remainder of your post is just social noise and ego massage.
you must stop the words.
josh
Patrick Schaaf
pault...@aol.com (PaulTOlson) writes:
>>How much can the magician's reality affect the reality of another?
>a pound of flax.
Two pounds, actually. You obviously still live in your '60ies fantasy world.
Ponder inflation, dude...
Patrick
Tom Schuler
On Wed, 30 Jul 97 20:19:43 -0800, bria...@camalott.com wrote:
>How much can the magician's reality affect the reality of another?
This is a question which has no definitive answer. How would you
know? All your data comes from your own reality. How much of what
you perceive about another is merely your reality and has nothing to
do with what they are perceiving?
> I tend to follow the line of thought that magick is preceded by a
>shift in awareness which primarily affects the magus' personal reality.
This assumes an impersonal reality which is knowable. How certain are
you of this assumption?
> Personal transformation through magick and ritual is common, and it
>seems to be a primary use of the Art. But by its very nature, magick is
>also assumed to offer the practicioner the means to affect the world
>itself, at least according to what I've read and those who I've managed
>to speak with personally.
Again, what do you mean by "the world"? How certain are you that you
are seeing phenomena which are not tinged by your own beliefs and
expectations?
> So with that in mind, let us examine the following sequence:
> A) MAGUS casts spell with intent to do Y to X.
> B) X is in no way aware of MAGUS, his intentions or even his spell.
> This brings us to the logical question:
> C) What happens next, exactly? Y? Something different? Nothing at
>all?
Most times, the effects of operations like this are determined after
the fact. Whatever happens that appears to be in line with the
magician's intent is seen as the result and those things which are not
in line are ignored. So, who was affected, the magician or the
target?
Establishing a causal relationship between a magical ceremony and a
physical event which manifests to the magician at a later time is
always problematical. Cause and effect is a debatable issue in
magick.
> If we assume that each of us perceives the universe in an individual
>way and that magick helps us redefine that "universe," then personal
>change is logical and in no way conflicting. But how much can we affect,
>say, the personal realm of our neighbor's reality?
Mostly, we can have effects upon other's perceptions of reality by the
use of mutually understood symbols, both verbal and non-verbal, and
through physical action. Magical ceremonies, in and of themselves,
rarely have any effect which is reported by the intended target.
Again, the interpretation of subsequent events by the magician as
"results" can largely be discounted if those results were not
specifically outlined in advance and are not replicable.
> Eventually, the waves will intersect and affect each other. I guess
>the question, in this form, would be "How much can the waves I produce
>really affect the 'natural' waves being produced by others' mundane
>actions upon their reality?" Is it essential they know and believe what
>I'm doing?
There are too many variables here to give you any sort of precise
answer. It is sometimes helpful to let someone know what you are
doing, but it does not appear to be necessary. Remember that specific
results, reliably replicable, are rare to the point of non-existence
in magick.
>When I was a child,
>one of the most infamous and terrible entities we were certain haunted
>the darkened hallways of each and every child's home was a mysterious
>figure by the name of "Bloody Mary."
<snip>
> For the uninitiated, "Bloody Mary" was summoned to our plane, or so
>it was told to me in the school cafeteria, by secreting oneself in a
>darkened room, finding a mirror, and chanting her name three times while
>gazing into the reflecting glass. She would then appear to do Horrible
>Things, which were never really outlined because they were ... er ... so
>horrible.
<snip>
> Can such a thing happen? I don't mean necessarily that thanks to me
>and my pals there's some ancient hag that can zap in through mirrors and
>grab children running around. But I know lots of magi who work with
>archetypical spirits and such, and it occurs to me that such an entity
>would have considerable potential for such workings. (Although I'd
>consider it ill-advised to use her.)
We can create mental images and animate them to the point where they
seem like independent entities. We can assign these images whatever
attributes we wish. The more emotional content they have, the more
potent they appear to be.
> So, can we create something like Mary just by collective force of
>will? If not just childhood legends why not gods and goddesses as well?
Collective? Well, when many people believe the same thing, it makes
it easier for us to believe it too. Does the image take on a truly
independent existence? It seems unlikely. Gods don't appear to
non-believers as gods.
PaulTOlson
>>>How much can the magician's reality affect the reality of another?
>>a pound of flax.
>Two pounds, actually. You obviously still live in your '60ies fantasy
world.
>Ponder inflation, dude...
Thank you, Patrick.
I wondered why my "spells" weren't working.
Now that I have this information -- I can cast the spell that will make
BOTH Cindy Crawford and Richard Gere fall hopelessly madly in love with
me!
<Maniacal laughter>
No one can stop me now!
G Leake
d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
This is a question which has no definitive answer.
*yes, and it is one of the more critical questions that hardly ever gets
addressed. People are far too much preoccupied with titillation and
gossip.
How would you
know? All your data comes from your own reality. How much of what
you perceive about another is merely your reality and has nothing to
do with what they are perceiving?
*which is probably the best answer. Nice work Tom
> I tend to follow the line of thought that magick is preceded by a
>shift in awareness which primarily affects the magus' personal reality.
This assumes an impersonal reality which is knowable. How certain are
you of this assumption?
*let me address that one--this is where gnosis and praeterhuman
intelligences come in. Which in the west--I say even within Thelema--tend
to have christian undertones
> Personal transformation through magick and ritual is common, and it
>seems to be a primary use of the Art. But by its very nature, magick is
>also assumed to offer the practicioner the means to affect the world
>itself, at least according to what I've read and those who I've managed
>to speak with personally.
Again, what do you mean by "the world"? How certain are you that you
are seeing phenomena which are not tinged by your own beliefs and
expectations?
*right--and one doesn't have to delve into the mind of a schizophrenic to
see this. In a reading group, we all agreed that each time we re-read
Finnegans Wake by James Joyce, it was a new experience, because the
experience of reading it itself was transformative, always we are
spiralling to some unseen center.
> So with that in mind, let us examine the following sequence:
> A) MAGUS casts spell with intent to do Y to X.
> B) X is in no way aware of MAGUS, his intentions or even his spell.
> This brings us to the logical question:
> C) What happens next, exactly? Y? Something different? Nothing at
>all?
Most times, the effects of operations like this are determined after
the fact. Whatever happens that appears to be in line with the
magician's intent is seen as the result and those things which are not
in line are ignored. So, who was affected, the magician or the
target?
Establishing a causal relationship between a magical ceremony and a
physical event which manifests to the magician at a later time is
always problematical. Cause and effect is a debatable issue in
magick.
*and perhaps unresovable by its nature, like the question of the existence
of God. This cause and effect thing tends to raise the issue of
synchronicity and the holographic universe and is everything really
connected through space and time...
*one fascinating modern study of magick and belief that hardly ever gets
mentioned is TM Luhrman's Persuasions of the Witches' Craft. Very
academic, but engaging. I heartily recommend it to our "novice" with
excellent questions, and all else.
--
Therefore all those who desire to attain the blessing of this art should apply themselves to study, should gather the truth from the books and not from invented fables and untruthful works. There is no way by which this art can truly be found (although men meet with many deceptions), except by completing their studies and understanding the words of the philosophers
Theatrum Chemicum. Volume II. (Hæredes: Zetzner, 1659), page 387
George Leake
*OBLIGATORY "TRESPASSERS WILL BE VIOLATED" TYPE WARNING*
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation.
Tom Schuler
In article <squeegee-050...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>, sque...@your.third.eye (G Leake) wrote:
>Tom Schuler wrote:
>This assumes an impersonal reality which is knowable. How certain are
>you of this assumption?
>
>intelligences come in. Which in the west--I say even within Thelema--tend
>to have christian undertones
Gnosis is "received knowledge", isn't it? How is it distinguished from
guesswork and confabulation? There are many stories told by those who claim
some sort of enlightenment and proclaim this or that prophecy. At some point
you have to decide if you believe it or not. Usually, it is completely
untestable and "knowing" is nothing more than firmly held belief. Even when
it is testable, it is only testable in finite ways, which leave open the
possibility that our sample was skewed in some unknown way. We cannot be
certain of any assertion. We can make assumptions but we should always allow
the possibility that they are incorrect.
>*one fascinating modern study of magick and belief that hardly ever gets
>mentioned is TM Luhrman's Persuasions of the Witches' Craft. Very
>academic, but engaging. I heartily recommend it to our "novice" with
>excellent questions, and all else.
Sooner or later, Wicca, if it is to survive in its current form, must produce
a philosophical luminary who will express a coherent and consistent vision of
their faith. Then they will be a religion to be taken seriously. Are they
getting closer, do you think?
peter li'ir key
dcl...@best.com wrote:
> <bria...@camalott.com> wrote:
> >Hello and good day/evening/dead of night/whenever you happen to be
> >reading. :-) I am a not-even-novice who has a couple of related
> >questions about magickal practice and how it affects the
> >magus and the world at large.
> the remainder of your post is just social noise and ego massage.
> you must stop the words.
you talk to much.
anyhow, watching planes fly overhead isn't going to
teach brian diddly.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
peter li'ir key
PaulTOlson wrote:
> >How much can the magician's reality affect the reality of another?
my brainwashed minions will be beating you up with a pound of flax.
please do not hesitate to crawl under the nearest bed.
G Leake
d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
Gnosis is "received knowledge", isn't it? How is it distinguished from
guesswork and confabulation?
all one in a sort of a flash of brilliance
*guesswork, confabulation, perhaps even hours of sitting down working out
a theory--what you're describing is exactly what every scientist,
architect and composer does. There's the comparison. To compare what
you're talking about to gnosis really has no relevance.
There are many stories told by those who claim
some sort of enlightenment and proclaim this or that prophecy. At some point
you have to decide if you believe it or not. Usually, it is completely
untestable and "knowing" is nothing more than firmly held belief. Even when
it is testable, it is only testable in finite ways, which leave open the
possibility that our sample was skewed in some unknown way. We cannot be
certain of any assertion. We can make assumptions but we should always allow
the possibility that they are incorrect.
*but that's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, isn't it?
Like using a hammer on a lug nut. You don't "test" a vision using the
tools of guesswork, pragmatic science or confabulation Tom. Its not
something one thinks up, even, much less the blueprint for the Titanic!
Sooner or later, Wicca, if it is to survive in its current form, must produce
a philosophical luminary who will express a coherent and consistent vision of
their faith. Then they will be a religion to be taken seriously. Are they
getting closer, do you think?
*that's entirely irrelevant to the TM Luhrman reference, or the angle to
which I recommended it. You just decided on your own, didn't you, that it
was a book about Wicca? It certainly talks about Wicca, but there are
other "witchcraft" traditions, in case you didn't know, and besides the
Luhrman gets into a number of other traditions including Christian ones.
The *relevance* of the Luhrman to the previous discussion had to do with
the nature of belief. Check it out for yourself.
*as to Wicca, I say who knows--I mean isn't the idea always so personal,
and aren't the works of Gardner, Starhawk and others sufficient enough?