Questing
Simon
Is anybody on the net familiar with Andrew Collins' books about
Psychic Questing - _The Black Alchemist_ (published by Arrow 1992 ISBN
0099165511 - first published by ABC 1988) and _The Seventh Sword_
(published by Arrow 1991 ISBN 0099888009) are the ones I'm familiar
with, are there any others ??
Being a practitioner of Ritual Magic (If generous I would say I'm a
beginner)as well as an adventurous soul I was immediately fascinated
by Collin's books and _Psychic Questing_ itself (especially first hand
accounts from practitioners). I am seriously considering starting a
group but I feel that I need more information on the possible risks
and rewards the practice entails esp. as up until now
my magic practices have been largely solitary, internalised
experiences.(OH, BTW please hold the lectures on what the _real_
purpose of magic is; I'm finding that out just fine, this is really a
sideline.. ;) ). Also I live in a country which has different dynamics
than the U.K, so I would be looking at a different
form of psychic questing (by this I mean actually enforcing or
creating positive magical rituals rather than couteracting negative
ones - a bit muddled I know,why do you think I'm looking for advice ;D
)
I am looking for any information on psychic questing or Andew Collins:
First prize would be for somebody who practices this to link up with
me
Second prize would be any net resources
Third prize would be pointers to additional books I might be able to
get ahold of.
OF course any comments or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!!
(And anybody in South Africa interested in founding such a group with
me is welcome to e-mail me I'm based in JHB, but move between here and
Durban often so...)
HERE is a bit of information on _Psychic Questing_ from the foreword
of _The Black Alchemist_ for those of you who might be interested:
"_The Black Alchemist_ is a book about Psychic Questing, the most
exciting and yet cotroversial aspect of psychical research in the
country today. In simple terms it takes the psychic out of the seance
room and into the landscape. Visionary experiences, powerful dreams,
supernatural encounters, the retrieval of concealed relics and other,
more clandestine activities all blend together to form the basis
of this fast growing occupation..."
Thanks,
Simon.
joshua geller
In article <32a5acf2...@news.global.co.za>,
Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>Being a practitioner of Ritual Magic
you say this. what do you mean by these words?
josh
Simon
What are you looking for Josh? A discussion on what I wish to achieve through my use of
magic and ritual, an explanation of systems I use??
What do you wish clarity on 'practitoner' or 'Ritual Magic'?
Why??
Do you perhaps have some information for me if I give the appropriate answer?
Confused,
Simon.
joshua geller
In article <32a0db78...@news.global.co.za>,
Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>On 28 Nov 1996 16:00:39 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>>In article <32a5acf2...@news.global.co.za>,
>>Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>>>Being a practitioner of Ritual Magic
>>you say this. what do you mean by these words?
>What are you looking for Josh?
?
I asked a question. I picked my words very carefully. what does 'magic'
mean? and 'ritual magic'? and 'practitioner of ritual magic'?
josh
Simon
On 29 Nov 1996 13:06:21 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>>>In article <32a5acf2...@news.global.co.za>,
>>>Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
>>>>Being a practitioner of Ritual Magic
>
>>>you say this. what do you mean by these words?
>
>>What are you looking for Josh?
>
>?
>
>I asked a question. I picked my words very carefully. what does 'magic'
>mean? and 'ritual magic'? and 'practitioner of ritual magic'?
>
>josh
Sorry if I'm being obtuse but before I launch into a long discussion would you mind
telling me why you want to know??
Simon.
joshua geller
In article <32aac8b1...@news.global.co.za>,
Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>On 29 Nov 1996 13:06:21 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>>I asked a question. I picked my words very carefully. what does 'magic'
>>mean? and 'ritual magic'? and 'practitioner of ritual magic'?
>Sorry if I'm being obtuse but before I launch into a long discussion
>would you mind telling me why you want to know??
if it would be a long discussion, you are missing something. if you do
not understand why these questions are being asked, it is unlikely you
are what you say (and even maybe think) you are.
josh
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <32aac8b1...@news.global.co.za>,
ande...@global.co.za (Simon) wrote:
>On 29 Nov 1996 13:06:21 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>>>>Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Being a practitioner of Ritual Magic
>>
>>>>you say this. what do you mean by these words?
>>
>>>What are you looking for Josh?
>>
>>mean? and 'ritual magic'? and 'practitioner of ritual magic'?
>
>Sorry if I'm being obtuse but before I launch into a long discussion would
>you mind telling me why you want to know??
Would you mind telling me why you need to know Josh's reasons before you
explain a statement you made?
Oh, and as for why *I* am interested, I am curious and I like to hear from
others who are interested in the same things as I am.
Simon
Maybe I've got off to a bad start here, the reason I've answered Josh's question the way I
did was that I could not help but feeling that I was being tested.
Josh has not made an attempt to answer my original post, looking into his question I get
the feeling that by saying "you say this. what do you mean by these words?" Josh is in
effect not asking for an eplanation of the practice of Ritual Magic but rather questioning
me personally.
I asked for Josh's reasons because I would hope that his request for an explanation would
have some bearing upon my original question.
Simon
M. Kaplan
On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Simon wrote:
>
> Maybe I've got off to a bad start here, the reason I've answered Josh's
> question the way I did was that I could not help but feeling that I was
>being tested.
>
You were being tested.
I imagine that Josh values his knowledge enough to want to figure out
where a person is coming from before he gives away information. Why spend
energy on someone who would not understand or appreciate it?
I think in contemporary culture, or at least the culture of
"intellectuals", we have some unchallenged idea that just by
asking a question we deserve to be told the answer. Also, we think that
if we understand the question, we'll understand the answer.
> Josh has not made an attempt to answer my original post,
Obviously, he has answered your original post.
>looking into his question I get
> the feeling that by saying "you say this. what do you mean by these
>words?" Josh is in effect not asking for an eplanation of the practice of
>Ritual Magic but rather questioning me personally.
What is the difference between "asking for an explanation of the practice
of Ritual Magic" and "questioning (you) personally"? Do you think there
is some generic explanation of the practice of ritual magic? That
explains why you think he was "testing" you.
>
> I asked for Josh's reasons because I would hope
>that his request for an explanation would
> have some bearing upon my original question.
>
I hope I have explained how Josh's request has bearing upon answering your
original question. I also think that this dialogue in itself has answered
a certain aspect of your original questions - let go of your defensiveness
and re-read Josh's and others' responses to you and eachother. What are
people saying? What is the true meaning behind their questions?
good luck.
You've been holding up to the pressure quite well, and better than many
others (including me, at least the "old me", before I "understood")
lilith
ps - Josh - I hope I haven't misinterpreted or misunderstood you. But,
I'm sure you'd tell me if I have!!
joshua geller
In article <32b00f1d...@news.global.co.za>,
Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>
>No, I do not understand why these questions are being asked, pehaps you could
>endeavor to explain, rather than continually insinuating - a post longer than
>five lines would be considered sufficient.
you use many words.
josh
Simon
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:49:35 -0800, "M. Kaplan" <lil...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Simon wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe I've got off to a bad start here, the reason I've answered Josh's
>> question the way I did was that I could not help but feeling that I was
>>being tested.
>>
>
>You were being tested.
>
>I imagine that Josh values his knowledge enough to want to figure out
>where a person is coming from before he gives away information. Why spend
>energy on someone who would not understand or appreciate it?
**Prepares for another session of tippy-toeing on eggshells**
If these indeed are Josh's reasons what rankles is the assumption that the answer to the
above question is automatically in the negative. I did mention that I was a beginner in
the origional post could this be the reason? Does Josh prefer questioning beginners (maybe
that's unfair - I don't know? if it is I apologise forthwith)
MY _EXACT_ words -(If generous I would say I'm a beginner)
Am I a college student up for my initiation before the fraternity?? (pfui!)
If what you say are indeed Josh's reasons and he is happy to provide me with the
information I seek once I have passed the test I will answer the question (Besides I'm
kinda enjoying the suspense ;) )
>I think in contemporary culture, or at least the culture of
>"intellectuals", we have some unchallenged idea that just by
>asking a question we deserve to be told the answer. Also, we think that
>if we understand the question, we'll understand the answer.
I tend to assume that if people understand the question they will understand the answer,
if they do not, I would then hope that they would ask for further clarification of the
answer. I've taught before and find that most students tend to go a lot further with
aassistance (esp. underpiviledged students - writing them off before helping them is a
mistake). Guess I'm a kinda "glass is half full" sort of person.
>> Josh has not made an attempt to answer my original post,
>
>Obviously, he has answered your original post.
I dont understand how you can say this he has _replied_ to my post. Josh has not provided
me with information substantive to Questing.
>>looking into his question I get
>> the feeling that by saying "you say this. what do you mean by these
>>words?" Josh is in effect not asking for an eplanation of the practice of
>>Ritual Magic but rather questioning me personally.
>
>What is the difference between "asking for an explanation of the practice
>of Ritual Magic" and "questioning (you) personally"?
In instance A he could be seeking enlightenment and truly have no idea ( please realise
that I'm new to the group - I now know that this is obviously not the cae)
In instance B he is testing me. Why, he has yet to tell me perhaps you are right when you
say it is because, "... Josh values his knowledge enough to want to figure out where a
person is coming from before he gives away information". I would like Josh to inform me.
>Do you think there
>is some generic explanation of the practice of ritual magic? That
>explains why you think he was "testing" you.
Without giving too much away; yes I do think there is some generic explanation of the
practice of ritual magic (albeit an immensely broad one), otherwise why call it such. I am
not here suggesting that methods, objectives and results do not vary greatly from
practitioner to practitoner - I believe they can and often do.
>>
>> I asked for Josh's reasons because I would hope
>>that his request for an explanation would
>> have some bearing upon my original question.
>>
>
>I hope I have explained how Josh's request has bearing upon answering your
>original question. I also think that this dialogue in itself has answered
>a certain aspect of your original questions - let go of your defensiveness
>and re-read Josh's and others' responses to you and eachother. What are
>people saying? What is the true meaning behind their questions?
My defensiveness I think if well founded, If one gets the feeling that your jugular is in
jepoardy, why expose it?
GOSH thats a strong statement - I say that because I had an intuitive feeling that this
was the case - let me try to explain why.
Josh has replied to my postings with two bulleted out one line questions and a flat out
statement that I was a Liar, the only explanations I have got have been from yourself
(good) and Gratuitous Pseudonym (partial - for his own question).
>good luck.
>You've been holding up to the pressure quite well, and better than many
>others (including me, at least the "old me", before I "understood")
Why thank you, that helps somewhat. I am feeling very set upon and from somebody who is
obviously quite an important personality in the group.
I still don't _understand_ that is why I would like an explanation.
>lilith
>
>ps - Josh - I hope I haven't misinterpreted or misunderstood you. But,
>I'm sure you'd tell me if I have!!
Josh, twice before in this post I've asked you if lilith's interpertations are correct,
this is no.3.
Simon
Simon
On 2 Dec 1996 16:17:57 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>In article <32aac8b1...@news.global.co.za>,
>Simon <ande...@global.co.za> wrote:
>>On 29 Nov 1996 13:06:21 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>
>>>I asked a question. I picked my words very carefully. what does 'magic'
>>>mean? and 'ritual magic'? and 'practitioner of ritual magic'?
>
>>Sorry if I'm being obtuse but before I launch into a long discussion
>>would you mind telling me why you want to know??
>
>if it would be a long discussion, you are missing something. if you do
>not understand why these questions are being asked,
No, I do not understand why these questions are being asked, pehaps you could endeavor to
explain, rather than continually insinuating - a post of longer than five lines would be
considered sufficient.
>it is unlikely you are what you say (and even maybe think) you are.
Thats quite an assumption, would you care to qualify it or do you normally find that an
offhand aspersion is sufficient.
Please remember that I am the one on the spot here (which is fair enough as I'm a newcomer
to the group). But perhaps you could consider approaching people in a slightly different
manner. For starters a little bit of rephrasing or an explanation might make people feel a
bit more forthcoming.
The reason I have reacted as I have:
You take one line out a fifty line post to question without making any reference
whatsoever to the rest of the post -
It's like I stopped you in the street and asked for the time and you replied
"What do you mean by time?"
Now I am not adverse to a discussion on the nature of time I just feel somewhat thrown and
confused as would most people when confronted by such a question.
Could you naot have said "Well thats quite a question and I'm not willing to give you any
further information until I fully appreciate that you know what you're getting into. Would
you therefore mind telling me what you understand to be the nature of time to be. If you
can then satisfy me I will willingly give you the time of day. (sorry couldn't resist
that!)"
Essentially what I'm saying is if you feel that you need to know what I mean when I refer
to myself as a practitioner of ritual magic before feeling comfortable with answering my
question you should say so. I'm trying to find out what the time is and I get this heavily
loaded question - obviously I'm going to be off balance, but perhaps that was your
intention all along.
Simon
Simon
On 2 Dec 1996 16:17:57 -0800, dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
>if it would be a long discussion, you are missing something. if you do
>not understand why these questions are being asked, it is unlikely you
>are what you say (and even maybe think) you are.
Thinking about this comment of yours I opened Illusions by Richard Bach the paragraph
said,
"Yeah. Believe you know all the answers, and you know all the answers. Believe you're a
master and you are."
This is for me exactly what magic is, YMMV.
Simon
Shez
ande...@global.co.za (Simon) writes:
> "M. Kaplan" <lil...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Simon wrote:
> ... various things...
>
I just looked back at the original post and josh's reply, and it looks
innocuous enough to me. Simon stated he was a practitioner of ritual
magic, and josh asked him what he meant by this. josh's brevity is often
interpreted as hostility, but only poseurs need have anything to fear
from being asked exactly what they mean, and alt.magick is not for
poseurs or fluffy bunnies.
The term magic covers a multitude of sins, and in saying they are
practitioners of it people are saying even less. As for ritual, some
people screw their eyes up tight and make a wish, others make arcane
symbols on the floor with chalk. "Ritual" does however suggest some
formal body of knowledge, in which case it would be better to specify
the brand name. Then people would have an idea as to which of many
possible universes you think you live in.
Since magic is so different for different people, answering a specific
question is not of much value unless you know where the questioner is
coming from. It might satisfy the responder's ego, but like as not it'll
be of no relevance to the original questioner. Some people believe magic
is psychological, some think it is literally true, and some just don't
think at all.
Even if you do answer josh's question you won't necessarily get an
answer to your original question - alt.magick is not a panacea - but
this newsgroup does offer the opportunity for people to clarify their
ideas of what magick is about, through engaging in discussions such as
this one.
> >ps - Josh - I hope I haven't misinterpreted or misunderstood you. But,
> >I'm sure you'd tell me if I have!!
>
> Josh, twice before in this post I've asked you if lilith's
> interpertations are correct, this is no.3.
josh just means what he says. The advantage of his brevity is that
there's not much scope for confusion unless people are already confused.
________________________________________________________________
Both fairies and particles are disturbed by the act of being
observed. There are quantum events at the bottom of the garden.
We cannot know particles in themselves, but only by the traces
they leave, like tiny yetis. -- Patrick Harpur
________________________________________________________________
-Shez.
_____________________________________________________________
hdU+++0cZgzIKTCF0DtD-Y-tyLDH-AvirpaNifmme31g817TvDjPVu72vMtq+
03jC+ ############# Omnia Quia Sunt Lumina Sunt #############