QUOTE(bym @ Nov 20 2009, 05:19 PM)
This is what I get for voicing my opinion about Newage...which was directed towards the idea of occult paradigms being 'universal'. You seem to want to disagree on the basis that I'm labelling or trying to pigeon hole you. I'm not. I have reiterated ad nauseum the focus of this discussion yet somehow it keeps being wrenched around to focus on peoples reasons to disagree with previous off-track commentary. It is not about anybody on this Forum! I'm happy for our diversity but this is starting to beat a dead horse. Let's concentrate, rather, on why the ancient Jews/Xtians stipulated what they did or why they did it instead of soapboxing about our anomalies and why these leave us unique and not part of the scenario of the Abramelin working. Copuld we try to do this? I have a great respect to the trials and solutions that each one of us has had in magic. If you find yourself confined in a box then I suggest that you get out of it for I have not had any part of putting you in one! I have an axe to grind about 'Newage' and its homogenizations but that isn't aimed at YOU.
I am (yet again) unaware of my being 'offended', why do people keep assuming that I am?
frankly I agree that the modern trend is towards paradigm merger, in which something of the original paradigms is always lost. I am ambivalent about that trend. for everything lost there are new things gained as well. But overall I think I dislike the lack of diversity of thought which such a trend creates. Anyway, several people mentioned new agers blending everything together and erasing 'difference'. I simply pulled your name out of a hat as an example of that sentiment, to respond to it.
It would be hard, I think, in this thread, to say that newagers erroneously blend everything together and act like 'its all the same'... without in some way implying that those who disagree with you in this thread have fallen victim to that way of thinking. I mean, why else bring it up? how does it relate to the thread except as a detracting point against those who disagree with your view, and feel that strict gender stereotypes in magical practice are invalid. I don't see how that could *not* be meant to be directed at the opposing viewpoint in this thread. I just responded to it, and without any animosity I might add. And I don't think your sentiment about newage tendencies is offensive at all. It's an interesting point that needed to be brought up in order to debate this issue exhaustively.
also, I feel that much of my previous post is very legitimately on the thread's topic (unlike this post). Personally I felt it 'all' was or i wouldn't have posted it. But I'm trying to see why you would think otherwise, and I'm really genuinely not getting it. People who disagree will often do so based on different bodies of evidence, that means people with differing viewpoints will likely bring 'other' ideas & points to the table which are different from your own pool of evidence which supports your own rationale. It would be very easy and natural to feel that the reasoning & evidence behind the thinking of someone who disagrees with you are less relevant than one's own reasonings and evidence, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are.
I am arguing, that the entire notion of "strict" black&white gender role stereotyping is archaic and dogmatic. In magick or in anything else. I mean heck, a muslim would argue that a woman couldn't do such a ritual because her 'energy' has the resonance of "property", and property can't be enlightened. It's all pretty arbitrary in the end. Anyway, my view seems 'on topic' to me. If not, then I really am confused about the purpose of this thread.
When you say "This is what I get for..." what do you mean? I genuinely don't see what it is about my post which has upset you, particularly in the quoted excerpt. I really don't see what it is about my post which would make you feel that you've incurred some sort of ire... in a word, wtf dude?
I simply disagree with you, vagrant, and a few others.
That doesn't make mean I'm angry, or biased, or influenced by erroneous modern trends, or thinking in a box, or that I have issues, or that I'm attacking anyone, or making anything personal. It also doesn't mean that I'm automatically wrong. This is honestly the very first post in this thread (contrary to popular belief) where I've responded with some degree of emotional duress. And that emotion is primarily disappointment, with a soft seasoning of annoyance. I had hoped my post would be more constructive than it seems to be, and I am gradually growing annoyed at various presumptions being made about my feelings, thinking, motivations, etc.
I just disagree, that's all, nothing else, fin.
This post has been edited by Kath: Nov 21 2009, 03:13 AM