Women and Men, Their Roles in Magic Options

Some of us can 'read' energy as it flows through your own and other people's bodies. After you've read a few hundred or thousand people, you notice the differences.

You mean that men and women process energy in different ways, as in no man processes energy in the same way that any woman does, and that there are only 2 patterns of processing energy, namely female and male (Yin and Yang)?

If this is the case then would it follow that some techniques of Magick would be exclusive to only one of the sexes, like the Abramelin method?

Are there any rituals that have been exclusive to females?

In Gardenerian Wicca, only women are allowed to do the ritual Drawing Down the Moon. This does not mean that a man wouldn't be able to (Alexandrians do a ritual for men called Drawing Down the Sun), but that is is akin to heresy. I'm sure that there are rituals for women only in other belief systems; I just mention DDM because I am familiar with it.

It is a bit more complicated than saying that men are yang and women are yin. It is about an active process, not like something that you can take a static look at. Let me put it this way, you could put me in a room with someone, turn off the lights and blindfold me, tie my hands behind my back (kinky aint it) and I could be able to sense if it is a man or a woman. It wouldn't be because men are more yang and women are more yin. I've met some rather yin men and yang women, but their energy is male or female. It might take a few minutes for me to get a good read on the person, but I'm sure it could be done.

In Gardenerian Wicca, only women are allowed to do the ritual Drawing Down the Moon. This does not mean that a man wouldn't be able to (Alexandrians do a ritual for men called Drawing Down the Sun), but that is is akin to heresy. I'm sure that there are rituals for women only in other belief systems; I just mention DDM because I am familiar with it.

It is a bit more complicated than saying that men are yang and women are yin. It is about an active process, not like something that you can take a static look at. Let me put it this way, you could put me in a room with someone, turn off the lights and blindfold me, tie my hands behind my back (kinky aint it) and I could be able to sense if it is a man or a woman. It wouldn't be because men are more yang and women are more yin. I've met some rather yin men and yang women, but their energy is male or female. It might take a few minutes for me to get a good read on the person, but I'm sure it could be done.

Also lets not forget that humans are part of nature, also it's easy for us to think that we are somehow transcendent of it. We are not.

Nature is an unfathomable process of energetic changes, a continuous differentiation of the original Source, however you want to call it. The chinese in particular grasped this on a very interesting level and their entire system of mysticism is based on changes in that energy that occur in nature (Yi Jing, book of Changes). In this system energy (chi) is described as undergoing changes between differing states in different materials, and that these materials will therefore foster their special kind of changes in other systems - hence the system of chinese herbal medicine (not strictly herbal, per say). This same system is expressed in chinese occult work as well.

The strength of this particular system, and the way in which it complements other systems of energy mechanics, is because it is understood from the beginning that there is one basic energy which undergoes changes in different ways, under different conditions. This can be applied to western energetic mechanics as well as we look at four elemental energies (fifth, Spirit/Akasa is more along the lines of the original substrate) and how they shift from one element to the other, and we can see this in alchemical and natural processes if we learn to think in terms of energetic changes rather than thinking in terms of solid-energy states. Both are correct in their way, and useful, but when we consider how, for instance, men and women handle energy, what we're really discussing is what kind of natural changes occur in energy in men and women.

Those changes are different, fundamentally, in men and women. That is what we really mean when we say that men and women handle energy differently. That doesn't mean that only women can utilize Moon energy, for instance, or that only men can utilize Sun energy - it just means that when held, these energies will act differently in a man than a woman, because of the natural energetic changes that are ongoing in both.

From a yin/yang standpoint, remember that yin and yang are relative terms. If you draw a line and bisect it, you can say one side in yin in relation to the other side being yang. If you maintain the same gradient and again bisect one side or the other then between those two segments one side in yin in relation to the other being yang - even though both parts might be one half of the line originally labeled 'yin'. All energetic concepts can be divided infinitely into yin and yang aspects - every yang aspect is part yin part yang, and the same for Yin aspects as well.

The question of difference is in the tendancy for energy to process in each respective gender in ways particular to that gender - the same quality of difference exists between the changes found in humans vs. individual animals, plants, substances, etc. And in each of those other categories the same difference in process is found between the male and female aspects. From an alchemical view, even minerals have male and female parts in which energy is processed differently.

While it is granted that any two individuals can utilize the same ritual and get results that are similar in their aim but differing in quality and in how they come about; it is likewise seen that if a man and woman do the same ritual they also can get the same results which are similar in their outcome - but the qualitative difference in what changes will be initiated to bring about those aims will be obvious when compared. This isn't a matter of females getting things one way and males getting things another way or how they do that from a behavioral standpoint (none of this is about behavioral trends or 'norms', etc.) - it has to do with natural processes of energy.

Describing it in more specific terms becomes very difficult, for the same reason that describing any energetic change is difficult - there isn't sufficient universal language for it, these are things that can be observed and experienced, but are still not in the realm of 'common' experience that we all share equally. Certain traditions and groups have attempted to do just that, but even then their terminology is specified. When we learn, say, the word 'cup' we have to be shown a cup to attach the word to a solid concept that will be universal for everyone - in any language there will be word comparable to the concept of a 'cup'. If you want to label the various processes of energetic change in males and females, what can you do besides tell a person that they are qualitatively different? You cannot just show a person the difference like you can show them a cup, and not everyone will have a common experience that can be compared.

In practicing energy work, I treat males and females with similar problems differently from a mechanical point of view. Men hold energy in different places naturally than women do, and in each an energetic imbalance of one sort or another can lead to further imbalances of differing natures. For a man with depression issues I will need to focus on rebalancing centers around the shoulders and chest; with women this approach does not have the same effectiveness, they must also be treated around the abdomen and pelvis. The energetic source of their depression is different depending on what kind of depression it is, and what changes are taking place differently for each kind of depression. Usually in an energy work session I can make basic assumptions based on gender alone - assumptions which have borne out to be effective time and time again, and these are assumptions that I was able to develop after several years of seeing clients for this kind of work; not biases that I was taught or conditioned to employ.

And usually when those assumptions do not apply, its not because a woman's energy system is functioning like a mans, or vice versa, but because the root imbalance is less obvious than it originally appeared to be.

If you really want to find out whether or not these basic differences are true - and you don't feel you can trust the thousands of years of experienced masters who have said as much - then you should begin to learn energy work and start exploring on your own. That, in my opinion, is the best way to really learn about the nature of energy in the human system, and by extension learn also about the function and mechanics of energy in the broader sense as well.

The relationship between energy changes and magic or ritual work is direct but subtle. It becomes more obvious the more you are able to observe those changes energetically rather than the concrete results themselves - and that in itself is a skill worth developing as magic become more fine tuned when you can actually 'see' what you're doing and how it is playing out.

peace

Yeah, what he said. lol

The discussion has become too broad... if you excuse the pun... the occult world is too vast to contemplate all systems in such a way as each have a diffrent goal... I still hold to my opinion on those that have enlightenment or HGA contact as their purpose which is what started the discussion.

This post has been edited by Mchawi: Nov 18 2009, 09:58 AM

... ok, didn't have time to say much back there.

Bit confused as to what people are saying but I'm sticking to my point, if anything I'm genuinely surprised that its that much of a discussion. The universiality of occultism is at the core of such systems, sticking to approaches on enlightenment here, a very obvious example to this is seen in western occultism which is why I'm surprised its being discussed here. Not just talking about the sexes here when I use the big word, universal I'm talking symbologically, ideaologically and so on. A case is being made about the diffrence in energy flow between men and women... its almost a stamp of approval, the age of a particular system the older it is the more trust people have in it, the more its been used, the more power it apparently has but the main reason age has importance in occultism, religion etc is that the more ancient, the further back its ideas and symbols go the deeper it is in our collective consious as human beings... there you have the universal principle to symbology as from the depths of our minds.... western occultism understands this and seeks to go back there and sew together those correspondances as they all stem from the same place, the waters of our collective consiouss and hence are interrelated.... now to use this in the debate here before I get lost in what would otherwise be an intresting point I ask.... what were people like let's say, 4000 years ago? How was their society run? What did they eat? What was the earth like back then? Where was it relation to the stars?

Questions.... over time people change dramatically and yet occultism has, as said, antiquation as its stamp of approval... could even go back further into our history, past the one given by science, Egypt wasn't a patriarchial society at its best, a Queen mother granted power to the kings people know of... those ancient systems and their symbols are of course still around and very much in use today... why? Because they carry universal principle. What is not of God will not stand the test of time.

There is my point.... was going to carry on with the whole ying yang bit about balance, who ever brought the system down did so from the very depths of his or her self and had to be in a state of harmony to do so otherwise the system would be flawed and quite simply wouldn't work etc etc blah blah blah but I think I made my point .lol.

Peace
.M.

well *I* agree with ya Mchawi (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I also agree with Mchawi! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Laie_58.gif)

Amen Mchawi. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Yes....what your point was/is is not the reason why this discussion was formed. Newage always tries to boil down the universal tenents and produce a homogenous loaf.
How enlightened can we get when we go straight to the bottom line? That was NOT the discussion here...though I can certainly understand and mostly agree with what you say but this discussion, again, was about the gender specific roles played in the Abramelin system. I, myself and Me introduced the concept that since men and women are different that they also utilize energy differently thereby , possibly, give rise to the rather slanted idea (of magical work to be performed) that magic and its results may, in fact, be gender specific in SOME of its forms. Hypothesis and theory. To base the writings to only being produced because of a current patriarchal system is self limiting. In your opinion you do not address the basic discussion by centering only on the universality of occult movement and thereby rendering ALL discussion moot. I, myself, am a pan-theist but what I was aiming at was the differences of gender when applied to magic. I support a certain amount of your opinion though , intellectually, can find anomalies in it. So what? I guess what I'm trying to allude to is that there are differences in the formulation of making 'bricks'. Not all bricks are made the same way. You are stating that it is all only a brick. At least, that is my myopic view. I'm talking about pears and apples and you are stuck on 'fruit'. To you it may represent a waste of time and 'too broad' a discussion though I find that the opposite is true.

Newage wants to blend and homogenize everything. Especially 'Western Esoterica'...it goes so far as to include 'Eastern Esoterica' as well! As long as it has been pounded, distilled and forced into a box all is well with the world. Its like the reverse of 'not seeing the forest for the trees'...the forest is made up of many kinds of living and dying things. To summarily lump it all together as 'the forest' is to do it a great injustice...especially since the original discussion WAS talking about a facet of how/why a certain set of criteria in magic was/is used. I respect your(all) opinion(s) about certain values as being universal...this is not a new idea. We were talking about gender roles in the Abramelin working...which devolved into the classic offense/defense concerning men and women. That wasn't the point! When others tried to explain my statement about the energy flow between men and women as being different (and thereby positing the idea of gender bias in the Abramelin working) some took offense (this was the why I moved this to Fight Club) and began to list reasons why we're all the same by listing our differences! Educational, certainly. I'm not going to even think about getting into that willingly! So...now, again, I've reiterated the original premis for this discussion. You all have an opinion. I'd still like to hear some more thought about the whys and wherefores about energy flow and why certain ritual are designed in such a gender specific way. Maybe we CAN'T talk about this. Some of us are willing to think about it. Others do not wish to...I'm not (nor could I) going to strongarm anyone in participating in this discussion. I would like to Thank You all who have! I don't think that the 2 some odd pages devoted to this discussion were wasted. Contemplating ones navel is very much overrated. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/black eye.gif)

I don’t see why we can’t talk about it, anyone with a varying opinion gets replies that imply over sensitivity to the subject or are basically dismissed. I’m still confused at who is taking offense to this discussion.

IMO simply saying men and women work with energy differently is generalizing because ALL people work with energy different. Menstruation was previously given as an example. If a woman who menstruates processes energy different than a man because she can menstruate, also processes energy different than a women incapable of menstruating.

Simply stating men and women process energy different based on physical differences, hormones (which can differ based on deficiencies and treatments) and assumptions is ignorant of the fact that our knowledge of gender is constantly changing. Doctors are just now slowly starting to accept that a women who doesn’t menstruate is as healthy and able to have children as women who can.

Obviously, physically men and women are different, but I don’t think having tits is enough to make me process energy different (if it is then what about a woman with a smaller size or one who lacks mammary glands), but if my biochemistry makes me process energy different than that makes all people process energy different.

Using scientific examples doesn’t prove that ALL women think differently or function 100% differently than men do.

I started to reframe from this discuss because it was getting very silly to me, going from scientific facts to pseudoscience, then to Wiccan rituals which IMO doesn’t support anything. Only women can draw down the moon because women are simply associated with the moon, doesn’t IMO literally have to do with energy gender differences. That would insinuate that women and the “energies” of the moon connect better than men. I personally associate the sun with women (and I’m sure there are others who do too) because of how vital the sun is to the Earth.

To just say women and men work with energy differently is an archaic concept and shows to me, poor understanding of energy and the occult.

I’ve had numerous discussions about energy on forums, radio shows and in person with other occultist and this is the first time anyone has generalized energy based on an outdated belief.

I’m not getting offended or being overly sensitive, I’m just stating my opinion and interpretation of this discussion, no one with an opposing view has yet to state anything that makes me rethink my position. It is possible I’m misinterpreting or not fully understanding this debate.

It is beginning to become a "he said", "she said" sort of argument. I know what I know through personal experience over the past 20 or 25 years. You can't convince me that my ideas are outdated or due to some outdated attitudes towards gender. I am simply remarking on what I've observed. It doesn't mean that women are inferior to men, just that they aren't identical. Aphrodite, you are either misunderstanding the issues or misrepresenting them. There are differences between individuals naturally, but the differences in how the two genders process energy is definitely noticeable. It isn't a 100% difference, but it is a definite difference. I wouldn't call it pseudo-science, just personal experience. I don't need to appeal to authorities or know it because someone told me. I know it because I've seen it and experienced it myself. In philosophy, direct knowledge trumps being told something by an authority. I've worked with energy, experimented with it, tested hypotheses for many years. I'm quite confident of my findings. Like I said, you could put me in a room with someone blindfolded and without touching them or talking with them I could tell whether it was a man or woman within a few minutes by reading how their energy moves. Some people can read others very quickly, but with me it takes a little while.


In Wicca, they are well aware that men are capable of invoking the Goddess, but it isn't done due to their beliefs, not because men have an affinity for the sun while women have an affinity towards the moon. Sorry but that part approaches a straw man argument, although it may be a misunderstanding. The reason for women and not men drawing down the moon is not due to differences between men and women's energies. It is due to the belief that it is offensive to the deities. I simply mentioned it as an example of magic that is limited to women--at least within the Gard tradition. There have also been women's mystery traditions, as well as men's mystery traditions. In Norse traditions, seidr was usually something that women did while men used runic magic. However, this particular separation seems more cultural tradition than for any solidly logical reasons. Wotan, for instance, is supposed to have learned seidr from Freya and practiced it, although he was chided for having done so. Also seidr is essentially a shamanistic practice, but in other parts of the world, shamans are often men. However I haven't studied Abramelin magic so I don't know what to say on that particular topic.

I've had many similar experiences to Goibniu, and we've never met or discussed with one another our own individual experiences - yet we've observed the same things, tested the same hypotheses, and have often on this very forum pre-empted one another with a same explanations.

There is a tendancy - I'm not accusing anyone here of it, just suggesting we consider 'hearsay' sources - in the new age community and in the traditional occult community as well, to parrot traditional 'knowledge' that has been passed along second, third, fourth hand, but never actually tested or observed in any way. And some people just collect bits of what they've heard here and there and make erroneous conclusions - like that god-awful 'the secret' shennanegan.

The new age is great in that it's a current of thinkers and tinkerers taking old traditions and reintepreting them with modern context, and to some extent we need that for the child of the modern age to recognize that the same principles still apply but in new ways. However the other side of that coin is, as bym said, a tendancy to homogenize everything. In my opinion it's a reaction to the time-honored tradition of hating things that are different. So just make everything the same, or convince everyone that everything is the same, and then no one can hate differences, right? This isn't some group of individuals reasoning like this, it's a subconscious reaction.

Differences aren't limiting, they're fantastic! The fact that men and women operate in fundamentally different modes does not put either men or women into any kind of box. It's only generalizing in the sense that dividing the world into plant, animal, and mineral is generalizing. Generalization is a means of organizing and refining massively complicated systems. Being opposed to this basic generalization is like suggesting you're opposed to our bi-partisan government being Democratic/Republican just because there are independants out there as well - even though they tend to align pretty easily with one or the other (looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...)

That would insinuate that women and the “energies” of the moon connect better than men. I personally associate the sun with women (and I’m sure there are others who do too) because of how vital the sun is to the Earth.

Interestingly most of the older pantheons recognize solar deities are primarily female and lunar deities as primarily male.

Notably, pantheons of those times and later in which there were male and female deities of both sun and moon, the gods of these elements had different functions than the goddesses.

I’ve had numerous discussions about energy on forums, radio shows and in person with other occultist and this is the first time anyone has generalized energy based on an outdated belief.

Have you spent any significant amount of time working with the energies of other people on any level? I don't mean one or two circle rituals or such like, I mean enough to observe and degree of trend?

If you examine any two people, of course you will conclude that they are both unique.

If you examine any ten people, you will conclude that they are all unique, but you will see similarities as well across the whole group between some indviduals.

If you examine a hundred people, you will notice obvious tendancies and trends among small groups of individuals.

If you examine a thousand people, you will have to categorize them in order to make use of that data.

By the time you examine five thousand individuals, you will be able to make certain predictions based on what you have learned examining only a thousand. You might encounter a few people who appear to be 'unique', but then examine twenty thousand, and those 'unique' individuals will just be part of another subset that you hadn't observed enough of to warrant their own category.

If you would like to pursue a career in some kind of energy work, or even something like psychology, to go out there and do research to prove both for yourself and the rest of the world that everyone is unique, then that would be a fascinating publication to read. However, to date most of the research tends to show that people can be categorized and generalized and that the differences between them are often the difference between two chunks of mineral - one might have traces of something extra in it, and the ratios of the composite substances might be a little off, but over thousands of samples they're within a particular range within individual categories.

Like Goibniu, my statements are based on extensive experience incliding copious notes and comparative studies. Aphrodite, maybe you are 100% different than any other woman, and maybe you are 100% like a man. Maybe you are a perfect anomoly. If I were to examine your energy current personally, and come to the conclusion, in a professional opinion, that you share the same essential quality of structure that is observed in 99.99% of other female individuals, I suspect you would even then not be convinced - nor would you if you met with a dozen or a hundred other energy workers and half of them were blindfolded. I have worked with trandsgendered individuals - some impossible to visually distinguish - intersexed individuals of varying degrees, and people who were simply androgynous. These people share qualities of energy unique to their state of being, but still are subsets within a larger division of general populations.

At some point it seems like the impression was made that because of these basic differences, the implication was that all females are the same and all males are the same. That wasn't the point, the intention, and wasn't implied at all (I have just reread this thread several times looking for these statements you have referred to).This is about all I can say on this subject I think.

peace

This post has been edited by Vagrant Dreamer: Nov 19 2009, 10:27 PM

I think the issue here is how we view energy. There are so many varying concepts of energy in the occult that we can’t really debate this. I personally don’t think sex affects energy and that’s based on my concept on where energy comes from. We are basically debating personal theories without even understand each other’s theory first. I'm more likely to believe energy is processed differently based on one's birth sign than gender.

I’ve been around people who are sensitive to energy and was told I process energy ironically through my womb, whereas by friend from her “heart” or chest.

“Among women, there be only Virgins who are suitable; but I strongly advise that so important a matter should not be communicated to them, because of the accidents that they might cause by their curiosity and love of talk.”

So are women allowed to practice this ritual if they are a virgin or not at all? Or is that saying a man practicing this ritual can only discuss it with a women who is a virgin? Also the possible reasoning behind why a woman cant partake in this ritual seems based on a stereotypical female characteristics. So because of that I still think the reasoning is based on archaic views. Since one shouldn't practice over a certain age maybe the reasoning is based on safety, or women don’t have HGA? The HGA is what is necessary and I don’t see why a women with one couldn't work the squares because of her vagina.

YES! This addresses the discussion Aphrodite! I, also, have been lumped together as one of those who, supposedly, cannot practice the ritual...in my case due to advanced years! I have my doubts that the strenuousness of the ritual would bother me overmuch...rather I'm not 'plagued' with the burdens of wife and rearing a family. I live alone so that I sh'ant be troubled with comings and goings...unfortunately sex is only a happy memory (*sigh*) LOL! Somehow the thought that they were limiting the ritual for safety sake appears rather silly but then again, what was considered terminal age back then? Fifty was considered 'venerable'...in that case I'd be considered a doddering ancient! Now a woman WAS able to do this ritual ... but only if she remained a virgin. Since even virginal women menstruate then it has to be something else that is causing this stance. I'm now of a mind to think of it being a more conventional viewpoint about the mores of the time. Sex was OK in regards to a male/female, husband/wife joining (but only then to produce children and in the missionary stance (boring). What has this to do with the HGA? Well....angels were known to appear (like unicorns) to only the pure of heart...and that means no sex for pleasure and keep the chaste in mind! (again...boring) Virgins of either sex attract unicorns...hmmmm.

I've recently read Stavish's "Between the Gates" were he goes on to elucidate the concept (taken, supposedly, from the Western Esoterica/Hermetic point of view) that the HGA is met and communed with after rising on the planes in the sephiroth of Tipareth (the Sun/solar station)! For those of you interested in the Cabala, astral projection and the correspondences between the energy body and the Sephiroth I suggest that you peruse this book! I find that some of his ideas old-hat and very pigeonholed. *sigh*

My thoughts of the Abramelin working are that despite the differences between the sexes in energy flow and the magical mechanics that 'could' govern this...the working is being driven on some rather archaic socioreligious stance... The Jews live their religion as opposed to the majority of Xtians (no offense meant in the contraction) are only aware of their 'obligations' one day of the week. (Please! Not just the Xtians...humans are extremely lazy and have very 'convenient' memories when it comes to spiritual things! Again, a sweeping generalization...hopefully you'll take it in stride rather than attack!) My thanks to you all for discussing this topic with the flare you normally exhibit...the reason for this was as stated previously to explore the rational/reasons for gender bias in the Abramelin working. Despite the volleys I think that we all somewhat agree on the broad scope of universality but when we got down to the nitty gritty we have somewhat varied outlooks. This has caused some inherent prejudices to become evident. Mostly these were shown by just continuing a discussion beyond the objective state. But Thank Goodness for those differences! It helps us celebrate the uniqueness that is so needed in our journey(ies). I find that you-all are very interesting people and it is a pleasure to be able to interact with you! (sorry...I'm a sentimental old fool...and abit of a romantic at heart) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

BYM--in those days, living to your age would have been unheard of. 50 was very old back then, but these days 50 is nothing for most people. My mother's in her mid-sixties and hitting her stride, so your point about socioeconomic conditions is well noted.

For example: I'm lumped in that class that would also have real problems performing the necessary rituals according to the text, as 'sleep in the daytime is absolutely forbidden.' However, the text also contradicts itself by saying that it's OK to sleep in the morning, just not all day. And anyone with an inherited disease such as 'virulent leprosy' is barred. Well, hell, I'm screwed according to the text. That having been said, medicine in those days was nonexistent in the extreme. Most inherited diseases that are common these days are things like heart disease, autoimmunes, cancer, diabetes, etc. that they had no knowledge of back in those days. Most can be managed with good medical care. The ones he describes, like leprosy, are infectious and many of them have been wiped out (at least in advanced nations) by the advance of technology and the wonderful invention of sanitation. *shrug*

And leaving my cat out of the room because he's 'unclean?' Maybe back in the old days, sure, but everything and everyone had a serious case of fleas back then--that's how the bubonic plague spread so fast. I've heard it said that fleas were everywhere from the peasant's tunic to the red robes of the cardinals. If that doesn't put you off your breakfast I don't know what would. :/ Now we have pest control and besides, my cats never go outside, so they can't get 'dirty.' And they're neutered, too, which they didn't have back in those days.

To me most of the instructions are an interesting history text, but not much more. Living a good and honest life should be a prerequisite for any kind of magical work, Abramelin grimoire or otherwise. Being an ass and screwing everyone over is a recipe for disaster even for those not magically inclined.

Aphrodite: very very true about the energy thing. Depending on what kind of energy I'm dealing with, I'll feel it in my chest, head, or arms. Everyone has a different 'template.'

This post has been edited by Darkmage: Nov 20 2009, 10:09 AM

much of this debate is caused by one side thinking of "women" as defining "women in general", and the other side defining "women" as "every single female on earth".
I am in the later category.

The fact is, that "women in general" do exhibit differences from "men in general". If we clip off the narrow tips of the bell curve, then yes, there are some very valid gender stereotypes to be drawn. And if we're speaking to that 90% majority in the middle of the bell curve, then gender based stereotyping 'can' be a fairly valid viewpoint. (hopefully this concession will show that I am not a rabid feminist or anything of that ilk).

Bym mentioned the newage mentality throwing everything into a homogenized loaf... I think this very much helps to outline some problems in the communication in this thread. I'm not "new age" myself, and I don't really think that most of the others who share my view in this thread are newage in mentality either (I could be wrong in some cases). Also, I'm not really throwing everything into a homogenized loaf. The paragraph above (i hope) illustrates that I don't hold to a 'zero difference' sort of paradigm at all.

My 'point of contention' with strict black & white rigidness applied to 'restrictions' in magical training, is that such an attitude, which brings absolutist thinking to the table, completely ignores those long sharp tips at the edge of the bell curve we mentioned earlier.

Stereotypes don't *always* fit. I'm a woman and I've never dated anyone taller than me (mostly because 95% of humans aren't taller than me). I'm also infertile, so by any 'reproductive' based definition of gender, I'm a nonentity, which is a little bit insulting. I also do not ovulate, and I don't produce menstrual blood. In a word, I've had some hormonal anomalies growing up. I'm not exactly the only human out there who has. As a result I don't fit into a tidy little black&white label box. There are, whether you choose to believe it or not, human beings who are simply 'neither' gender (as in they are 'both'). It's not common, but they do exist. And there are people who are genetically one gender, who for endocrinological reasons grow up to be almost entirely the other gender. The idea that male & female are absolute categories is simply flatly categorically scientifically *incorrect*. And yes, that does twist a thorn in the side of some peoples' happily simplistic sexual orientation, and/or dislike or disgust for alternative orientations, and/or one's tendency to project sex objectification onto other humans. But being uncomfortable to one's paradigm doesn't change the reality.

Also, speaking in terms of energy itself, I follow a vedantik tantrik path, and I have personally seen and interacted with people, energetically, who were one gender physically, but clearly and obviously had the energy flows, resonances, and structures of the other gender. Usually they were physically normal in terms of their physical gender. This cross-gender energy trait was pretty much always echoed by their being psychologically very much like the other gender though. In some cases they were acutely aware of this and very discomforted by it. In other cases they seemed more oblivious, but realized that for whatever reason they didn't 'fit in' socially or energetically speaking. Much more common than these completely 'crossover' cases of energy flow/type, are "hybrids" which contain an odd mix of energy types & flows.

This isn't "second hand", this is personally observed energy in other people. Both in a tantrik setting, as well as less formal settings. I am afraid that I have a bit of a habit of connecting to and examining people energetically, it's not even a conscious intent, it's more like that's my default mode and I have to use intent in order to *not* connect to others. This is related to my psi vamp energy body nature. I don't suck the energy out of people anymore though, as I have realized access to literally limitless energy resources, and I maintain a very high energy level almost all of the time. As a result I end up going around, still reflexively connecting to others, but I end up energizing them instead of the more typical psi vamp result. Which is nice, because connecting to others' energy structures seems very much built-in to my nature, and it always felt awkward and uncomfortable having to avoid such connections in order to control my innate energy appetites. Fortunately it's no longer problematic, and I can connect away, without concern of harming people. Granted, it could be viewed as an invasion of privacy, but considering my ultimate spiritual goals, 'privacy' is sort of obsolete as a concept.

It is also interesting to me, that within the text itself it describes leprosy as an inherited disease. It's not. So right there you see that the text is not infallible. If someone contracted leprosy, went to a doctor, got some modern medicine, and was completely cured... should they be banned from engaging in the practice? if so, why exactly?

There is a reason I dislike dogmatic thinking. it creates blinders, it traps one's will in the chains of a single and often simplistic obstinate paradigm, it deforms the mind's otherwise brilliant capacity to engage the senses and reason. And it's unfortunately very common in western esoteria prior to crowley. Personally I'd veiw crowley as a transitional figure between dogmatism and innovation. It's not really the fault of western esoteria, it stems from the fact that 'most' of western esoteria is rooted in judeo-christian monotheism, which is itself very dogmatic (among other things...)

Given the otherwise mostly insightful and fascinating outlooks which many on this forum have shared (regarding dualism, dogma, absolutism, etc.), some of the ideas put forth in this thread seem surprising to me, even confusing. Let me ask all of you this:

Do you, personally, feel that the restrictions outlines in the Abramelin magical text are valid, necessary, or serve any significant purpose considering the paradigm growth which has occurred since the time it was written? Do you really and sincerely feel, deep down, that it is a 'difference in energy' which inspired the text to group elderly, cripples, lepers, and women together? or some other mentality perhaps?

This post has been edited by Kath: Nov 20 2009, 02:50 PM

Bym mentioned the newage mentality throwing everything into a homogenized loaf... I think this very much helps to outline some problems in the communication in this thread. I'm not "new age" myself, and I don't really think that most of the others who share my view in this thread are newage in mentality either (I could be wrong in some cases). Also, I'm not really throwing everything into a homogenized loaf. The paragraph above (i hope) illustrates that I don't hold to a 'zero difference' sort of paradigm at all.

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.

Do you, personally, feel that the restrictions outlines in the Abramelin magical text are valid, necessary, or serve any significant purpose considering the paradigm growth which has occurred since the time it was written? Do you really and sincerely feel, deep down, that it is a 'difference in energy' which inspired the text to group elderly, cripples, lepers, and women together? or some other mentality perhaps?

In a word: No. As I've said, the restrictions are basically an interesting history lesson and not much else. Back in those days, women had essentially no rights--they were their husband's property. They were their father's property until the time they got married, and marriages back in those days were usually arranged and the woman had NO choice in whom she married. Their function was to run a household and raise kids, and seeing as most people died around 30-35 back in those days, 'til death do us part' actually had some meaning behind it. Unlike today, if your husband beat the hell out of you you had no recourse. The law wouldn't protect you--but if you were from a noble or powerful family, your male relatives would (usually). If you were a commoner you were screwed.

Regarding the elderly, 50 was a venerable age back in those days. Even if times were very good, living into one's 50s was rare--unlike today, where most of us would take it for granted that we're going to hit that half-century mark with little more than an admonition to eat less and exercise more from our doctors and maybe our first pair of reading glasses--and maybe not even that. They didn't have the same problems with aging that industrialised countries are seeing now simply because people generally didn't live long enough to get cancer, Alzheimer's, etc.

The cripples and the lepers were usually considered unclean and punished by God for their misdeeds, hence the stress on charity. God may love them but society ostracised them. I suspect this is Christianity sneaking in there as while Jews were expected to help the needy *in their own communities,* they weren't expected to give a damn about Gentiles IIRC. The view that one should give charity to the sick, imprisoned, and needy regardless of tribe or affiliation comes from Christianity.* You wouldn't want your Great Work being 'polluted' by such undesirables--and if they were considered cursed by God it logically follows they would also be denied the Sacred Magic in addition to everything else. Bear in mind they had NO medicine or science as we would understand it today. Those subjects were still in an embryonic state at best in those days, so even if they had known what caused smallpox, leprosy, plague, and a whole host of other pestilences, they had no tools to deal with them back then. We know so much more about how the universe works than they did, probably to the order of several hundred orders of magnitude. While we're still not so hot at treating a lot of chronic problems, we have tools to deal with infection. If your kid is born deformed, say a cleft palate or something, we can usually fix it. We also have knowledge of genetics and how things are *really* passed from one generation to the next--they had no idea. The age of genetic engineering is definitely on the horizon--we're not there yet but most of us will see it within our lifetimes, I think. This would be incomprehensible to people in Abramelin's day.

*On the Christianity thing--there are clues sprinkled throughout the book that this was originally written by a Christian author, not a Jewish one. There are references to the Apostles and to Easter, which would be irrelevant to Jews at that time. There's a good article on this here: http://kheph777.tripod.com/art_HGA.html Don't forget by the time this book was supposedly written that the Cabalah had already made its way into Christianity and been incorporated into its esoteric stream.

Bym: Don't feel bad about not liking the NewAgers. Personally most of them make me cringe. The lack of intellectual curiosity, technical knowledge, or even common sense amongst a great many of them is extremely frightening.

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

Apologies if anyone assumed I was talking about newage theory, last time I checked newagers have little do with actual practice and more to do with indigo children and wire pyramids. Unless people consider the method behind western schools such as the G.D to be new age? Its that building of correspondance I was on about not the fluffy hippie type.

Not much else to say really, everyones energy patterns are diffrent, 'as above so below' just as there are no distinctions up there there aren't any down here the human race is too diverse to stamp left or right, over time societies change and so do people but (as said) we still have the same systems and symbols because they are impervious to change, the only constant in the universe, why? Because they themselves are universal... when I say that I'm talking about law in the way of math and physics... occultism is the study of divine law and as such dosent discriminate if it did time would have its way change would set in and those systems and symbols would be rendered obsolete... as is being semi proven here reading from a book written in a time of discrimination society has changed and now people are questioning the text itself because its statements dont add up. How can a holy man know prejudice? In a time when women rule the world it will probably be used to kindle fires redemption for its being out of sync with the stars .lol.

Only truth stands the test of time.

Intresting discussion, thanks.

.M.

Let me put it this way, you could put me in a room with someone, turn off the lights and blindfold me, tie my hands behind my back (kinky aint it) and I could be able to sense if it is a man or a woman. It might take a few minutes for me to get a good read on the person, but I'm sure it could be done.

Do you want to earn a million dollars?

If I could do that, I would seriously consider entering. Despite what some would have you believe the challenge is honest and so is Mr. Randi.

I can understand not wanting the publicity, though (and would this be good or bad for the magical community?); but if you are less shy about the public eye, go for it.

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Nov 24 2009, 09:44 PM

Ah yes.....the grand occult equalizer! How pat, how final.
Is this the end-all of all occult studies? Will YOU,Vilhjamr, also care to measure your success or failures to the Randi test?
Anything can disqualify the applicant if it isn't approved by Mr. Randi! Would you like to take the test? Would anyone here like to take the test?
Under his rules NONE on ANY occult Forums can or could pass his test! It's all folderol, you see. All of it!
We're here thrashing in the dark, insane and babbling idiots following a path that amounts to soap bubbles in the wind.
Pack it in....go home. Leave the discussion Forum to the sad deluded lives who meet here for we do not choose to follow
Mr. Randi and his Scientific Test.
I never thought I'd see the day when one member of an occult Forum level the Randi challenge at another member as an argument point in a f***ing discussion!!?
Don't stop here with the Challenge! Take it also to your churches...now there is a Litmus test! What? Can't you PROVE transubstantiation? What? You can't PROVE the Theory of Relativity? ...or String Theory...or dreams.....or healing....or whatever?
We deal with the unknown, the things that go bump in the night. We deal in tales of witches and demons and devils and angels. We deal with extrasensory perception
and divination. According to Randi none of this exists (though I'm not sure of his actual religious beliefs...but wouldn't that be fun?)
So...let me return the challenge...YOU first! *disgusted*

Ah yes.....the grand occult equalizer! How pat, how final.
Is this the end-all of all occult studies? Will YOU,Vilhjamr, also care to measure your success or failures to the Randi test?
Anything can disqualify the applicant if it isn't approved by Mr. Randi! Would you like to take the test? Would anyone here like to take the test?
Under his rules NONE on ANY occult Forums can or could pass his test! It's all folderol, you see. All of it!

I will and do measure my success or failure by the Randi test, or by the reasoning he uses anyway. If I cannot demonstrate to anyone, skeptic or true believer, that my powers are indeed powers, then I don't consider myself to have any!

Unfortunately... I don't consider myself to have any, which is why I haven't entered the challenge (well that, and another reason stated below). Anything can disqualify the applicant if it hasn't been agreed upon beforehand. You are free to devise the test yourself, and all Mr. Randi will do is supervise. Tell me you've submitted a reasonable proposal and it's been rejected, and I will change my mind on the challenge - but I'm familiar with both the challenge and many previous applicants, and it's all been very fair so far. Indeed, all previous applicants have agreed to the terms and been very confident that they will pass anyway, but no dice.

We're here thrashing in the dark, insane and babbling idiots following a path that amounts to soap bubbles in the wind.
Pack it in....go home. Leave the discussion Forum to the sad deluded lives who meet here for we do not choose to follow
Mr. Randi and his Scientific Test.
I never thought I'd see the day when one member of an occult Forum level the Randi challenge at another member as an argument point in a f***ing discussion!!?

If I've caused offense, I apologize! That's not my intention. I'm not even involved in this argument - I don't mean to use it to score a point. I linked the challenge because Goibniu's statement would be extremely easy to prove, and I don't often see people make such concrete statements often.

I don't mean to denigrate the occult, or say you have sad deluded lives. If you do, then so do I! I live for this stuff. Right now I'm in the middle of the 6th and 7th Books of Moses as well as Bardon's IIH.

My views differ a little from those of most of you, though. I feel that if magic is a psychological or spiritual tool, it should come right out and say it instead of tantalizing people with the prospect of actual physical effects. My goal in the study of magic (and/or "psychism") is to eventually produce some sort of undeniable physical effect for myself only: levitate a feather, summon an angel, create a spark... they're all sufficient, for my purposes. If I ever do succeed in my quest, then I still probably won't enter Randi's challenge - imagine the hordes of people it would attract to the study of magic, and the type of people to boot... as it is, magic tends to attract those interested more in learning than in shooting lightning bolts, although there are plenty of those as well.

But Goibniu's power seems more like ESP, which wouldn't necessarily do the same thing to the study of magic that, say, summoning a demon would.

Don't stop here with the Challenge! Take it also to your churches...now there is a Litmus test! What? Can't you PROVE transubstantiation? What? You can't PROVE the Theory of Relativity? ...or String Theory...or dreams.....or healing....or whatever?

It seems like you feel Randi holds magic to unfair standards. I disagree. By Randi's standards, the theory of relativity is provable - merely accelerate two timepieces to two different speeds, for instance. I think magic should be the same way... but if you think there's something different about it, I'm eager to learn. (And I really am - that's not sarcasm. You are clearly well-versed in the occult, and if I'm missing something tell me!)

Edit: By the way, any advice re: producing a physical effect would be appreciated too! I have made up my mind to study magic anyway, because it satisfies me in a way no other pursuit has, but it is still my main goal to prove its efficacy to myself.

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Nov 25 2009, 01:02 PM

The Randi challenge is based upon reproduceable scientific results. That you would use this as a 'Prove It' point in a discussion was where I lost it.
Now, especially, since you, yourself wouldn't take the challenge does this become onerous. (btw...you cannot prove the Theory of anything...yet, and if you do, then you'll be worth millions of dollars to the scientific community.) Theory is merely a believeable conjecture. It is not cast in stone. Otherwise it wouldn't be a Theory. Although I've had many strange and even wonderful experiences in my life, based upon the occult 'sciences', I can not faithfully reproduce them in a 'scientific' way. (Here is another great seed topic for this Forum!) Nor do I feel the urge to rise to the baiting the 'scientific' world bandies about with the puerile 'Prove It' response. Frankly, I hope they never do reduce Magic with the Scientific Method. I'm an Anarchist...I find that the very notion of the unknown rather appealing and tittilating. I'd find the world rather sterile without the conjectures. This is why I'm a fan of sci-fi, fantasy and the occasional conspiracy Theory!
I hope that you've understood my stance on this. If Randi had his way this Forum would not exist except as an amusement to color his evenings. Don't get me wrong though, I was classically trained in the Scientific Method and in a number of science related fields. Anarchist yes but also a pragmatist! If I've misconstrued the tenor of your post then I am sorry...but if it was the grand "Prove It" maneuver then all bets are off. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

The Randi challenge is based upon reproduceable scientific results. That you would use this as a 'Prove It' point in a discussion was where I lost it.

That wasn't exactly my point; it's just because it's such an easy thing to test I thought hey, why not suggest it! Randi's challenge seems to be better-known than I thought, though.

Now, especially, since you, yourself wouldn't take the challenge does this become onerous. (btw...you cannot prove the Theory of anything...yet, and if you do, then you'll be worth millions of dollars to the scientific community.) Theory is merely a believeable conjecture. It is not cast in stone. Otherwise it wouldn't be a Theory.

It depends on how you want to define "prove." You can reduce everything down to "cogito ergo sum", but I do not hold science or magic to this standard.

Although I've had many strange and even wonderful experiences in my life, based upon the occult 'sciences', I can not faithfully reproduce them in a 'scientific' way.

This brings a question to my mind; and it is a question, not an attack! If you cannot reliably produce a result from your magic, how do you know it is bringing results at all? Of course, if a ritual summons a real fire-breathing demon 1% of the time and you do it 100 times, that'd be enough - you can't argue with that kind of result. Do you get things that spectacular? I ask because I would very much like either one!

(Here is another great seed topic for this Forum!) Nor do I feel the urge to rise to the baiting the 'scientific' world bandies about with the puerile 'Prove It' response. Frankly, I hope they never do reduce Magic with the Scientific Method. I'm an Anarchist...I find that the very notion of the unknown rather appealing and tittilating. I'd find the world rather sterile without the conjectures. This is why I'm a fan of sci-fi, fantasy and the occasional conspiracy Theory!

Absolutely! Me too.

If I've misconstrued the tenor of your post then I am sorry...but if it was the grand "Prove It" maneuver then all bets are off. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sport_boxing.gif)

Not at all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It was mostly just curiosity about the community's/Goibniu's thoughts. Since he claimed reproduce-ability, I thought it seemed appropriate.

This post has been edited by Vilhjalmr: Nov 25 2009, 11:02 PM