I have to admit the nuanced differences of being an Acosmic Monist and Panentheistic is kind of hard for me to get my head around. Yet I understand that there is a difference in perspective, and in the end that is all that really matters a discussion of this type.
As to the invasion of Empirical language into the “spiritual path” is totally verifyable and the question of why bother with a “Magickal” path is one we must all answer time and time again for ourselves and for others.
In truth the only person who can answer this for you is you, but I am pretty sure you already know that and are just seeking the opinions or view points of others.
Currently Magick as we know it or any contemplative path has different words used for very similar concepts. The words and even the causes or how to attain that state of being is argued over and over, however if they explain the experience using very general terms, we find the experience of that state is very much the same in most cases or that many of these paths share states of incredible similarity.
The language of sociology, anthropology and psychology all adapt quite well to describing these experiences in a very independent though perhaps dry way.
I have to admit, I change my opinions on magick almost seasonally, going from internal meditative practice, to external Magickal practice, to intellectual practice, to no practice at all.
QUOTE
I would say that most Christians (as an example) take their God literaly.
I have never heard one of them refer to God as a Godform, an Arcetype or anything else than God.
This is very true, yet in monotheism especially Christian faiths, they are not going to limit god or internalize him, Jesus exists for this (god made flesh). They also would not refer to Jesus as an Avatar of god, yet for definitive arguments that is exactly what he was/is.
When we look at the Orthodox and or the Catholic Faith, then we see a lot more color that is recognizable to hermetic magick. The Saints, Mary (mother), and all such revered figures are in reality spectrums of the experience of “GOD”. Path ways of focusing and making it simpler to comprehend the totality, Vs. “everything and nothing”.
QUOTE
It´s very often held in a number of books on Magick, especially Hermetic ones, that the Gods, spirits, demons and so on are "thoughtforms" or parts of your own psyche.
It is important to recognize the target audience in these. It is also important to realize that the chances of full on physical manifestation of an entity not of this plane of existence is highly remote.
However when you add in the concepts of the “collective unconscious” it gives rise to any possibility that an outside entity can produce. It is difficult to define how a mass hallucination can be any different then a real event.
We then get into the argument of reality…not going there, but I am sure you are aware of the possibilities.
So ultimately, does it matter that a book is referring to internal mental constructs as opposed to external constructs that only you will perceive?
Archetypal concepts that are so embedded into our thoughts that we can not shake them from folklore or entertainment. That we can not stop from putting people on pedestals because they embody those archetypal qualities that we desire, until we bring them crashing down when they are “exposed” to be mere mortals with qualities beyond just those we desire, but those we ourselves may have transcended or at least moved beyond.
QUOTE
Magick today, despite of calling it self "revivalist" is very much built on Rationalism, outer Empirism and so on
and i much ask myself, why bother with Magick at all?
I am wondering if this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
I am speaking in sociological terms here…it may get confusing, sorry. One term of confusion will be Post-post rationale, this term means what it says, but it is also simply a place keeper till a better term becomes common. Intergral and Holistic are terms acknowledged, however often they are also terms used for second stage development, or “beyond post rationalism”
The world is moving beyond the purely “rationalist” views. However it is very much a “post rational” response to discard what is rational and accept the “pre-rational” as more legitimate. This was seen to a large degree in the 60’s and is pretty common even today as the “post rational” are truly taking control.
However, as the birth of “post-post rational” ideas begin, as seek to attack those that came before, as was the case with every concept of this type up till now. We are seeing a difference. The “Post post-rationales” are truly more accepting of everyone and their opinions, with one notable exception to “post-rationales”. “Post-post rationales” will assign structure and grades to things. Not discarding or calling anything a waste, but taking it all in and assigning it to it’s place.
“Post-rational” thinkers compared to those that came before them, are also much more accepting of every thing and their ideas, except those of “rational” concepts. Or those that directly challenge or seek to limit “post-rational” concepts. At the same time they are very much against saying anything is better, higher, more important…then anything else, except when debating “rationalists”.
So in this emerging “post post rational” world, combining different aspects of thought, scientific/rational with magical/mythic for the ultimate goal is very common. It is also a common ploy to simply sell more books by encompassing a larger net.
QUOTE
I don´t reject that view of Magick, i just feel that it´s hard to be a Theist and a Materialist simultainusly.
There are worldwiews that "allows" a God (or several) to exist after all, and pounding "all in your headism" into an aspiring Magician or Pagan is just limiting them.
I argue that it is not limiting at all. Or that it is hard. We live in multiple worlds. We live in a world where we barely know our neighbors, yet willingly give a days labor (in value of money or time) to people affected by disasters millions of miles away. We live in a world where a group can at once donate and help those less fortunate, and also castigate people to eternal hell fires for thinking differently.
By these standards, living in a world made of matter and the acquisition of good is valued above all, and yet where the subtly perceived is valued above all is very simple. Not that it makes sense and we do not struggle with self loathing because of our own hypocrisy. Simply that it is not hard to live in multiple worlds at once.
Well that is my rant on the subject, I was planning on going in a totally different line of thinking, but this was the garbage that came out of my fingers.
Good luck, I dread these stages of faith, yet love remembering them…kind of like makeup sex. (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)
"godforms", Ontology of Divinity.
Jun 25 2006, 07:06 AM
