Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodePost by nagasiva<snip>
Post by catherine yronwode...historically and practically speaking, spell-casting
is integral to magic of all kinds, from ceremonial magic
to folk magic.
correct. <more snip>
Incorrect. A more accurate statement would be: ...historically <snip>
speaking, spell-casting *is perceived to be* integral to magic of all kinds,
from ceremonial magic to folk magic.
By moving the debate away from the practical and toward the
perceptual -- and only YOUR perceptions at that -- you
obviate the need for discussion, with yourself, at least.
*sigh* not at all, your statement was wrong and I corrected it, that is all.
Post by catherine yronwodeIn short, your claim about "perception" is idiosyncratic and
unsupported and thus it is of no practical consequence to a
working or an aspiring occultist, for whom more important
Do the aims of spell-casting differ in different cultures
and, if so, how?
Do the methods of spell-casting differ in different branches
of magic?
How can i meet others who have cast spells and talk to them
about spell-craft?
How can i learn to cast a spell?
This assumes that 'spells' are valid which they are not. Your argument
therefore collapses under its own (even light) weight. The fact that
ignorant people the world over have shared the same folly does not make it
wisdom.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelWords have no intrinsic Magical value, though they can and frequently do set
a frame of mind which is conducive to Magical working.
Spells have no place in serious ceremonial magic, esp not High Magic
I could knock that statement down a dozen ways, citing
numerous "high magical" authors who have cast spells, but
since it is just troll-fluff, i will only note that it is a
weak and unsupported argument from authority and that one
would have to be just bone-headed stupid to take the
unsupported word of a deliberately anonymoized usenet poster
as an authority on any matter whatevsoever.
Never-the less I note your inability to quote one respectable author...
preferring to take the ad-hominem route. I expected more from you. perhaps
not though.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodePost by nagasivaPost by catherine yronwode"Spell: a verbal formula believed to have magical force"
that is somewhat imprecise in that spells might not be verbal
and might include verbal components along with material ones
(e.g. "candle spells").
I would be genuinely interested in hearing actual experiences where this
sort of silly nonsense has actually achieved anything. We need to get a bit
more 'real-world' here.
Advice to troll-boy: Your hooks are showing. The tasty treat
of "genuinely interested" does not contain enough substance
to conceal the cruel barbs of "silly nonsense."
I note you avoided quoting any such example, preferring to regard it as
troll bait, which it wasnt. I reasonably conclude that the whole 'spell'
thing is as without substance as I originally thought it to be. It was a
reasobale and polite request for information which you were unable to
provide.
Post by catherine yronwodeRephrase your question more politely and perhaps someone
will bite at the bait
What is wrong with ' I would be genuinely interested in hearing actual
experiences where this sort of silly nonsense has actually achieved
anything. We need to get a bit more 'real-world' here.' ? It states my view,
it requests information which would put the whole argumant on a
matter-of-fact basis but this was not forthcoming. It wasnt impolite to all
but the most sensitive but you chose to see it as so. Why? - because you
were looking for a reason not to provide any examples and that would do very
nicely.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodeI know that definition is imprecise -- it is a dictionary definition
from a non-magical dictionary. Since Archangel, my original
correspondent, does not often discuss magic per se (he spends most
of his usenet time discussing the personalities of posters),
Oh that it were not true, and had you troubled to read more posts you would
understand why. Oh that there was any sensible discussion about Magic in
alt.magick, it has always been a bear pit.
You help make it so. You can stop any time.
I am not the only one and sometimes the cure is painful.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodefigured a simple dictionary definition was as good a place as any
upon which to ground a conversation with him after he had opined
that spells were "silly." Your participation changes the field quite
a bit. Welcome to the discussion!
I stand by my original assertion that spells are the domain of chaotes and
witches, both of which grups of people are equally silly. Of coyrse one can
call anything you like a 'spell' including the 0=0 Grade of the GD/SM if you
wish, and this will enable you to 'prove' me wrong simply by chaning the
definition. This is not however within my understanding of the word.
The 0=0 Grade of the GD/SM is a collectively enacted ritual
that is rehearsed and ideally enacted the same way each
time.
Yes. I have done enough of them at all grades between 0=0 and 5=6 to know
that what you theorise is in fact correct.
Post by catherine yronwodeSpell-casting may *or may not* include ritualized activities
that are rehearsed and ideally enacted the same way each
time.
Which doesnt make them Magic. it only makes them consistent.
Post by catherine yronwodeThe inclusion of ritualized activities is not intrinsic to spell-casting.
True, were it so, they would be effective (depending upon a number of
conditions).
Post by catherine yronwodeLikewise, ritual activities may or may not include
spell-casting.
Not in my experience of Magic, nor in anybody;s I know but of course we may
be up against your somewhat rubbery definitions again.
Post by catherine yronwodeThe two types of magical activities are sufficiently
distinct as to be seperable in principle although in any
given instance of magical working one or both may be
utilized as techniques.
What does this mean?
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodeI agree with you that spells can and do contain more than verbal
usage, despite the definition i found and posted. That definition
itself seems to spring from the European model of spells as
"enchantments" (chanted spells) and "incantations" (sung spells).
There are also, of course, spells employing written or drawn magic,
herbal magic, candle magic, and so forth.
I really do think we need to escape the realms of folklore and get back to
Magic.
So far the only one identifying folk magic with "folklore"
is you.
On the contrary, you have done so consistently n this thread. I have no time
for folklore instead of Magic so I am unlikely to confuse the two things.
Post by catherine yronwodeYou can stop that any time.
Since I never started, stopping maybe a bit tricky.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodePost by nagasivaPost by catherine yronwode...The LBRP comes to mind (...a Jewish magical prayer
adapted to ceremonial magic during the 19th century by
English Hermetic occultists), as do the spoken spells
of the 19th century Pennsylvania Dutch folk magic
tradition (which have immediately traceable roots
going back into the era of Albertus Magnus -- a
Catholic cleric -- in medieval Germany).
This is an example of what I referred to earlier. The LRP is a ceremony and
not a spell. Of course if you *want* to call it a spell then you can prove
that some spells work, and presumably then extend the statement to 'all
spells work'. Please forgive my cynicism which is borne of long and varied
experience of semantic jugglers.
The Jewish prayer at the center of the Lesser Banishing
Ritual of the Pentagram is not a "ceremony" and it IS used
as a form of spell work in Jewish foilk magic.
Pedantry. Splitting hairs and not doing it well. The LRP is a ceremony and
that is what was being addressed, you should know Cat, you brought it up.
Post by catherine yronwodeThe fact that
some British folks in the 19th century created a ceremony (a
ritual) and placed this old piece of Jewish prayer / folk
magic at its core does not make the thing any less a spell.
We are back to your rubbery definitions again. You only offered one and your
own husband had to show you it was nonsense. Not an outstanding accolade.
Post by catherine yronwodeThe Psalms were probably not written for use as spells but
as hymns or ritualized prayers -- yet they have been used as
magical spells for millennia by Jews, and they have been
taken up as such by many Christians as well.
I doubt the Rabbis would like yourt referring to their prayers as 'spells' -
I imagine they would be as disappointed in your scholarship on that subject
as I am.
Post by catherine yronwodeFor a recent survey of the history, see "The Psalms in
Hebrew Medieval Amulets," by Eli Davis (1992).
He calls them spells does he or is this merely a diversion?
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodePost by nagasivatranscending Western culture, I was informed by a lineage-
holder in the Tibetan Buddhist Nyingmapa school that what
are called 'mantras' should also be considered 'awareness
spells' to generate waking of consciousness. it was
clear that the intention was that the words had power,
that their reciting generated the spell effects,
and that this was considered a magical formula.
Mantras are not spells either, but they are used to set a frame of mind
wherein Magical work can take place. It has been proved that what is
impotant in this process is not the words themselves but the patterns of
sound and the rhythm.
Proved by whom?
Proved by several discussions I have had with senior buddhist monks. All of
whom helped me to understand the mechanics of Buddhist prayers and
blessings. to equate these with 'spells' would I imagine casue them some
discomfort. Still, if you know better...
Post by catherine yronwodeAnd do you believe that the "the patterns of sound and the
rhythm" of the Hebrew Psalms, used as spells, are any less efficactious?
Hebrew psalms are not spells so the question is moot. None-the-less, I do of
course believe that rhythm and intonation are important in Magic. I wouldnt
know if they are important in spells. Or are we back to rubbery definitions?
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelPost by catherine yronwodeThis is a good point. Practically speaking, i have talked with many
Hindus who also believe that mantras are both magical and
"scientific" in their efficacy -- that there is a science of
vibratory sound in the study of which one may discover that certain
spiritual and physical effects can be obtained by modulation of
one's vocalization of the mantras.
Indeed, which is also reflected in the mode of vibration employed in the GD
and Franz Bardon methods.
Post by catherine yronwodeAgain jumping cultures, we see something similar in the Hermetic
/ Ceremonial magic techniques of stylized intoning or "vibrating"
certain prayers, spells, and invocations of names -- and the
technique is equally apparent (although differently vocalized) in
the cadenced and rhythmic speech of hoodoo rootworkers and their
Baptist Church preacher allies.
I do not accept that Hermetic or Ceremonial magic employs spells, but we are
back to rubbery definitions again I suspect. It is certainly the case that
High Church invocations, properly done, are both impressive and effective. I
dont know more than an anecdotal minimum about Voodoo/Hoodoo/whatever but it
seems similar in approach to other shamanistic systems at forst glance.
Perhaps they believe ion 'spells' but again, we have the definition problem.
Post by catherine yronwodePost by ArchangelQED.
Post by catherine yronwodeThese modifications of vocalization during spell work, prayer, and
consciousness-shifting are all practical occult / magical /
religious / spiritual techniques that truly must be heard to be
understood, learned, and appreciated.
Some cool words Cat, I suspect that 'spells' and 'consciousness-shifting'
can be added to 'paradigm shift' as buzz-words?
Buzz what thou wilt ... they are only words.
And yet your whole argument about 'spells' seems to be that words are *not*
just words. So which is it?
Yes but they demonstrate an underlying need to be 'trendy' or 'kewl', which
I always find suspect. 'Nuff said, for me this whole discussion has
reinforced to the nth degree my antipathy for silly spells, however you may
choose to define them today.
I think that is about it on the subject for me... no light whatsoever has
been shed. Believe it or not I hoped you would actually be able to justify
your position, rather silly opening premise though it was... Disappointing
but then you think I am a troll so your judgemental faculty still fails to
over-ride your immediate and somewhat visceral reaction to a net
personality. Disappointing but never mind.
A