Dabbling in 'black' arts

Sapien · 16-07-2007 04:48PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Interestingly, thats the first time I've heard of that maxim.

Imagine!

Nevyn · 16-07-2007 08:04PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

What Asatru blots have you been attending?

A lot of the printed stuff on line in neo heathen groups has been sanitized.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

The use of blood has a well documented history in magical rites and religious rites to summon, control and coerce the spirits of the dead and elementals of the sorts than like to hang out around abbatoirs, battlefields, and asylums.

In the heathen context it is used to call ot those who are your ansectors and of your bloodline; also to show you are not a big girls blouse who balks at a little blood, your own blood who the gods have every right to and to a mere scratch of you own blade.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

For those reasons alone, if you were to put belief in these rites, you would be well advised to steer clear of blood rituals.

It is a case of how a thing is used be it a drug to harm or heal or a knife in a murders hand or that of a surgeon.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

In a lot of cases, A very little research would give most people who might believe in such things pause.

In a lot of cases yes, but there are those who journey deeper and farther
gathering knowledge and experience as they go and it is not for the faint of heart.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Interestingly, thats the first time I've heard of that maxim.

Well that speaks to me of the fact you may have read a little but know little.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

The last part in particular I find interesting, and in fact slightly disturbing, more for the mental isolation factor than the spookiness. Would you care to elaborate further?

There are time when there is no point in explaining colour to the blind,
or explaining things to people who have no frame of reference.

A bit like 'Bones' trying to talk to Spock after he came back from the dead and Spock refuses.

It is not isolationist at all but it is to be mindful of what you say and to whom about such matters.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Doesn't that really depend on what you would consider a Daemon? In the Catholic pantheon, Lucifer looks uncommonly like Pan, don't you think?

Those are two very differnt concepts and ideal if you wish to explore the second please do start a thread in the paganism forum you will find a link to it under my avatar.

As for the first, they are not restricted to the abrahamic contexts most people presume they are.

ladybirdirl · 16-07-2007 08:13PM

Wow guys,

Some really interesting stuff here for the clueless like me.

Thaed,Kshiel - I'm in complete agreement with you guys, in that any experimentation changes you and it's how far you delve into it & how prepared you are for what will follow.

I think the volume if information coming through(thanks SimpleSam,Sapien,mossieh,Thaedyal) just shows me even more of how little I know in this area. It prompts lots of interest for me but tempers that interest too.

I'm wondering if you guys who have such experience(and obviously if it's something you want to share)..have you ever conjured something,been involved in a ritual,ceremony...where you have realised it was more intense that you thought or you felt out of your depth or troubled.?

Ladybird

SimpleSam06 · 17-07-2007 08:25AM

Thaedydal wrote:

A lot of the printed stuff on line in neo heathen groups has been sanitized.

"Sanitized"? You managed to spell the name of the religion wrong, and now you're casting judgement on the dilution of it?

Thaedydal wrote:

A In the heathen context it is used to call ot those who are your ansectors and of your bloodline;

Your definition of heathen is, in this context, entirely wrong. Very very few so-called "heathen" religions use blood to draw forth the ancestral spirits.

Thaedydal wrote:

A In a lot of cases yes, but there are those who journey deeper and farther
gathering knowledge and experience as they go and it is not for the faint of heart.

It is, however, for the limber of Google, it would seem.

Thaedydal wrote:

A Well that speaks to me of the fact you may have read a little but know little... There are time when there is no point in explaining colour to the blind,

Which is pretty much the reaction I was expecting. That has to be one of the most arrogant, condescending responses to a post I have ever received on any of the internets, and believe me, that's saying something. I mean it's right here. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Thaedydal wrote:

It is not isolationist at all but it is to be mindful of what you say and to whom about such matters.

Or alternately the hallmark of a manipulative cult. And you actually managed to get the meaning of that wrong too. Its about not thinking about a spell after it is cast, in case you interfere with the workings of the spell. It doesn't matter who you tell.

The first method characteristically used by ideological totalism is milieu control: the control of all communication within a given environment. In such an environment individual autonomy becomes a threat to the group. There is an attempt to manage an individual's inner communication. Milieu control is maintained and expressed by intense group process, continuous psychological pressure, and isolation by geographical distance, unavailability of transportation, or even physical restraint.

Sapien wrote:

The internet is groaning under the weight of information on these topics - I can recommend nothing better than that greatest of grimoires, Google.

I have to say, I find debating in this environment a fascinating experience, due to the forum charter. On the other hand, its a superb mental exercise.

However, working from the premise that such things are possible and in fact almost commonplace, I find a good way to tell the dilettante from the professional in any field isn't the ease with which Google can provide answers, but the level of knowledge displayed which cannot be readily provided by the search engines.

And that, folks, is the rub, right there. Not one single phrase or arcane reference has been made by Dee and Kelly here that hasn't been extensively covered on the internet. On the other hand, you'll be looking long and hard to find information on Egyptian guardian rituals, or the use of blood to summon the "unclean spirits" from certain areas. Not that I'm saying I'm an expert, since I most certainly am not, but really, all you seekers after genuine, unique knowledge (a healthy attitude to have by any standards), this ain't where you are going to find it.

Sapien · 17-07-2007 09:10AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And that, folks, is the rub, right there. Not one single phrase or arcane reference has been made by Dee and Kelly here that hasn't been extensively covered on the internet. On the other hand, you'll be looking long and hard to find information on Egyptian guardian rituals, or the use of blood to summon the "unclean spirits" from certain areas. Not that I'm saying I'm an expert, since I most certainly am not, but really, all you seekers after genuine, unique knowledge (a healthy attitude to have by any standards), this ain't where you are going to find it.

Ah, now I remember you. Egyptian guardian rituals indeed. Tell me, what text do you use in this regard? Is your interest in Egyptian magick via Golden Dawn type esotericism or Heka?

The quotation from my post that you reproduce was intended for mossieh, who is new to the idea of ceremonial magic. For the purposes of this discussion it should suffice for him to be acquainted with some of the basic ideas of ritual and praxis that litter the web. I do not contend that a solid training in magic can be obtained online.

I am a practitioner of magic, as is Thaedydal. Are you?

Nevyn · 17-07-2007 10:18AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

"Sanitized"? You managed to spell the name of the religion wrong, and now you're casting judgement on the dilution of it?

I have dyslexia and unfortunately the current spell checker has an american dictionary and really using such pedantry is quiet low.

There are many things about certain magical practices or religous practices that you will not find via google also the dictionary.com and most dictionaries to not encompass the spiritual use of the terms pagan and heathen.

Also I said never said they were calling for ancestral spirits, infact I gave more then one reason this is done.
How many of that faith do you know ?
How many blots have you been to ?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

It is, however, for the limber of Google, it would seem.

Again google may give you a recipe for bread it will not show you how to need properly or how much excess flour you need or many other things which you can only learn from experience or from being thought or from interactions with certain things.

There are certainly many things which can not be found on google.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Which is pretty much the reaction I was expecting.

Why ?

For me that very simple maxim is one that any one who has done some serious study into eostric and occult matter will have come across or have it said to them or in their presence.

You seem to be drawing you conclusions form what you an google which as I have already pointed out very flawed.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

That has to be one of the most arrogant, condescending responses to a post I have ever received on any of the internets, and believe me, that's saying something.

It's the internet, serious business, clear you have missed some of my posts in other forum where I have insulted people who clearly don't know the difference between comment and insult, tis not like I told you do go suck my phallus now is it ?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I award you no points

Hmmm pot, kettle.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

and may god have mercy on your soul.

Which one would that be ?

The state of my soul is a private matter between myself and my Gods thank you very much..

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Or alternately the hallmark of a manipulative cult.

It's a maxim or a rede or wise words and if you are then inferring that witchcraft and Wicca are cults well then that is nothing new,
Gerald Gardener and Marget Murray got there long before you.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And you actually managed to get the meaning of that wrong too. Its about not thinking about a spell after it is cast, in case you interfere with the workings of the spell. It doesn't matter who you tell.

Actually it has many applications that would be one of them and I would say that it depends on the working and if a person can refer or talk to it with out energetically meddling with or or fouling it up then there is not that harm in talking about it.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I have to say, I find debating in this environment a fascinating experience, due to the forum charter. On the other hand, its a superb mental exercise.

This forum has only been hosting these sorts of conversations for the last while as it became rather populated, previous to this such discussions would have happened in the paganism forum but apparently the charter and the scope of that forum indeed that name is off putting to some.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And that, folks, is the rub, right there. Not one single phrase or arcane reference has been made by Dee and Kelly here that hasn't been extensively covered on the internet. On the other hand, you'll be looking long and hard to find information on Egyptian guardian rituals, or the use of blood to summon the "unclean spirits" from certain areas.

Actually it and many other concepts like that were explored by Katerine Kerr's
Deverry books so really it is not occult knowledge or hard to seek out and explore.

This forum as ever is about dicussing, sharing and not about my want is larger then yours.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Not that I'm saying I'm an expert, since I most certainly am not, but really, all you seekers after genuine, unique knowledge (a healthy attitude to have by any standards), this ain't where you are going to find it.

This forum and indeed none of the forums set up here at boards.ie are for those who are seriously interested in perusing occult studies.
There are other places on the internet if people wish to have those types of
discussion such as the Occult Ireland forums.

Any person or any forum that claims to know it all or to be able to teach it all in easy pre chewed bites should be avoided and in some cases ran from.

hairyheretic · 17-07-2007 10:45AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Your definition of heathen is, in this context, entirely wrong. Very very few so-called "heathen" religions use blood to draw forth the ancestral spirits.

Something you may not be aware off is the preference for those who are Asatruar to call themselves heathen rather than pagan, as a way to distinguish themselves from the wider pagan community.

Another is that there is no 'one right way' of doing things in Asatru. It is very much an individualistic approach. While there are common methods in how things are done in blots and sumbels, an individual approach to their specifics is quite common.

I personally have not used my own blood, but that is simply my approach. If others choose to do so, that is between them and their Gods.

SimpleSam06 · 17-07-2007 09:35PM

hairyheretic wrote:

Something you may not be aware off is the preference for those who are Asatruar to call themselves heathen

Yer but the conversation had moved on from Asatru by that stage.

SimpleSam06 · 17-07-2007 09:42PM

Sapien wrote:

Ah, now I remember you. Egyptian guardian rituals indeed. Tell me, what text do you use in this regard? Is your interest in Egyptian magick via Golden Dawn type esotericism or Heka?

I first encountered the rite in a historical textbook which rather predated "New Age" philosophy in all its many, many forms. I haven't read it in about two decades now, so you will forgive me if the name eludes me. The details remain vivid, however.

Sapien wrote:

I do not contend that a solid training in magic can be obtained online.

Funny, I thought you called Google the "greatest grimoire".

Sapien wrote:

I am a practitioner of magic, as is Thaedydal. Are you?

That is an excellent question!

SimpleSam06 · 17-07-2007 10:23PM

I'm going to try to summarise in places here, run on posts are difficult to read and follow. If I cut out something you feel is of importance, feel free to pull me up on it...

Thaedydal wrote:

I have dyslexia and unfortunately the current spell checker has an american dictionary and really using such pedantry is quiet low.

It would be low if one was aware you were dyslexic. If not, incorrectly spelling the name of a religion for which claimed one to have knowledge of the rites would be grounds for accusations of illiteracy, or at best gross laziness.

Obviously that does not apply in this case. Its never a bad day when you learn something new!

Thaedydal wrote:

Also I said never said they were calling for ancestral spirits,

Err... "In the heathen context it is used to call ot those who are your ansectors and of your bloodline" verbatim...

Thaedydal wrote:

How many blots have you been to ?

Exactly none which involved blood rituals, despite the name "blot" being attached to them.

As I understand it, the "blot" is a reminder that followers are physically related to the gods, blood relatives.

Thaedydal wrote:

Why ?

That was the expected response since obtuseness and condescension towards those of "lesser knowledge" would appear to be the order of the day around here.

Thaedydal wrote:

tis not like I told you do go suck my phallus now is it ?

I am secure in my sexuality, I pheer no phallus.

Thaedydal wrote:

It's a maxim or a rede or wise words and if you are then inferring that witchcraft and Wicca are cults well then that is nothing new,
Gerald Gardener and Marget Murray got there long before you.

Its a step by step guide to enacting magical rites. As for witchcraft and wicca being cults, you may as well talk about voodoo being evil - there are too many sub branches and groups with a variety of wildly different motivations and goals to apply a sweeping generalisation. Some without a doubt qualify as abusive sects, some are reasonably benign.

Thaedydal wrote:

Actually it has many applications that would be one of them and I would say that it depends on the working and if a person can refer or talk to it with out energetically meddling with or or fouling it up then there is not that harm in talking about it.

I try never to debate semantic interpretations of religious or semi religious texts - if thats how you see it, that's up to you. There is literally no way to argue with that, especially in the free form context of modern beliefs.

Thaedydal wrote:

This forum has only been hosting these sorts of conversations for the last while as it became rather populated, previous to this such discussions would have happened in the paganism forum but apparently the charter and the scope of that forum indeed that name is off putting to some.

I can see the need for it.

Thaedydal wrote:

Actually it and many other concepts like that were explored by Katerine Kerr's
Deverry books so really it is not occult knowledge or hard to seek out and explore.

First off, those are works of fiction. Second off, I've never read them, so I can't speak for their contents. Third off, pointing to works of fiction which may or may not contain aforementioned concepts in order to say that a different viewpoint is less worthy of consideration is a logical fallacy, not to mention that innumerable works of fiction were influenced by real world practices, or at least what the author envisioned they would have been.

Thaedydal wrote:

Any person or any forum that claims to know it all or to be able to teach it all in easy pre chewed bites should be avoided and in some cases ran from.

I can only agree with that...

Sapien · 18-07-2007 09:14AM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I first encountered the rite in a historical textbook which rather predated "New Age" philosophy in all its many, many forms. I haven't read it in about two decades now, so you will forgive me if the name eludes me. The details remain vivid, however.

I see. A secondary level "text book"? Can you recall the name of the author. Budge, perhaps?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Sapien wrote:

I do not contend that a solid training in magic can be obtained online.

Funny, I thought you called Google the "greatest grimoire".

Quite. In that the contents of every grimoire in existence are available online, if one knows where to look. I don't see what could be considered funny about what I have said. No serious magician would contend that one could obtain a passable training in magic from grimoires alone. If that were the case, every teen goth in the world would be calling up Goetic spirits.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

That is an excellent question!

Thank you. Care to render an excellent answer?

Themainman · 19-07-2007 02:37PM

Hello people! Apologies if i am interrupting this very interesting discussion even if much has gone a bit over my head. I have a question and was reluctant to open a new thread. I never gave much heed to issues of magic, ceremony, occult or stuff but at this stage i am willing to ask questions.
The reason being that over the last number of years i have experienced terrible luck....i mean everything i touch/do turns to disaster, even my mates have started calling me 'the cooler' after the WH Macy film. Now this run of poor luck more or less coincides with the a split from an exgrilfriend who had an interest casting spells etc. At this stage i am starting to consider the possibility that there is somthing in all of this as there is no doubt that she would be the type to focus somthing at me....i initiated the split. I assumed that it was just a cycle of bad luck but??? Any advice and assistance on this would be much appreciated, even to be pointed in the right direction! Again apologies if this is out of context of this thread. Im kinda getting a bit desperate:o

mossieh · 19-07-2007 03:13PM

Themainman wrote:

Hello people! Apologies if i am interrupting this very interesting discussion even if much has gone a bit over my head. I have a question and was reluctant to open a new thread. I never gave much heed to issues of magic, ceremony, occult or stuff but at this stage i am willing to ask questions.
The reason being that over the last number of years i have experienced terrible luck....i mean everything i touch/do turns to disaster, even my mates have started calling me 'the cooler' after the WH Macy film. Now this run of poor luck more or less coincides with the a split from an exgrilfriend who had an interest casting spells etc. At this stage i am starting to consider the possibility that there is somthing in all of this as there is no doubt that she would be the type to focus somthing at me....i initiated the split. I assumed that it was just a cycle of bad luck but??? Any advice and assistance on this would be much appreciated, even to be pointed in the right direction! Again apologies if this is out of context of this thread. Im kinda getting a bit desperate:o

Sometimes you get a bad run of luck, it happens to everyone. In all honesty I think your question would be better suited to Personal Issues...exhaust all the possibilities there before turning to the paranormal...relationships and breakups have been known to cause paranoia in the most sensible of people. Alternatively get some psychic defense crystals (joking).

Themainman · 19-07-2007 03:43PM

In all honesty it is other people noting this prolonged run that has me asking questions, there is no paranoia, but the reason i posted at all was due to knowing that this person has in the past claimed to have cast spells. Maybe im turning more superstitious than anything.

SimpleSam06 · 20-07-2007 06:41PM

Sapien wrote:

I see. A secondary level "text book"? Can you recall the name of the author. Budge, perhaps?

Why do you assume no one over the age of thirty can use the internet? And who or what is budge?

Sapien wrote:

Quite. In that the contents of every grimoire in existence are available online, if one knows where to look. I don't see what could be considered funny about what I have said.

Grimoire, from the French for grammar, originally books on latin syntax and diction attributed magical powers since the illiterate and ignorant majority attributed magical powers to everything they couldn't understand. Of course, that the current definition is more along the lines of "a book on magical instruction" doesn't detract from the point, I feel.

Really what it boils down to is that the internet, wonderful creation though it is, gives a home to any individual who might want to spout free range bullshit to the community at large, and thus contains much that is misleading or baldly incorrect. Of course, if you are talking about offline resources, you have the same problem, except without the modicum of peer review that the internet bestows.

So, to wrap it up, caveat emptor.

Sapien wrote:

Thank you. Care to render an excellent answer?

Another excellent question!

Nevyn · 20-07-2007 07:17PM

So
you won't answer if you are magical practioner yourslef.
you refuse to explain which god you were speaking about when stated they should have mercy on my soul,
and all you seem capable of is making obtuse and veiled insulting posts while spouting what ever last reference you found on a given word.

Knowing how to use the internet does still not mean a person knows thier arse from their elbow.

Nevyn · 20-07-2007 07:18PM

Themainman

I would suggest that you post your inquiry on the paganism thread for a better reply then in the middle of this thread.

SimpleSam06 · 20-07-2007 07:34PM

Thaedydal wrote:

So
you won't answer if you are magical practioner yourslef.

One may comment on christianity whether or not one is a christian. The degree of relevancy my personal experiences, or lack thereof, has to this conversation is debatable at best.

Thaedydal wrote:

you refuse to explain which god you were speaking about when stated they should have mercy on my soul,

Why should your beliefs be the only ones entitled to privacy?

Thaedydal wrote:

and all you seem capable of is making obtuse and veiled insulting posts while spouting what ever last reference you found on a given word.

Well one man's insult is another man's strongly made point. As for spouting references, how exactly do you continue a debate without commenting on the last responses to your comments?

Thaedydal wrote:

Knowing how to use the internet does still not mean a person knows thier arse from their elbow.

Yes, I believe I mentioned that in my last post.

Nevyn · 20-07-2007 07:40PM

:rolleyes:

Sapien · 20-07-2007 07:54PM

SimpleSam06 wrote:

And who or what is budge?

E.A. Wallis Budge. A nineteenth century Egyptologist and philologist, and a pioneer in the understanding of Egyptian magic. If you did not read about this Egyptian ritual in one of his books, it is likely his Egyptian Magic, 1899, or The Book of the Dead, 1895, is referenced wherever you did find it.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Grimoire, from the French for grammar, originally books on latin syntax and diction attributed magical powers since the illiterate and ignorant majority attributed magical powers to everything they couldn't understand. Of course, that the current definition is more along the lines of "a book on magical instruction" doesn't detract from the point, I feel.

What point exactly? The word "grimoire" is used exclusively to refer to ancient or antique books on magic. Modern books on magical theory and practice do not call themselves grimoires, except in nauseating marketing concepts which would never be taken seriously by those who take magic seriously. Not even Crowley, the most arrogant man in the world, never mind wicked, did not presume to call any of his works "grimoires".

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Really what it boils down to is that the internet, wonderful creation though it is, gives a home to any individual who might want to spout free range bullshit to the community at large, and thus contains much that is misleading or baldly incorrect. Of course, if you are talking about offline resources, you have the same problem, except without the modicum of peer review that the internet bestows.

I was referring to pdf scans and text-based reproductions of famous and well-documented grimoires like the Key of Solomon, the Black Pullet or the Heptameron of Albano. They can be very expensive to buy in print, and so it is generally better to track down a web-based version first. Also, a lot of works by venerable authors like Crowley, Fortune, Mathers, Waite, Spare, Regardie, et cetera, are available on the web. Are you suggesting that these writers are misleading or incorrect?

Of course there are people writing nonsense about magic on the web, as there are in any other field. Perhaps some uninitiated people are taken in by them, but I doubt very many. It is not difficult to sort out the authorities from the amateur tripe, if one follows the thread of references and citations closely and applies some common sense.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

So, to wrap it up, caveat emptor.

How gnomic. Where would we be without your sage guidance.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Another excellent question!

Not to mention germane. You have impugned the experience of others on this thread, so I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that people will respond by asking you why we should accept that you know what you're talking about. You aren't familiar with the Scire, velle, audere et tacere injunction, which is to be found in the opening chapters of almost every book on magical instruction, and, while implying that you know about Egyptian magic, you don't know of the man who published the first book on Egyptian magic, entitled Egyptian Magic, over a hundred years ago. I think you should either give a more concrete description of your degree of experience of magic and level of education in it, or become dramatically more circumspect on the subject very quickly.

Stoner · 20-07-2007 09:18PM

Sapien wrote:

. I think you should either give a more concrete description of your degree of experience of magic and level of education in it, or become dramatically more circumspect on the subject very quickly.

And I thought the OP was only talking about dabbling!:)

I think this subject is hugely faith driven, lots of little questions like "explain yourself" and "why?" etc, people don't want to answer the "why" partly because IMO in every case here there will be holes, and you can bet that those "holes" will be exposed, both sides are protecting their own privacy and questioning why they need to prove things to the other.
It has become a spiritual argument that seems to hinge on who knows the most about the subject, and IMO you don't need to know everything relating to faith, otherwise it would be called knowledge, so I can see this thread going round and round in circles and or getting further away form the original intentions of the OP.

I might have a Paul Daniels kit at home somewhere ladybirdirl you can have it and dabble about with it yourself.:) that's the level I am at with it TBH.

To tell you the truth, it would suit this forum IMO to be free to discuss certain elements of "the black arts" without being subjected to restrictions, I don't know about others but I find it almost semi intimidating to question some topics that I feel a paranormal forum can handle. Maybe these are issues for another forum?

Nevyn · 20-07-2007 10:01PM

Stoner I only asked which god as if one is being evoked in a manner which is to do with my soul I would like to know which, mere common courtesy is all; if people are lacking that then oh well.

Actually Stoner there is a lot knowledge out there which any person can pick up and read and so we end up with a lot of armchair occultists, who read and read and read and never lift a wand.

And then there are those who read very little and think they know a lot.

Most of the time I refuse to get involved with indulgent pseudo academic dissuasions on such matters,
ego **** in person is bad enough and it tends to be worse on the internet.

But at least if those sorts are never getting out of thier armchair they are doing a lot less harm then those to go off half cocked.

Talliesin · 22-07-2007 11:17PM

witchywoman wrote:

ive met a couple of people who claim to practice voodoo etc, but in reality, i imagine that its just wishful thinking on their part!!!:)

You don't get out enough. There are plenty of people who practice Voodoun around.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

As I understand it the use of blood is intended to draw the attention of the kind of creatures who would be interested in blood, ie, not so nice.

As has already been said there are plenty of other reasons to use blood.

Also while saying that the creatures that are attracted to blood are "not so nice" is literally true (depending on how you define "nice") the implication is that they are actually nasty. Those animals that while not nice are the two we most often choose to allow to share our homes with us (cats and dogs). For that matter I like my steaks blue myself - I'm not very nice, but I'm not particularly nasty either.

Similarly, some of the things on other planes that are attracted to blood in certain circumstances aren't very nice, but not particularly nasty either.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Rather than simply calling upon the divine will of the deity du jour, they tortured slaves to death systematically for weeks on end, all the while using persuasive hypnotic methods and suggestion to convince the "souls" of the slaves to stay on after death and do their duty.

If I wanted to do that I'd just create something from scratch (not that such using thoughtforms is a completely risk-free approach, but it does remove the need for torturing slaves to death - I think those slaves available to me would safeword way before then).

Thaedydal wrote:

Voodoo is not the only tradition which uses such sympathetic magic in such a fashion, western European witches have used poppets or corn dollies or witches bottles for a very long time and mostly for healing and protection.

Yep, indeed the use of poppets is generally much more a European thing than a Voodoun thing. Funny how the credit for that one went all askew.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Some good points there, blood need not be used in universally nasty rituals, whether directly or as a side effect. However, as a rule of thumb, you could do worse than to avoid such rituals.

As a rule of thumb you could do worse than to avoid rules of thumb.

Sure, I'd advise newcomers to magic to look elsewhere. I'd not bother to advise Thaed in that way.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Rather than getting into the finer details of voodoo rites throughout the ages, the point I was making is that I did not view it as dark, when you seemed to feel I had included it in my list there. So we are, in fact, in agreement on that.

Well, there's a lot in voodoo that's "dark", depending on how you pick your metaphors. There's a lot that is hidden - dark hides things. There is a lot that is of the night time - when it's dark. "Dark" has it's place. The question is "what's wrong with dark".

I don't practice Voodoo, but I do practice Witchcraft. We are a twilight people, we don't fear the dark.

mossieh wrote:

To quote Diego Montoya: 'you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it does'

A sceptic that has successfully carried out works of magic comes to the conclusion that magic works, just like a sceptic that throws things in the air comes to the conclusion that they fall down again.

Sceptics that haven't seen magic work shouldn't believe in it of course, but those that have, should.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Interestingly, thats the first time I've heard of that maxim. The last part in particular I find interesting, and in fact slightly disturbing, more for the mental isolation factor than the spookiness. Would you care to elaborate further?

There is a lot to be silent about in any magical working. There's also a lot to be silent about in other things. There are things that if I was silent about in the business world I would be guilty of fraud, tax evasion etc. but there are also things that if I wasn't silent about in the business world I could quite rightly be sued by my clients.

It's a good idea to not talk too much about workings for a variety of reasons. Just one is that it's a good idea to "let go" of the working after you've done it. Turn your focus to other things.

Another is to avoid particular thoughts from others interfering with the workings.

Another is to protect those you work with ("The Craft doesn't pay for broken windows" as the old line goes and much the same applies to other magic workers).

Another is not to get caught up with ego-games or with threatening people in a way that is negative to all concerned.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Your definition of heathen is, in this context, entirely wrong. Very very few so-called "heathen" religions use blood to draw forth the ancestral spirits.

Your definition of heathen is, in this context, entirely wrong. She just said "Blót" so clearly she was referring entirely to the collection of faiths which includes Ásatrúers but also related practices which don't have the particular devotion to the Æsir (if you venerate the Vanir in particular you are not strictly an Ásatrúer, though you are of the same faith but a different devotion).

Anyway. Blood use isn't common amongst the Heathen's but it's not unheard of, especially at the widest definition (i.e. not all Heathen's are vegetarians).

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Which is pretty much the reaction I was expecting. That has to be one of the most arrogant, condescending responses to a post I have ever received on any of the internets, and believe me, that's saying something.

Funny, I thought the same thing when you didn't recognise it too. It's hard to think of a better-known magical maxim.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I mean it's right here. I award you no points

I award you negative points for not getting the point even now.
Of course you can find something that pretty much everyone involved in Western forms of magic know if you go to google. The point is that you didn't know it when you were trying to pontificate on the matter.

It's like attacking someone's English Literature PhD dissertation and then saying "Shakespeare? Who's that?".

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Or alternately the hallmark of a manipulative cult

Really, how do you work that out?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

It would be low if one was aware you were dyslexic.

Assuming that you are not also dyslexic, should I point out that you left out the accents in both Ásatrú and Blót?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Exactly none which involved blood rituals, despite the name "blot" being attached to them. As I understand it, the "blot" is a reminder that followers are physically related to the gods, blood relatives.

A common etymology is that it relates to the blood-sacrifice that would happen with culling of livestock. Most these days don't have livestock that need to be killed.

Sapien wrote:

Quite. In that the contents of every grimoire in existence are available online, if one knows where to look.

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Why should your beliefs be the only ones entitled to privacy?

Speak, or don't speak. Don't be mealy-mouthed
Define your lines, march too them and then go no further.

To Know, To Will, To Dare, To Keep Silent.

mossieh · 23-07-2007 10:41AM

Talliesin wrote:

A sceptic that has successfully carried out works of magic comes to the conclusion that magic works, just like a sceptic that throws things in the air comes to the conclusion that they fall down again.

Sceptics that haven't seen magic work shouldn't believe in it of course, but those that have, should.

No. A sceptic would say 'hmmm...something unexplained by conventional science happened here which may or may not be magic. I will investigate further and when all other explanations have been thoroughly exhausted, I might then, tentatively, call it magic'.

That is the conclusion a sceptic would come to. By definition, a sceptic does not immediately jump to the dark-ages answer to an unexplained event.

stevenmu · 23-07-2007 10:58AM

But is there really anything inherently "dark-ages" about magic ? Sometimes magic can just be using an understanding of natural phenomona to bring about an effect. Just as one modern example quantum entanglement could be considered magic (or at least I think it could, others may disagree

).

Wouldn't a sceptic carrying out works of magic really be someone performing an experiment to test a hypothesis that certain defined actions will result in a predefined outcome ? If the defined actions repeatably result in the expected outcome does this not confirm that the work of magic works ?

Sapien · 23-07-2007 11:02AM

mossieh wrote:

No. A sceptic would say 'hmmm...something unexplained by conventional science happened here which may or may not be magic. I will investigate further and when all other explanations have been thoroughly exhausted, I might then, tentatively, call it magic'.

When I call something magic or magical, I do not mean to say that it cannot be explained in any other way, or that it works by means of divine light or faery dust, but that it is part of or pertains to practices that are, historically, magical. Magic is a field, and area of study and learning, a tradition. It is not a means to explaining anything. There is, arguably, a magical way of thinking, but it is not intended to be explanatory in a scientific way.

mossieh wrote:

That is the conclusion a sceptic would come to. By definition, a sceptic does not immediately jump to the dark-ages answer to an unexplained event.

I can't imagine how you came to believe that that characterises my understanding of magic. You are, I think, interpreting prejudicially, not to say lazily. In fact, I have been quite careful to avoid giving the impression that I claim to have any explanations for magic, "dark-age" or otherwise.

What "dark-age" answers do you suppose I have "jumped to"? What, specifically, have I said that is unsceptical?

mossieh · 23-07-2007 11:25AM

stevenmu wrote:

But is there really anything inherently "dark-ages" about magic ? Sometimes magic can just be using an understanding of natural phenomona to bring about an effect. Just as one modern example quantum entanglement could be considered magic (or at least I think it could, others may disagree ).

Wouldn't a sceptic carrying out works of magic really be someone performing an experiment to test a hypothesis that certain defined actions will result in a predefined outcome ? If the defined actions repeatably result in the expected outcome does this not confirm that the work of magic works ?

Yes, if you can define for me precisely what the word magic means. To analyse anything scientifically you have to first discard the term 'magic' because there is an implication in using it that it exists or works.

Like religion, magic has historically been used as a term to describe actions or reactions not understood properly by the observers. As Arthur C Clarke said:' any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'.

I don't have a problem with this.

My problem is with someone who uses the term magic to describe an event and then refers to themselves as a sceptic. Sapien has been at pains to point out to me that because I don't have his level of understanding of the field, I'm not in a position to comment on this. I see his point but disagree completely. I do not recognise the term magic as a valid one any more than I do the terms grace, sin or holy.

I believe that there is only science, both understood and not yet understood.

If there was any real, reproducible effect or value to be found in ancient tomes of spells and incantations, scientists would be all over them like a rash ...but they're not.

Sapien mentioned that he is qualified in physics, I believe. Surely if he had achieved anything quantifiable or reproducible using magic it would be an earth-shatteringly important breakthrough to present to his fellow physicists(and sceptics)?

What I see here is a-la-carte scepticism, which is not scepticism at all.

Red Hand · 23-07-2007 11:35AM

Good post, Mossieh.

If you are a genuine scientist and want to prove/dispprove the existence of Black Arts, then you are going to do your best to find holes in your theory-for useless theories are worthless to scientists.

The problem with Religion/Paranormal adherents, is that they have an unfalsfiable theory and then do mental gymnastics to try and justify it. Belief is never enough.

mossieh · 23-07-2007 11:39AM

Sapien wrote:

When I call something magic or magical, I do not mean to say that it cannot be explained in any other way, or that it works by means of divine light or faery dust, but that it is part of or pertains to practices that are, historically, magical. Magic is a field, and area of study and learning, a tradition. It is not a means to explaining anything. There is, arguably, a magical way of thinking, but it is not intended to be explanatory in a scientific way.

Fair enough, but the term 'magic' is quite a loaded one for a sceptic to use, would you agree with that?

Sapien wrote:

I can't imagine how you came to believe that that characterises my understanding of magic. You are, I think, interpreting prejudicially, not to say lazily. In fact, I have been quite careful to avoid giving the impression that I claim to have any explanations for magic, "dark-age" or otherwise.

What "dark-age" answers do you suppose I have "jumped to"? What, specifically, have I said that is unsceptical?

Without answers or explanations, what do you have, exactly? As a qualified scientist, if it is not answers or explanations you seek, what are you doing it for?

I am certainly interpreting prejudicially I admit, as I only see people talking in circles here and it has coloured my judgement. 'Lazily'? I was criticised here before for referrring to unquestioning belief in the paranormal as lazy-mindedness. It takes a lot more effort to question than to accept.

I asked you earlier for a specific example of a measurable effect from your use of servitors etc, have you thought of one? Your response to the effect that you could not prove that what you say is true over an internet forum is reasonable and you seem largely like a reasonable person but how about relating an anecdote of just one incident regarding the use of servitors?

Sapien wrote:

This doesn't really matter, because magicians care about what works rather than how.

Apparently. Scientists and sceptics however are very much concerned with 'how'.

Nevyn · 23-07-2007 11:44AM

Belief is never enough.

I agree.

It is repeated experience that takes you beyond belief to knowing.

Dabbling in 'black' arts

Comments