On Jun 17, 4:25 am, Chade wrote:
> On 11 Jun, 18:50, mika wrote:
>
>>>> What exactly do you mean by "low magic"?
>
>>> More seriously, I would divide low magic and high magic by the
>>> complexity of the system used, specifically the level of abstraction.
>
>> Are you saying the distinction solely relates to the system itself and
>> not to the purpose or intent of the work being done?
>
> In medieval times larger settlements in Europe were often built on
> higher ground, as it is more defensible. The most productive farming
> tended to happen on low-land areas. The story goes that 'high' magic
> was generally practiced in towns where the more educated people were
> where as 'low' magic was practiced on low ground by peasants.
>
> So people doing high magic could speak Latin, study books, use ink and
> parchment and so on. Low magic was simpler, not necessarily used by
> stupid people, just people with more basic resources.
>
> One could argue that high magic tended to have more spiritual aims,
> more time on their hands after all, but there was no shortage of
> 'high' magic done for material gain. Just as there was probably some
> low magic done to help people become more in touch with the world.
That's an interesting story, whether or not it's historically
accurate. Either way, it has no relevance today. Why perpetuate a
meaningless distinction, other than to fuel one's own egotistical
territorial pissing?
> Of course in the modern west most people can both read and afford
> books. And have the leisure to indulge in spiritual practices that is
> open to those who have a choice over what to eat for dinner.
Exactly. So distinguishing between high/low magick is more about
defining one's image than explaining the nature of the actual work one
is doing. "MY magick involves HEBREW and LATIN" "OH YEAH? MY magic
is NATURAL and more in touch with the EARTH" blah blah fucking blah.
> Which was
> the background for the neo-pagan re-construction, now a largely
> spiritual movement. (Although of course bookshop shelves groan under
> 'teen witch recipie books', (Roast with plenty of garlic).)
>
> Still, IMHO the mainstream of western magic can still be divided in to
> two styles.
Not really. For example, where would you put something like chaos
magick? Developed from so-called 'high magick' theories yet stripped
down to 'low magic' structure and trappings and such?
>>> However we've already discussed that there
>>> isn't a single clear dividing line between magic and religion in the
>>> debate about chapter two.
>
>> I agree with the above if you're strictly talking about "magic" as
>> defined by IB, but completely disagree if by "magic" you also mean
>> "magick".
>
> Do tell.
Tell what? What more needs to be said? Magick is not a religion and
can be completely separated from any religious belief. The 'dividing
line' between magick and religion is crystal clear, any intersection
of the two depends on the individual, not on the system of magick
itself. I thought you already understood this. If you didn't, you
know less about magick than it seems.
> Having practiced the LBRP for a while I can relate to your account,
> although I wouldn't describe in in quite the same terms.
I wouldn't describe it in quite the same terms today as I did last
week.
Anyway, how would you describe your experience doing the LBRP?
