On 17 Jun, 19:06, mika
gmail.com> wrote:> 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?
>
Your not confusing etymology with definition are you? As I said above,
I'm using the terms as shorthand for two different magic styles; more
abstract and less abstract.
>> 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.
>
Horses for courses.
>> 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?
>
Chaos magic has interested me not one whit. From your one sentence
description above it sounds like the symbolism used in the actual work
isn't that abstract. Does it involve speaking foreign?
>>>> 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?
Do you consider magick to be a subset of magic?
> 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.
>
Magick is magick in and of itself. Systems of magick, or religion, are
attempts to organise experiences which may include magick. Not
arbitrators of what is, or isn't, magick.
>> 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?
My experience can vary depending on the mood I start in, so I take a
few moments deep breaths before I start to put myself in a calm and
positive state of mind. The qabbalistic cross starts by giving me a
quiet sense of focus. As I charge each pentagram I 'feel' each
element. For instance, air buffets my skin, yet somehow also blows
through me both energising me and blowing away rubbish. After a moment
the element retreats back the way it came, leaving me 'changed'. At
the invocation of the archangels I 'feel' the elements on all sides
of me, awe at the vast presence about me outside the circle and a
'blessing' from the archangels all at the same time. The cross focuses
me again. I then take a few moments to simply be in the circle.
Practicing regularly the sense I get, and take away, is a of clean
space about me. The only thing I can liken it to is the 'distance'
when you look back on stuff that seemed important at the time but you
now know was out of proportion, combined with feeling of looking at
things in clear physical light.
