From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.mythology
Subject: Re: ALCHEMY -- AND STUDENT CLUBS
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:49:54 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

9204.06


Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


Todd Stark comments on my comments and asks some questions to boot:

>Not only the 'mechanics' but the theoretics from which these arts developed
>are a necessary ingredient to understanding them.  If you don't get the
>idea-construct within which this is considered reasonable, then you will
>not be able to construct your own experiments accurately.

If Tagi means by this that it is neccessary to study a system of belief 
(religion, magic, alchemy, mythology, Elizabethan drama, etc.) from
both a detached perspective and one of greater involvement, in order
to fully appreciate it, then I absolutely agree.


Response:

This is close, but perhaps not completely what I meant.  See more below.


Todd:

>Make sure that you study Symbology, if you want to add some depth to all of
>the above-mentioned.  In your studies, don't worry about where the trails
>may lead.  You'd be surprised what connections there are between the
>'disciplines'.  It is not as separate and distinct as you may have been told.

This is where I disagree.  The nature of 'symbology' is that we can find
the patterns we set out to find, and the value of the study becomes
rationalized.  Especially from the perspective of science, which the
organization's charter clearly stipulates as their criteria.  


Response:

Ok, we disagree.  I didn't know that 'science' HAD a perspective.  I thought
it was simply a method which has gone wild, gotten ATTACHED to a limited
perspective and turned into a Religion.  But that's just me.


Todd:

If it referred to philosophy in general, the leeway for criterion of value
would be significantly more flexible.


Response:

Again, I think we differ regarding our terms, but perhaps more than this.
I'm not really sure what you mean here by 'philosophy'.  Idealogical
study?  Most pseudo-philosophers like this meaning.  I'm not suggesting
that you qualify in the category, I've just seen it used that way TOO OFTEN
for my tastes.



Todd:

Most symbolism is a matter of convention,
and the symbols have little meaning to someone not trained to understand
the meanings.  Some symbolism is 'archetypal,' in some sense, in that 
we can find similar patterns in interpretation in people from diverse 
cultures and backgrounds.  

I would say that there is value (to psychology and anthrlpology and so on) in 
the study of the use of the 'ineffable' symbolism in some Romantic poetry, 
Surrealist art, Symbolist art, and various representations of [traditional 
magic] and [alchemy] even if you don't make the leap from science to mysticism 
or semi-mysticism or the assumption of a higher reality or Platonic world of 
forms of some sort.  


Response:

What about the 'collective unconscious'?  I'd think that symbols arising out
of a sociological framework would remain consistent as long as the society
maintained some consistency.  There are certainly a number of things about
society which have remained consistent (due to biological or technological
constraints), and so I'd expect symbol-systems to reflect such a similarity.
The world over.


Todd:

>As Todd mentioned, those things may not all have the same things in common.
>You might be surprised by what they DO have in common, however - a theoretical
>framework which has been forgotten by our schools and ignored by 'scholars'.

What framework is that, exactly, and what specific phenomena require its
adoption for studying symbolism ?  


Response:

This one is tough to say in short words.  I think it is called:

Magical Worldview
Neo-Pythagorean, Neo-Platonic, Hermeticism

Further inquiry into this could be had in many tomes, including one called
'The Philosophy of Magic', by Arthur Versluis, 1986 Arkana Books.  While
I don't always like the rest of the tome, the author explains in some
decent terms what the differences are between the magical worldview and
what we're taught.  There is much which has been forgotten or lost.


Todd:

What value does it add to the study ?


Response:

Without it, magick and other occult sciences have no foundation
from which to proceed to reasonable ends.  Every perspective I've
found which substituted present-day ideas for the originals was so pale
by comparison that I won't even mention any.


Todd:

It seems to me that between psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, 
philosophy, intellectual history, hermeneutics, and all the rest, that there 
are sufficient theoretical frameworks to study any phenonomena of human 
behavior and determine the value of ancient belief systems for today.

A framework for showing how certain belief systems might be correlated with 
each other seems to fall well within one or more of the existing disciplines.  

And if someone writes a paper on their findings within a legitimate
existing theoretical framework, then maybe someone besides Llewellyn Press
will publish it.  :)


Response:

Perhaps I should be more clear.  I'm talking about WORLDVIEWS, not 
sub-theories in a 'scientific' discipline.  The magician of ancient times
did not make all the distinctions between things that we might today.  Of
course we tend to think of ourselves as better off for this development,
but actually we are just further from Heaven.  It is ironic that what
has been taken as 'scientific progress', while having technical importance,
was actually a devolution of mysticism and magick.


Invoke me under my stars!  Love is the law, love under will.



Yours in somnambulism,

Tagi
Newsgroups: alt.mythology