From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Tagi Mordred Nagashiva)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Ritual Magick Experiences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 11:17:25 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Apr13.123402.913@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
  <1992Apr13.141531.16016@acsu.buffalo.edu>
  <1992Apr14.100434.19108@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
  <1992Apr14.144743.25398@acsu.buffalo.edu>

9204.16


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


Chris struggles diligently while Peggy, Gerald, and others blast him
from all sides.  Todd comes through remarkably and Josh adds his two
cents.  Here is my reaction to the bunch:


Magick CAN be approached scientifically, though not everybody either
1) agrees about what 'scientifically' means or
2) has the same approach even when they DO agree.

Chris' approach was to ask direct questions, challenging the legitimacy of
other people's practice.  Some, who are more secure in their ways, 
responded quietly and succinctly.  Some, who have had difficulty either
with abusive attacks by those who wanted PROOF, or with expressing ourselves
plainly, responded by calling your questions misplaced or ill-worded.
Even if they ARE ill-worded (and I thought as much), it was obvious to me
that your intent was pure.  The abusive responses you receive may well be
from those who are trying to cover something up.  Certainly it displays
pain.

My point is not so much an evaluation of the exchange as it is to explain
why Chris may not get the answers he wants with the approach he uses.  Peggy
said as much recently.  There are many ways to go about getting feedback.
One is to challenge, another is to pleasantly share.  Many people in this
newsgroup like the pleasant sharing more than the challenge.  What one
enjoys receiving in response can well determine which approach is best used.


On the subject of science and magick, I think Todd said a lot of it very
well.  He and I have been wrangling with the issue of science for a while,
perhaps with some benefit.


I would add this...

Chris suggests that the scientific approach to magick ought involve
hypothesis, experiment and exposure.  Others have shown the fallacy of
the last element.  Exposure works for those who are interested in
exposing the results.  For those of us who base our worldview on our
EXPERIENCE rather than a consensus, exposure may not be what we'd like
to engage.  

More plainly, magick involves, more often than not, 
SUBJECTIVE reality.  Consensus works for OBJECTIVE truths, but the
subjective ones don't always translate.  This is one reason that
magick and mysticism are criticized in relation to Science.  The
Scientific Establishment does not trust nonconsensual truth.
Who can blame them?


After reading all these posts I think I have a better angle on what
Chris is looking for.  I think he wanted feedback from the few of us
who don't mind discussing our magical experience.  Some of us have
difficulty doing this (for whatever reason).  That's fine.  Chris
doesn't require that we disclose that which is too painful or too
awkwark/difficult to share.  

What he's looking for is someone who
can discuss magick with the openness and clarity which he's come to
expect from many popular scientist.  I think that, given what arises as
'popular science', the quality of such material may not be the highest
simply because of the level of its presentation, but the attempt is what
is important.  

Look at how derisive some 'scientists' are toward the work
of Carl Sagan, for example.  While Sagan's writings may not be the pinnacle
of precision, he has done much to expose the majesty of scientific exploration
and the glory of wonder.


That said...

Let me preface my example by saying that, for me, magical practice and
'mundane' life are not separate.  I don't invoke, I divine.  I don't
call something into me so that I can be better or get some insight or
whatever.  I explore that aspect of myself which is real, deep, and powerful
in order to realize the divinity of myself and my surroundings;  to expand
that wonder which I lost so much of in 'growing up';  to fully appreciate
That which is an incredible Mystery.  This is my goal in magick.  This
differs from the practice of many people.


My most recent ritual was a shamanic journey.  It is BASED on science 
but perhaps did not come of a specific 'hypothesis' of its own.  I guess
I have a few hypotheses that encompass all I do magically, and the
individual experiments are not so much meant to validify them as to
carry them through.  If the experiment fails, then I know that either
my hypothesis was inaccurate or I went about the experiment in a way
which was inconsistent with the theory.  

In objective science we play with the boundaries in order to learn where
they are and how they work.  We want to discover the 'laws' of Nature.
In subjective science we play with the boundaries too, to learn where
they are and how they work.  Yet these are often DIFFERENT boundaries.  
For the objective they are usually physical phenomena which are distinct from
our personalities.  For the subjective the personality IS the boundary.

Let me state this more plainly.  In magick, I experiment with that which
I call my 'self'.  In some ways I have a hypothesis about who I am and
my experiment will add or subtract from this idea.  To this extent I
can call it 'scientific'.  I think about it, consider ideas, enact
various experiments, OBSERVE MYSELF, and go from there.  I care little
about whether other people know who I am.  They have their OWN selves
to diddle with. :>

My shamanic journey was complicated.  Things in life do not have clear
and concise starting and stopping points.  It is much the way that
microscopes show us that objects don't have such clear-cut boundaries.
Keep this in mind as while I am attempting to reflect on the experience.

To some extent I have many 'experiments' ongoing at once.  I have changed
my name.  I am realigning myself with my resources, occupation and kin.
I am developing a new symbol-system which integrates east and west, fact
and fiction.  All these things overlap, are part of each other, mix and
affect one another.  Yet, with respect to me, they are somewhat separate
processes.  Like the argument against objective science that analysis
never allows us to see the whole, and we are always part of the experiement,
so there can always be an argument leveled against subjective science in
that there is never a 'control'.  I consider these objections dismissable 
in both circumstances, however, since the realms of both are INTENTIONALLY
limited and we must work with what we've got, otherwise we'll never get
started.  Also, the alternatives are sometimes not appealing.


In any case, my shamanic journey began a couple of weeks ago on my Holiest
of Holy Days of the year, Fool's Day.  I suspended all of my self-imposed
restrictions, got a graveyard job at more hours than I could handle, and
proceeded to neglect everything I was doing in my life, including my relations
with others.  Those around me at present are used to this type of behavior,
so they weren't alarmed.

Without going into too many details (which I'd do via email), I entered the
'other world' on April 1, using my traditional guide.  She led me into the
depths of desiccation, self-destruction, and fear.  I saw how close the
worlds of dream and waking really are, felt the fear of my deep self, and
sacrificed my desires for an ideal which felt very far away.  On a practical
level, I accepted the job so that I could get my foot in the door and work
my way into a day shift of less hours.  On a more personal level, it was
a journey to re-establish my own identity, to engage that part of myself
which is attached to structure, pattern and familiarity.

I went without much sleep.  I'm used to 8 hours a night.  Sometimes I got
none, usually 4-6.  I was exhausted much of the time and disoriented in
time and space.  I ate at odd hours, went days with out much food, and at 
other times consumed vast quantities of food (healthy and unhealthy).  I
'came down with' a cold.  Just as I was about to call it quits, I spoke
with my supervisor and he said my hours would be cut in half.  Since then
I've been very excited.  I now see the possibility that this journey
will yield that which I had envisioned.

Did I encounter any spiritual beings?  I always do.  People are very
potent spiritual entities.  My wife consoled me in my moments
of pain, and, while I was sometimes too pained to sense Her, I know that
She was supporting me the whole time.  Foolish faith?  Perhaps.

Has it changed my hypothesis?  Well, yes.  I know better that I am not
this 'being of the light world' that I sometimes think I am.  I know
better what my personal boundaries of endurance and orientation really
are.  I think I see better what the difference is between the world 
of dream and the world of waking.  There is not such a difference
as I'd originally thought.  Sleep-deprivation and exhaustion have proven
this to me many times in the past, especially when my focus was pressed
to the magical, the imaginative, the fantastic, the mysterious, as it
was recently.

So, while it may not be dry laboratory 'alchemy' in which I put up circles
or enacted banishings of a ceremonial sort, it did consist of what I call
'magick'.  I protected myself with my martial mentality, banished seeds of
doubt and unsurity for the duration, and invoked a state of being which
allowed me to see beyond what I normally take for 'reality'.  If this isn't
magick, I don't know what is.


I hope that this helps.  As I've said, contact me via email if you want more
information.  Like Shava, I don't claim to know these things, but it is
sure fascinating contemplating the questions.  Well said, sister!


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


Yours in attempted explanation,

Nigris, O'