Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Belief Systems
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:18:37 +0000

eddie@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Edward M. Averett) writes...

>In article <memo.589066@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
>>[...massive amounts deleted..]

>>Religion is for those who want easy answers.
>
>>Magick is for those who desire power, and yet may still learn that
>>the fool who persists in his folly may become wise.
>
>>Warriors are on the path towards knowledge: New knowledge and the
>>ability to tap into direct experience of whatever interests them, and
>>the forbearance not to be prejudicial in their judgements of that
>>experience. This is no different from the discipline of a dedicated
>>scientist, except that it extends the search for knowledge way beyond
>>the traditional boundaries and the traditional worldview that
>>underpins science-as-she-is-practised-today.
>

Hi Ed. You and Amanda bothe pulled me up short on this one...Ok Lets
shoot...

>Some alternative definitions:  Religion is any collection of belief
>systems which is fundamental to the basis of the individual.

I like the turn of phrase: Sort of like the 'core assumption'. Hate
calling that religion tho :=-( Since arguing the toss with the
metaphysicians I have actually come down to two uses of 'religion' -
the first is the 'relinking' usage - i.e. religion as a (practical)
system to get the individual re-joined with the universe, and the
mundane usage: i.e. belief in external parent-figures a la alt.pagan.
It was the latter usage that I referred to in my original less than
sympathetic outporing :-)

> Science is a religion to its adherents.

No: It may be a faith and a Way, but its intention is toward
knowledge, not toward self development...

> Christianity is a religion to its.

Does seem to be.

>Various philosophies are religions.

I think that is too loose to be useful.

>Shamanism as a body of beliefs is a religion. Etc.

Is it? In the sense of it offering a path and a way back to 'the
infinite' maybe, but in its costume of witchcraft, it is surely a
primitive set of models for practical intercation with organic life?

>Magic is a tool, like a chainsaw. You might just as well say that
>chainsaws are for those who desire to cut people up, and yet may
>learn that they can cut wood with them as well.

Well in the current social climate, and if we - say - replace
chainsaws with something like - say - computres, it might well be
argued that the main reason kids buy 'em is to play games. Only later
do The Few get Initiated into the Mysteries of Usenet...

>There's lots of kinds of magic this newsgroup doesn't explicitly
>address that count in this, including a lot of the magical tools of
>the shaman.

Yeah: I only blasted of at the 'magickians' because a LOT of people
come towards magick looking for cheap thrills and power. Some of
them may stick around long enough to get the real thrills and the
real power - once they have realised that no one in their right mind
would actually want it.....:-)

Look at all this Crowley-Groupism. People wanting to be as notorious
as the Great Beast. Never mind that he did actually have a few
halfway decent things to say - he certainly enjoyed his notoriety,
and has been attracting nerds ever since. My first reaction to
_anyone_ who tells me they are a follower of Aleister is to assume
they are prize nerds. Likewise Xtians. I assume they are immature
personalities looking for substitute parent-figures. Because the
_majority_ IMHO in both cases are.

No doubt others can say that what I like to be involved in - which I
have loosely based on a combination of Castaneda and other ideas as
applied to my own experiences - is likewise symptomatic of some other
personality disorder. It probably is. I just felt like lobbing a few
hand grenades at a few sacred cows. Thats all.



Newsgroups: alt.magick