From: rjb@milton.u.washington.edu (LeGrand Cinq-Mars)
Subject: Re: The Middle Pillar ritual, help needed
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:03:48 GMT

Someone or other (I downloaded alt.magick without any 
headers whatsoever, which makes for an interesting 
read) made the following remarks, which I extract from 
their context in a state of wonderment.


  "... I will not use Kabbalah in ritual.  (I 
  believe that using Kabbalah in ritual, other 
  than devotional ritual, is contrary to the 
  intention of the Jews who developed the Kabbalah 
  ....".

  "One other caveat: while there are some folk, 
  for example Crowley, who say that these Hebrew 
  letters, names, and other correspondences are 
  part of the inherent nature of the universe, 
  *most* experienced magical practitioners, of any 
  style, recommend that one only use forms which 
  one has an understanding of.  ...  I have 
  developed a similar ritual form, without any use 
  of Hebrew or other concepts which are not 
  natural to the dominant Western Culture.... It 
  would also only make sense in a context of what 
  is meant by the "middle pillar".  IMO, forms 
  without context are forms without power."

                          Questions

1.  "Forms without context are forms without power."  
But isn't it common enough in esoteric training to 
begin with forms -- without context -- of practice, 
and encourage the student to generate the context 
through practice?  Isn't that one way that forms 
acquire power?

2.  "...recommend that one only use forms which one 
has an understanding of."  And how much of an 
understanding is enough?  And how does one know what 
percentage of understanding one has?  And whether 
one's understanding is incorrect?  Wouldn't one have 
to know the correct understanding to know that one's 
understanding was incorrect -- and isn't one of the 
hallmarks of having an incorrect understanding *not* 
understanding how incorrect one's understanding is?  
If one knows that one only understands something 50%, 
but must understand it (say) 75% or better in order to 
use it, how does one know this?  Wouldn't one already 
have to understand it well to understand how little 
one understood it?  Leaving aside the notion that this 
kind of injunction is deliberately paradoxical, isn't 
it true that it's generally after passing one's 
driving test that one really begins to learn how to 
drive?  Or, not to be too metaphorical and allusive, 
that one generally comes to understand things by using 
them?  Didn't Eliphas Levi repeat approvingly the 
advice to people with "doubts" that they kneel and 
pray -- and by praying encounter faith?

3.  "...without any use of Hebrew or other concepts 
which are not natural to the dominant Western 
Culture...."  What in the world can this mean?  
Certainly embedded in it are the propositions that (a) 
cultures have things that are natural to them and 
things that are not, that (b) it is improper to have 
any truck with things not natural to one's culture (or 
perhaps to things not natural to "the dominant Western 
Culture"?), and (c) that one language (Hebrew:  what 
then about Aramaic?  Arabic?  Greek?  Latin?  German?  
French?  Scottish English?) and certain (unspecified) 
concepts are among those unnatural things.  Whose 
"Western Culture" are we talking about here?  The 
Western Culture of Dionysius the Areopagite, Hildegard 
of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Ramon Llull, Anne 
Conway, Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, John 
Milton, John Donne, Emmanuel Swedenborg (to get away 
from the Johns:  this isn't just about Johns' culture, 
after all),  Isaac Newton, Adam Mickiewicz, Jacob 
Boehme, John Pordage, William Blake, Goethe (another 
John!), Jane Leade (a female John?!) Longfellow, Yeats 
(etc.) -- or the Western Culture of Bart Simpson?  To 
*whose* Western Culture are these things not 
"natural"?  Speak for yourself, John.

4.  "...I believe that using Kabbalah in ritual, other 
than devotional ritual, is contrary to the intention 
of the Jews who developed the Kabbalah ...."  About 
taste and beliefs that do not claim any foundation 
there is of course no arguing, but let's turn this 
into a proposition or two anyway -- it's more fun that 
way.  If it were not an inconsequential expression of 
personal taste, it would contain at least the claims 
that (a) that nothing (especially any cultural 
product) should be used in a way other than (or merely 
contrary to?) the intention of the person or people 
who developed it, (b) that there is one, unitary 
Kabbalah [there isn't], (c) that it was developed by a 
unitary group of people with a unified intention ["it" 
wasn't], and that (d) this intention allows anyone to 
use it in ritual as long as that ritual is only 
devotional [see (b) and (c)].  Now (b) through (d) are 
historical claims, and (at best) thoroughly 
problematic; (a) on the other hand is ... well, just 
silly.

If it were not, it would mean that various American 
Indian religions (not to mention Santeria) had 
improperly used elements of Christianity (against the 
wishes and intentions of the copyright holders), that 
Luther had violated the Pope's copyrights, that the 
works of Mohammed's followers should be repossessed by 
Jews and Christians, that Christianity should yield 
its royalties in turn to Judaism and the school of 
Alexandria (which would also acquire a controlling 
interest in several varieties of Judaism, some long 
out of circulation), that the School of Alexandria 
would be obliged to offer some of its royalties to the 
gymnosophists and the Buddhists (though its parent 
corporation, the Platonic Academy) -- but that the 
Tibetan Buddhists at least would be in hock to the 
Nestorians for their tulku complex, the Sufis in hock 
to the Buddhists as well, along with the later 
Taoists, although the later Buddhists would be in hock 
to the earlier Taoists, and so on...  And where did 
the Tree of Life diagram come from, anyway?  The 
question of who has the copyright on that user 
interface is still in litigation, though the 
Kabbalists and the Neoconfucians are probably out of 
the running, the Neoplatonist claim seems to be based 
on a never-implemented prototype, the Idries Shavians 
and the Castanedistas have been adjudged without 
standing:  the major contest will probably be between 
certain joint ventures of the Buddhist and Taoist 
enterprises.

And then of course there are all the non-religious 
notions and customs that drift from one group of 
people to another.  The felonious Mr Farouche would be 
in debt to the executors of the estate of Augustine of 
Hippo, Newtonian physics would be the preserve of 
alchemically-oriented crypto-Arians supervising Her 
Majesty's coinage... Who has the patent on neckties?  
Are the Japanese infringing on the British patent on 
suits?  What about golf and baseball?  How much do we 
owe India for the zero?  And which community in India?

I can imagine something like a central patent office 
for cultural notions of all sorts -- with patents 
granted in perpetuity.  Or maybe something like the 
licensing that allows radio stations to play recorded 
music, or the use fees on library books in Britain.  
What fun!  What guaranteed employment for lawyers and 
bureaucrats!

--LeGrand

Newsgroups: alt.magick