BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

New Magickal Paradigms: Organizations

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Z. deScathach
04:08 / 20.11.03
Hello Everyonew,

Quantum suggested to me that I start a thread on the pros and cons of magickal organizations in a post modern magickal environment, so here it goes. IMO, magickal organizations, (community, working groups, and such), in a post-modern magickal environment pose some very unique problems. In the past, magickal organizations were held together by the "glue" of their beliefs. Now the situation has become quite different, due to the fact that many mages are doing their own thing, operating on beliefs that they have developed that are unique to them. There is little doubt that magickal organizations can be formed successfully around a core of solid beliefs and hierarchy. This has been done for some time. The problems seem to arise when there are no core beliefs, and little or no hierarchy. Still, I think that post-modern magick needs such organizations. A thread was posted previously on whether spirituality and magick are insurrectional acts. I think they can be, and magickal organizations, while not the be-all and end-all, can aid in this. How does one organize in such a way, however, that both respects and preserves the anarchical flavor of post-modern magick? The Z(cluster) comes to mind in this area, and yet, by all intents and appearances, it's an organization that seems to be dying out,(I could be wrong on this, but that's the impression that I'm getting). The question is, why? IMO it's an important question, because community in magick carries several important functions and benefits. Firstly, probably anyone who has been in a well oiled magickal organization knows that when everyone is on the same wavelength, it can add a lot of efficacy to the workings. Secondly, magickal organizations provide aid and comfort in an intimate way to persons who are going through difficult times in their magickal path. Thirdly, they provide a sense of safety and security because for one thing, it does help to know that if your magick gets out of hand, there are friends to help you get things under control. Magickal organizations also protect in terms of magickal attack. Yes, I know that authors have written for some time that most magickal attack is in the head, and while they are right on that, it is obvious that it is occurring with greater frequency. Then there are the political considerations. If magick is to be used for beneficial social change, the increased efficacy that I mentioned above is necessary. The problem arises when people try to form anarchical magickal groups. While great on paper, they tend to fall apart. I believe that this is due to the fact that there has to be SOME organizing principles, at least in terms of simply running the group. Otherwise here is no coherence at all. Still, there are ways that groups can be formed in nonhierarchical ways. Recovery groups, for example, have shown that there are ways that groups can be organized in order to discourage the formation of hierarchy. Another problem is that of differing magickal paradigms in terms of the individual group members. This is probably the least of the problems, if the group is of sufficient size and overall experience. In any specific group working, it becomes obvious that certain individuals will have the right "flavor" of magick, while others may not. It's just a matter of being honest and recognizing that the working is the all important thing. So what do people think, what are the pros and cons of magickal organizations in a post-modern magickal environment, and if we wish to create them, how do we create them so that people of differing magickal "flavors" are not only respected, but both utilized and learned from? How do we create organizations that flourish and grow? Should we be creating them at all?
 
 
MrCoffeeBean
06:48 / 20.11.03
maybe Hakim Bey is onto something here...
http://www.hermetic.com/bey/tong.html
http://www.gyw.com/hakimbey/occult.html
 
 
trouser the trouserian
10:01 / 20.11.03
So what do people think, what are the pros and cons of magickal organizations in a post-modern magickal environment, and if we wish to create them, how do we create them so that people of differing magickal "flavors" are not only respected, but both utilized and learned from?

Two 'groups' which spring to mind (I wouldn't call them 'organisations') are the Dragon Network and Queer Pagan Camp. Dragon [http://www.dragonnetwork.org/] is a magical network which brings together conservation work, environmental action and ecomagic. It's been going since 1990, has no hierarchy (and only as much 'organisation' as is required to be effective) yet has run several successful campaigns (UK barbeloids may recall the Oxleas Wood campaign in the early '90s). Dragon has worked well with other magical groups - such as Reclaiming Network. It's also put on the occasional conference and put out a magazine. The primary method it uses to communicate with participants is via email & a Yahoo Group. From my own experience of being involved in Dragon events, I'd say that the people I've met value magical diversity and work well on the basis of consensus. Ecomagic is still a comparitively recent 'branch' of magic and no one has 'all the answers' and Dragon has, over the years, has had people as diverse as trad Gardnerians & chaotes participating jointly in its actions.

The Queer Pagan Camp 'network' has been going for six years or so. Here's a couple of quotes from the QPC egroup 'vision statement':

Queer Paganism has grown out of the experiences of being marginalised both in wider society and within ‘our own communities’. We have been told that, unless we are heterosexual, and procreative, or unless we hold specific gender identities, we are ‘not spiritual beings,’ are ‘unnatural’ or are ‘unable to work magic’.

WHY QUEER ?
Queer because we recognise that there are many paths to ‘spirit’, ‘nature’ and ‘magic’ and we positively revel in diversity. We welcome dykes, divas, drag queens and kings of all genders, faggots and faeries, bisexuals, trisexuals, funky heterobunnies, transvestites, transgendered and transexual warriors, deviant angels, lesbians, gays, butches, femmes, celibates and shape-shifters.........and all the magic you may bring that we haven’t even thought of yet.

As Queer Pagans we communicate directly with spirits, nature, ancestors, Gods, Goddesses or other divinities. We do not need mediators. We work consensually to create rituals. We do not need hierarchies. We welcome spirits and work with them. We do not command them. We share knowledge of different traditions and we create new ways of working. Stirring the cauldron of gender we are not limited by gender-based magical working. We believe we can all work with spiritual power, that we all can be our own healers, celebrants and guides.

QPC holds a yearly camp in the UK. I went there this year and I think I can safely say that I've never met such a diverse array of people - and had a simply wonderful time, too! What I did find interesting, in view of this thread, was how QPC folk deal with organisation, diversity, differences of magical approaches/beliefs. The yearly camps are the highlight of the QPC year, and between camps, there's a continual round of meetings, feedback sessions, and 'focus groups' dealing with specific issues such as childcare or redrafting the QPC Vision Statement, as well as egroup communications, socials & other events.

Okay, neither of these two 'groups' are 'magical groups' in the same way that, say the OTO or Temple of Set are, but they are actively engaged in embracing and acknowledging diversity of approaches and individuality, and creating alternative social/communication 'spaces'.

An observation I'd make from my participation in both Dragon and QPC is that if you really want to honour each other's diversity, then it requires continual engagement on the part of the group as a whole. A large part of this, IMO, is about building trust and listening to each other, and learning to value the (inevitable) disagreements which arise from people having different values, aims, beliefs & practices.
 
 
Quantum
10:29 / 20.11.03
As Gravitas points out, the key to a successful group is that you meet regularly and you all get on. It helps to have something in common (ecology, queerness) otherwise there is little reason to form a group in the first place.
A magical organisation should have a Purpose, an Intent, otherwise it may as well be a chess club. The Golden Dawn's Intent was Power (arguably) but as you say they shared common beliefs we don't have and a heirarchy that we don't want.
The first question I would ask someone who wanted to set up a magical group would be "Why? What do you want to achieve?"

The Z(cluster)
The what?

P.S.- Coffee Bean's Hakim Bey links
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:33 / 20.11.03
I think the post-modern approach to magic is as tedious, over played and irrelevant as the post-modern approach to writing or painting. I’m not being funny, I just think it’s time somebody changed the fucking record. Magic is magic is magic, y’know.

I don’t really see much point in ‘magical orders’ as they inevitably seem to degenerate into either ego props or pissing contests. I can understand magicians wanting a sense of community, but by setting up actual communities of magicians I think you’re running a huge risk of isolating both yourself and your work from the bigger picture. It can create a situation where you have little or no involvement with the wider community or wider social framework that you ultimately exist within. The London occult scene is a prime example of this in action. You get a sense that half of the people within that subculture, the people who you always see at every occult/pagan talk and event, don’t really have much involvement with the world that exists outside of the London occult scene. That strikes me as a flawed model, as I really think magicians could benefit from relating their practice more closely to notions of society and community, rather than cutting themselves off and only hanging out with other magicians and people they consider to be in the know.

I’d say that any attempt at creating new organisational models should really take this into account. If you’re organising a body of magicians, then an effort should be made towards considering how that group relates to society at large. I don’t have much time for the elitist stance that positions the hypothetical order of sorcerers above “the common herd” because from my experience this just isn’t true – and is often laughably wrong. I’ve never met a single magician who doesn’t have blind spots and failings. It’s what makes us human. No matter how accomplished you might think you are in certain regards, you can still lose, you can still make mistakes, and you can still fuck everything up. I think it’s vital that any new organisational model addresses these concerns, and acknowledges the humanity and wider social existence of the people within that group, rather than trying to compartmentalise it into a box marked ‘mundane’. Magic is a part of life, and it requires a close involvement with life in all its facets.

I can see two main advantages to magicians organising themselves into groups, beyond the need for a sense of community. I’ll call these the ‘working group’ and the ‘professional body’.

The working group is just that, a bunch of magicians who meet regularly or semi-regularly to do practical magical work within a group setting. I think there’s a lot to be gained from group work, and I’ve learned a lot from my involvement with working groups over the years. However all of the best groups I’ve been in have come about because a group of like-minded people just happened to be in the same place at the same time with similar interests. No big deal, no grand or lofty ambitions. Just a group of people who meet up informally and do sorcery together. In the same way that someone might play on a darts team or play football on a Saturday morning or something.

I tend to believe that every magician has got their own core practice, and that’s always going to be more important than whatever the group is doing. If you have a group that is organised around exploring a specific paradigm or area of investigation, then that’s a different matter. But the issue here is finding a strategy for running group work that allows for the level of eclecticism prevalent post-chaos magic. From my experience of this, I’d say that informal groups that come together out of larger looser networks are the most workable model. But even these groups tend to have a shelf life, and to an extent, I think that should be figured into the equation from the start. Nothing stays the same forever.

The professional body is something different. It’s less concerned with practical workings – although these may well take place or working sub-groups may form out of its membership – and more concerned with ‘furthering the profession’, as it were. I think the Barbelith magic forum is a brilliant example of this. It may seem weird to think of this place as a ‘professional body’ but I think it functions pretty well in that capacity. I read the posts here to keep up-to-speed with current magical thinking. I think it’s one of the best places on the web for quality magical discussion and a lot of very clued up people post here. I suspect that a lot more read the posts and lurk. Again, I’d say that one of the strengths of this place is its informality. As soon as you set something up as a formal magical order, it seems to go pear shaped and attract the sort of people who are desperate to belong to such a group. Which is rarely what anybody needs.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:40 / 20.11.03
Not sure how garbled that came out. In a bit of a cranky mood this morning. Probably not at my most lucid.
 
 
illmatic
11:10 / 20.11.03
(just noticed the posts above, been composing reply offline, apologies in advance for repetition)

Interesting topic. Don’t know if I’d so much go with the avoidance of “hierarchy” as the avoidance of formal, imposed structures – depends on what conations you bring to the word. I’ll try and explain - there are several people I’ve met who have a vast amount of experience and knowledge that I don’t, and it would seem almost dishonest not to acknowledge this, and I’m happy to defer to them, in their specialist areas. To give an example – my martial arts teacher has 30 years experience and knows his stuff backward. While there’s mutual respect, I can’t pretend that we’re equals. I’m there to learn off him and will defer to him – not thoughtlessly (I hope), but I’ve got to acknowledge this. However, this is a hierarchal relationship that has arisen for a purpose and is agreed on both sides, it’s not something that’s imposed on me, it’s not like having to tip my hat to the schoolmaster (or someone of a superior “grade”) just because of his position.

What I’m trying to get at is that imposing notions of “equality” on everyone may, in some situations, blind us to what is going on. Hierarchies will arise due to differences in experience, motivation or whatever, and I think they should be acknowledged, not just avoided just for the sake of it. I’d go so far as to say that they may be an inevitable part of any shared endeavour. In the first group I was in, there was an attempt at restructuring due to perceptions of hierarchy, and this led to some people getting taking away from tasks they were very good at – ie organisational stuff, leading the groups eventual fragmentation. With hindsight, I’d say that these problems should have been addressed in another way.

Moving on – I’m two groups at the moment, one of which may or may not be dormant. The active group is small, has a floating attendance to meetings of 4-8 usually and is quite closely knit. This is my ideal model for a group to be honest – it may be post-modern in this sense, none of us has the time or inclination (or the willing, nubile acolytes) to launch a big order with the attendant grades and wankery. I think when you have a huge group this size, it’s possible that the needs or the organisation as a whole would militate against the best interests of it’s members, with all the attendant cliques, scapegoating, expulsions and other nastiness. With the group, I’m in, it doesn’t really have a strong party line to push, there’s no name as such – there is a history, and some of us have worked on the same practices at tines, but this isn’t essential to participation. Being in this group has given me the opportunity to deepen my friendships with people, which I think is a vital thing if you’re going to work together – the pub sessions and hanging out getting to know each other are as much part of the group as any formal practices. Another thing about this group that I like sharing practices is that it’s helped get me over the idea that there’s one uniform, right way – everybody’s experience is different, and it’s nice to have this reinforced. Obviously, there are disagreement and so on, but being of a small size like this allows us to focus the interactions between people, rather than getting caught up in other distactions.

Final point (this post is about 50 times longer than planned but I think this is vital!) – I think real life facetime together is essential. Much as I love Barbelith, interacting with people in cyberspace is not the same as spending time together in the flesh. You can learn off people in this way, obviously, but if you want to regard yourself as a group, work together, develop a shared agenda - whatever, I think there’s no substitute for face to face interaction. Preferably over a pint in a nice warm pub.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:46 / 20.11.03
Great post, Gypsy!

However all of the best groups I’ve been in have come about because a group of like-minded people just happened to be in the same place at the same time with similar interests. No big deal, no grand or lofty ambitions. Just a group of people who meet up informally and do sorcery together. In the same way that someone might play on a darts team or play football on a Saturday morning or something.

I couldn't agree more. I had a friend in the USA who was 'addicted' to trying to create magical organisations. But the way he went about it ... He'd issue massive charters and pseudo-masonic degree systems, and 20-page explanations of what the group would be about, and then wondered why no one else seemed interested - he wanted other people to 'fall into line' with his vision, not create something together. Producing vast tracts about how groups (magical or otherwise) should be run, without actually participating in a group can quickly become, IMO, a waste of time. High-falutin' models rarely survive contact with real life and real people.

Far better to form an informal group and see where it goes on the basis of what group participants collectively feel is 'important'. I also feel that, when we talk about magical groups, it's important not to get too hung up on the 'magic' part. It is important though, to focus on the 'group' element, if only 'cos if a group has problems (socially, interaction-wise, etc.) then it's going to have a negative impact on whatever the group is about (whether it be rending the veil of Isis or playing darts).

But the issue here is finding a strategy for running group work that allows for the level of eclecticism prevalent post-chaos magic.

One approach to this which was tried in a group I was in was for everyone to 'take it in turns' to present a little 'seminar' on their way of working; try some techniques; do a ritual, etc, so that we all become more informed about each others' way of doing stuff. Achieving consensus is sometimes an effort, but IMO, it's worth it in the long run.

(Synchronicity at work - just after my earlier post I went out for a meeting with my boss 'cos he wanted to discuss issues about company morale & how we could improve the social environment!)
 
 
illmatic
11:54 / 20.11.03
I'm having this strange vision of the Barbelith Magic Forum Darts Club, all in matching satin short sleeved shirts.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:13 / 20.11.03
I'm having this strange vision of the Barbelith Magic Forum Darts Club, all in matching satin short sleeved shirts.

93!

666!

180!

Now, do you want to try for initiation into the cult of Mithras, or do you want to try and go for Bully's special prize?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:00 / 20.11.03
I'm having this strange vision of the Barbelith Magic Forum Darts Club, all in matching satin short sleeved shirts.

LOL!

DARTS in Ascii is 382 which condenses into 13! I think Illmatic is on to something....
 
 
Z. deScathach
13:12 / 20.11.03
Illmatic wrote:
"Interesting topic. Don’t know if I’d so much go with the avoidance of “hierarchy” as the avoidance of formal, imposed structures – depends on what conations you bring to the word. I’ll try and explain - there are several people I’ve met who have a vast amount of experience and knowledge that I don’t, and it would seem almost dishonest not to acknowledge this, and I’m happy to defer to them, in their specialist areas. To give an example – my martial arts teacher has 30 years experience and knows his stuff backward. While there’s mutual respect, I can’t pretend that we’re equals. I’m there to learn off him and will defer to him – not thoughtlessly (I hope), but I’ve got to acknowledge this."

I would agree with this. It does become apparent in even a loosely formed group who has more experience. Of course the difference between a martial arts class and an eclectic magickal group would be that in the case of the martial arts class, a person is learning a "system", often with grades,(belts), exercises and techniques specific to the system. An eclectic magickal group could be compared to a consortium of martial artists of differing styles and levels. In such a group however, just as in a magickal group, people would make decisions as to who they felt was the most experienced in certain areas. Ultimately, they may be wrong or right, but they will make decisions. IMO, one of the best ways to deal with hierarchy in such a group is to make it transitory. In short, hierarchy based upon temporary need. If a working would benefit most from the use of ecstatic trance technique, it will rapidly be apparent who has the most skill in that area. If a working would benefit most from a ritual perspective, the person to put in charge would be the shit-hot ritualist of the group. One thing that I don't think that works well is trying to avoid hierarchy all together, by simply rotating things. Hierarchy, IMO, should be based on the "needs" of the group. It should be pliable rather than rigid. Indeed, it has to be if the group is eclectic.

Oh, apologies for the strange quote technique. I've got to confess that I'm new here and haven't learned all the posting ropes. Off to the FAQ's.....
 
 
Quantum
13:17 / 20.11.03
The active group is small, has a floating attendance to meetings of 4-8 usually and is quite closely knit. This is my ideal model for a group to be honest Illmatic
I agree wholeheartedly with this (and a lot of what else has been said) and suggest we arrange more Barbelith magic meets!

One purpose of a magic group is to exchange knowledge, and the seminars idea is ideal for that, people passing on stuff about their specialist subject. I think it addresses the knowledge heirarchy and fulfils a purpose, and allows other groups to evolve from it.

Elseware has a good model of what he wants from a group and in his inimitable style went and did it. The new Southampton Pagan society is having a series of talks,(that I think he's arranged) and he and I will be giving our thoughts on occult stuff that we know about (I'm going to cover Tarot 101).
That means there's a purpose to the meetings (listen to the talk) it's in or near a pub, and it sparks conversations and ideas that lead to other projects, and most importantly it allows people to network, crucial in any profession (even magic).

The main obstacle to success is succinctly stated by Terry Pratchett; "The natural unit of wizardry is One Wizard"
 
 
trouser the trouserian
13:23 / 20.11.03
The hierarchy vs. consensus argument has been rumbling on since the mid-80's in a variety of occult magazines & forums. It's not a simple, either-or polarisation, tho'. You can get hierarchy and consensus operating in the same group, albeit at different levels. For example, I've encountered magical groups which are outwardly, consensual (and make a big deal about having no hierarchy - 'cos it's evil, patriarchal, etc.) yet seem to have an implicit hierarchy based around particular 'authority figures' who are deferred to because they're written x number of books or are on first-name terms with Starhawk or whoever.

The problem with the whole consensus approach to groups is that it works best in small groups. The more people you have, the longer it tends to take. Some friends of mine once hosted a meeting where there were 40-odd magicians trying to reach a mutual decision on a statement of intent. What they naively thought would be a quick debate turned into a long (and acrimonious) wrangle which ended with 4 different statements of intent and some people refusing to participate because they felt they couldn't commit to any of the options. Some participants were equally pissed off 'cos they suddenly found that people they'd been in the same group with for years had diametrically opposed views on various social issues which, hitherto, hadn't come to the surface. One of my friends commented later that, with hindsight, she'd have probably just gone "this is the statement of intent, this is what we're going to do and if you don't want to join us in this ritual go off and do something else". What I found interesting here is that she, like the other organisers, felt that what they originally wanted to do was 'important' and that the other magicians they'd invited to participate would agree, but lo and behold, they didn't, and a ritual which was intended to pull people together actually had the effect of driving some people apart.

I'd tend to agree with Illmatic here, and accept that hierarchies of difference can arise in groups, particularly where you've got participants who are perceived to be 'more experienced', charismatic, popular, just downright sexy etc., which is going to influence their status in the group. Unacknowledged - hidden - hierarchy, can IMO, be more of a problem than acknowledged hierarchy (if its open and accountable). So for me the issue really isn't about the relevance of hierarchy per se, but how to deal with it if it arises.

Hierarchy, IMO, should be based on the "needs" of the group. It should be pliable rather than rigid. Indeed, it has to be if the group is eclectic.

Good point. Temporary hierarchic structuring can work very well (try putting up a huge marquee without having someone directing everyone else!) in some situations.
 
 
illmatic
13:33 / 20.11.03
Assuming temporary hierarchy etc and playing with power relations could also be an exercise in itself. Keith Thomas gives a lot of exercises concerning the games that can be played with status in his excellent book "Impro" (can't actually remember any of them right now, bugger, must get myself a new copy).
 
 
Quantum
13:53 / 20.11.03
Functionally speaking the best structure is a charismatic leader with a few devoted acolytes who gather people in their wake. But that's hardly what we want...
 
 
trouser the trouserian
14:06 / 20.11.03
Functionally speaking the best structure is a charismatic leader with a few devoted acolytes who gather people in their wake. But that's hardly what we want...

Oh I dunno. I could easily see myself as a devoted acolyte to Seth, for instance...
 
 
Quantum
14:46 / 20.11.03
Ooh! Ooh! That is what we want, let's set up a cult of Seth around himn and found a magical group whether he likes it or not! Illmatic? Gypsy? Anyone else?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:19 / 20.11.03
Well, that Free Age thread the other day seemed to be discussing the prophecies of an alleged discarnate entity called Seth - who I'm assuming is just barbelith's own Seth astrally projecting garbled messages to beatniks or something.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:21 / 20.11.03
So long as there's darts, I'm in.
 
 
Quantum
15:22 / 20.11.03
No, that's just Seth's future self telling the beatniks what to do, don't tell him or the universe will implode from the temporal paradox- we shouldn't be talking about it now in case..*pop* turns inside out
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:23 / 20.11.03
Does this mean that in future, when Seth posts, there'll be a feverish rush to analyse what he says by Gematria? Oh, and I suppose we could come up with a cool acronym - though Cult of Seth has a nice ring to it. I can just see Illmatic in Eygptian High Priest drag...
 
 
Quantum
08:52 / 21.11.03
How about the 'Cult Of Seth, Magicians Initiating Change' (COSMIC) or the 'Brotherhood Against Stupidity, Tyranny And Racial Discrimination', or 'Seth's Magical Instruction on Loa and Enochian' (SMILE) or..
OK I'll stop now.
 
 
Quantum
09:02 / 21.11.03
Wait, the 'Esoteric Secret Organisation To Enhance Ritual and Initiate Change, Deify And Respect The Seth' (ESOTERIC DARTS)
 
 
illmatic
09:05 / 21.11.03
What about The Order of Sacred Esoteric Theocratic Hierophants? I should stop too.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
12:12 / 21.11.03
Cool, we have an ascended master, a great acronym (I vote for ESOTERIC DARTS) - we're halfway to the makings of a 'magical order' already. So what's next? Degree system? Claims of being able to trace ourselves back to Atlantis or Lemuria? Darts match v. the OTO? Is it too early to have a schism?
 
 
illmatic
13:16 / 21.11.03
It's nver too early for a schism. The fact that you don't know that the Ancient Order of Esoteric Darts traces it's lineage back to Atlantis and before implies that you should be thrown out, ath the very least. "Darts" in the instance refers to the bronze spikes worn on the headresses of the High Priests of Ancient Atlantis. I know this is true, my spirit guide "Sparky the Rainbow Dog" told me all about it.

STOPS THREADROT

I'm frightening we're rotting what is quite an interesting discussion. Anyone have any else further to say on this subject? One angle might be to discuss the different dynamics in solo and group workings - does anyone have any opinions/experience here that they'd like to share?
 
 
Quantum
13:46 / 21.11.03
Yes, I have- almost all my work is solitary, and I would really like to get into some group work! I seriously would like to start/join/find a like minded group to develop some skills with, and as far as I'm concerned you lot are the people I want to do it with- magicians with sense (both common and of humour) and skills I want to learn, and who might benefit from what I know.
Geography is the main limiting factor but regular visits to London aren't impossible, with a bit of gumption we could seriously start a loose knit cabal of sorts.
I find solitary working to have a big 'I feel foolish' factor that group working would help overcome.
 
 
illmatic
14:17 / 21.11.03
I have sometimes found the opposite, most of my solo stuff I don't feel daft at all, but if you're watching someone you know do say, an ivocation for instance, it might "stretch your belief" a little - Is that dodgy Goth bloke really the Goddess Diana etc.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
14:32 / 21.11.03
I'd be up for a bit of a loose knit caballing now and again, but the big problem in London is finding a good venue. Any offers/thoughts?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
14:57 / 21.11.03
I think the whole 'suspension of disbelief' (i.e. Is that dodgy Goth bloke really the Goddess Diana?) can be very fragile in a group. It's great when it works and you see people visibly affected by the ritual atmosphere, but equally, I've been in group workings where I've had to really work hard not to get a fit of the giggles from the seeming absurdity of what's going on. It's like those awkward silences that sometimes occurr when something doesn't quite go 'according to plan' and you get those flickers of eye contact between people as they try and work out who's going to do something about it.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
23:17 / 21.11.03
I'm frightening we're rotting what is quite an interesting discussion.

[groucho marx] Yes, you are frightening. And this is a rotten discussion. [groucho marx/]
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
04:58 / 28.11.03
Had a "download" experience about a week ago that I realize applies to this thread.

As I was going to bed I was suddenly struck with the though "We are the New Ethic", and then some gibberish that I can't remember. But the name remained. The New Ethic. I'm still not sure exactly what it means. Perhaps an attempt to establish an organization of magicians in a way that moves beyond heirarchy or consensus.

Perhaps a network system would be better. When something needs to be done you put out the call along the network and you work with who you get, since they're hopefully the ones willing the help. In this way it would work more like an online forum. You have the moderators (I have absolutly no idea who they'd be) who's sole purpose is to ensure that the right people hook up with one another for a given task. There's no authority above the situational level, where the person who put out the call would probably be the one to direct things. Something like that would end up, of course, developing cliques of people, and relies a whole lot more on people being willing to work together.

I'm currently part of the University of Toronto Pagan Society (there not being a University of Toronto Hermetic Study Group or Chaos Magic Club), and I find that the discussions over the list and the few times I've met them in person have been quite interesting and not overly prone to argument (at least to face arguments).
 
 
Z. deScathach
11:37 / 28.11.03
Huh, that's an interesting idea. Just how do you feel this network would work in terms of communication? Personally, I think that it would be a rather good concept. A chaotic group's greatest strength is it's flexibility. Different workings do best with certain approaches. The biggest problem with such a group I would think would be communication. It has to be very good in order to coordinate the right people for the right working.
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
23:44 / 28.11.03
Frankly I think that the internet may be the only option there. If you were going to put an organization like this together on a global scale, you'd probably start breaking things down by continents, countries, and cities. Within a smaller citywide basis, really a single email list is all you need. Perhaps keep a running database of current projects.

I do agree that the communication would have to be quite good, and I think that the people looking to hook up with others for a given situation or working would have to be relativly articulate in how they phrase their requests.

Alternativly you could have a form thats filled out. Not in the official sense, but rather in the informative sense. So for example a form might list what style you practice, where you are, what frame of rreference you're looking at the situation in, a time frame, and a point-by-point look at what you're hoping to accomplish. I dunno, that's just off the top of my head there. Things wouldn't nessecarily have to be that organized, but Z., you are incredibly right about the difficulty of making sure that the right people get hooked up.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply