BARBELITH underground
 

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


Low and High

 
 
Jamieon
08:56 / 29.08.01
There's a lot of tossing about of terms like "spirituality" and "mysticism" in relation to "magick", but, personally, I'm not so sure "spirituality", etc. has anything in common with the kind of spellcasting many boarders seem interested in. I'm not sure casting sigils (or summoning servitors, etc.) is a particularly spiritual thing to do. Please note: I don't think any of this stuff is evil or anything, just that I don't agree that it's a spiritual excercise. Now, I've read Phil Hine and Peter Carrol and I know the argument about unnecessary distinctions between "high" and "low" magic - I know "everythings spiritual, the material world too, maaan...." I know about the "gnostic error". But, using that logic, a car's as spiritual as Buddhist meditation; and, whilst this is certainly true, it doesn't necessarily mean that by driving a car I'm moving in a particularly spiritual direction.

Granted, low magical techniques may help us to further illuminate/divinize the world around us (all that "numinous significance" jazz), but I'm not sure how many people here (whose main interest is fucking with probability and boosting their confidence, blah.....) are sincerely using it for that purpose. I've got no problem with you if you aren't, so long as you don't confuse what you're doing with spirituality or mysticism.

Another thing: It seems to me that many Chaotes wheel in the old "Aaah, but 'tis wrong to try to distinguish between 'high' and 'low' magic" argument, without a real working understanding of what these definitions mean. Time for some metaphysics:

Almost every spiritual tradition contains a road map of the creation/degrees of illumination/return to God that can be visualised as a a vertical axis/ladder ascending from the material plane to the spiritual. For example: the Kabbalist, attempting to ascend the tree of life, progesses along each of the sephiroth, starting in Malkuth and ending in Kether. Now, it is at these two points, the world of the relative and the world of the absolute, that the distinction between high and low is made. And the mistakes arise. Those commited to "low", or ego magic, are, in effect, inverting the schematic. Placing their desires and "needs" at the top of the tree ,where Kether should be, and using their spiritual energy to attain them. And then there's the opposite - those "gnostics" and ascetics who deny Malkuth entirely, their sights set squarely on the attainment of the absolute. Both approaches are out of balance, and will never lead to what the mysics described as "divine union".On the one hand one heads straight for the hell realms (or the realm of ceaseless desire and formation) and, on the other, the seductive bliss of the god realms. Both forget Tiferet, the middle way - the essence at the centre of the tree. Real mysticism can be guaged by whether or not the school/teaching in question unites the spiritual and the material, the "high" and the "low", the "above" and "below", Shiva and Shakti, in the heart. This is why real mysticism stresses love as all important, and so many traditions (Sufism, Christianity, etc.) concern themselves with the heart. This is the secret of Tantra.

Real "high" magic encompasses both Malkuth and Kether, and it contains a framework for uniting them. This is traditional mysticism. Many of you seem to be under the impression that mystics forget, or are snooty about, the material realm, but this is not the case. They are snooty about magic that concentrates solely on it at the expense of spiritual evolution. Because desires create more desires create more desires......which only make death even scarier. Malkuth is endlessly self generating.




Discuss if you like.

[ 29-08-2001: Message edited by: runt ]
 
 
Ierne
11:13 / 29.08.01
Didn't we go through all this bullshit a couple of weeks ago? I mean, FUCK.

Those commited to "low", or ego magic, are, in effect, inverting the schematic. – runt

"High" magick is completely egotistical and elitist. And people get into it for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS that others get into "Low" magick.
1) to impress other people
2) to assuage low self-esteem
3) because magick –ANY TYPE OF MAGICK – works.

I refuse to repeat myself and go through this nonsesne again. Check the archives. Goodbye.
 
 
Jamieon
12:00 / 29.08.01
Thank you, Mr. Hine.

If you'd actually read my post you'd see that I go much further in than simply "low magic bashing". I define what was traditionally meant by these distinctions, and I attack the modern perception of what "high" magic is. I'm actually trying to get across something about real mysticism - trying to explain what it is. I think people attack this school of thought (on this board and elsewhere) without really knowing anything about it. Now, as I've said before, one can go to one of two extremes - denying the spiritual in favour of the material ("low" magic"), or denying the material in favour of the spirit (what people here are cussing and referring to as "high" magic). there is another option: the option of the real mystical path that finds the two united in Tiferet, and strives to unite them. I just want you to understand that this is what traditional mysticism is really about: not denying the physical, or "the low", but uniting it with the above. Too many people here seem as thought they don't know about this (being as it's strangely exempt from Hine's books), and I want to set the record straight.

Traditional mysticism isn't all pompous bollocks. The mystics realized that, in certain states, there's no real distinction between "low" and "high". Mystics only recognizes the distinction during certain phases of their work, but, inevitabley dissolve such distinctions into unity.
Real mysticism is a metabelief that goes beyond both. I'm not sure everyone here realizes this.

And considering that I hardly ever post in "the magick" it might be nice if someone favoured me with a reasoned response. We don't have to argue. I'm not trying to contradict what you know, just add to it.

Really, these posts have been an attempt to better define what we mean (or what I mean) when we refer to "low", "high", "magick" and "mysticism". I get the feeling many people on this forum don't really know what mysticism is about. So I'm just trying to explain it a little bit.

[ 29-08-2001: Message edited by: runt ]
 
 
Ierne
13:37 / 29.08.01
Yes, I have read your posts – both of them. And no, I'm not Phil Hine.

It's all very well if you want to discuss ceremonial magic, the Qabalah (choose your spelling), The Middle Pillar, mysticism and other such valid topics here. That's what this place is for. Just say so. "Hey, I'm into {fill-in-the-blank}, who else digs it? Let's share experiences and info." Not this condescending dualist crap about high and low and spirit and matter and "real mysticism" and "Too many people here seem as thought they don't know about this" (your quote). The attitude coming off your posts STINKS of elitism, and that's what pissed me off.

Ceremonial Magick and Kabbalistic (choose your spelling) studies have been around since (at the very least) medieval times. There is a great deal of information on these subjects, both in print and on the web. It's rather obnoxious of you to assume that people posting onto and reading a board dedicated to Magick don't know about these topics. Understanding comes with time, and openness.

I fully agree with you that traditional mysticism isn't all pompous bollocks. It's a beautiful path filled with an incredible amount of wisdom for those that can get their fucking holier/smarter/better-than the rest mentality out of the way.

Stay humble. And don't ever assume.
 
 
Tucker Tripp
08:03 / 30.08.01
Well done Ierne. High can be low. Low can be high. Depends on your perspective. I'd rather be high, but hey experience tells me I'll be low too.

Upshot: They're the same. - next
 
 
6opow
19:28 / 30.08.01
[Damn it. I was trying to take a vacation from all this and merely post to the tarot threads, but now...]

The issue here connects with several threads that have been spun out over the last few weeks, and I seem to share a similar view with you, runt.

Not to offend you further, Ierne, but I think you are missing what runt here is saying when he says, "Too many people here seem as though they don't know about this..." (although I don't know if I would say "too many...") S/he seems to be getting at the idea that there are those on the board (and not necessarily you, Ierne) who have this idea that magick is like this great force that delivers gifts to you simply by casting spells, charging sigils, and creating servitors. To quote the magician E.E. Rehmus:

quote:Magic..., we've all secretly fantasized, is a search for 'powers.' We tend to imagine that it's just the child-like fairytale belief in the ability to work miracles--as though ordinary reality isn't miracle enough. Or, even worse, we act as though magic were just another toy that we confidently expect some giant cosmic Santa Claus to deliver, once we have achieved celibate purity on some pinnacle of self-hypnosis. This is all rather like a dog complacently assuming that you will give him the entire turkey if he merely sits on his hind legs and limps his forepaws.

The spellcasting, sigilization, and servitor creation are but a facet of what magick is about. It appears that runt is trying to go beyond this narrow characterization of magick, and hook it into the so-called "spiritual"--and I do not think s/he is being elitist (but then, perhaps you will merely hurl this label at me as well...), but rather, s/he is concerned that some of the would-be magicians around here are going to end up crucified on a cross of their own self-centred desire; that is, through maintaining the idea that magick operates as this Santa Claus, there are those who are going to miss out on the experience of the unification of opposites (especially the self-other unity)--they'll be able to nod their heads in a zombiesque fashion, "Yes, low and high are the same," but they will have ZERO understanding of what this means. Much like a child might tell you that four times four is sixteen, but s/he is merely repeating this by rote, and does not have an understanding of what it is to put four groups of four into a singular grouping. If only it were as simple as synth's "Upshot: They're the same.-next" For once one has arrived in (to put it in a frame) Tipareth, than one can actually feel that they're the same, but you don't get to Tipareth by maintaining a feeding frenzied marathon run between Malkuth and Yesod.

Indeed, runt, you have a good point in endorsing the meeting of high and low in Tipareth. This is the highest station on the Tree (again, to use a frame) that a human can move to, and yet, still remain involved in the world. The remaining stations take the practitioner across the abyss, and into the pre-material realm; which is to say, functioning from the Supernal Triangle means that you do not work with this reality here (btw: one can work within Geburah and Chesed as these are still post-abyss, but clearly the unity and balance of the Tree as a whole is found in the beauty and love of Tipareth).

I'm beginning to think that a sigil for the packet of crisps is a good way to get one's toes wet, and to experience first hand the current of magick in one's life; however, to become absorbed in sigiling for the next bag of crisps (love how this has become a paradigmatic example for material goods, btw) leads to an endless regress that mirrors the sickness of our consumer culture where the individual is in a constant state of desire because the fulfillment of desire is unattainable: we are conditioned to remain unsatisfied, and always in pursuit of the crisps at the end of the rainbow. Little do we realize that the crisps and the rainbow are already extensions of our self, and as such, the desire for them was unnecessary and illusory from the start.

To close I will quote Rehmus twice more (for the third time's the charm, no?):

quote:M/magic(k) should not be confused with "sorcery," which is the practice of using formulas and rituals by the ordinary mind to affect reality in self-seeking ways. "Magic," on the other hand, is active participation of the higher consciousness in creative experiences and mystical understanding.

and

quote:The otherness of ego enwraps each of us like a prison, but the magus takes all of earth as his body. Magic itself is but a symbol of the greater Magic, which is Unity. The Oneness frees us from the dungeon of darkness and the self and resembles the teaching of Buddhism.

In other words, "real magic" is the realization that this Universe is you, and it then becomes the task of the individual to transform this material realm from the Hell that it currently is into the Heaven that it has plenty of potential to be.

The secret to overcoming Choronzon is contained in its number, which is 333. Transposing this sequence into the English alphabet we have LLL:

Live, learn, and love.
 
 
Kobol Strom
19:58 / 30.08.01
I've experienced through dreams,a connectedness between realms of pain,desire and heavenly beauty and I have been wondering if they can be organised into the Tree of Life.At the moment I seem to be pinballing around my psychocosm,and seeing all manner of things,and being told odd bits of information.What I'd like to possibly add is my experience with spirituality and oneness that I have encountered during trance,which feels to me,like the circuit of The tree of life,is actually being re-routed,for want of a better word,rather than being the culmination of the consolidation of these unconscious realms(characterised by the 'dream as lesson'),this experience,-it is something completely separate in my mind,even the energy rising is experienced in my mind as an antithesis to the realms of trial and test that is characterised by the (lower) other part of the Tree.All the noise is gone to be replaced by a single sensation(s). There is another aspect to this,and that is,that when much of these dreams are dealt with,in a half-lucid way,a new set of dreams will take its place,where the person in the dream being helped along in the course of their dreamquest is someone else.At this point,where on the Tree am I?What am I doing in someone elses dream?I wake with memories of helping ghosts.

[ 30-08-2001: Message edited by: kobol strom ]
 
 
Mordant Carnival
22:22 / 30.08.01
Phew. For a minute there I thought we were going to slither gracelessly back into the Fake Tan Wars.

I think the prob here is that whilst everything in life contains spiritual potential, it takes an effort of will to actualize that potential.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
02:20 / 31.08.01
I think some working definitions of the terms being discussed might be a good idea in order to avoid arguing about semantics.

While I personally like the Rehmus quote that The Godog gave:
"M/magic(k) should not be confused with "sorcery," which is the practice of using formulas and rituals by the ordinary mind to affect reality in self-seeking ways. "Magic," on the other hand, is active participation of the higher consciousness in creative experiences and mystical understanding."

it's charged with the author's own personal dogmas and emotional views on the word 'magic'. (especially with the statement about sorcery and the self-seeking ways).

I personally like Isaac Bonewit's def. of magic even though it's a bit long:

A science and an art comprising a system of concepts and methods for the build-up of human emotions, altering the electrochemical balance of the metabolism, using associational techniques and devices to concentrate and focus this emotional energy, thus modulating the energies broadcast by the human body, usually to affect other energy patterns whether animate or inanimate, but occasionally to affect the personal energy pattern.

Here's a two-parter for Mysticism:
(1) The doctrine or belief that direct knowledge of the divine, of spiritual truth, of ultimate reality, or of comparable matters is attainable through immediate intuition, insight or illumination and in a way differing from ordinary sense perception or conscious thought.

(2) The concepts and theories behind the theurgical approach to occultism.

Spirituality is one of my least favorite vague words even though I use it more than I probably realize:
"Spiritual character, quality, or nature"

What the hell does 'spirituality' really mean anyway?

and finally spiritualism:
"The belief that the dead survive as spirits which can communicate with the living esp. with the help of a third party (medium). Also, any practice arising from this belief."

If anyone has alternatives to the above, great, but lets at least agree on the terms that we're arguing about. especially with the danger of falling into the whole 'low' and 'high' magic debate again.

Runt, what exactly did you mean when you used the terms "magic", "mysticism", and "spirituality"?

What is your definition of spirituality if you don't think that it has much to do with the spellcasting evidenced on the board?

Here are some general questions that came to mind while reading the posts:

At what point does a goal for 'spiritual evolution' leave the realm of magic and enter the realm of religion?

While theurgy (almost by definition) lies within the realms of both magic and religion, thaumaturgy does not. Is it correct to automatically assume that theurgy is 'better' or more desired?
 
 
Ierne
23:09 / 31.08.01
godog: I respectfully disagree with you. I think that the majority of people that post & read here are a bit more clued-in and have done a bit of research as well as actually getting down and doing Magick. There may indeed be some folks out there who feel

that magick is like this great force that delivers gifts to you simply by casting spells, charging sigils, and creating servitors

but they'll soon find out, as one does when one starts dealing with Magick, that it just ain't so. It requires dedication and work to learn and retain the skills and awareness needed to sucessfully work the path. At that point they'll either drop out and say "OH, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK!!!!", keep at it until it does work, or try another type of Magick that might be more suitable. Any of the above options are OK; one way isn't "better" than another.

The Qabalah (my personal favorite spelling) is a wonderful, extremely effective road map for consciousness. Many people in this world consider it a great deal more, which is their perogative. It's got centuries of mileage behind it. But other people just don't resonate with it. Maybe they don't believe in any type of Deity, let alone one as notorious as YHVH. Maybe it smacks too much of white Judeo-Xtian imperialistic phallocentricity for others. (please note: that's not my personal opinion, but it's a complaint I've heard leveled quite a bit at modern Qabalistic studies and Ceremonial Magick in general.) The Qabalah is a really good way, but not necessarily a "better" way.

Magick means something different to each person who practices it. Each person will follow a different path because they lead different lives. And all Magickal paths have maps and methods of reaching the states of consciousness godog and runt refer to in Qabalistic terms. If perhaps the Chaos Magickians on this board have not exactly been forthcoming about how they get there, that certainly doesn't mean there isn't a way to do it, or nobody knows what they're doing. Besides, we're all still learning, every day.

Lothar: Bless you and the Agave plant you rode in on!
Been thinking about your questions. Magick and Religion can and do co-exist, at least if Religion can be defined as "an organized system of faith and worship" (v. old Merriam-Webster dictionary). One really doesn't have to leave one realm and enter another. (I suppose we can mull over the word "organized"...) But one doesn't need to believe in Deity to work Magick. One only needs to believe in oneself.
 
 
Jamieon
08:26 / 02.09.01
I was simply trying to address the fact that mysticism normally culminates with the absolute and the relative united in the heart. And that occultists like Phil Hine are making a real mistake when they assume traditional mysticism is some kind of snobby system that divides the "above" from the "below", and that only chaotes realize that they are equal. And the idea that I can't question this notion (that I assumed many people here prescribed to, seeing as there's so much chaos magic related chat going on here - including a debate about low and high magic) without being called a snob is ridiculous. And that spelling thing was so cheap. I think I define my take on mysticism in my first post: The path towards unity, that embodies itself in the heart.
The thing is, Traditionaly, sigilization, etc. would be defined as "sorcery", as the Godog says. Sorcery is a tiny facet of magic, whose final goal is the realisation of nous (mind) and the unification of heaven and earth. This is the throbbing heart at the core of traditional magical thinking: "as above, so below".....
Like the Godog, I tend to identify sorcery with consumerism which is all about ego reinforcement. And I'm not into ego reinforcement. I know it's all God, but I don't feel it until I stop pandering to it - Another area Godog touched upon.

Well, maybe I did come off as arrogant (although I really don't think ALL my post[s] did. At all.), but I think I raised some valid points. I want new definitions. "High" in the sense that we step off the page, if you will, refusing to recognise the distinction between the binary opposites "above" and "below" (unless it is useful for that stage of the work - which, at the early stages of alchemy, it definitely is.); and "low" meaning those forms of magic that self regress as a result of their severence from their higher/lower partner. Those forms of magic uninterested in the final "stepping off the page" and returning with knowledge....

Most of the major religions, in their mystical aspect, fall into the "high" category. We can debate this if you like.....
 
  
Add Your Reply