BARBELITH underground
 

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


Magick as maladaptive coping device

 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
 
Ganesh
11:38 / 04.10.05
That rather assumes 'adaptive' = 'conformist', which I'm not sure is the case. Also, if there was stuff other than "socially maladaptive" on your record, Wolfangel, it may well have been that other stuff that society was 'rewarding' (or at least attempting to find a place for).

I suspect that's a bigger topic, possibly deserving of its own thread.
 
 
Alpha Beth
20:55 / 11.10.05
After reading through this thread I am left wondering what standard is being used to assess how an individual is "maladaptive".

Moreover, what is meant by the use of this word in the original post, if not "conforming to preconceived norms of acceptable behaviour"?

For instance, that the standard of "a nice flat" has been mentioned several times seems to me pretty weak. I do not see how anyone can reasonably assert that someone's magical practice is BS simply because they don't have a nice home. If someone decided to be homeless, and instead had a nice cardboard box, does this automatically exclude this same person from being a "real magician"?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:06 / 11.10.05
Not automatically, no; if that person has taken informed choices that lead hir to a "home-free" lifestyle as being more meaningful, then that's great. However, since the vast majority of people would prefer not to have to deal with the dangers and privations of an unhomed life, it's not unreasonable to theorize that any given person living in a cardboard box ain't doing so good.

Personally, I am not doing great financially--I don't have a steady income, and this impacts on my life and that of my partener in a negative way. I'm not afraid to admit that this reflects badly on my magical practice.
 
 
Alpha Beth
21:08 / 11.10.05
Oh, and apologies, that ought to have read:

"Moreover, what is meant by the use of this word in the original post, if not 'a non-conforming to preconceived norms of acceptable behaviour'?"

Sorry for any confusion.
 
 
Ganesh
21:09 / 11.10.05
Moreover, what is meant by the use of this word in the original post, if not "conforming to preconceived norms of acceptable behaviour"?

I thought I'd more or less mapped this out in the course of the thread. Basically, I'm using the word 'maladaptive' to suggest an inability to adapt to one's environment, particularly one's social environment, to the extent that one's self-esteem and general happiness suffers. My use of the term is different from merely "conforming to preconceived norms of acceptable behaviour" precisely because I'm including this element of subjective dissatisfaction rather than simply TEH MAN forcing TEH MAGUS to become one of TEH SHEEPLE against his will.
 
 
Ganesh
21:12 / 11.10.05
My original hypothesis being that, rather than being a method of helping the individual adapt to his social environment/situation, practising magic can become a way of avoiding doing so.

It was a hypothesis, put forward to be agreed or disagreed with. You're perfectly welcome to take issue with it, as others have done.
 
 
Alpha Beth
21:19 / 11.10.05
Hmm, I don't understand the need to capitalize 'man,' 'magus,' and 'sheeple,' while intentionally misspelling 'the', but likely there is something I am merely missing—I am sure you mean well.

If a person finds him or her self without a home, for example, could not magic be used to keep this same person's self-esteem and happiness intact? This would be 'adaptive' behaviour, would it not?

And, suppose a person is not a people person—doesn't like them, for whatever reason. Are we to judge their magical practice, granting there is one, as a failure or as a mask for denial, simply because his or her communication with non-human entities makes up for communication with other people? Would this not also be "adaptive" behaviour?

Which "social environemt"? Your take seems to have a preconceived notion of what a social environment is taken to be. I would hazard that what is "adaptive" in one social milieu is not in a different one, so I don't understand how some sort of standard can be held up as deeming this or that magical practice 'maladaptive' without bias on the part of the person making the claim that so-and-so's practice is merely "maladaptive."
 
 
Alpha Beth
21:24 / 11.10.05
My original hypothesis being that, rather than being a method of helping the individual adapt to his social environment/situation, practising magic can become a way of avoiding doing so.

We are cross-posting, so apologies if the double posting offends some.

As others before me have said, I do believe that this is certainly possible. But as others before me have said, there is a myriad of things that could be used to the same end.

I am sorry if my curiosity about your assumptions has bothered you, it was not my intent to be a bother. I am only curious about the standards and norms that might be used to come to some sort of conclusions about specific individuals; that is, can anything practical come out of this other than some agreeing to a certain abstract thesis which has difficulty in actual application to real world phenomena?
 
 
Ganesh
21:38 / 11.10.05
Hmm, I don't understand the need to capitalize 'man,' 'magus,' and 'sheeple,' while intentionally misspelling 'the', but likely there is something I am merely missing—I am sure you mean well.

Board in-joke. Don't worry about it.

If a person finds him or her self without a home, for example, could not magic be used to keep this same person's self-esteem and happiness intact? This would be 'adaptive' behaviour, would it not?

It might be short-term adaptive, yes, in that the individual concerned might convince himself that, as a DARQQE MAGUS, houses were for the uninitiated and he was above all of that mugglestuff. It might well be more adaptive to address the problem directly - ie. taking steps to find lodgings - particularly if our magus is actually quite unhappy being homeless.

And, suppose a person is not a people person—doesn't like them, for whatever reason. Are we to judge their magical practice, granting there is one, as a failure or as a mask for denial, simply because his or her communication with non-human entities makes up for communication with other people? Would this not also be "adaptive" behaviour?

It kinda depends whether the individual concerned is happy not being a "people person". Most human beings enjoy the company of other human beings and feel miserable if socially isolated - but yes, I accept that exceptions exist. If someone's genuinely happily alone rather than unhappily lonely then sure, my hypothesis doesn't hold.

Which "social environemt"? Your take seems to have a preconceived notion of what a social environment is taken to be. I would hazard that what is "adaptive" in one social milieu is not in a different one, so I don't understand how some sort of standard can be held up as deeming this or that magical practice 'maladaptive' without bias on the part of the person making the claim that so-and-so's practice is merely "maladaptive."

Again, as I've already stated several times, subjective happiness. This thread was largely prompted by a particular poster known for bemoaning his unhappiness with being a sexual virgin, living with his parents, wanting to communicate with others but lacking the social wherewithal and developing unrequited crushes instead. I've known other individuals in the same situation and, rather than tackling the problems that are making them unhappy, they've taken refuge in a sort of 'I am a rock' persona in which they're able to convince themselves they're magically superior to the common herd, and need not address such mundane issues.

Which would, as you say, be perfectly adaptive if it stopped them feeling unhappy, lonely, awkward. It's when it doesn't that I suggest it's a maladaptive coping mechanism.
 
 
Ganesh
21:45 / 11.10.05
As others before me have said, I do believe that this is certainly possible. But as others before me have said, there is a myriad of things that could be used to the same end.

Sure, and those would be perfectly valid coping mechanisms. What's important is the extent to which they work.

I am sorry if my curiosity about your assumptions has bothered you, it was not my intent to be a bother. I am only curious about the standards and norms that might be used to come to some sort of conclusions about specific individuals; that is, can anything practical come out of this other than some agreeing to a certain abstract thesis which has difficulty in actual application to real world phenomena?

You're not bothering me particularly, but I think you are overemphasising the conforming to "standards and norms" angle and underemphasising what I see as the main issue: whether a given coping mechanism is useful (adaptive) in terms of significantly reducing subjective unhappiness. I don't see this as abstract, but as absolutely practical. I'm not attempting to impose my standards on others, but making observations as to whether magic as an adaptive mechanism is the most useful one. In the situations I've described, it's been my observation that it often isn't - hence my "maladaptive" query.
 
 
Alpha Beth
05:44 / 12.10.05
Board in-joke. Don't worry about it.

Don't worry, I have little concern about it.

It might be short-term adaptive, yes, in that the individual concerned might convince himself that, as a DARQQE MAGUS, houses were for the uninitiated and he was above all of that mugglestuff. It might well be more adaptive to address the problem directly - ie. taking steps to find lodgings - particularly if our magus is actually quite unhappy being homeless.

This reads to me like you've imposed a standard of a having a home as something important to all people. That is, you appear to make a generalization here. It matters not whether a "DARQQE MAGUS" (this in itself seems some sort of slight carrying prejudice) convinced him or her self of what you've stated, the bigger idea is a person without a home could enjoy the freedoms or whatever without any reference to the "uninitiated'. Again, your language use suggests a certain bias with regard to how your perceptions and observations are being framed.

Again, as I've already stated several times, subjective happiness.

And as I've attempted to state, your or anyone else's ideas about what makes a person happy are themselves subjective. Thus, it seems difficult to me to take your own observations of what ought to make a person unhappy and apply them to a general thesis.

This thread was largely prompted by a particular poster known for bemoaning his unhappiness with being a sexual virgin, living with his parents, wanting to communicate with others but lacking the social wherewithal and developing unrequited crushes instead.

Oh, so it was sort of a slight with regard to this person then? I guess they claim to be a "DAQQE MAGUS" or something?

I've known other individuals in the same situation and, rather than tackling the problems that are making them unhappy, they've taken refuge in a sort of 'I am a rock' persona in which they're able to convince themselves they're magically superior to the common herd, and need not address such mundane issues.

Most magicians, if I understand the mythos correctly, are superior to the "common herd." But it as Gypsy Lantern has written, not many are magicians. Indeed, magicians might only exist in myth.

Which would, as you say, be perfectly adaptive if it stopped them feeling unhappy, lonely, awkward. It's when it doesn't that I suggest it's a maladaptive coping mechanism.

So we agree then.

You're not bothering me particularly, but I think you are overemphasising the conforming to "standards and norms" angle and underemphasising what I see as the main issue: whether a given coping mechanism is useful (adaptive) in terms of significantly reducing subjective unhappiness. I don't see this as abstract, but as absolutely practical. I'm not attempting to impose my standards on others, but making observations as to whether magic as an adaptive mechanism is the most useful one. In the situations I've described, it's been my observation that it often isn't - hence my "maladaptive" query.

I do not feel this is as clear as a distinction as you make it out to be. I am still unclear how you can escape standards and norms while evaluating anything subjective, whether this is happiness or unhappiness.

That your are basing this on observations is a clear tell that you have assessed these observations, which means your personal preferences and opinions must necessarily be imparted through your interpretation.

Magic isn't an "adaptive" or "maladaptive" anything. A person's practice of magic may or may not be. Again, I feel that for the examples that have been used there are also counter-examples of equal reasonability. So, I don't understand how this can be practical in any way other than perhaps a means to try to underhandedly get at the individual you mentioned above.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:02 / 12.10.05
'Nesh: Again, as I've already stated several times, subjective happiness.

Alphie: And as I've attempted to state, your or anyone else's ideas about what makes a person happy are themselves subjective. Thus, it seems difficult to me to take your own observations of what ought to make a person unhappy and apply them to a general thesis.

I believe that 'Nesh is talking about the subjective unhappiness experienced by a maladaptive individual. How do we judge the subjective unhappiness of a particular individual? Well, f a person tells you that ze is unhappy, describes feelings of loneliness and melancholy, and expresses a profound wish that things in hir life were different, I think it's fair to describe hir as "unhappy." No?

Most magicians, if I understand the mythos correctly, are superior to the "common herd."

What in the name of tiny baby Jesus are you on about? "Mythos?" We're not discussing fictional mages here, kitten. We're discussing real people who practice, or attempt to practice, or believe that they practice, magic. If, as your post seems to imply, you don't even believe in the objective reality of magic, how can you deny that it's practice might become maladaptive?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:10 / 12.10.05
Magic isn't an "adaptive" or "maladaptive" anything.

Nooo, magic is a set of tools and practices which may be applied in a number of ways.

A person's practice of magic may or may not be.

Well done. That's exactly what we were talking about.

So, does this mean that you're okay with the idea that magic can be maladaptive under certain circs? After all, the sentence "A person's practice of magic may or may not be [maladaptive]" would logically appear to include the concept "A person's practice of magic may be maladaptive", which should put us on the same page. No?

No.

So, I don't understand how this can be practical in any way other than perhaps a means to try to underhandedly get at the individual you mentioned above.

Yes. That's right. You've got us. We've had a four-page discussion involving several different posters purely motivated by the wicked desire to "get at" someone.
 
 
Ganesh
09:25 / 12.10.05
This reads to me like you've imposed a standard of a having a home as something important to all people. That is, you appear to make a generalization here.

Have I bollocks. I used the example of homelessness because you used it when you asked the question. I'll thank you not to lever open my jaws, jam words down my throat then tell me I'm generalising my standards to others.

It matters not whether a "DARQQE MAGUS" (this in itself seems some sort of slight carrying prejudice) convinced him or her self of what you've stated, the bigger idea is a person without a home could enjoy the freedoms or whatever without any reference to the "uninitiated'. Again, your language use suggests a certain bias with regard to how your perceptions and observations are being framed.

Like I say, it's partly a board in-joke. My language is a direct condensation of the tendency I've observed - and already described - for certain self-styled magicians to set themselves apart from the rest of humanity in a magus/uninitiated, awake/sheeple dichotomy. In that sense yes, my language reflects a bias, but arguably not my bias.

And as I've attempted to state, your or anyone else's ideas about what makes a person happy are themselves subjective. Thus, it seems difficult to me to take your own observations of what ought to make a person unhappy and apply them to a general thesis.

Well, if they're repeatedly telling me how unhappy they are with their current circumstances, then I don't think I am being out of line in observing that they're unhappy. Hence "subjective unhappiness".

Oh, so it was sort of a slight with regard to this person then? I guess they claim to be a "DAQQE MAGUS" or something?

Kind of. The tendency was certainly exemplified by this individual, but I've seen it also, to a lesser extent, in other friends and acquaintances.

Most magicians, if I understand the mythos correctly, are superior to the "common herd." But it as Gypsy Lantern has written, not many are magicians. Indeed, magicians might only exist in myth.

Indeed - so it's fair to say that many of those who style themselves magicians are talking out of their arses. Which perhaps adds to the ricketiness of this as a prop for self-esteem, because in these not-really-magicians, it's fundamentally based on self-deception.

So we agree then.

Seems so.

I do not feel this is as clear as a distinction as you make it out to be. I am still unclear how you can escape standards and norms while evaluating anything subjective, whether this is happiness or unhappiness.

You go by what the other person communicates to you. If they tell you, again and again, that they're unhappy, then you accept that they're subjectively unhappy.

That your are basing this on observations is a clear tell that you have assessed these observations, which means your personal preferences and opinions must necessarily be imparted through your interpretation.

So you keep telling me - to the extent that I'm beginning to wonder to what extent your personal preferences and opinions are warping your interpretation of what I'm saying. You appear, sometimes, to be taking issue with points I've never actually made...

Magic isn't an "adaptive" or "maladaptive" anything. A person's practice of magic may or may not be.

Well, of course. That would be why I specified magick as a coping mechanism ie. a device used by certain individuals in a certain way, rather than attempting to generalise about it as a random concept.

Again, I feel that for the examples that have been used there are also counter-examples of equal reasonability.

No argument there.

So, I don't understand how this can be practical in any way other than perhaps a means to try to underhandedly get at the individual you mentioned above.

I mean, the question of magical practice used as a maladaptive coping mechanism is an utterly practical question rather than an abstract one, because if it is being used in this way, it has very practical implications in terms of whether a given individual will manage to address their subjective unhappiness. If it provides a comfort blanket which allows them to avoid otherwise tackling the problems they themselves have identified as causing the unhappiness, then "is it maladaptive?" is a profoundly practical question to ask.

As for whether this thread is purely a means to get at a single individual, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. Frankly, I don't think I'd spend this much time on energy on any one poster. For me, what's interesting is the set of circumstances exemplified by that poster. I wondered how commonly this situation arose with magicians, and started the thread to ask the question. I've received some illuminating replies, and am glad I did.
 
 
Ganesh
10:10 / 12.10.05
One point I suppose I've taken as read but probably ought to have made is that I don't have any particular stake in undergoing psychotherapy/psychiatry automatically being any more adaptive a strategy than practising magick. Exactly the same thing can happen there, particularly with an underchallenging therapist: an individual invests in or identifies with a paradigm which, while purporting to be positively transformative, actually limits personal/social development while serving to maintain an unhappy status quo.

I suppose the common element is that 'real' psychotherapy - like 'real' magickal practice - involves hard work outwith one's comfort zone, and is quantifiable by measurable results.
 
 
Eudaimonic.lvx
11:38 / 12.10.05
I suppose the common element is that 'real' psychotherapy - like 'real' magickal practice - involves hard work outwith one's comfort zone, and is quantifiable by measurable results.

Yeah for definate. For me this is a more helpful way of thinking about the subject than the maladaptive/normal dichotomy. I'm fairly successful (if we define success as career, social life, education etc) and so can handle most situations fairly well. I also kinda think of myself quite unphasable (aka rock-hard chaote - but thats laughable). Just recently I started training in counselling and right away we are sitting in a circle of 50 people having to be brutally honest with ourselves and each other. Totally out of my comfort zone. So the ego gets redefined somewhat. I guess anything (stamp-collecting, reading) can be used as an excuse for not facing up to things, maybe magick provides a more powerful illusion than other props.
 
 
illmatic
14:55 / 12.10.05
Indeedy. And part of the problem is the "elitist"/outsider meme propogated by many magicians, and the problems caused by working alone/solely from texts. Thus the importance of peer groups, mentoring relationships etc.

MZ: I can echo your comments about counselling entirely. Really bloody challenging.
 
 
illmatic
15:11 / 12.10.05
I think some of the comments in the Other People thread are relevant here.
 
 
Quantum
15:35 / 12.10.05
Indeed, magicians might only exist in myth. Alphabeth

...or you might be posting in a forum for them, by them, and about them. Which seems more likely.
 
 
Alpha Beth
21:27 / 18.10.05
Mordant, your condescending tone and sarcasm is unwelcome. It seems to me that it might stem from your own insecurities, but that is merely my perception, and I may be wrong. If I am wrong, where do you think this poor attitude comes from?

As for the use of words like 'Mythos' and asserting that magicians exist in "myth," it seems to me that this is the realm of operation for magical practice. A magician, imho, creates a personal relationship with mythology, and this is what I meant. That two of you were offended by this before asking for clarification of meaning seems to me to signal a lack of understanding of the power of myth and the role it plays in the practice of magic.

Illmatic, simply because a magician must necessarily think of herself as part of an elite does not entail a problem. It is how this same person thinks of herself as an elite that can be problematic. Groups and peer support are no less an elite, and do not necessarily result in proper guidance. To believe such seems an error of judgment that could lead to the very same problems such groups might desire to avoid.

Please, name for me a single magician or group of magicians that have not considered themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?

I do not believe you can.

Is it not better to accept what you are then to pretend otherwise?

Ganesh, people before me in this thread used the example of having a nice home, I merely provided a counter-example to this as a standard. That you neglect the import of this and instead twist it back around to your 'in-jokes' makes me feel like you have presented your biases as I stated. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

You thesis is boring and tired because it says nothing that can't be readily recognized through simple common sense. Anything can be a maladaptive coping mechanism: playing a sport, having a hobby, practicing a trade.

For example, I've met a few psychologists who, through my observations, entirely neglect their own personal short-comings and problems with an aim to assist others deal with theirs. Thus, the practice of psychology can be the same maladaptive coping mechanism that the practice of magic can be—it hinges on the individual and not the practice.

This is why I see little actual practical use of this as a 'thesis' per se. It is merely a fragment of a much larger and more powerful thesis, and again, it seems personal agenda has brought you to state it in this specific and singular (apparently biased) form.
 
 
Ganesh
22:03 / 18.10.05
Ganesh, people before me in this thread used the example of having a nice home, I merely provided a counter-example to this as a standard.

It's not an example I'm using, particularly, certainly not a core element underpinning my use of the term "maladaptive" here, so I fail to see the relevance of flinging it at me.

That you neglect the import of this and instead twist it back around to your 'in-jokes' makes me feel like you have presented your biases as I stated. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

The "import" of what? The import of having a home? The import of people other than me claiming having a home is a core measure of adaptiveness? I think I've made my position here fairly clear: as with social interaction with other people, if someone's subjectively happy living in a cardboard box (as measured by their explicitly verbalising their happiness/unhappiness with the situation), that's fine and dandy with me, and I wouldn't label it maladaptive; if, however, they're living in a cardboard box while expounding regularly on their unhappiness at living in a cardboard box, then that subjective unhappiness might well suggest that the mechanisms allowing them to continue in a situation which makes them profoundly unhappy (for example, a belief that Darqqe Magi don't require houses) are maladaptive.

That's a succinct summary of (what you appear to see as) my "biases". Whether or not you're "convinced" by anything I say is not going to cause me great sleep loss. You're perfectly welcome to agree or disagree with me as you see fit, as has everyone else on this thread.

You thesis is boring and tired because it says nothing that can't be readily recognized through simple common sense.

You don't think appeals to "simple common sense" are boring and tired?

Check out my first post again. Look at the qualifiers with which I've "tentatively advanced" my theory. Look at how I acknowledge the possibility of my generalising from a small subset, based on being a relative outsider looking in. I'm not attempting to lay down the conceptual law; I'm soliciting opinions and personal accounts, and I've appreciated those which have been forthcoming.

Anything can be a maladaptive coping mechanism: playing a sport, having a hobby, practicing a trade.

Naturally - although when these mechanisms are maladaptive, they're likely to be maladaptive in different ways. It's useful, perhaps, to look at the situations in which practising magic (since that's the focus of this forum) might be maladaptive, and examine ways to minimise this - as others have done already within this thread.

For example, I've met a few psychologists who, through my observations, entirely neglect their own personal short-comings and problems with an aim to assist others deal with theirs. Thus, the practice of psychology can be the same maladaptive coping mechanism that the practice of magic can be—it hinges on the individual and not the practice.

Indeed - although again, this phenomenon is probably maladaptive for different reasons and in different ways than 'maladaptive magic'. You might wish to start a thread on it, in the Head Shop or Laboratory.

This is why I see little actual practical use of this as a 'thesis' per se.

You're entitled to your opinion, dear. I'm not sure that I'm advancing it for "practical use", though; I was thinking of it more as a starting point for discussion. In terms of generating interesting feedback, I'd say it's been rather successful.

It is merely a fragment of a much larger and more powerful thesis, and again, it seems personal agenda has brought you to state it in this specific and singular (apparently biased) form.

The same might reasonably be said of your comments here, Alpha Beth. You've posted 19 times on Barbelith, since November 2003, and an advanced Googlescan of your suit name reveals that, even aside from your apparent preoccupation with my "biases" within this thread, a sizeable part (over 10%) of your tiny contribution here has been ill-humoured snippiness aimed at me, for no reason I can readily discern. When it comes to personal agendas, yours seems to involve me.

It's nice that you care an' all, but you might want to try posting about other stuff too. You're starting to look a tad obsessed...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:36 / 18.10.05
Mordant, your condescending tone and sarcasm is unwelcome.

Really? Gosh, I'm just sick about that.

It seems to me that it might stem from your own insecurities, but that is merely my perception, and I may be wrong. If I am wrong, where do you think this poor attitude comes from?

Possibly the oversatiation of my already limited appetite for windup merchants attempting to pick fights by wheeling out tedious straw-man arguments.

As for the use of words like 'Mythos' and asserting that magicians exist in "myth," it seems to me that this is the realm of operation for magical practice. A magician, imho, creates a personal relationship with mythology, and this is what I meant. That two of you were offended by this before asking for clarification of meaning seems to me to signal a lack of understanding of the power of myth and the role it plays in the practice of magic.

That may have been what you meant, but it wasn't what you said, was it? Here's what you said:

Most magicians, if I understand the mythos correctly, are superior to the "common herd." But it as Gypsy Lantern has written, not many are magicians. Indeed, magicians might only exist in myth.

I'm not sure I qualify as a magician in the fullest sense of the word, but I'm trying very hard to be one. I definately don't "only exist in myth," and neither do the people who I count as magicians.

Even if we accept your fairly radical re-write (moving the goalposts from "magicians might only exist in myth" to "A magician, imho, creates a personal relationship with mythology") I would question your definition here. Only a small part of my magical practice involves creating "a personal relationship with mythology." Creating a personal relationship with forces and entities deemed by most to be mythical--sure. Utilising imagery found in myth--got me there. Using the study and understanding of the myths and legends surrounding a being in order to better understand and commune with that being--busted. I would accept that the beings I honour are, arguably, fleshed with myth, in that it could be said that the accretion of story and legend that has helped to form their personalities. I certainly don't imagine those legends to be literally true; however, I don't accept that the beings themselves are "myths". As far as I'm concerned, they're real, in the sense of being external to me and my limited interpretation of them. (I realise that this gets us into that awkward godforms vs Gods thing again, and that my approach is not one favoured by many modern magic(k)ians. Still, works for me.)

This next bit is addressed to Illmatic, but I'm going to tackle it anyway:

simply because a magician must necessarily think of herself as part of an elite

Must I? I don't feel like part of an elite. I mean, I'm quite good in an absolute, compared-to-Joe-average sense, but then I'm in the same sense I'm pretty good at tiling. Does being a dab hand with grout make me elite? Am I elite squared? Do I get a shiny toy?

Please, name for me a single magician or group of magicians that have not considered themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?

I name me. At most I may wander away from the mundane world sideways for a bit. I like the mundane world.

Is it not better to accept what you are then to pretend otherwise?

Yeah, totally. I accept that I'm a fat middleaged housewife who happens to have a nice line in setting lights, mixing potions, and talking to spirits.

Anything can be a maladaptive coping mechanism: playing a sport, having a hobby, practicing a trade.

Fine. Run over to Games and Gameplay and start a thread on "Sport as a maladaptive coping mechanism." I'm sure you'll have plenty of takers. It's potentially an interesting discussion. I would suggest, however, that the issues raised by "sport as a maladaptive coping mechanism" will be rather different to those raised by "magic as a maladaptive coping mechanism", and different again to the issues raised by "psychology as a maladaptive coping mechanism".

it seems personal agenda has brought you to state it in this specific and singular (apparently biased) form.

Sounds familiar...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:53 / 18.10.05

Please, name for me a single magician or group of magicians that have not considered themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?


I think possibly the early British tradition of hedge-witches - they were respected in the community, but then so were other people not of the nobility - respected for having a skill rather than for being t3h ultramundane. Other such traditions exist elsewhere, I think. So, them, probably. A degree of separation is possibly a part of functioning in a liminal state, but I suspect that at any moment Gypsy Lantern wil turn up and tell us with knowledge and a degree of top-rope action that believing oneself above the community is antithetical to the successful practice of at least some forms of magic.

Personally, I think there's a difference between having a specialised skill and being special.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
00:34 / 19.10.05
believing oneself above the community is antithetical to the successful practice of at least some forms of magic.

Indeedy. In fact, if one removes ones nose from the VDU and enagages with the most unusual world around one, one discovers whole swathes of cultures in which the practice of magic is undertaken entirely in the service of the community, with the community, and for the community, and for no other reason whatsoever.

One needeth not a crystal ball and scrying powers to see that Alpha Beth hath a magic ability to speaketh from hir backside with hir disingenuous line of argumentation.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:20 / 19.10.05
What they said, basically.

Please, name for me a single magician or group of magicians that have not considered themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?

I'd be interested to know where this idea of yours comes from? Magic and community are closely linked to the point of symbiosis in just about every indigenous culture that incorporates a belief in magic in its worldview. Magic is ultimately about survival. A roof over your head, food on your table, health and happiness for you and your loved ones. All magic is hunting magic, to one extent or another. We might now have ipods and the internet, but as animals, our needs probably haven't changed too much over thousands of years. Stripping back all the bullshit, magic is directly concerned with those needs. The cave painting that helps you track and kill the wild boar, is the same process as the hypersigil developed in Flash and put on a website to help you find a new job in graphic design.

The magician is a specialist who has spent hir life attempting to become really good at magic. It's a role, a function, a calling. Much like being a doctor, lawyer, plumber, priest, sex worker, scientist, artist or baker of spectacular cakes. All of these roles involve specialised skills that you have developed yourself and made available as a service to your community. Magic is no different. The magician that only uses magic to help themselves is like the barrister that only ever represents hirself in court. It's a bit of a waste of hard earned skills. Magic is a community focused activity.

If you look at cultures where magic is less marginalised than it is here in the west, you will find it occupies this role. Specifically in African and African diaspora countries, the role of magician is not the preserve of elite and aloof special people who tower above the mundane world of mundane people. It's a job in the community, a fairly weird and sometimes misunderstood one, but no more than that of sex worker. Magic is normalised in the sense that the magical plays an intrinsic part in the day-to-day life of everyone in that community.

You can see the magician occupying the same role in practically all cultures where a belief in magic is accepted by society, including pre-Christian and even Medieval Christian Europe.

In the west, you can identify a split between this version of the magician and their role in society, and the more elitist and intellectualised model epitomised by the "Dr Faustus" archetype. It posits magic as the preserve of the rich and wealthy, who have the time and resources to undertake "the Great Work" - a kind of alchemical perfection of the soul and union with the Divine. It's this tradition, along with freemasonry, that filtered quite heavily into the Victorian occult revival and its later proponents such as the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley - from which our modern conceptions of what a magician is, and what a magician does, owes an enormous debt.

However, if you go back and look at primary sources, such as the work of Henri Cornelius Agrippa whose work 'Three Books of Occult Philosophy' published in the early 1500s was a huge influence on virtually every later reconstruction of European magic - you will find that perceived split between what could be termed 'low folk magic' and 'high ceremonial magic' undermined hugely. Agrippa deals with both areas, you will find both bodies of knowledge existing side by side on the page.

It does make me wonder to what extent the concept of an aloof and elite high magician situated above the common herd of mundane sheep is a construct of fiction. So I'll turn that question around for you:

Please name me a single magician or group of magicians that DOES consider themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?

I can't think of any apart from a tiny minority of fuckwit left hand path satanists. Even someone like Aleister Crowley, who can occasionally come across as a little fascistic, is entirely egalitarian in the sense that "The Law is for all" and "Every man and woman is a Star". His Magick is the art and science of accomplishing your True Will, which is the birthright and purpose of every single human being. There is no sense that magicians are somehow "special people" above the common herd. In fact, I can't think of anywhere that this idea you have really exists apart from in fantasy novels and science fiction - which, not being funny, does seem to be the source for a lot of your assumptions in this thread.

And you quoted me out of context - I never said that Magicians exist only in myth, I said that there aren't really very many people I would rate as a "Magician" and that not everyone who affects an interest in the occult qualifies by any stretch of the imagination. On a good day, fucking yeah, I'm a Magician - a good one. I drop the ball occasionally and have my off days, but I aspire to be a good Magician. I work hard at it. I put in the hours and put in the effort. It's not a coping mechanism for me anymore than my local GPs self-image as a doctor is a coping mechanism for him. But every twat who drapes a stethoscope around their neck and has an encyclopedia of medical terms on their bookcase is not a doctor, in the same way that every twat with a pentagram necklace and a few books on magic is not a Magician. You can't fake it. You are either living it, working hard at it, putting yourself on the line, overcoming your own personal obstacles, empowering yourself and others and trying to make a better life and a better world in whatever way you can. Or you're not.
 
 
grant
15:00 / 19.10.05
I wonder what would happen if we took "magician" out of every post in this thread and replaced it with "Catholic priest."

I'm not sure I see the two roles as all that different, as far as social structure OR potential maladaptiveness.
 
 
Ganesh
15:13 / 19.10.05
I think it might be similar, Grant, except that being a Catholic priest probably necessitates more by way of a formalised training structure, regular mentoring and social interaction ie. it generally can't be achieved from the privacy of one's own bedroom (or cardboard box) alone. Training for the priesthood also arguably involves more status/recognition within mainstream culture, rather than a particular subculture, so the situation would be slightly different.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:30 / 19.10.05
I would add to that, that a 'Catholic Priest' is a title awarded to you by an organisation called the Catholic Church. I daresay you can be a Catholoc Priest and actually be a rubbish Priest in terms of your relationship and closeness to God and the fulfillment of the priestly role in your community. Because there is no such organisation that bestows the title of Magician, you can only rate a person's claim to that title solely on how well they rise to the challenge of the role and what it entails. Do they walk it?
 
 
*
15:36 / 19.10.05
Because there is no such organisation that bestows the title of Magician, you can only rate a person's claim to that title solely on how well they rise to the challenge of the role and what it entails.

Well, no. I could— and many do— rate that claim based on how many Bookes of Darke Artes they have written and how much time they spend in all black with various bits of silver occult jewelry about their person. That's at least as useless as a belief that a Catholic priest is automatically close to God because he wears the collar, but it happens just as regularly.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:40 / 19.10.05
Well yeah, you could. But that wouldn't make it real outside of your imagination. You could put a kung fu black belt round your waist but that wouldn't mean you can fight like a kung fu black belt, unless you actually can.
 
 
Dead Megatron
21:57 / 19.10.05
I want to give my opinion on this. I am NOT a magiciam, I am only a curious layman who would LOVE to be a magician. So I can totally agrre with this theses of "claiming to have powers to fight low self-steem". Yeah, I have issues, but I am working on them. To surpass one own weeknesses can be considered a form of magick, kind of, but it is the thing one must complete before getting started with "real magick". But believe-me, this guys are not real user of "magia", only wanna-be's. Real magician, I reckon, must be very rare and look either totally insane, or really, really cool...

Am I wrong?
 
 
illmatic
06:43 / 20.10.05
name for me a single magician or group of magicians that have not considered themselves above the mundane world of mundane people?

Coming in late but I'll add: all of the magicaians/occultists in my circle of friends who I ilke and respect.

Quick question: How do you form a magical elite? Get two or more magicians in the bar and wait till the third round.

To add to what Gypsy said, you might want to look at Mahayana Buddhism, where a huge part of the practice is genrating compassion for all and sundry, and acting on same, rather than sitting at home congratulating yourself for owning some Kenneth Grant books. I don't see anywhere within such practices the idea of self-preivelging elitism

I think that dropping the adolescent self-identification of being better than the "common herd" and trying to see the complexity of other people is a really important part on work on oneself. And much more challenging as well.
 
 
Unconditional Love
08:57 / 20.10.05
Elite vs mundane is all about false power isnt it? Created by sensitive ego structures to create a barrier.

Its a blind form of banishing performed from fear of expanding the senses and there interaction with other people.

Lesser banishing of the sheeple. hermetically sealing in the fragile personality of the wannabe magician. Isnt it also a good way to start brainwashing people into a cult? make them feel special and different in some way or another, yeah i thought so. I remember people a long time ago trying to tell me i was different, pandering to my ego.

Of course another way of brainwashing is telling people there all basically the same, neither is worth latching onto in the long run really now, there both too extreme, aren't they?

Intresting what some people would have you banish in order to become a magician. everyone has there preferences on what must be banished and what must be highlighted. neither creates greater freedom. The sense of freedom suddenly becomes the movement between sheeple and elite and the space between polarised by the dynamic, that is just a trap, like any other conscious comparrison.

Magick as freedom, magick as power, A powerful freedom, free from power.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:38 / 20.10.05
Elite vs mundane is all about false power isnt it? Created by sensitive ego structures to create a barrier.

Its a blind form of banishing performed from fear of expanding the senses and there interaction with other people.


True. This kind of perspective, whilst temporarily of merit as a crutch for a fragile ego, is awfully deadening for the spirit in the long run. There's a tendency to fixate on one path, one way of doing things, and one interpretation of that path only. Once you decide that you are the Elite of magedom, that makes everyone who isn't working it how you work it inferior, worthless. You can no longer look outside yourself for inspiration or refreshment of the imaginative faculties, so that when you hit a plateau with your work you assume it's a peak and get stuck there.
 
 
Unconditional Love
22:10 / 29.10.05
I ve been thinking about this thread and figured i could use some of the ideas here to further investigate the ways in which i hide from myself, and found some of the following personas lurking about in the swampy mush of my brain.

The angry anti religion metaller.

The sorrowful wounded goth.

The divorced from reality game player.

The religous devotee wraped in fervour, wraped in a soft blanket of religion.

The liar and thief whose getting his own back.

The mighty magician whose power over comes all.

The politico whose angry at injustice and loves to be outraged.

The ex junkie/mental patient who is just so messed up he is inoperable.

The seeker of ancient wisdom/conspiracys the secret knower of truth.

So far they seem to highlight these needs Anger,Sadness,Escape,Power and Sloth.

I tend to personify these through dress, language, media objects and especially feeling, i think many of the personas exsist as a basis from feeling and i think that addressing these feelings is the large part of the work, but that i may also approach it through the objects i use to keep certain personas afloat.

So for example i am thinking of removing the colour black as much from my dress as possible because of the personalities that use it as a prop and because of the sorrowful angry character it seems to draw within me. Also removing associated music to these emotions. But i have to bear in mind i have done this kind of thing before and it has repeated on me, so my main focus should be on the emotions and feelings themselves which is the hard part.

Anybody else care to comment on there own work in this area?
 
  

Page: 123(4)5

 
  
Add Your Reply