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 >

Magic and Madness

  
 
Blake Head
22:45 / 04.05.06
I’ve recently finished reading two books: Schizophrenia: The Meanings of Madness and Strong Imagination: Madness, Creativity and Human Nature . The first is definitely showing its age, but I still thought it was useful as an introductory text, and it’s peppered with observations and quotations on the traditional links between certain forms of mental illness and creativity, particularly Romantic creativity. The second, by Daniel Nettle, is more explicitly about exploring the connections between the creative temperament (if there is such a thing) and the personality types that are susceptible to psychosis as well as the mental disorders that can be termed psychoses themselves.

Anyway. I’m fascinated by the links between specifically artistic creativity and mental structures on their own, but (as a non-practitioner), I was also interested by what I saw as the repeated similarities between the experiences of those individuals with long-term disordered mental states and my own understanding of some of the foundations for current magical thinking. I think on my own I would quickly come to the limits of my knowledge on both these phenomena, but I am interested in the inter-relationship between madness*, and in particular certain clusters of symptoms grouped under the banner of schizophrenia (which I realise is not usually thought of as a discreet illness), and both the concepts and practice of magic. [There are also probably interesting historical / anthropological / religious routes this topic could lead down (but probably elsewhere)].

Specifically, both the above books highlight tendencies in sufferers of psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and affective psychosis or severe uni/bipolar disorder, towards, variously, perceiving the world in a different or special way, a sense of elation at feelings of interconnectedness or extreme fear of highly unlikely consequences, delusional states of mind, being overcome by one’s sudden appreciation of vast lattices of meaning which just as quickly lose coherence, being overwhelmed by external reality, the loss of personal identity, the increase in a sense of personal responsibility or extreme empathy, incoherent, unstructured thinking with a larger use of associative wordplay, idiosyncratic mannerisms, focus on the self and personal philosophy (introspection), perceiving irrational, non-empirical chains of causation in certain actions (rituals) and a certain social disassociation with a corresponding charging of energy in inanimate objects (fetishisation). Some or all of these seem to me to be, superficially, very strongly reminiscent of various magical practices or attitudes, and I wondered if they could be explored in more detail. In a point I find personally fascinating, Nettle also describes, citing Adolf Wolfli, a tendency in likely schizophrenic individuals towards creating abstract, idiosyncratically symbolic visual art (initial thoughts – sigils?), as well as an increased likelihood of related work in different mediums (as in magical ceremonies) - the artistic implications I might get to elsewhere if I can summon the coherence.

I’m reticent to bring into the topic perhaps the most obvious schizophrenic / magical trait similarity, that of the mental awareness of voices external to one’s own inner voice, but it is on the surface another link. Part of the problem with analysing magical phenomena is that as I understand it they are considered to be more experiential than demonstrable, so the above example is probably one I’m least interested in because it relies on a comparison between a truly psychotic incident and, purportedly, the experience of interaction with beings of a different order of reality, be it religious, mythological or internalised / psychological avatars. Bluntly, I think making a case for magical thinking displaying a psychotic deficiency in logical reasoning between observations and beliefs (as in autochthonous delusions) is, while… plausible, something that would be highly arduous, and certainly not something I feel competent to assess or provide evidence for.

One of the primary shared ideas I am interested in would be the understanding of the world, the universe, as being connected at every level, and the attendant fragility of the self’s boundaries within that; tying into the schizophrenic depersonalisation which has been observed to occur when others are seen as just a bundle of particles. My personal awareness of the metaphorical possibilities such a view allows is probably as far as I would go, and in some ways my view of magic is probably formed through an identification with that: as the concept of the conscious manipulation of those connections, through a variety of different structures towards various goals, whether or not those are ultimately understood as having physical or psychological consequences. Crudely, a mentally disordered person might be seen as sharing that view of reality, and may even believe they are able to affect it, but crucially they might be distinguished by what would be considered impairment to their conscious or structured interaction with that set of connections.

To get more than a bit less technical, there’s a quote from… somewhere… which I’ll attempt to find if it’s not obvious to anyone else… about the difference between a normal or even artistic perception of the world as choosing to look out the window of one’s house, appreciating it’s beauty and diversity, while a schizophrenic lives in a house where the windows have been broken in, and during psychotic episodes they are literally subject to that expansion in perception, and the disordering effects of an overwhelming external world. I don’t know what the appropriate magical metaphor would be, except for perhaps choosing to carefully wander out into that landscape, and affecting it.

However desirable it might be to place certain mental qualities on a continuum, there are, of course, important differences between a scatter-brained day-dreamer and an individual with a pathological deficiency in organisation or mental coherence, just as whatever the continuity between sadness and pathological depression it’s useful in various contexts to have a break point between them. At the same time, the sensitivity to the world described by those suffering from an affective disorder is often seen as somehow positive, or liberating, and fundamentally inseparable from their way of living and perceiving themselves and the world (again, there should be disclaimers that perhaps the majority of those suffering psychotic incidents find them to be anything but liberating). But, there does persist this idea that “being touched with madness” is a way of experiencing the world in a different, and partially positive way, and where, for example, periods of hypomania can lead to enhanced artistic productivity, even at the same time as they blur uncomfortably against pathological mania. I’d also like to track down a work with reference to emotional as opposed, or in addition to, primarily cognitive disorders: Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament (K.R. Jamison), which I mention because Nettle will later use the idea of harnessing that imaginative fire (which might be considered an act impossible for the clinically psychotic) as a means of understanding its danger; and because it might be a useful, even familiar symbol, for understanding the manipulation of energy that magic is understood to do.

Nettle’s book in particular uses the “psychoticism” to emphasise the difference between tendencies or vulnerabilities in individuals towards developing psychotic conditions and those living with clinical disorders (where both score highly in tests of their capacity for imaginative thinking), and is also perhaps quite understandably didactic in declaiming the disadvantages of a mental illness to creativity. He underlines the importance of application, structure, intelligence and hard work, and I can only surmise the same is true for magical workings, whatever the source of the original inspiration. Clearly, the similarities that I described above rely upon individual cyclical or schizotypal tendencies, which are prevalent within social groups pre-disposed to psychotic disorders, and possess some similarity to symptoms of those disorders but are not necessarily identical to them. Nevertheless, I’ve seen in the past attitudes which advocated the unconsidered pursuit of chaos and incoherence as a route to greatness, which at best seems foolish and, with particular regards to magic, (hypothetically) actively dangerous. I think this debate over the potentially positive imaginative qualities linked with madness, not entirely resolved, raises a number of questions for the artist, sociologist, psychologist and the magician.

So: could a person who was mentally disordered practice magic? How dangerous would it be? Depending on how you see both, are they complementary (in even some sense) or mutually exclusive? How is madness conceptualised within a magical framework? How can madness be understood through magic as cause, consequence or antithesis? Is there a wider discussion to be had regarding the privilege / normativity of rationality in Western culture; how does the practice of magic incorporate irrationality without leaving its practitioners vulnerable to debilitative psychological disorders? Do certain magical workings explicitly court or highlight madness as a danger? Could one utilise magic in a curative fashion to ease or erase mental disorder? Are there strong views in the magical community about the differentiation between the two states? How are they distinguished?

…

Just in case I haven’t been direct enough: I’m not trying to suggest that Temple people are psychotic, I’m genuinely interested in the similarities and would appreciate more knowledgeable heads (on either topic, or both) making a contribution, or providing links to resources / past discussions. For that matter, I’m not suggesting either that there’s a essential them and us attitude with regards to the practitioners (and not) on the board, as there are interesting parallels documented in the books above as this dichotomy being something that with regards to insanity (outwith clinical and legal settings) should probably be seen as unhelpful, and I’d probably agree with the point in the opening post here as well, of disordered mental states being more complicated than a binary division of those who suffer from them and those who don’t, and I think that methodology might be usefully expanded to include the idea of accessing different structures of perception or reality. At the same time, I’ve been rather struggling with whether to stop every other sentence and distinguish between seeing mental illness, creativity and magic as essentially similar conditions - and so sensationalising my own anecdotal understanding - and highlighting the traumatic rupture of identity and lifestyle that marks a clinical case, or just to keep going in the interests of relative brevity and not being seen to be protesting too much. Torturous prose aside, hopefully it will all make sense; though I’m quite happy to be corrected if I’ve made a misstep.

*
I’ve used madness as a general term for an admittedly large continuum of mental states because it seemed like its utility and its presently non-clinical nature would outweigh the disadvantages of it being a somewhat old-fashioned, restrictive word; and lunacy has a whole other set of associations (!). Feel free to discard, modify or expand on my perhaps vague premise, I was just a little uncomfortable bringing up clinical language when it’s really not my area of expertise, and I thought an overly clinical or specific terminology would hamper discussion of how disordered mental states are discussed / theorised in magical circles (presumably, though, not using medical terminology). I’m painfully aware that both titular concepts relate to a variety of states and defined bodies of knowledge that are not necessarily homogeneous, I just don’t have the space or the knowledge to do them justice, so apologies in advance where I am by necessity generalising about mental illness or the magical community as distinct, whole entities.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:54 / 05.05.06
There was a recent thread called something like "Magic and mental illness" that deals with a lot of these questions. Worth a read.

For me, it's as simple as this: Does your involvement with and practice of the broad church of techniques and beliefs that, often for the sake of expediency, are grouped together under the label of "magic" serve to empower you and increase your understanding of the world, its mysteries and your place within them? Or does it actively disempower you, increase your sense of alienation, hamper your ability to deal with the world, and generally cause more problems than you would have otherwise?

Now in a lot of cases, and with a lot of alleged "magicians", it's sadly the latter case. The lines between magic and mental illness are rather blurred, and it just isn't really doing the person any real favours to exacerbate their already tenuous sense of internal grounding, by bringing all sorts of other problematic, abstract or difficult material into the mix.

But, as I see it, those people are rubbish magicians. The skill of an effective magician is not to jump off into the deep-end of madness and lose themselves to the tide. The skill of magic is about being able to enter weird territories of consciousness in order to comprehend things that you would otherwise be blinkered to, and to come back with that increased understanding, remaining intact and healthy. It's about being able to navigate difficult or challenging areas of your being. Walking between worlds, with grace and finesse. Not wandering off into a delusional nervous breakdown and forgetting your way back. If you do that, you've dropped the ball.

For example, a big part of my own practice is about developing close personal relationships with mysterious forces like love, death, fear, anger, justice, happiness, pleasure, sexuality, duty, honour, responsibility, father, mother, lover, and so on. Very real forces that impact on our day-to-day lives constantly, some of which we might have difficult, challenging or deeply problematic relationships with. Most of which we tend to go out of our way to avoid looking at too closely in our everyday lives. A part of the work of a Magician is getting right up close to all of those things, looking them in the eye, buying them a drink, having a chat and working things out. That can be quite a challenging thing to do, it can test you and make you go to some uncomfortable places.

Through enacting this process, I've learned vast amounts about myself, my perceived parameters of thought and behaviour, how I relate to the world, and so on. I've grown and evolved tremendously as a direct result of my practices, and I'm not talking about developing cool psychic powers (although I have them too, obviously) but really getting to grips with challenging, difficult aspects of my nature. Sorting myself out. Tackling stuff like feeling comfortable in my own body, unraveling problematic behaviours instilled in childhood, increasing my confidence, examining my attitudes to relationships and sexuality, looking at the deeper processes of consciousness that effectively create and set the boundaries for the lives we construct around ourselves, and taking responsibility for my own thoughts, beliefs and actions in the world. It's a never ending process, and the more you advance, the more you begin to understand how vast an area all of this is, and that your 10+ years of walking down this road has only been the tip of an iceberg of mystery.

Is this what a mentally ill person does? I don't really think it is.

Being a Magician is a difficult and challenging task. You need your wits about you and you need to be in full command of your resources, because it will test you, it will push you out of your comfort zone, and it will make you grow. If you're not having experiences like that on a regular basis, dealing with them and coming back stronger, more effective and more capable as a human being, then you're not a magician, just a muppet with a black t-shirt and some freaky jewelry.
 
 
Fell
16:24 / 05.05.06
I find it odd that we so commonly refer to this all as the psychoanalysts would have us, as "mental illness." Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off as pretentious, but it wa an interestng thought.

What answered all my questions regarding this all was logic and ontology.

"The art of ranking things in genera and species is of no small importance and very much assists our judgment as well as our memory. You know how much it matters in botany, not to mention animals and other substances, or again moral and notional entities as some call them. Order largely depends on it, and many good authors write in such a way that their whole account could be divided and subdivided according to a procedure related to genera and species. This helps one not merely to retain things, but also to find them. And those who have laid out all sorts of notions under certain headings or categories have done something very useful."

—Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding

As in the case, or so I've heard, of Frater Achad (Charles Stanfield Jones, Vancouver), he went "mad," losing himself to the study of the Kabbalah.

If all associations are, in fact, akin to a fractal, then its easy to see how one might become "mad" by losing themself to the infinite ways the logical, structured world can be re-associated to itself.

But if you reduce the structure of understanding beyond the mundane, eventually one shall find the four key elements: fire, earth, air, water. Or, respectively, that we project reality via four faculties of being, respectively: intuition and sensation, intellect and feeling (emotion).

In contrast, Austin Osman Spare was so comfortable with the concept, that he could allow emenations of the primal elements to project into the manifest world around him. He would be unaffected. His exercise in reducing the world around him to these elements, of himself, allowed him this. His brain was "wired" for it.

The story of the Golden Dawn members who visited Spare that one day, prompting him to evoke an elemental (presumably believing Spare couldn't), suffered psychological trauma because of it. They simply hadn't worked themselves to a level of perspective which allowed them to see everything reduced down to its very base, primal essence.

Madness is not an illness. It is a skip in the logic, the understanding of the world around a person. That is why Zen koans are of such importance: they teach the student paradox, to understand paradox. The brain must be broken and rebuilt to understand and be comfortable with such notions. Koans represent a "little bit at a time" sort of neurological "rewiring." Spare's elemental represented a smash to the ontological balls, with a sledgehammer no less.

Too much at once, not healthy. Will render away way too many foundations of "formed reality" in the student, thus leading to madness. Your childhood and developed mind will crash and burn, as it is wont to do in light of no-thingness.

This is why we have initiation and rites by which to build up the capacity to comprehend and coexist with these alien notions. But it takes practice.

It's not dangerous, one just needs to know wtf they are getting themselves into, and take it a step at a time.

Reminds me of the damage that can happen to divers when they come up too fast; they must do it slowly, methodically.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:12 / 05.05.06
I find it odd that we so commonly refer to this all as the psychoanalysts would have us, as "mental illness."

Yes, darn those psychoanalysts, with their rigid mundane worldview, white coats and probably bulgy foreheads!

Okay, I'm kidding. But Fell, I very much doubt that you could find a psychoanalyst who was prepared to diagnose the use of Zen koans (f'rinstance) as symptomatic of 'mental illness' unless it had somehow become damaging and was part of a raft of other problems.

I think we're all probably using the word madness in different ways here. What worries me is that there's a tendancy to sort of gloss over often quite serious mental health problems as being some kind of indicator of magical ability, or access to a higher wisdom, or whatever. As someone who still wrassles with a fair whack of mental illness myself, I find this both unconvincing and more than a little offensive. I don't accept the spectrum model of 'madness,' with koans on one side, schizophrenia on the other, and magicians paddling around at the shallow end. I'm prepared to accept that the mystic and the schizophrenic have traits in common, but I would argue that there are certain important qualitative differences between them.
 
 
EvskiG
17:29 / 05.05.06
>I'm prepared to accept that the mystic and the schizophrenic have traits in common, >but I would argue that there are certain important qualitative differences between them.

As Jung said to Joyce, one is swimming, one is drowning.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:55 / 05.05.06
I think even that's a bit of a mistake. One is swimming, the other is frequently going "Water? What water glugluglugluglug..."
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
20:48 / 05.05.06
The previous Magick and mental illness thread, just for reference.
 
 
Blake Head
22:15 / 05.05.06
Gypsy Lantern: Thanks for the suggested reading (it was before my time, so to speak). Not quite the emphasis I was trying to place on the topic but definitely interesting nonetheless. Certainly at points it exhibited a use of magical knowledge (rather than praxis) which caused or exacerbated pre-existing chaotic thinking, social withdrawal and paranoia, which I agree can only be negative. Your later points, and those of Fell’s more specific promotion of elemental structures, suggested that one’s "involvement with and practice of the broad church of techniques and beliefs that, often for the sake of expediency, are grouped together under the label of 'magic'" becomes positive when it serves to provide a helpful structure to an enhanced perception of the universe. What I was trying to suggest, perhaps erroneously, is that this might be analogous to the evidence of structures created by those who suffer from delusional psychosis, as an attempt to better understand information they are otherwise unable to process, and how these two activities might be distinguished, which I think provisionally you’ve done in emphasising the positive personal and social ends magic seeks to reach. One of the things that came up in the other thread which I already had in mind was the social dimension that magic can have (if not always), which is largely absent in the psychotic’s withdrawal from or distortion of social interaction.

I’m not quite as sure what role the hostility to “alleged ‘magicians’” plays in your argument, and apologies if I’m misreading here, but the tone of your post suggested a certain hostility towards the juxtaposition of real magicians and the mentally ill. I certainly wasn’t trying to equate magical practice with possessing a mental disorder, simply suggesting further discussion of non-psychotic traits that they could be said to share. In particular, I was also considering the ambiguous presence of positive traits such as imagination, lateral thinking, non-normative perception, intensity of feeling, which it could be said aid exactly the navigation of a stormy inner being you discussed, whether that’s seen as magical or not. Obviously the possession of such traits is not limited to those who practice magic, or indeed independently indicative of psychoticism; I guess the main thrust of my questions was whether those who use techniques and systems of knowledge that we might broadly categorise as magical might recognise the similarities between the two modes, and would be better placed to articulate the differences than I am. As I said above, this thread developed from observations on trait similarities between those with tendencies towards both creative work (or the qualities beneficial in producing such work) and developing mental disorders. The book I mentioned above suggested strongly that a mental disorder in itself was not beneficial to creativity (quite the opposite), but that certain traits were shared – not uniquely – by sets of people likely to encounter both. Extending this, I thought it would be worthwhile to try and gauge opinion on what I saw as a similar situation, as of course there is far less momentum within the scientific community to do any kind of study on such a non-scientific phenomena as magic.

Fell: “Madness is not an illness” I think that viewpoint has a lot of problems, not the least in placing the responsibility on each person to develop their understanding of the world, where we are directly referencing mental states such as psychosis where that ability might be impaired or even absent; I realise that there are different ways of understanding and even typifying mental illness, if you wanted to develop your point perhaps you could discuss these in more detail?

Mordant: I’m sorry if you’ve felt that the thread minimises the significance of mental health problems; I was really hoping to avoid that. I entirely agree with your point regarding not discarding the scientific or medical perspective on these issues. I think there is going to be a larger problem with terminology and different paradigms than I had originally anticipated. Anyway, whatever sympathy or not one might have for categories of mental disorder, or how one wished to analyse the social pressures which contribute to their formation, I don’t think I would ever consider diagnostic terms to be entirely without merit. As for situating madness and magical states of thinking on a continuum I’m not entirely sure that was what I was originally suggesting. As above, it’s really the qualities associated with madness, or being close to madness, that I think it’s worth discussing – partly because of their positive qualities, and partly because I’m interested in how different individuals conceptualise their dangers in leading to more disordered states. Personally I think it is possible to conceptualise the traits and symptoms of forms of “madness” on a continuum without being reductive, and as a form of self-analysis useful in a practical sense in understanding one’s own nature, and to see if the idea of magic as a personal attribute or quality can be integrated into that, but I do agree that there are crucial differences in situations where a clinical or legal binary determination must be made. Even then, however, I’d argue that were one not judged to be clinically psychotic one might still have a greater tendency towards psychosis or exhibit relevant traits than someone else, just as there are a variety of forms and degrees of mental illness on the other side of that binary. I agree that "the mystic and the schizophrenic have traits in common, but I would argue that there are certain important qualitative differences between them.". I’d really appreciate any further contribution you wanted to make on what you believe those qualitative differences to be, I’d be very interested in hearing more from your perspective. I don’t know where I’d begin discussing magical ability, but again an area where an analogy might be made is discussing whether certain types of individuals are more prone to developing magical awareness or knowledge (and groovy psychic powers, naturally), and whether this could be matched up, even anecdotally, with those individual’s more prone to developing mental illness. And in itself I think this asks a larger question of “Who does become a magician?” and “Why?”.
 
 
Anthony
16:15 / 13.05.06
madness can be the result of imperfect magick. you can end up as Crowley said, stuck in the abyss, a black brother, reaping aeons of incalculable agony. and the failure of course is greater than just on the individual person.

magick is madness and madness is almost magick. the key is how well you can still function in society and i do fine albeit perhaps maybe a little bit narcissistic and sociopathic.

let's say that madness is maladaptive magick.

let's say that magick is successful madness.

"success is thy proof!" or words to that effect - book III liber al vel legis. always worth a re-reading.
 
 
johnny enigma
09:06 / 18.05.06
An interesting thread, and a subject I have thought about many a time.
Personally, I have worried about my sanity since my early teens (I am now in my mid twenties), even to the point of having nightmares about being committed etc.
The ironic thing I have found is that my magical practises (a mix of meditation, divination and occasional imporivsed ritual) has made me "feel" saner than ever. Obviously this is completely subjective, but strongly felt none the less.
It's my intuition that what is often called "madness" in our society is quite often people's natural magical faculties that have yet to find an accepted avenue of expression - this brings to mind that quote in the dead sea scrolls that "what you bring forth from within you will save you, what you donot bring forth will destroy you". It is the discipline and theoretical framework that magic can provide that allow people to make useful the more magical aspects of their character instead of being destroyed by them.
*first post on temple*
 
 
LVX23
09:52 / 18.05.06
Cheers on your post, Johhny!

In contrast, Austin Osman Spare was so comfortable with the concept, that he could allow emenations of the primal elements to project into the manifest world around him. He would be unaffected.

For me, magick is rooted in a shamanic ability to move between worlds - to delve into madness without yielding to it completely. Or perhaps, yielding to it temporarily but retaining the ability and will to jack out.

Gypsy's most excellent Drift technique is, to me, all about this notion of walking between the worlds and speaks directly to the controlled schizophrenia of magick. Essentially, it's a technique for allowing the soul to be reflected by the world around us - interpreting every sign as a direct communication from Spirit. License plates, grafiti, stickers, twisted trees, cracks in pavement, chance encounters - in an open trance all of these thigs can reflect and reveal the inner world to the shamanic drifter. The schizophrenic receives these messages as well but has little or no ability to return to the calm quiet of "sanity". Furthermore their interpretation is done through the dark filters of affliction rather than the mythic constructs of magick.

And maybe this is the root, that the esoteric canon tries to establish functional roadmaps for the terrain of madness. The rituals and meditations should help one to reflect and gain enough insight so we can have a strong sense of self that holds up against the onslaughts of the Underworld. Know thyself, balance the spheres, etc etc. I would argue that the schizophrenic first suffers from a fractured self and thus has no solid foundation against the forces of the Kingdom.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:57 / 18.05.06
It's my intuition that what is often called "madness" in our society is quite often people's natural magical faculties that have yet to find an accepted avenue of expression

Interesting point, johnny, and a theory I've seen and heard expressed a number of times in the past. However, I would suggest that in our culture this is no longer true, if it ever was.


Although Western Europe does not have a long and unbroken tradition of magic as an integral part of one's culture in the same way that some other civilisations do, it's not as if we're entirely shut off from the mysterious either. Actual in-depth engagement with magic is still fairly rare and occultism in general is very much a fringe interest, but not completely unknown. The small ads bristle with premium-rate psychic hotlines; the local Borders will happily flog you To Ride A Silver Broomstick or a blank Book of Shadows for twenty quid; the hoardings outside the cinema advertise An American Haunting. Granted this is all a bit crap, but it's still an invitation for our hypothetical person to consider a spiritual rather than a mental health explanation for (say) the disembodied voices. Might not be the first port of call, but it certainly exists as an option.

It's worth noting that in cultures where magicians and spirit-workers of various stripes are accepted as a normal part of life, safeguards exist to ensure that a person reporting possible psychic phenomena is really talking to the spirits and is not suffering from hallucinations. A trained and experienced practitioner, often more than one, will likely examine the individual and make sure that they are telling the truth and are in good mental health (and that the spirits are who they say they are and not something dodgy).
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:17 / 18.05.06
(Of course, an accepted avenue of expression--holding seances for your mates or whatever--isn't always going to be the most conducive to mental health, to sorting out the signal from the noise of one's own internal rumblings rather than getting lost in the din. Hmmm. Going to have to go away and think about this...)
 
 
Quantum
12:26 / 18.05.06
The story of the Golden Dawn members who visited Spare that one day, prompting him to evoke an elemental (presumably believing Spare couldn't), suffered psychological trauma because of it.

I haven't heard that story- tell us more!
 
 
Ticker
15:21 / 18.05.06
When dealing with liminal events (the daimonic in particular whether called or spontaneous) the flexibility of the individual and their cosmology is an essential survival tool. This ability to adapt and to be appropriate to your current situation is a key skill in navigating the various realities.

Those who can move betwixt and between contexts and interact for the benefit for themselves/their community are embraced. Those who cannot adjust to be appropriate (as the rules of their current context require) are needfully wrangled. Even the destructive aspects of the individual's actions are welcomed if they are viewed as appropriate. Almost all functional practitioners require a transitional period of adjusting to the different states.

These terms are fluid as are the boundaries we ascribe to the experiences. They fade in and out of fashion depending on the needs they serve. Suffering of the currently labeled 'mad' is sometimes separate from whether or not they are useful and so given a title to denote that. Who is to say if all shamans and priests are happy well adjusted folk when they are ridden? Our inspired artists often suffer a great deal and produce great art. If they are ill we wonder if the cure will rob them of their Muse.

The ancient world left us myths of the poets, bards, and storytellers who could navigate the Otherworld and return with useful information. This included the Celtic awen of divine inspired poetry, a highly sought after talent. Often this information informed the cosmology and the etiquette of daily life. We know shamans and priests intercede or travel these path ways for purposeful tasks. What happens to those who encounter the Other/Unknown and do not have a greater purpose to shore up their fragile perceptions?

Many of our illnesses of mind and soul maybe residual ways of thinking unhooked from the patterns of ancient needs. The food obsessed now maybe responding to some generational training essential in years past for survival. Now it is inappropriate behavior and the individual has not adapted.

Ted Holiday was a Fortean researcher of some note who followed the Dragon. In pursuit of cryptozoological information on lake monsters he opened the back door to the occult and the daimonic. His encounters increased with the daimonic until finally his mental and physical health failed completely (reportedly).

This is not to deny physical/mental ailments that cause great anguish and suffering. Rather it is to reflect on those labeled inspired/useful cursed/harmful are fluid definitions based on context. We owe it to those that suffer to not add to their pain by dismissing it.

What is your intent in your work? Does your purpose sustain you? Do you have a community to assist and support you?
Like Orpheus we need to have a good reason to go into the Otherworld and if like him, we lose that purpose, we risk losing everything.
 
 
Quantum
16:16 / 18.05.06
xk- you say at the start there that to get there and back again safely you need flexibility. So was Victor Neuberg just too rigid?
 
 
Quantum
16:23 / 18.05.06
Welcome to Barbelith by the way, could you tell us more about Ted Holiday and his monster madness? I am a fan of all things Fortean.
 
 
Ticker
18:17 / 18.05.06
(I think the form ate my last post. Pardon me if it duplicates, I tried to check first....)

Thank ya. It's awfully nice to be let in from petitioning on the doorstep.

I tend to keep a respectful, if gossipy, distance from speculating on the doings/undoings of ritual workers. Fascinating stuff but I'm not going to wade on in on Victor Neuberg's experience. I'm sadly one of those people who have to repress grinning whenever those folks are brought up in conversation. It's the fifth grader in me, I admit it. Though please don't think I'm distaining the value of anyone's work either.

I highly recommend Ted Holiday's books 'The Dragon and the Disc' and 'The Goblin Universe'. Great Fortean works and relevant to this thread as you can get a sense of Holiday gradually losing it from interacting with the daimonic.
In TD&TD Holiday's observations of the physical side effects of certain places associated with the Dragon will be of special interest.

For the occultist there is an interesting subtext about the daimonic putting the vanilla (read straight scientific ) researcher through an initiation Ordeal via the phenomenon. What happens when you can't restructure your cosmology to include the really outre stuff?
 
  
Add Your Reply