Hi Jason,
excuse my over serious or passionate response, it's just me! ;)
On 26 March 2010 17:10, jason winslade <
[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Well, in another example of how difficult definitions are, I'd disagree with the notion that Pagans MUST believe in a deity. I consider myself somewhat of an agnostic Hermetic/Pagan, in that I approach deities as archetypal, psychological entities that *MAY* have external existence, but they may also just be things we humans made up. However, when it comes to effective practice, that distinction is irrelevant, because I practice 'as if' they were external entities. Sort of like Lon Milo DuQuette's approach to the Goetia.
>
LOL - that's two cases of difficulties with definitions! The approach
to entities you outline isn't
necessarily too different from my own,
though I place the emphasis exactly the opposite way around.
Trouble with 'the DuQuette model' is it makes no case whatever for
much updating of a thoroughly derivative methodology (case in point,
so far from being 'The' goetia, it is arguable if it is any goetia at
all!)
I'd argue that the emphasis does make a difference to effective
practice, as follows. Imagine if the entities concerned might be
hacked off by an outmoded approach which relies wholly on an early
modern text indifferent to their origins or 'true nature'. We then
have some motivation for exploring the past more fully, for comparing
our approach with living traditions elsewhere in the world and - to
cut it short - for improving our magic.
This is very different from taking it on and off the shelf unchanged
from 1650 to the present. Something magicians in earlier periods did
not do, so why
should we?
Otherwise we're stuck in an inaccurate 'historical re-enactment' slot
where everything is done by rote and remains the same. Not for me as
you've likely gathered! ;)
Thing is with the 'all in the mind' scenario is even if it is true we
too easily forget it isn't just our individual mind. Persephone was
obsessing Empedocles before JSK was a twinkle in his father's eye, or
his father in his etc., and will still be current long after I've
gone.
From where I sit it is not only easier to work effective magic by
considering them functionally separate from our individual selves and
immortal (which they are in both cases by this definition as well as
older perspectives) but easier to improve what passes for magic, and
our understanding of that of others. Of course it is very inconvenient
for magic (or our understanding of it) to progress, rather than sit
still and be analysed. But art, politics
and religion do, and the
analysts have learned to cope with that.
In any case, most, if not all species of magic are focussed on
spirits, whereas we have now made the centre a pile of 'books that
must not be changed', that is phenomenally skewed, and doesn't aid
comprehension even for a non-practitioner.
ALWays
Jake (probably a polytheist, still making up my mind)
> --- On Fri, 3/26/10, Samuel Wagar <
[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Samuel Wagar <
[log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">
[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
> To:
[log in to unmask]"
ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">
[log in to unmask]> Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 11:58 AM
>
> > Are you saying that a Neoplatonist is not a pagan? I know Neoplatonists who
> > would say they are pagans; are they wrong?
>
>
> No, just that Hypatia wasn't. There's a very good biography of her, "Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzielska (Harvard U Press, 1995) based in part on letters written by prominent students of hers, including a couple of Christian bishops.
>
> I, personally, think that Paganism includes deism - one can't be a Pagan without believing in a deity or several.
>
> Best,
>
> Sam Wagar
