Caroline Tully wrote:
I tend the follow the idea that magick is a set of activities eg:
ritual, visualisation, encircling, mantra etc -
and that in total following SG's pov, an aspect of religion
or if you consider its manifestation in the classical world (after Betz)
a religion in its own right.
From a religious perspective the means maybe more important than the end -
some magicians say its all about the result and that magick is just a
process -
but i guess the implication of research such as Tanya Luhrman's is that
taking part in the
ritual is at least as important as any supposed result -
which is often ambiguous . . . ??
Btw the group i am involved with tends to refer to their activities as
"ritual" magick or "freeform ritualism"
rather than "ceremonial" magick
- and my impression is that
ceremonial is less common these days ??
I agree that I'd like to know more about the actual content of the book
under review before getting the reviewer's opinion -
and suggest he should add that - in a way Francis' review represents a
change of direction for pagan press which has
been accused of being too sycophantic and uncritical - and of late more
"bad" notices have been appearing -
On the whole I follow the policy of not publishing a bad notice ie no
review rather than publish a bad one -
but with so much cynical material being published - it can be a
refreshing and amusing to read such -
although as I say, in this case i've no idea whether the critique is
justified
bb/93
Mogg
> I agree with Francis on this:
>
> “Magic is not ‘an aspect’ of anything. Magic is a process, a skill
> which can be exercised. And while it may be true that this skill is
> exercised in a state of alternative consciousness, that does not mean
> that the skill and the consciousness are one and the same.”
>
> ~Caroline Tully.
>
|