Print

Print

Would it be fair to say that from the beginning of ceremonial magic there were people who worked in groups and others that preferred to be alone for such things?  And of course, there were people who liked both.  It seems a likely assumption.  Personally, my image of a ceremonial magician is one that draws certain strengths from hermit-like living and would likely not share easily with others the secret powers he or she employs, being extremely choosy with his or her relationships outside the home. 

"The mundanes are a weight that unfortunately must be borne from time to time..."    - a naughty wizard

However, we know that priests from the main western world religious traditions practice a form of ceremonial magic. 
Magicians who seek mainly to help people, like a priest or shaman, would be unable to help the people they do if they worked in solitude for they act as spiritual doctors.   They would probably be bored if alone.

It all comes back to intention.  What is the intention of the act?  Personally, I like the idea of helping people, but I can imagine ways to do that in the solitude of my sanctum sanctorum. 

Marc Carter

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:19 AM, mandrake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Caroline

I suppose there is the myth of the witch's sabbath -
and not sure if  it counts but the
Corpus Hermeticum has about half a dozen named participants - and
although the ritual or "theurgic" element is only alluded to a couple of times -
because of the context - it was definately there - some modern commentators say that there is no reason to
think this isn't a reflection of actual practice in
the late classical world ??
But even in CH there is aa apparent preference for two handed rituals ??

Mogg



In the history of Ceremonial Magic, rather than in Neo- or ancient Pagan religions, what was the group ritual situation? I know John Dee had Edward Kelly... But is there a history before the Golden Dawn of multiple participants in a Ceremonial Magic ritual?

~Caroline.


---- Morgan Leigh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
Greetings,
Sir David Attenborough has posited that the Australian aborigines were
using ritual/dance/music to convey spiritual meanings for a very long
time. He asserts that this form of communication predates language in
all humans by quite a long time.  I can't remember the source on this
but I was reminded of it recently when watching one of his docos...

Regards,

Morgan Leigh
PhD Candidate
School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics
University of Queensland
religionbazaar.blogspot.com

Shaz Dair wrote:
   
Good for you, Caroline, or at least I agree with your sentiments about
solitude during ritual.  It seems to be an individual choice which is
more to one's liking, solitude or a group.
      In my opinion, performing ritual in public groups should be limited
to celebrations like holidays, when there is a parade or something like
that.  If one's intention in the ritual is to evolve spiritually (the
Great Work,) it wouldn't be helpful to have all the distractions of
other people.  If we are evolving individually, then the experiences
would differ greatly.  The ineffable is most difficult to share,
especially with the uninitiated.  That isn't to say that one couldn't
find a reason to unify a crowd for a specific purpose...
 As far as origins of ritual, I think we are overlooking the probability
that it was in early primary societies when the leaders of the tribe and
shamans would present for the tribe, dance and drum.  This would far
pre-date written history and animal parts for dress would quite probably
be ubiquitous.  If we are talking about western ceremonial traditions, perhaps the
origins would be in Mesopotamia, Sumer or Babylon and then Egypt.  Due
to the proximity of these societies (including Greece) trade would bring
the cultures closer together and the mingling of cultures could
influence the ritual structures of the magicians in each city.

Pax et Lux,
Marc Carter
Issaquah, WA
 P.S. Hi everyone, I am new.
 On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

   Yes, you're right. I suppose I am more interested in doing ritual by
   myself or with one other person. I find I get a better results and
   can concentrate better. Ritual I do in groups – which would mainly
   be the Gnostic Mass – just seems less 'magical'. I don't go very
   deep in that situation. Perhaps it depends on who else is in the
   ritual, in fact I think it does. Invariably public ritual involves
   incorporating people you don't like and I've decided to stop
   participating in rituals with people who I don't even want to be
   social with.

   
   ~Caroline.

   
   *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic
   [mailto:[log in to unmask]
   <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Sabina
   Magliocco
   *Sent:* Saturday, 13 December 2008 9:41 AM

   *To:* [log in to unmask]
   <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
   *Subject:* Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theatre and Magic(k)

   
   I think it was the California group NROOGD (New Reformed Orthodox
   Order of the Golden Dawn) that had/has an offshoot, Magical Acts
   Ritual Theater.  At cons and festivals, Magical Acts regularly gives
   workshops on how to conduct good theatrical rituals.

   
   There are lots of confluences between theater and ritual.  Need I
   remind everyone that the roots of Western theater lie in the Attic
   festival of Dionysus?  But beyond that, doing a ritual for more than
   just a very small group inevitably involves theatrical aspects.    Even in a relatively small group, there are aspects of ritual that
   involve enacting something, and these can be most effective if they
   involve sensory stimuli.
   
   Then there's the whole question of acting the part of vs. embodying
   deities.  While the difference may seem quite distinct, I think
   there's more of a continuum; acting a part may be a doorway into
   "aspecting" or possession.

   
   Sabina

   
   *From:* Society for The Academic Study of Magic
   [mailto:[log in to unmask]
   <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of
   *Caroline Tully
   *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2008 2:16 PM
   *To:* [log in to unmask]
   <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
   *Subject:* [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Theatre and Magic(k)

   
   Speaking of the crossover between theatre and magic(k), now I
   remember when I came across the Caliphate OTO in Australia in the
   early 90s, they were also into Golden Dawn style ritual and I
   remember the Master of the group telling me that most of his Golden
   Dawn group members joined because they **thought it would help them
   with their acting / theatre work** - his social scene was very into
   performance art. I was disgusted at that, because I considered that
   the joining of a magical order should be purely for exploration of
   magical ritual, or at least primarily for that purpose. I don't
   necessarily think that now. Around that time I started to see
   material coming out from, I think it was either Church of All Worlds
   or Reclaiming, on how to make really theatrical rituals... specific
   workshops on how to do that. You do need to do a good theatrical job
   when performing big public rituals, of course. (Well, do you? I mean
   what is this? Magic(k) or religious spectacular? My idea of magic(k)
   is intense focus on the task at hand, not **performing** for other
   people, I've always been rather annoyed at that, I mean when I've
   found myself in those performance situations, but that's me – I
   guess CAW and Reclaiming are really 'Pagan' rather than 'Magical'..
   although that could be debated and participants do claim to be doing
   'magic').  Also, of course the G.D and O.T.O. rituals **are** very
   much like being in a play (not that I've ever been in a play –
   because acting is the last thing I want to do ever - but I have read
   some)!

   
   ~Caroline.


     
--