Personally, I think, well, no, I KNOW (on a subjective level not susceptible of objective proof,) that magic can be effective solely on a personal level, without the involvement of the Divine, just as I KNOW that it can also be effective with the involvement of the Divine. So no, deity is not required.
The more interesting question, to my mind, is why a given individual would choose one mode of engaging with magic over the other.
Me, I do all of my magical work, what little I do, in conjunction with my office as priest to the Gods whom I serve. But that's by my deliberate and conscious choice, in no little part because it serves as a check on my wanting to work magic for ends of which my Gods would not approve.
>The more interesting question, to my mind, is why a given individual would choose one mode of engaging with magic over the other.
Well, I know for me, being a godless heathen, there are no divinities I interact with or serve, so any magical workings are mine and mine alone. Kind of by default.
Sorry, but this is one of those Mt Fuji questions, ("There are many paths up Mt Fuji, but the view from the top is always the same,") where people approaching the problem from many different angles always seem to come up with the same answer. It's difficult to start a knock-down, drag-out argument discussion with that sort of topic.
An interesting (and semi-related,) question that juliaki and I touched on elsewhere: if different practitioners approach an issue from different directions, and employing widely varying praxes, yet they all report identical (or nearly identical) but highly subjective experiences as a result, what does that say about the "reality" of those subjective experiences?
So... you're saying what we need is more of a blind men and an elephant question so we can get the "It's like a pillar, you moron!"/"No, you idiot, it's like a rope!" action?
Now, the latter discussion sounds interesting, but I get the impression all I could bring to it is naiveté. If I can ask, though, what do you mean by "identical but highly subjective", exactly? It might just be that I've been sleeping too little and not caffeinating enough, but I'm not 100% sure how to parse that.
The discussion was in specific reference to the classic Unverifiable Personal Gnosis: the experience of direct connection to and communication with the Divine. A poster on another community asked how one could be certain as to what was actually happening during this sort of experience. My response was that when it happens to me, there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind as to Who I am communicating with, nor as to the whether the experience is real. However, there is no objective evidence of the experience with which to demonstrate the "reality" of the experience to others.
Juliaki's contribution was to point out that many individuals, with widely differing backgrounds, very disparate training, and differing praxes all report similar experiences in this area. The issue is: despite the lack of objective evidence, does this commonality of experience where a wide disparity of experience would be expected tell us anything about the fundamental nature of the gnostic experience?
The more interesting question, to my mind, is why a given individual would choose one mode of engaging with magic over the other.
Me, I do all of my magical work, what little I do, in conjunction with my office as priest to the Gods whom I serve. But that's by my deliberate and conscious choice, in no little part because it serves as a check on my wanting to work magic for ends of which my Gods would not approve.
Other people can do as they see fit.
Reply
Well, I know for me, being a godless heathen, there are no divinities I interact with or serve, so any magical workings are mine and mine alone. Kind of by default.
Reply
Reply
Damnit, somebody throw a friggin' chair already! ;)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
An interesting (and semi-related,) question that juliaki and I touched on elsewhere: if different practitioners approach an issue from different directions, and employing widely varying praxes, yet they all report identical (or nearly identical) but highly subjective experiences as a result, what does that say about the "reality" of those subjective experiences?
Reply
Now, the latter discussion sounds interesting, but I get the impression all I could bring to it is naiveté. If I can ask, though, what do you mean by "identical but highly subjective", exactly? It might just be that I've been sleeping too little and not caffeinating enough, but I'm not 100% sure how to parse that.
Reply
Juliaki's contribution was to point out that many individuals, with widely differing backgrounds, very disparate training, and differing praxes all report similar experiences in this area. The issue is: despite the lack of objective evidence, does this commonality of experience where a wide disparity of experience would be expected tell us anything about the fundamental nature of the gnostic experience?
Reply
Leave a comment