"Is there a viable form of Paganism that does not include magic?"

For my sake lets hope so. Many traditions within modern Pagan movements aren't heavy on the magic and don't feel it is an important element necessary to honor the gods and ancestors. Then again I suppose it goes with how you define "magic". Is transubstantiation magic?

"Paganism and magic are disciplines of experience rather than faith. Would you agree with this statement? Why or why not?"

I wouldn't agree. Paganism at least as a religion is a discipline of faith. To call Paganism a discipline of experience removes (or downplays) the theistic elements of modern Paganism. There seems to be the unspoken notion I have run into that devotion to pre-Christian gods is something learned and not "felt" or "inspired". Numerous conversion accounts suggest otherwise to me.

"Should I honor a god or gods whose values or moral choices I reject? Why or why not?"

I don't see why you should. Relationships with the divine are not slavery, we are not yoked against our wills to dieties who work against our own sense of morality. To suggest otherwise is to present all believers in divine powers as thralls. This would certainly go against the grain of Indo-European relationships with the divine.

"Who created the gods? Does it make any difference how we answer this question (in other words, is there "truth" regarding the gods)? Why or why not?"

I'll let you know in 60 to 70 years or so (give or take).

"Why should we believe the claims of Witches who say they hold a longstanding lineage, especially in the light of scholars like Ronald Hutton whose work strongly suggests that many so called Witches are frauds?"

I think we should approach them as he does, as religious people working within a creative poetic myth no different than the creative fictions of any other faith. In any event the number of chaps initiated by their grandmothers is decreasing now that the myth of long lineage is no longer necessary.

"How does magic benefit squibs and muggles—that is to say, people who lack magical ability, or who don't want anything to do with magic?"

I would say it benefits them as much as they think it will. Also I thought the modern Pagan party line was that all people are capable of creating magic. The "muggle" comment (at least as I have heard it used in the Pagan context) is used to define a non-Pagan not someone incapable of spell-casting.

"Chaos magic is the most "postmodern" form of magic. Its creed is "nothing is true, everything is permitted." I see this is nihilistic libertarianism. Am I on to something, or am I missing something? I also think it is ethically dangerous. Thoughts anyone, pro or con?"

On the phrase "nothing is true..." I found this helpful:

The statement is a tool - and a very powerful one – and not one for everybody's tool box. Just as spiritual practices require guidance and wisdom from one's initiator (whether human, oneiric, chemical or experiential), so this maxim can lead to great liberation or extreme havoc. Some need first to understand the ancient dictum "discipline precedes freedom" before they will be able to dance with the last words of Hassan-i Sabbah. - Brian D. Hodges

Also, I didn't know chaos magic could have a creed. Furthermore I don't see Chaos magic as necessarily nihilistic, it could in fact be just the opposite. Rather than nothing having meaning, everything has meaning.

"What is the difference between secrets and mysteries?"

A secret is that your wife is cheating on you. A mystery is a great truth that surrounds you at all times but that you don't know or appreciate unless guided there.

What IS the Beatific Vision?

A lot of these may require long, complicated answers, but I'll give it a try....

1. Magic deals primarily with the internal world, and with the external world by extension. Science deals with examining the external world, and with the internal world by extension. Also, science has to do with observing what is, while magic is a means for effecting change.

2. Magic makes my life better by creating more internal coherence and by allowing me to deal with the ways in which I get in my own way.

3. By, if used the right way, creating saner, better, healthier people.

4. **shrug** I don't consider this question relevant, or maybe it's just that I don't share any of the assumptions behind it. It's like saying "how can playing the piano benefit people who have no musical talent or who don't want anything to do with music?"

5. I suppose, but my brand of Paganism is very much rooted in magic. I don't care to define other people's paths for them, or to try to make all forms of Paganism fit under one definition; however, I do expect that people understand and respect that MY path DOES include magic, and that if they're going to hang around with Pagans they have to expect that sort of thing.

6. This is a question that requires a dissertation in answer. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that, but I don't think that's all there is to chaos magic either. On the other hand...I'm not much of a chaos magician, by preference. For pragmatic reasons; all the chaos magicians I know who have been doing it a long time are batshit crazy. Cause, or consequence? I don't know, and don't care to find out.

7. Just because something is not documented doesn't mean it's untrue. I don't see how you could possibly expect a family lineage to be anything BUT undocumented....and it's also unlikely that it would survive in a "pure" form without being influenced by everything from Christianity to Theosophy.

I also don't read Ronald Hutton as saying that. I can look up the relevant text when I get home.

8. A secret is something you don't tell. A mystery is something you can't tell, because it goes beyond words. Secrets can and are used to guard mysteries....which, incidentally, answers the next question too.

9. Initiation is a transformational experience, at least it's supposed to be. Part of the way this is achieved is through springing certain things on you, after you've been prepared to receive them, so that they sort of sink in before your monkey brain starts chewing on them and taking them apart. Telling the secrets spoils this effect, and therefore spoils the experience and its transformational potential.

To go back to the previous question, you can't really "reveal" a mystery. But you CAN undermine someone's ability to comprehend it by trying to explain it too soon or in the wrong way. Ultimately I think that the person will get it eventually anyway if they are meant to....but why make it harder on them? The point of all this mystery religion stuff is to make it easier.

Enough for now, I think...

Wow, you sure do have a ask of questions. :>}

I'll bite off this one: "Is there a viable form of Paganism that does not include magic?"

Certainly. One example I would cite is the Hellenismos reconstructionalists, who seek to adapt the religious cults of the ancient Greeks. Their practice involves ritual, prayer and sacrifice, but nothing I (or they) would call magic. Reference http://kyrene.4t.com/recon_types.html for starters.

Is there a viable form of Paganism that does not include magic?

How are you defining magic? If you mean material derived from ceremonial/Golden Dawn sources, you need look no further than the various reconstructionist traditions. If you mean the little superstitions people classify as folk magic, even Catholicism has that, so the question doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Paganism and magic are disciplines of experience rather than faith. Would you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

I would disagree that all paganism is only a discipline of experience. Magic practices are something I won't go into, as I am at most a theurge, not a thaumaturge, but since you pray to a god, so are you by a rough definition. Any time you deal with a system which contains deities, you are dealing with a system reliant on faith once you get past treating the ritual as the means and the end. I say my prayers, make my offerings, and leave the rest of what I can't control in the hands of my gods. My own Catholic upbringing taught me to do as much.

I've had people close to me tell me that it was a good thing I became a Catholic, since I was a "bad" Pagan. But does it make sense to draw distinctions between "good" and "bad" practitioners of Pagan spirituality? If we draw this distinction, what separates the two?

This is where I could get terribly snarky about some pagans' definition of "good pagan." I'm not one by some people's lights because I refuse to sit quietly while people like Starhawk use allegedly all-encompassing language to reduce me and people of my ilk out of paganism. I also don't embrace the idea that it's OK to call something new old. I think it makes some sense to say "this isn't appropriate for pagan practice," but what I point to when I say it is driven more by a desire for people to be intellectually honest than to force dogma. I don't fret much about, say, people coining names for gods. I care if they insist that god was always worshipped under that name in the Great Matriarchal Antiquity or what-have-you.

on my blog. It was fun - leave a comment if you stop by!

by Balance, I wonder if you and morgaineswann mean polarity, which I would agree is a patriarchal concept (DesCartes, Kant) dualism is essential to justify patriarchal oppression. quantum physics and quantum theory show how ludicrious it is.

I think your questions are simply misplaced. You refer to "Paganism" everywhere, but your questions are applicable just to Wicca which is merely one denomination of Paganism even if it once was largest and remains reasonably large.

Your questions would be immediately seen as misplaced if you tried to apply them to the reconstructionist traditions which are the next most populous group within Paganism. And the Discordians would of course ridicule you...and rightly.

I think your questions say more about you and your own religious quest than they do about the religions themselves. You went from the most magic-obsessed part of Paganism to the most magically-oriented (or at least high magically-oriented) version of Christianity--Catholicism--and you avoided the deliberately anti-magical denominations of Protestantism.

May I guess you would like to see the return of the Latin High Mass?

numen

Here goes (in two parts, due to length):


• How does magic make a person's life better?

You seem to be operating upon the assumption that magic is always for the sake of some worldly benefit; this neglects theurgy, that is, magic whose sole purpose is to experience greater understanding of, intimacy with, and illumination from the Gods.

• How does magic create a saner, healthier, better society?

Theurgy creates a better society because increasing one's exposure to the Gods (i.e., to one's chosen God or Gods) inculcates virtue, helping one to perfect one's innate virtue in a unique way.

• How does magic benefit people who lack magical ability, or who don't want anything to do with magic?

Working to increase the participation of all beings in the Gods benefits all beings; the Gods are life-affirming presences, the primary sources of good to the world. They operate in this fashion whether sentient beings invoke them or not, but the world has the potential to function better if sentient beings invoke the Gods.

• Is there a viable form of Paganism that does not include magic?

Yes, in the sense that I gather that YOU understand 'magic'; that is to say, every pagan tradition, or virtually every one, has a path within it oriented towards 'salvation' or 'enlightenment' in the manner that Christianity or Buddhism is.

• Chaos magic [...]

The nihilism in a modern path like Chaos magic (which is not a pagan path, or even a religion at all, but purely a body of magical techniques) derives from the nihilistic tendencies which are inherent in monotheism, albeit often unacknowledged.

• Why are oaths of secrecy so important to initiation?

They aren't always.

• Christianity teaches that those who do not receive Christian initiation (i.e. baptism, being "saved", the Eucharist, etc.) are at greater risk of not receiving the Beatific Vision. What do Pagans and ceremonial magicians believe is at stake with their initiations? In other words, what do those who don't get initiated miss out on?

I think that this is a very tame interpretation of what Christianity teaches; but I will leave you to it. I would say that the world can function without people acknowledging and invoking the Gods, and people can be good people without being religious at all, but the world can be a better place and people can experience something valuable they would not experience otherwise if they invoke the Gods and pursue communion with them.

• Does objective truth exist? Objective right and wrong? If the answer is yes, then how do we find it? If the answer is no, then what holds society together?

Yes it does. We find it through perception, through reason, through dialogue, and through tradition.

• What is the relationship between myth and truth (if truth can be said to exist)?

Myth is the infrastructure for truth, because truth arises from the interaction of concepts, and conceptual structures have their own basis in narrative structures, that is, in mythic forms. A culture's myths are thus the foundational truths of that culture, forming a coherent model of the cosmos revealed by the particular group of Gods (the particular national "pantheon") which has spoken through that culture (that language, etc.). We are fortunate to live in an era of international communication, to be able to expose ourselves to many such models and hence better understand that which the Gods have revealed to humans about their own natures and the nature of the world.

(cont'd in next post)

Edward Butler

(Cont'd from last post)

• Postmodern philosophy suggests that the only truth that exists is the truth found within; i.e., subjective truth. What kind of society can we truly expect to build in a world where only subjective truth is real?

This is mistaken, insofar as postmodern philosophy gives no more credence to subjective than to objective truth, insofar as postmodern philosophy does not find in the subject, that is, in the individual, a source of authenticity, but merely the juncture of texts and power. Pagan theology accords a positive reality to individual organisms and individual Gods alike. Hence those aspects of modern society which manifest respect for individuals are in accord with pagan theology.

• What is the difference between magic and mysticism? Hint: I think the answer to this question lies in the difference between Iamblichus and Pseudo-Dionysius.

Pseudo-Dionysius is a Christian bastardization of Proclus, who belongs to the same philosophical lineage as Iamblichus, so your historical analogy falls down. The difference between Iamblichus and Proclus, on the one hand, and pseudo-Dionysius, on the other, is that the former are polytheists while the latter is a monotheist; Iamblichus was a great eclectic thinker, Proclus a great systematic philosopher, and pseudo-Dionysius a bowdlerizer of the truths of Platonism. As for magic and mysticism, magic is, in the traditions I study, the ritual activation of the individual will; mysticism I regard to be a body of doctrine, not of great antiquity, pertaining to the emancipation of the individual from certain perceived impediments or corruptions, with an ultimate goal of dissolving the individual into an undifferentiated state of unity with all things. As such, I regard mysticism as fundamentally nihilistic.

• Is there only one soul, and all beings are refracted manifestations of that essential one? Or are there infinite discrete beings? Or a finite number of discrete beings, who live cyclical lives over the course of time?

The number of beings is neither one, nor infinite. There is a lower limit to the number of beings there can possibly be: the number of beings cannot be fewer than the number of living organisms at any given time, distinct concepts, and individual sites of utterance (intelligences).

• Does free will exist? If so, what difference does it make in terms of how we understand the cosmos? Magic? Right and wrong? Community ethics?

Absolute freedom is a nihilistic concept; there is always some constraint upon the will, because desire is always determined by something, it is never in a vacuum. This means that will is never perfectly individual in beings lesser than the Gods.

• How do we go about determining the best, most rational, most magical "balance point"?

Reason, reflection, dialogue, study, practical experience.

(cont'd in next post)

Edward Butler

(Cont'd from last post)

• Who created the gods? Does it make any difference how we answer this question (in other words, is there "truth" regarding the gods)? Why or why not?

No one created the Gods; they are prior to being and non-being (huperousios, to use the Neoplatonic term). The truth about them is what they reveal about themselves; it is embodied in their names, iconography, and myths, and it is open ended.

• Should I honor a god or gods whose values or moral choices I reject? Why or why not?

I am assuming that you have inferred what you think to be the "values" and "moral choices" of the Gods from a reading of myths -- a literalist and incorrect reading. It was for this reason that Plato recommended against exposing children to certain myths before they are capable of understanding the symbolism deployed in them (see Proclus' commentary on Plato's 'Republic').

• Should I fear the gods? Why or why not?

No. The Gods are good. The things that are to be feared are in the world. Divine illumination can only help one to navigate in the world.

• Paganism and magic are disciplines of experience rather than faith. Would you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

Experience, tradition, reason and understanding. Faith as well (e.g., Greek pistis), but not with the same degree of emphasis that Christianity places upon it.

• I've had people close to me tell me that it was a good thing I became a Catholic, since I was a "bad" Pagan. But does it make sense to draw distinctions between "good" and "bad" practitioners of Pagan spirituality? If we draw this distinction, what separates the two?

From the things you have said, you seem to have been a misinformed pagan; there is a lot of that going around. There is a lot of misinformed Christianity going around too. One can practice a religion well or poorly, just as one can practice any other vocation well or poorly. If one does not know what one is doing, nor gets better at it over time, whether from lack of application, bad instruction, unsuitable temperament, or whatever combination of such factors, they are "bad" at whatever it is they are doing, whether that is being a pagan or being an engineer.

• Is there a place for true greatness in the world of magic and paganism? What does it look like? How do we encourage it among the few who are truly gifted, without "putting down" everyone else?

Excellence is a concept inherent to all pagan religions I have studied. It is the manifestation of virtue in the world, as well as the creation of new possibilities, new spaces, for the manifestation of virtue by future generations. It is honoring that which one has received from those who came before, by allowing those who come after to stand upon the summit of one's own accomplishments.


Edward Butler

I'm just going to pick at two that I particularly like:
Should I honor a god or gods whose values or moral choices I reject? Why or why not?

A god, or other great being, angelic, devic, etc, holds within itself such wide realms of existence that it is difficult to see "moral choices" as an appropriate description of action.

In example, a vast tumultuous ocean goddess both brings a loved sailor to rest on a convenient island, and also dashes heros upon craigs. She is the ocean. Communing with the ocean is powerful and beneficial. But myths and mystical experiences will both reflect her vastness, chaos, bounty and death. If you want to know the nature of the ocean, you may wish to know the Goddess of the Ocean, but do not hold her to your own moral limitations, as she is not human.

Paganism and magic are disciplines of experience rather than faith. Would you agree with this statement? Why or why not?

I would disagree with this statement, for two primary reasons.
One, Paganism as a religion is inherently faith-based. It is, when successful, perhaps more ecstatic as opposed to transcendental, but still faith-based. Absolutely: communion with the Gods is the primary goal I have personally witnessed in group rituals. Workings and props imbue the experience of the diety within us after the invocations.

Two, faith is one of the cornerstones of magic, as much as prayer. Sometimes it's devotional faith, celebratory faith, faith in yourself.

The closest paraphrase of your statement I could live would be something like: Paganism and magic are more experiential in nature than other more devotionally focused belief systems.

Ultimately a successful ritual of any kind brings you closer to the Divine whether it is so-called low or high magick, therefore faith is a requirement and a goal.

IT's gonna take me some time. But I'll pick a few and pontificate on it.

Want them here or what? I can email them to you. I already have answers stewing in the back of my head for one or two.

Okay, I have the list posted to a public place where others can see it too.

http://davensjournal.com/wordpress/carls-questions/

These are really fabulous questions! I've cherry picked a few for now, but I may be back to answer more later. For the sake of these questions I am taking a thaumaturgical view of magic; that is magic as separate from "the divine."

What is the difference between magic and science? Can such a distinction be measured or otherwise quantified?

To quote Isaac Bonewits in Real Magic, “Magic deals with a body of knowledge not investigated and confirmed by other arts and sciences.”

Magic is a science. Those of us who use magic regularly and keep detailed records of our results are the scientists. It is still sketchy as best, and while there are still "charlatans" and "fakes" gaining notoriety, those who are honest regarding their success and failure will be looked at askance.

Technology does not yet provide equipment for consistently measuring and quantifying the results, but we are on our way. There have been some interesting studies regarding "magic" and measurable radio waves & electromagnetic fields. In the mean time, "scientific" magic users are keeping detailed records of what they've done and what the results have been in an attempt to prove that there are consist results with magic. At this time it is still largely theoretical, and the study is officially filed under "parapsychology."


How does magic benefit squibs and muggles—that is to say, people who lack magical ability, or who don't want anything to do with magic?

When inventor of telephone said that he could transmit voices across miles, it may have been viewed as magic by those ignorant of the means. Scientifically speaking, when we are able to define and explain magic it won't be "magic" any more, but another kind of technology. Now magic does mostly benefit those who have an intuitive knowledge of how it works, but with more study we could teach the use of it to those who aren't intuitively "gifted."

As for those who don't want anything to do with it... what can be done? If teaching them the science of it does not change their minds, simply leave them be. We do not force the Amish onto the grid, after all!


What is the relationship between power and responsibility? Is there a place for noblesse oblige in the world of magical ethics? On what grounds?

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Honestly, this is a very personal choice, based in no small part on the ethics of the person "casting" the magic. There are magic users who aid their communities and there are those who curse the neighbor's barking dog.

The ethics of an unknown technology are especially difficult, because so many people assume the unknown is dangerous. Is the government hiding powerful clairvoyants, telepaths, and other "magic users" from us and using them for their own needs? Doubtful, but I've no proof either way. Is that ethical? At least as ethical as hiding the development of the A-Bomb.

Noblesse oblige has come out in most technological pursuits to some degree. It is, after all, hard to have a true "noble's obligation" without a noble class. In this day and age, the "nobles" are those with a great deal of talent, money, power, or some combination. The "obligation" is viewed as being "civically minded" and "giving back to the community." If Apple Computers donates to schools and NFL players coach football in the inner city, then why shouldn't highly effective magic users scatter "good vibes" around them? It's as much good PR as it is good practice.

Bright Blessings!
Gray Cub
Northeastern Colorado Pagan Allaince (http://www.geocities.com/yuma_pagans)