Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (blackman99) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.religion.wicca,alt.lucky.w,alt.religion.orisha,alt.pagan,alt.magick Subject: Re: Magical and Religious Terminology (was Spells and Rituals of Summoning ....) Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 77 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <8s90ks$1p@bolt.sonic.net> References: <8rn60r$32u@bolt.sonic.net> <8s5osf$2i2@bolt.sonic.net> Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:01:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 971506919 208.201.224.36 (Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:01:59 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:01:59 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:25710 alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic:25967 alt.religion.wicca:361401 alt.lucky.w:8405 alt.religion.orisha:7706 alt.pagan:272270 alt.magick:212624 my impression is that the focus on direct or assisted cause of symbolic change is not only a (western) ceremonial magic frame, but can surely be found within analyses by anthropologists and those who study the magic of any particular culture (eastern *and* western). as I stated, I'm aware of the cultural bias demonstrated by European Christian culture as regards magic and religion, but attempting to associate me with any of these categories merely avoids the questions (acute ones) that I am raising. you seem to be bypassing the rational categories of thaumaturgy and theurgy by pretending that they are the same as the classes of distinction which you are ascribing to me, to western ceremonial magicians, and to cultural bigots who wish to promote their religion as unique and the rest as 'magic'. this is plain and simply a straw man which is in none of our best interests to consider seriously. I'd like to ignore that for the moment even while acknowledging the importance of the bias against the people of whom you speak. I have no such bias. however, if you will look more carefully at my focus (on the identity of the cause of change), you will be able to see a very reasonable query as to whether you acknowledge the difference between ritual (or spells; whether considered to be 'magic' or 'religion' or no distinction made is of no consequence) which appeals to some outside intelligence or agency (such a spirit or a god) to effect the change desired -- on the one hand, or ritual which intends to effect that change by the sorcerer or hierophant oneself. this discernment may readily be understood by the ritualist, can be inferred from the symbolism of the rite or spell, and need not reflect in any way upon the 'legitimacy' or even the absolute categorical delineation of the act. you seemed to be claiming that no distinction is made, and yet this is tantamount to claiming that those who engage their ritual do not care how the result is obtained, don't pay attention to how the ritual is designed, whether spirits, gods, whathaveyou, are appeased or compensated, or whether this is unnecessary because they are completely responsible. if I have misunderstood you, please explain, thanks. I'm curious where you think that African (or any particular people's) magicians or religious locate the cause of changes they may seek within their rituals or spells (regardless of whether you or they would call these 'magical' or 'religious'). if this varies, then have you observed that there is more or less emphasis placed on either self-caused or other-caused effects? your dislike of any particular terminology is not in my interest to debate, as I was asking first how the individuals themselves see what they are doing (in response to sri catyananda's contention that the crossroads summoning spell was a part of some hoodoo-related religion), and, when side-tracked by a semantic straw man, specifically asking about the cosmology and mechanics of the religiomagical systems most common in the cultures of which you are speaking. I don't expect categorical or absolute truths here, I'm merely asking for generalizations understood as common observations. if no distinction between religion and magic is known, then this is relevant as regards the terminology, but not as regards the conceptions of the activities themselves and what they may include, how they are seen by participants, etc. this can be explained based upon observations by participants and academics alike. your reflections are welcome. blessed beast! blackman99 -- FREE HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street address to: catalogue@luckymojo.com mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html ; mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired