THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.mythology,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan.magick From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nagasiva) Subject: Various: James Frazer, Magick and _The Golden Bough_ Date: 12 Jan 1998 14:59:15 -0800 ~From: asialaw@aloha.net 93, I can't keep quite any longer. Someone actually said: >Frazier was a reductionist pig who equated "magic" with "primitive science". Poor Frazier. He deserves a break. The science/magic identity was accepted by AC (and me :-))and encompassed within his definition of "magick". Summoning the spirits of electrical energy to make themselves visible in the incandessant triangle of art of a light bulb filiment is a magickal act of causing change in conformity with will per AC. (See "Magick in Theory & Practice") Aren't *all* concious acts magickal? Of course, if you want to make your own definitions of the terms "magic" and "science" to be mutually exclusive then that is your right, but you shouldn't assume that any definations are "always" valid (See Tao Teh Ching, Chap. 1) or for that matter invalid. The study of alchemy does not necessarily support your point of the mutual excluviseness of "magick" and "science" as you seem to have convinced yourself. You might want to think of the example of the work of Paracelous in this regard. Illustrative, while admittedly not despositive, is one suggested root of the word "chemistry" is the arab "alchemy" (the Greek "kimiya" may be the root of both but in any case there is no denying a direct relationship). Some sources (Needham "Science and Civilization in China" vol __) take this further by giving the root of "alchemy" as the arabic for "China" or "from China". Chinese influence in this regard was influential in the near east and thereby in the West in any case. (Btw, gun powder was a byproduct of a Chinese attempt at a longlife potion or type of AMRITA-- science not science? The compass was invented for use in fengshui.) Of course, the practices of alchemy in China can not be taken out of the context of all other disciplines of "wu shing hsueh" the study of the Five Elements and their interaction which is the Chinese magickal system and forms the base for all esoteric studies and exercises including magico-religious ritual, medicine, astrology, music, martial arts and indeed all endevours if done in harmony with the Tao. Science and magick (and art) have only become seperate in *modern* western practices where the element of spirit is relegated to a back seat to the other four western elements which are the subject of "science" as it is most commonly defined today. Is mathematics a science? Is Liber AL a work of mathmatics? I'd answer yes to both questions. Isn't science a methodology that can be applied to spiritual matters. If yes, then we don't need to rip the frontspiece from our Equinox's and we can certainly accept the Jungian interpretation of alchemy and the roll up your sleeves and "reduce you pig" work that is defined as science. Here is something to consider: what is the relationship between Frazier's "sympathetic magic", QBL, I Ching, the work of Lineaus, the history of encyclopedias, and what cognate ideas are discernable in the development of modern science? Much to my dismay, in talking about Frazier and his GB no one (to my notice) has brought up his discussion of magic by sympathy and contagion. Are these obsolete? Is Levi-Strauss obsolete (also left out of the discussion)? Don't modern semioticians like Umberto Eco owe a great debt to Frazer? As only one person has mentioned GB was originally published in 12 vols. The first ed. was (off the top of my head) like 1902. Frazier has linguistic and antropological examples from across time and across the globe. There are of course many errors. Whether or not there is or is not an "ubermyth" of the once and future king based on vegatative cycles is not, imo, a matter that can be definatively settled on either side, believe what you will. (Personally, I am sympethetic to the positive answer here.) However, that Frazier was an intellectual pioneer that struck a great blow in the development of the new aeon by offering a blow against the originality of the symbols of Christianity and at the same time affirming the connection of all humanity to a methodology of ordering the world which has been corrupted in the West by materialism of the highest degree but still remains most obviously in the "myths and superstitions" of cultures like China and India, for example, whose continuity has preserved much of the ancient gestalt (which I definately believe has universal elements). (There is an essay by D. H. Lawrance which would be great to quote here with its refrences to things which he termed "antideluvian" but I can't remember what it is called. Btw, is "Women in Love" obsolete too?) I can not accept that GB is "obsolete", as that term includes the meaning "without value". No one has mentioned that sometime around 1972 there was a revised GB which was edited by someone to fix Frazier's errors. I have a copy but it is in storage thousands of miles from here. Anyone have any comments on this edition? Is this edition less obsolete? Finally, a toast to the memory of Mr. Frazier offered by someone who read his "Golden Bough" first in childhood and who has never forgotten the great debt which he owes for the roads which that old green book by a dead guy opened unto him. Who luvs ya baby? ____________...oooOOO---thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ ~From: "-H."Greetings Brothers & Sisters, > >>Frazier was a reductionist pig who equated "magic" with "primitive science". See my emendation of this line to read "Frazier was a reductionist and a running dog capitalist pig." > >Poor Frazier. He deserves a break. The science/magic identity was accepted >by AC (and me :-))and encompassed within his definition of "magick". >Summoning the spirits of electrical energy to make themselves visible in >the incandessant triangle of art of a light bulb filiment is a magickal act >of causing change in conformity with will per AC. Frazier would point out here (yes, I summoned his shade last night and we had an extensive conversation on why he was sooooo soooooooory about the whole thing...) that summoning spirits rather than walking across the room to flip the switch reveals that you have mistaken science as a primitive form of magick. But seriously...Frazier constantly equates "primitive" (I would think his use of words like "primitive" and "archaic" would be enough of a giveaway) magickal/religious acts with poorly understood attempts to manipulate the environment along the lines of the scientific method. Wittgenstein's point is that assuming people who could build cities, develope extensive pharmacopeias, ect. were not ignorant of science. Therefore, when doing "magick" they were doing magick and they knew they were doing magick. On Frazier's view, they did not do magick but in actuallity we can tell they were doing science, only because they are primitive their science is stooopid. I find this view insulting, patronizing and reductionistic. >(See "Magick in Theory & >Practice") Aren't *all* concious acts magickal? No. I think this is cheap, along the lines of "but isn't a psychological reality still real?" Whatever the merits of either of these statements I usually hear them from magicians who's bunny didn't pop out when it should. >Of course, if you want to make your own definitions of the terms >"magic" and "science" to be mutually >exclusive then that is your right, but you shouldn't assume that any >definations are "always" valid (See Tao Teh Ching, Chap. 1) or for that >matter invalid. I hope I have made it clear that I don't think that Corwley's "scientific illuminism" has anything to do with Frazier's "magic is primitive science." >The study of alchemy does not necessarily support your point of the mutual >excluviseness of "magick" and "science" as you seem to have convinced >yourself. Alchemy is a spiritual practice with spiritual ends. So what if modern chemistry grew out of some of its practices or if they share some techniques. Alchemy is not "primitive chemistry" and to describe it so, as it was done to me in college, is to reduce it to an outmoded technique of pursuing physical change. I am not refering in these posts to the wealth of material gathered in Frazier's 12 vols. but to his interpretation of that material which I find to be dismissive and insulting. Give me Andrew Lang or the Bros. Grimm anyday. ____________...oooOOO---thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ ~From: Tim Maroney >>Frazier was a reductionist pig who equated "magic" with "primitive science". >Poor Frazier. He deserves a break. The science/magic identity was accepted >by AC (and me :-))and encompassed within his definition of "magick". You seem to be ignoring Frazer's developmental hypothesis. As I already noted, his model is predicated on the idea that the "savage" human is basically stupid: "haziness is the characteristic of the mental state of the savage." Whether science and magic can be equated at all is a separate issue; Frazer's view was specifically that magic is a form of science as practiced by the dim-witted. You seem to have taken this as a compliment somehow. It wasn't. It was a white man's burden kind of idea. >As only one person has mentioned GB was originally published in 12 vols. Uh, no. The 12-volume edition was the third. J. Z. Smith's "When the Bough Breaks" gives a detailed publication history and goes into the issue of the book's progressive expansion in some detail. >The first ed. was (off the top of my head) like 1902. Uh, no. It was 1890. >However, that Frazier was an intellectual pioneer that struck a great blow >in the development of the new aeon by offering a blow against the >originality of the symbols of Christianity and at the same time affirming >the connection of all humanity to a methodology of ordering the world which >has been corrupted in the West by materialism of the highest degree but >still remains most obviously in the "myths and superstitions" of cultures >like China and India, for example, whose continuity has preserved much of >the ancient gestalt (which I definately believe has universal elements). That's quite a sentence! You might consider re-examining your view of Frazer's originality given that Dupuis had already expressed the idea that Christ was an example of a dying and rising vegetative god a century before Frazer. Again the best source on this is Smith's "Drudgery Divine". And a note to all: "Frazier" is a TV show. The author of "The Golden Bough" was James Frazer. ____________...oooOOO---thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org---OOOooo..._____________ To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to thelema93-l-request@hollyfeld.org To unsubscribe your@email.com send "unsubscribe your@email.com" http://www.hollyfeld.org/heaven/elists/thelema93-l.phtml -- (emailed replies may be posted); http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi; 408/2-666-SLUG join the esoteric syncretism in alt.magick.tyagi; http://www.abyss.com/tokus
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|