Elucidations on the Marvelous

Let’s return briefly to the incubus discussion.  As you’ll recall, I was on yet another soapbox, complaining about the term “demon” being applied to the Book of Enoch’s Fallen Angels, and lately happened across an anonymous author, who thought much the same thing:

“The Greeks, and after them the Romans, conferred the appellation of Demon upon certain genii, or spirits, who made themselves visible to men with the intention of either serving them as friends, or doing them an injury as enemies. The followers of Plato distinguished between their gods—or Dei Majorum Gentium; their demons, or those beings which were not dissimilar in their general character to the good and bad angels of christian belief,—and their heroes. The Jews and the early christians restricted the name of Demon to beings of a malignant nature, or to devils properly so called; and it is to the early notions entertained by this people, that the outlines of later systems of demonology are to be traced.” (Thaumaturgia or Elucidations of the Marvelous, Anonymous, 1835, Edward Churton, London, publishers, pgs. 2-3)

Truthfully, “Anonymous” is not entirely accurate – the author identified him or herself as “An Oxonian”.  Nonetheless, the moral of the story is:  just because a judeo-christian adherent tells you something is a demon (and trust me, they throw the word around like confetti), that doesn’t make the spirit a “demon”.   How to separate the helpful and friendly spirits from the troublemakers?  What they do when you invoke one.  And the earlier grimoires are terrific guides to helping draw that border.

My beautiful tree, in winter.  (So magnificent!)

"NOTHING more reveals the majestic import of life than this ennui, this heart-sinking sense of the vanity of all present acquisitions and attainments. "Man's misery," it has been well said, "comes of his greatness." The sphere of life appears small, the ordinary circle of its avocations narrow and confined, the common routine of its cares insipid and unsatisfactory; why? Because he who walks therein demands a boundless range of objects. Why does the body seem to imprison the soul? Because the soul asks for freedom; because it looks forth from the narrow and grated windows of sense, upon the wide and immeasurable creation; because it knows that around and beyond it lie outstretched the infinite and the everlasting paths."  (Orville Dewey)

Next I started reading Dorothy Retallack’s The Sound of Music and Plants.  Written in 1973, it is a trifle dated, but still interesting, primarily because it was written at a time in history where the consciousness of plants was an idea still ridiculed by most (so-called) “serious” scientists, even though her scientific studies were supervised at Temple Buell College in Colorado.  I like to think that attitudes like these have  changed somewhat in the last 40 years, thanks to advances in Quantum Physics.

By “a trifle dated” I mean that one suspects that Mrs. Retallack, most decidedly not a fan of rock music, may have influenced her own results ... i.e., the plants she studied tended to mirror her own likes and dislikes.  Since the book was written, the impact of “expectation” has surfaced in Quantum Physics, thus coloring her results.  Nonetheless, how she went about her studies is the interesting side of the story, if the ultimate results aren’t; the photographs supporting her data are also fascinating.

And speaking of a “trifle dated”, if not fully laughable, I also glanced at The Avatars of Ishtar (Allan Neville Taylor and  R. Christopher Abel, 1978, Holmes Publishing Group) – more of a pamphlet, really, with an appalling opening paragraph:

“Tradition informs us that in the cycle of progress our race is passing through  a series of distinct phases, each of which is characteristic of the point of evolution towards ultimate divinity that has been attained.  Up until the birth of Christ, the emotional phase prevailed, but since that time this has been increasingly supplanted by a higher (less primitive) phase ... the inertial.”

All together now:  “WTF??!!??”

By “inertial” they mean “a resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change”; (coincidentally enough from the Latin word for idleness, according to the The Free Dictionary), so obviously these boneheads missed the 1,001 variations of their own cult that has cropped up over the centuries, starting with the slaughter of the so-called heretical sects like the Cathars and with the protestant reformation ... and on and on from there.  But more relevantly, they seem mesmerized by Ishtar’s sexual aspects:  “...her rise had succeeded in embracing cities, satrapies, and kingdoms, intoxicating them with her narcotic perfumes, luring them with the sensuous paradise she offered in exchange for their worship, burning them with the kisses of her mouth.”

The thing that is frightening about this paragraph:  it was written in 1997, only 16 years ago.  Feminist writers had long ago put to rest the falsehood about women and “hysteria”, and yet here we are, back again:  “emotional” and “primitive”.  In truth, “tradition” informs us of no such thing.  And for those who resent their faith being categorized as a “cult”:  they refer to the worship of Ishtar as a “cult”, so what’s good for the goose, and all that ...

We had our Yule celebration on the 21st of December up in Derry ... the story of the Child of Light, which was actually engaging to listen to – it was the first time I’d heard it.  I sorta wish now I hadn’t volunteered to be a participant in the story, mainly because I was so stressed out trying to remember my lines, it detracted from the overall experience.

Finally decided to tune into RAI-Radio ... what are they playing?  Dixieland Jazz and Frank Sinatra!  (*sigh*)  I haven’t heard a single Italian song since I tuned in.