The PC Patrol and Brian BreathnachEvery once in a while I am happily reminded that I’m not the only apprentice out here who has a real problem with the Church Ladies Under Maniacally Pointy Hats (CLUMPH-ers), known for penning book after book and blog after blog filled with their pretentiously ridiculous rules and regulations: “REAL Pagans don’t do that,” and “REAL witches don’t do this!” and on and on, to the point where you want to slap most of them upside the head and sideways.
My big explosions on the topic – and typically for moi, I went on and on about it – first detonated on 18 August 2012 , then on 20 September 2012, 13 October 2012 then on 20 October 2012 , then on 10 November 2012 , 16 November 2012 , 17 November 2012, and I’m sure I’ve missed a couple.
Like I said, when I get seriously annoyed by something, I’ll go on forever - and annoyingly to the point of lunacy, I’ll admit - about it.
So, to bring it up (again), just this week I found an author, Brian Breathnach, who had a somewhat similar point of view, which is always a delight. He calls the same bunch of yahoos the “PC Patrol” and his semi-explosion of polite irritation (as opposed to my obsessively major explosions of complete piss-offedness) was published on Friday, 8 March 2013. I also enjoyed the comments posted after his article – almost every commenter agreed with him.
Note that when he mentions “cursing”, he’s not telling you that “real witches don’t use four-letter expletives”, or most of us would have failed “Witchcraft 101” back when we were in kindergarten. Instead, he’s talking about casting spells that the twinkies would take a prissy high-brow exception to, because “No REAL witch/pagan would ever zap anyone else with a curse...”. This is, as I’ve said over and over ad nauseum, a horrific lie. These women (that’s not being sexist, BTW; the overwhelming majority of these fools ARE women) are feeding you a line of bullsh*t a mile long guaranteed to produce a generation of completely powerless witches, pagans, sorcerers and magicians, who do nothing but make arts & crafts projects all day, go to vicious and gossipy chat circles, light fragrant candles from Pier One and annoy the crap out of everyone within earshot. They don’t even have the brains to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for it, and they should.
On the contrary, witches, pagans, sorcerers and magicians do all of those things – curse effectively , bind, cast successful love spells, stick pins in poppets, whatever they feel is necessary, and always have. Here’s Brian’s take on it:
“My second issue with the PC patrol is the claim Witches don't curse, magicians don't curse etc. History begs to differ and this is something unique to a modern PC patrol. In any of the traditional grimoires, there are explicit malevolent methods. In hoodoo, and in traditional Witchcraft there is an injunction that a Witch must be able to curse as well as be able to heal. If you go to the Witchcraft museum in Boscastle there is ample evidence for cursing. Even the mammy of Wicca, Doreen Valiente admitted to using a poppet and blackthorn sharps to silence a blackmailer.
For more on the Witchcraft of cursing, I recommend the Ethics of Malevolence by Sarah Lawless.”
Pause for Discussion on The Ethics of Malevolence
[We will now pause for a long-winded and cranky note: I read this and was immediately annoyed again by some of her a priori presumptions (“Why do we curse? Witches and ordinary people don’t curse because of enraged hissy fits, petty disagreements, or out of vindictiveness and envy (although it does happen) ...”) and some of the prissy responses.This sounds like another bunch of controlling women telling me what ethics I’m supposed to adopt, lest I behave like a naughty, naughty girl. “Witches and ordinary people”??? That’s a rather large net to cast, isn’t it? I’m surprised he even references this. Her definition of “hissy fits” and “petty” are hers alone, not a universal benchmark that can be used to measure others. My justifiable anger may be her “hissy fit” and I guarantee you, I’m certain the vice versa would definitely apply. And how on earth would she know what all “ordinary people” do? I’ve read of “ordinary people” going stark raving ballistic after being cut off in traffic, so … please.
I am strongly opposed to laying out any guidelines like this. Reason: they’re SUBJECTIVE. One size does not fit all, and her commentary suggests that she sees herself as a universal standard. Back to the original problem I have with this topic. Every witch, wizard, pagan, magician, sorcerer, whatever should live by their own ethical standards and face their own consequences. Sorry, Brian, this is just another woman who wants to lay down rules and regs for everyone else and call it “guidelines”, and if you’ll read the comments, she seems to be followed by even more starry-eyed twinkie church ladies who think that’s just peachy.
For those who need a link:
http://sarahannelawless.com/2010/11/17/the-ethics-of-malevolence/
Let Us Continue with Breathnach
“Before moving on from Witchcraft, I would like to take on a very neo Pagan idea of 'threefold return'. This idea has no origins in Traditional Initiatory Wicca (Alexandrian or Gardnerian) from what I understand. It is a random innovation that is an altered Judeo-Christian worldview. If you do something wrong, you'll get slapped hard! If you do good, you'll be rewarded. To speak of this in terms of karma is also painful to hear because there is no such teaching in Eastern philosophy, and the very understanding of karma as retributive misses the point completely. Karma is an expression of the will, acting to align the individual with their true will ...
...And for you, PC patrol who may be reading this, don't tell me, or anyone else what 'we believe' or what we should believe. Uphold what you will, but don't interfere with my will, because I and many others don't believe in a completely literal harm none. With a magician or a witch in company, it might be better advice to 'piss off none'.
(spurned by recent comments that my position is unpagan and has no place in the community. For those who hold such opinions, you are not the community and you most certainly don't speak for me!)”
http://fraterdocetumbra.blogspot.com/2013/03/malevolent-magick-and-pc-patrol.html
THANK YOU!!! Loved it. Well, except for the reference to Lawless, that is.
Ryan Murray of Toronto
By the way, I had encountered Brian after discovering another excellent teacher, Ryan Murray of Toronto, while searching for more information on the Bornless Ritual – I was carefully collecting all the information I could about it – I want to understand and be able to interpret it before using it. IF I ever decide to use it.
Another Pause for “9 Out of 10 Wizards Can’t Define Barbarous”
On a brief ... OK, not so brief, but important … side-note: I have been somewhat irked by the use of the term, “barbarous words”, which is always being bandied about and passed forward in connection with this ritual without further explanation. Yet another example of people passing things along without even questioning them or giving them much thought.
So let’s look up the word “barbarous, shall we? From the Free Online Dictionary:
1. Primitive in culture and customs; uncivilized.
2. Lacking refinement or culture; coarse.
3. Characterized by savagery; very cruel.
4. Marked by the use or occurrence of barbarisms in spoken or written language.
Loved that last mostly unintelligible circular definition. So what exactly is a “barbarism”?
bar•ba•rism (bär′bə-rĭz′əm), n.
1. An act, trait, or custom characterized by ignorance or crudity.
2a. The use of words, forms, or expressions considered incorrect or unacceptable; 2b. A specific word, form, or expression so used.
[Etymology: Latin barbarismus, use of a foreign tongue or of one's own tongue amiss, barbarism, from Greek barbarismos, from barbarizein, to behave or speak like a barbarian, from barbaros, non-Greek, foreign (imitative of the sound of unintelligible speech).] (Emphasis mine)
Credit where due: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
So now that everything is crystal clear ... or not ... I suspect that the unfortunate phrase “barbarous words” that everyone keeps mindlessly throwing around – referring to all of the words in the ritual that everyone has difficulty pronouncing and/or interpreting – are not “barbarous” in the sense of most of these definitions … but derived from the Greek word meaning “non-Greek”, or unintelligible.
That would raise the next question: are the words “barbarous” because the Greeks who were behind the creation of the original text from “A Fragment of a Graeco-Egyptian Ritual” (Charles Wycliffe Goodwin, M.A., 1852, Cambridge Antiquarian Society) perceived the words as unintelligible or foreign, OR because they were meant to sound that way (i.e., “imitative of the sound of unintelligible speech”?) If so, would that mean they were incorporated into the text as vibrational intonations – like, “ohhhmmmmm”? And did that word “barbarous” even appear in connection with the ritual in the first place?
If that’s the case, it would explain why no one is interpreting them, but could anyone have bothered to mention that? Took me ages to unravel the meaning even this far, when it could have been a lot easier. Am I chanting cruel words, or unintelligible words, or vibrational sounds? That would certainly make a huge difference in my overall acceptance of and comfort level with the ritual, don’t you think?
I’ll get back to that in a minute.
Back to Ryan Murray
Ryan Murray’s delivery reminded me a lot of Christopher Penczak, who can season any of his teachings with readings, quotes, experiences, sidetracks, jokes – Christopher was definitely my initial and best choice of someone to learn from – for one, he is local and accessible, but secondly, he is an awesome, knowledgeable teacher (and a friendly and loving person, BTW). If you’re going to begin learning (or in my case, re-learning) basic skills, you can’t do better than Christopher; Ryan Murray and his You Tube lecture/training series on Thelema run a definite close second. If their paths matter to you, Christopher is largely wiccan/pagan, as he’s one of the founders of the Temple of Witchcraft, although he is certainly knowledgeable in a wide variety of paths; Ryan is more hermetic and on the Thelema path, while being extremely well versed in others. So there you go.
My only challenge to Ryan would be to speak a little slower and louder. Some of his recommendations and comments get lost, because he’s speaking quickly in an effort to cover a lot of material in a short period of time, but he’s so knowledgeable, you don’t want to miss a word of it. He might also want to repeat the questions he is asked during the lectures: you can hear his answers to questions, but can’t always hear what the question was. But those events happen rarely – he is obviously very well prepared, extremely knowledgeable and impressively well-read. I really enjoyed listening to him, and learned a lot about the Bornless Ritual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMWUdyfOv_Q
Israel Regardie and the Same Ritual
In addition to Ryan’s three-part lecture on the Ritual, another of the most useful and informative descriptions of the Bornless Ritual as it is being performed was written by Israel Regardie in two formats: one in Foundations of Practical Magic, and the other a longer version I'll touch on in my next entry.
I also raised an eyebrow at some of his word choices:
“From a simple primitive prayer to ward off evil, in the hands of skillful theurgists trained in the western tradition of the Golden Dawn, it has been evolved into a highly complex but most lengthy proem, five elemental invocations and an eloquent peroration. Sandwiched in between them is a Eucharistic ceremony.”
Problems right off the bat, defining our terms, particularly that last one:
Theurgist: a magician who persuades or compels a supernatural being to do or refrain from doing something.
Proem: an introductory discourse; introduction; preface.
Peroration: the conclusion of a speech or discourse, in which points made previously are summed up or recapitulated, esp. with greater emphasis.
Eucharistic:
1. Involving a sacrament and the central act of worship in many Christian churches, which was instituted at the Last Supper and in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in remembrance of Jesus's death; Communion.
2. The consecrated elements of this rite; Communion.
[Middle English eukarist, from Old French eucariste, from Late Latin eucharistia, from Greek eukharistiā, from eukharistos, grateful, thankful : eu-, eu- + kharizesthai, to show favor (from kharis, grace; see gher-2 in Indo-European roots).] (Emphasis mine)
Obviously, that first definition of “Eucharistic” is not going to work. In this context, this has absolutely nothing to do (Zip! Zero! Nada!) with the christian cult’s celebration of their god’s “last supper”.
I suspect we want to look at the Late Latin “eucharistia”, drawn from the Greek “eukharistiā”, having to do with being grateful or thankful, although the words “grateful” and thankful” do not appear in the text. Nor does eating or drinking. So I’m not sure where Regardie was going with that opening. (*sigh*)
ONWARD!
Don’t Look Now, But I Have Tits!
My other issue with every single book or article on the ritual – and it’s a big issue - is the maddening assumption that the performer is always male.
Regardie: “In the prologue, the operator identifies himself with Osiris by means of the visualized assumption of the Egyptian god-form. That is to say, he formulates about him the form of Osiris …” (yada, yada, yada).
Cowley: “I am He! the Bornless Spirit! having sight in the feet: Strong, and the Immortal Fire! I am He! the Truth! I am He! Who hate that evil should be wrought in the World!” (yada, yada, yada)
Flowers: “Note that the body of the working is a summoning but in the course of the summoning the magician is transformed from a summoner to the entity being summoned and ultimately to the god himself.” (yada, yada, yada)
The god invoked or identified with is male, the performers are all male, the authors are all male. Should I be envisioning and identifying myself with Osiris’s chopped-off phallus, too? I’m female, you (expletive!) (expletive) nitwits! (Hey, whaddya know? Witches DO curse!)
Now true, magicians like Crowley deliberate revised the ritual to be an extension of themselves – which is to say, male – so is that the responsibility of magical women of this generation who happen to be starting on the Hermetic path?
Maybe we should be developing another creation deity (who is identified as female) as the self-identified one in the “Bornless Ritual”.
THAT SAID, as Crowley did, you would want a strong foundation in the Kabbalah before attempting it – which I’ll admit I don’t have at the moment. [Where did I put that bucket list?]
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment