XPost: alt.religion.wicca, alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.writing   
   XPost: alt.magick   
   From: leichtes@bellsouth.net   
      
   in article _JtVd.13247$ha.824628@twister.southeast.rr.com, Pip at   
   Aetyr@nc.rr.com wrote on 3/2/05 8:27 PM:   
      
   >   
   > "Arlon Staywell"  wrote in message   
   > news:utlVd.311631$w62.255160@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...   
   >>   
   >> "Rhyanon"  wrote   
   >>   
   >>> Words aren't necessary for "spells". which is a misnomer in itself. I   
   >>> don't   
   >>> have the patience to dumb down the basics for you nimrods.   
   >>   
   >> I wrote a paper for an English class on whether the election of   
   > Clinton   
   >> was the result of a spell witches put on the United States.  It is   
   > important   
   >> to understand that it was not a political science class, not mathematics,   
   >> nothing "serious."  It was a topic "for fun."  The English professor   
   > didn't   
   >> want another paper on Clinton because he said he was sick and tired of   
   > them   
   >> after grading so many.  By making the paper about witchcraft I made it   
   >> different enough to be allowed the topic.   
   >>   
   >> My point is this though, I read many books on the topic.  I read most   
   > of   
   >> them the James Branch Cabbell Library had about it.  I tore my best book   
   > bag   
   >> loading it with so many books.  The paper had to be over 20 pages long and   
   >> have at least 25 references.  Consistently the essence of the matter is   
   >> accessing the subconscious through symbolism.  Carl Jung of course wrote   
   >> quite seriously on that (and I included references to him and other   
   >> scientific sorts), but books on "magic" and "witchcraft" (often misused   
   >> terms) made much the same point, to whit:  Symbolism is the key to the   
   >> influence, such as it might be, exercised by those believed to be or   
   >> purporting to be practicing "magick."  Words are the ultimate symbols.   
   >> Practicing "magick" without word power is like practicing medicine with   
   >> leeches and poultices.   
   >>   
   >> It is quite possible to make people sick, healthy, apprehensive,   
   >> courageous, contented, empowered, to laugh, to cry or almost any other way   
   >> through the "magic" of words and symbols.  Other methods aren't really   
   >> "magic" although possibly more sinister.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Good point.  However, you are talking about propaganda, not magic.  Whether   
   > or not propaganda works is a much studied subject, and we know that it DOES   
   > work. Brain washing works, and so does conversion. Talking about Jung....he   
   > is sometimes credited for giving the initial inspiration to one of the   
   > founders of AA, and in that, the twelve step program.  He told the guy that   
   > he could not cure him of alcoholism, that only a complete conversion to a   
   > new way of thinking may help him.   
   > Psychological methods are always part of public witchcraft.  Some people   
   > here are talking about private witchcraft.  To argue with them about private   
   > witchcraft is like arguing with a devout believer in any faith or viewpoint.   
   > This does not mean that it isn't valid, or cannot be "personally" proven.   
   > When one starts to argue over a personal proof, its like arguing about love.   
   > How does someone know when they are in love?  Can they show this to other   
   > people?  Is it considered a delusion?  Is there such a thing as being in   
   > love, OR is it a cultural assumption?   
   >   
   > Pip   
   >   
   >   
      
   Are you asking if all cultures feel the same set of emotions such as the   
   kind of love you mention, or envy, jealousy, and choking in sports (or   
   hunting)? I doubt if all cultures feel the same things. In the   
   Hellenic/Hebraic/Christian/Western/European literature, we don't find that   
   sort of love -- being in love or smitten -- mentioned until the 12th   
   century. For a while, Love was only literary. Then it was only Courtly. Then   
   it was only Romantic. Then it spilled out into rl. (C.S. Lewis, The Allegory   
   of Love). By that time, we notice it in Romeo & Juliet and in Othello, but   
   the jury were out. Finally, Ibsen buys it and has his characters die or   
   suffer worse for being in love. Yet Kafka jokes about it. 20th-century close   
   readings took the romance out of love by showing that romantic love was   
   invented by troubadors and fostered by poets and other mountebanks. The book   
   of love is now banned in all PC intimacies. There are no guidelines (Rollo   
   May, The Schizoid Personality).   
      
   Has anyone in this thread mentioned Carl Ballantine? He was the one who cut   
   neckties that stayed cut no matter how hard he tried to pull out an intact   
   necktie from the hat.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)