rickheit@hawk (01/14/87)
[] Hi people. I have a potential way of looking at things that can really clear up some of the arguments. I would appreceiate comments on this schema as I have spent a lot of time working on this. Look it over carefully - a lot of the apparently meaningless concepts and connections turn out to be pretty useful. First, we look at methods of control - means of focussing the power/etc. that you are working with. Now, I have divided things into basically THREE ways of doing this: Internal, object oriented, and ritual. Internal focussing relies primarily on the will of the practitioner. He (or she, or it; for convenience let's say "he") directs the flow of energy by nothing other than mental control. This way places the burden of directing the channeling square on his shoulders. Note: the user does not necessarily have to have CONCIOUS control over what is happening - it may be controlled via the subconcious or unconcious. Next we have object oriented focussing. This uses external objects/gadgets (for example: crystals, staves, runes, cards, etc.) to aid the mental focussing. The object carries at least part of the burden for channeling the energy/whatever, but the user still controls the reaction (usually :-) Last, but not least, we have ritual focussing. This method uses a primarily fixed pattern for controlling the elements. This pattern is usually a combination of specific words, and motions. It also often uses objects (as in method #2). The good thing about this method of focussing is that the load on the practitioner is fairly light. The bad thing is that the control is limted to what the ritual is capable of handling. Most moderns religeous ceremonies started off as rituals, but as time went on, many of the meanings were lost and all that was left was empty forms. Now, once we have determined how the control is done, we have to consider the symbology or categorization used. What I mean here is what basic conceptualizations or analogies the person is using. I have broken them into FIVE main groupings. First, we have pure energy. This categorizes things in terms of black and white (light & dark, etc.), possibly with the inclusion of grey (shadow) as a distinct class, rather than as a blend of light & dark. This is fairly straight forward. Moving right along, we have life essence. This means that the user is thinking in terms of the interaction between living things. Wiccan and druidic religeons fall into this category primarily. "The FORCE" from Star Wars is also this grouping. Basically, it is thinking in terms of the energy associeted with life and living things. Blood magic is an example of object focussing of life energy, as is the traditional (I mean here fairy-tale) witches potions composed of the parts of crittters. Next we have elemental. In this, the user is thinking in terms of the four (or five, or whatever) elements as symbology. Alternatly, the four Christian Arch-angels (Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, and Raphael) are used since they have a direct connection to the four elements (a la Kurtz "Deryni Chronicles"). Penultimately, we have physical representation. This uses conceptulized objects as the symbology. Examples: for defense, we use a wall; for lifting something, a crane; for the equiv. of a 'Hold Person' spell, a rope binding. In the case of internal focussing, the user visualizes whatever physical representation is needed to preform that action. In object focussing, the form of the object mirrors the action desired. Etc. Last, we have mental. For this menthod the user does not rely upon any universal constants, only invidual visualizations. Basically, here only abstacts are used. It is the more versatile, since it does not rely upon any analogies. It is also the most difficult, since the user does not have any universal constants to think in terms of. NOTE: it is important to keep in mind that there is NO FUNDIMENTAL DIFFERENCE between these groups. It is simply which aid (if any) the user wants to employ to help him. Also, there is no particular order to the above; that is simply the order I came up with them in. Some people do not need analogies to work with, while others rely upon them havily. Just as some people do not need objects or rituals to focus, while others use them extensively. I make no judgement as to the relative merits of one way over the other. As an overview, look at the resulting matrix: Pure Life Energy Essence Elemental Physical Mental +---------+----------+------------+------------+----------+ Internal | | | | | | +---------+----------+------------+------------+----------+ Object | | | | | | +---------+----------+------------+------------+----------+ Ritual | | | | | | +---------+----------+------------+------------+----------+ You can fill in the blanks as you will. Gryphon
mod-psi@ulowell.UUCP (01/25/87)
[] In article <940@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> rickheit@hawk writes: >Hi people. > >I have a potential way of looking at things [...] Greetings. A well thought out posting; I have done some thinking along similar lines. Here are some comments: >[...] >Next we have object oriented focussing. This uses external objects/gadgets >(for example: crystals, staves, runes, cards, etc.) to aid the mental >focussing. The object carries at least part of the burden for channeling >the energy/whatever, but the user still controls the reaction (usually :-) External objects can be useful, but as just an aid to mental focus they are (in my experience) critically limited. Although they are much easier to use than pure visualization, they are far less flexible, and tend to lock the practitioner into certain "modes" of use. This is not say I suggest that no one use this method! I myself have used it while learning new techniques. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of using external foci as a matter of course. >Last, but not least, we have ritual focussing. This method uses a primarily >fixed pattern for controlling the elements. This pattern is usually a >combination of specific words, and motions. It also often uses objects (as >in method #2). The good thing about this method of focussing is that the load >on the practitioner is fairly light. The bad thing is that the control is >limted to what the ritual is capable of handling. Most moderns religeous >ceremonies started off as rituals, but as time went on, many of the >meanings were lost and all that was left was empty forms. A ritual involving only one person seems to me to be little different from an external focus. However, if the practitioners understand the principles behind the ritual, it can be more flexible. Also, rituals can be very useful for getting a group of people "in sync," i.e. using a common focus, especially if the members of the group vary in skill. Because they do require (often elaborate) preparation, they cannot be used "on the fly", as it were. >[description of the various conceptual approaches] >Some people do not need analogies to work with, while others rely upon them >havily. Just as some people do not need objects or rituals to focus, while >others use them extensively. I make no judgement as to the relative merits >of one way over the other. > > > Gryphon I suppose I am making judgements, but I hope no one takes them personally. Since (so far), most information on the subject is best gotten by experience, each person ends up with their own personal bias. Since I approach my abilities and experiences in an exploratory way, without any particular goal in mind, I end up with more internally directed & abstract skills than the other kinds. Also, the "scientist" in me doesn't like to take things at face value without trying to figure out why they work the way they do. Comments?