How many folks here read the Good news section for presentation ideas?

Does it really matter to you which god your rituals praise?

Does your conscience bother you when you entertain with stories about spirits, alien gods and/or the Lovecraft worldview?

While the Old Ones are waiting, Chtulhlu sleeps and dreams of you.

I've honestly never thought to look there for ideas (heck, there are several forems I haven't looked at). It doesn't bother me to do ritual, but I never tred on someones specific religion. For example, I would not do an effect where a cucifix was torn apart and reassembled, but I might have a statue weep tears of blood.

Azrael

I peruse the Good News section from time to time and have even posted there once or twice.
I suppose I go there out of morbid curiosity.
Faith fascinates me as I have none. Not having a spiritual bone in my body nor any belief in a higher power nor purpose to life I am intrigued by those who do ever curious as to how they can make sense of that which to me appears completely nonsensical.

Hiya, Jonathan:

Yes, Bizarre Magic does cause me some pangs of conscience from time to time. When viewed and presented strictly as an art form, I have no compelling, substantive argument against this genre, yet continue to cultivate and consider those pangs. Internal conflict is, to me, evidence of growth, while the lack of such conflict is a sign of complacency. On neither moral nor artistic grounds can that be tolerated.

Hiya, Payne:

You have expressed curiousity about those possessing faith, and as one such individual I'd like to respond.

First, the material world lacks self-explanation, and cannot give a justification for its own existence. That is, why is there something, instead of nothing? Second, immaterial things exist within the material world, yet their existence is likewise unjustified. Logic, for example, has no mass, frequency nor colour, it is not affected by gravity or radiation, and cannot be changed by heat or cold or time. Yet it exists, and indeed is sovereign over all other things within the material realm.

This inability of the physical world to account for itself and its non-physical aspects is part of my reason for faith -- not in an anonymous, ambiguous higher power, but in God.

Leland

Totally respectable in my book. Where I get confused is not in the existence of some higher or sentient aspects of reality in the large, but in the uniqueness of any such kind of being. IE aspects of god or gods, generations of gods or even multiplicity and hierarchy of gods. That is where I respectfully leave the idea and the realm of theology to others.

But cosmology as we now understand it has a perfectly rational explanation for the physical world and the universe in which it resides. Having never encountered a non physical aspect of either the world nor the universe I suppose accounts for my lack of faith in higher beings.
Therefor I have no qualms or misgivings in presenting effects that call upon old or new deities as they are all works of fiction to me.

A perfect marriage... A REAL ILLUSION...

"One who sayeth that Shiva does not exist is Shiva himself trying to prove that he does not exist"

-Tantra Shastra (India) circa 500 b.c.

it is when one realizes that the fiction in the statue will lead one eventually to the Real... a perfect circle...

I understand what you mean Payne...I am writing a book dealing with the Voudou Gods in Bizarre magic...I go through great lengths to let it be known that verily, its all in one's head, and they need not worry about conjuring up some unknown force whilst performing my effects...

To me it matters not which ritual is employed in our craft...the message, from whatever angle it may spring is for me the ultimate goal of such an endeavor...

good points from all of you as always...

Baba

Hiya, Payne:


You wrote:
"But cosmology as we now understand it has a perfectly rational explanation for the physical world and the universe in which it resides."

If you're referring to the Big Bang, we do have a description of T, where T represents the appearance of, well, everything, at least in its nascent state. I would agree that it's rational, but cannot agree that it's explanatory. Big Bang Theory merely describes what evidently took place 14.5 billion years or so ago, without explaining why it happened. And without explaining its precursor. That is, at T minus 1 second (one second before the BB), what existed as a prior and sufficient cause to explain the appearance of T?

And, unless you dispute the existence of human will and rationality, you actually know of least those two immaterial things in our universe. Rocks don't think, waves don't have self-awareness, and electromagnetic bonds do not have 'will.' Self-awareness, rationality, and "will" are not physical, yet they somehow exist in this physical world.

If the source of rationality, self-awareness, and will was the Big Bang, then rationality is a myth and self-awareness an illusion, as these things would then necessarily be the result of prior interactions between physical objects and electro-chemical-mechanical forces. Somehow, the forces and matter generated at T resulted in our supposed 'rationality.' If true, then our thoughts, hopes, loves, and desires are reduced to nothing more than equal and opposite reactions to some prior series of events. You and I have no more choice in anything we do, think, or speak than has helium in flaring up on the surface of the Sun.

But if not true, and such things exist separate and apart from physical causes, then what is their source?

Leland

The source is the CAUSE...it is said that the Universe has forever existed, for even if it was in its causal, seed form, it still existed in THAT...

Sorry, Jonathan, we may have gotten a bit off the subject...but enlightening nonetheless...

Science does not explain. It accounts. It offers a schema for predicting events.

A scientific theory is only as good as its body of experimental evidence. Given two hypotheses (potential theories) that provide identical expectations (predictions) the scientific community goes with the principle of parsimony and prefers the simpler of the two.

If offering my personal answers to the questions posed earlier would help...
I find ideas in the "good news" forums.
I have no issues whatsoever as what I present are stories.
I do make some effort to distinguish my performing from my living and so have no illusions about confusing people as regards life outside of the performance.

It does get tempting to ask how other's faith is affected by such things. I hold off from doing so, as apparent contradictions between faith and physical evidence is a tough psychological issue that our society is not comfortable dealing with. For example, if someone's faith tells them they can fly, permitting them to jump out a window is still a crime.

I don't go there for presentations. I do visit there because, strangely enough, it is one of the few segments of magic that is akin to Bizarre in philosophy. I would rather they strive to be great artists than naught, and I post encouragement accordingly. I applaud when I see great art surface there. My motivation is advancing the art. I am open enough to look beyond any beliefs or identities to critique the art. I don't get hung up on beliefs or identities as long as they don't harm others or impose their will on others. People can believe what they want, be who they want.

I have never even peeeked into it, to me, I think its just garbage.

I have looked in there because there are some very good thinkers and advice even though I am more of an agnostic.

Why throw away gold if the house is not to your liking?

Agreed Seance, they want to be effective and are putting impressive efforts into what they do. I find much to learn from them.

Good discussion. You know, sooner or later a magic convention will ahve to host an open forum with the Gospel folks and the bizarrist folks. I'd go. And bring a notebook!

I gotta admit I've cracked the door open and peeked, but that was about it.
I suppose one might find some gems among the rubble, but it's digging through all the rubble that turns me away from bothering with the gems.
I think overall, my ratio is much better here.

If I may touch on the subject of science/faith, I agree that science has not explained everything and it probably never will, but then I look at science as a means to an end (truth), and faith as an end in itself - no need to test, prove or any of that, just believe. I begrudge no one their faith, but likewise, just because it hasn't been explained yet doesn't necessarily mean it's unexplainable.
Of course, one could ask, "Where did God come from then?" and indeed people have, but I digress so as to not hijack the thread.

The question "WHY" is the Eternal question...think of a child, everytime you answer one question, they say, "but why?" ad infinitum...

we are all children of "THIS"...

the more you try to explain the Illusion, the more ye shall get more entangled in Her web...The silence that follows the words of Logic is where the Eternal question is finally answered...

now as for the "Good news thread"...e'en more creepy than this one...

Baba

Great! This is about building bridges.

That or Riot Gear

Just a reminder. It is simple civility to respect what they do. It is also in all of our best interests to presume they have honest good intent in their actions. I suggest we learn what we can and perhaps offer them some of what we have found.

From a practical perspective, it is not unfair for both parties to look at how stories are told, how props are introduced and handled and how ideas and images are communicated.

Peace