gullindagan | Towards an Understanding of Magic: Frame of Reference

Entry tags:

Towards an Understanding of Magic: Frame of Reference

So how does Magic actually work again? Well, in ALU:An Advanced Guide to Operative Runology, Thorsson quotes the scholar Ronald Grambo as saying that "the first step in understanding how a magical act works is the comprehension of the "frame of reference" in which the act takes place." Ok, so there is a whole cultural context that has to be understood in order to even comprehend what actually happens when somebody does "magic", and perhaps, the cultural context both informs and limits the effects of the magical act. Maybe that can explain the legends of magicians from previous ages who did things we can only dream of. Of course, to somebody who is not an inmate of industrial civilization, I'm sure much of what we take for granted would be considered "magic." Thorsson states explicitly that "For an operation to work, it must work within a frame of reference." Whether or not he is right is one question, but this thread leads me to a concept coined by the great 20th century occultist/prankster Robert Anton Wilson: "Reality tunnel," which, according to Wikipedia means "a theory that, with a subconscious set of mental filters formed from beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets the same world differently"

This would imply that one's world view impacts the way that one can affect the world magically. The modern atheist-materialist thus can't even imagine the things that magically literate inmates of the same culture can do; he can only imagine Harry Potter. Of course, since we all inhabit the same world, even though we all experience it differently, that materialist can still be affected by magic, and according to folks like JMG, the ones who don't believe in magic (or have an unrealistic view of it) are even more easily influenced by it.

Thorsson continues his thought by saying that "Our major endeavor in current operative runology is to restore our lost frame of reference, which will in turn cause our operations to be better. Our ancestors lived in a culture with a high level of cultural context--they spoke a Germanic language, worshiped Germanic gods... We on the other hand, live in a society with a relatively low level of cultural context. We speak a Germanic language, but one that has been hybridized with French, Latin, and Greek elements; the majority of the people worship a foreign god; and our aesthetic universe is eclectic, if not chaotic, in the extreme."

I see what he's saying, but here is the part where we diverge. I like the eclecticity of our world, and I think that it's a possible source of great strength, if one can get over the feelings of overwhelm and nihilism that is... the fact is we don't really know that much about the magic the old Germanic tribes performed, but we do know that the Roman Christians very systematically converted them. Sometimes by massacre, as with Charlemagne, but more often by having more powerful magic, and using the cultural capital of "Romanitas." The systems of magic from the Mediterranean are powerful, even the fragments that we have. Just Astrology alone is way more powerful of a tool than anything we know of from the North. So this is one of the reasons that I am excited about this Heathen Golden Dawn project, and think that it's a project that the Wandering Wise One approves of. Why would we not seek far and wide for the greatest magic to integrate into our kit?

Well, it can be easy to get overwhelmed, to stake out in too many directions, get nowhere except diluted, and never hit water. So this is where I agree with Thorsson. By grounding ourselves deeply in a particular mythos, and I mean deeply, we can cultivate a frame of reference that we can then integrate new skills and tools into.

For instance, the concept of "the planes". This tool has been very helpful for me, especially in my goal of personally integrating the Northern and Western traditions. We have the Material, the Etheric, the Astral, the Mental and the Spiritual. Divinity, which is unknowable to a human, resides on the highest plane (but also, imo, in everything) The human mostly exists in the Material, semi-consciously on the Etheric and the Astral (if you can watch your thoughts, then you're working more consciously on the Astral), but are only at an early stage of developing a Mental body. The Astral and the Mental planes are then the interface between the Human world and the Divine world, or a Rainbow Bridge between Midgard and Asgard... The god forms that exist as images are a way for both the human to reach up towards the divine, and for the divine to reach down to the human. By immersing ourselves in the myths, by making offerings to the gods, by making images of the gods, by praying and listening, we open that channel. We cultivate a frame of reference.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

My take is that a great deal of Heathenry and the history of Germanic peoples speaks strongly against cultural purity.

First we have the fact that there is evidence -- linguist John McWhorter talks about this in his book Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue -- that proto-Germanic was the result of contact and hybridization between an Indo-European and a Semitic language (probably Phoenician). So German culture was never pure (nor has any other culture ever been).

Second, there's the fact that the Heathen gods aren't a single group, but two: the Aesir and Vanir, who seem to have come from completely different backgrounds, but now accept and intermingle with each other. (One of these days, I'd like to sit down and compare the Vanir and Semitic deities to see if there's any similarities.)

And speaking of the Vanir, there's Freya. I wasn't signed in when I made it, but a few weeks ago I posted my interpretation of the myth of Freya's wanderings for her lost Odr, and her promiscuity, on MM:

https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/142391.html?thread=17478711#cmt17478711

In other words, perhaps Freya's loss and search represent the distancing of spiritual forces from humanity and the need ever since for occultists to scour the world for lore that will reconnect them to the Divine. This also gives a different meaning to Freya's promiscuity: occultists and magicians are to take wisdom where we can find it, not by committing to One True Way.

Yep. All of these are very important points. I remember seeing that comment, and think that's a great interpretation.

I find it rather odd that so many Heathens are focused on the purity thing, since to me it seems so absurd. This quote by Thorsson also shows his allegiance to Traditionalism, which is fine for him, but something I find utterly unconvincing.

Well there certainly are similarities between Freya and Inanna, who was originally a Sumerian goddess and so even older than the Semitic civilizations!

Freya as Astarte/Ishtar/Inanna was my thought as well.

Just briefly looking into it, it could be that Frey may have come from Bel/Ba'al. Both their names are titles meaning "Lord" and both are associated with weather and fertility.

This is more tenuous, but Njord may actually be derived from Tiamat, if the theory that he was originally the goddess Nerthus is correct. All three are connected to the water.

Edited 2021-09-13 04:44 (UTC)

Yeah these are all interesting speculations, but then there is the other side where Wodan is not exactly Odin, and Freya and Frigga are not the same, even if they came from the same diety.

True, and that's part of why I was careful to say "derived from" rather than the same. If there's one thing that's clear, it's that the sense of entity-identity that's applicable to deities — especially in traditions where deities can be aspects of other deities — is very different than the one applicable to tables and chairs.

This speaks to similar questions, such as whether the Thor Heatens pray to today is the same one Norsemen prayed to two thousand years ago, or even whether the Thor one Heathen today prays to is the same as the Thor another prays to. Probably these questions don't have nice, clear-cut answers. (Really, most questions don't when you look closely enough.)

Yeah, these are very interesting questions and ones that I've been brooding on for a while... I don't know if they're really answerable, but I think asking them and wrestling with them can be helpful.

I've also noticed that we have these ancient streams/traditions of heathenry, but the contemporary "pop" heathenry is definitely a new strain evolving. The Aegishelmer, the Elder Futhark for modern pronunciations of god names ( Othala-Dagaz-Isa-Nauthis for "Odin" for instance) Its really interesting. These are things that Jackson Crawford et al make fun of, but I think there's something moving there.

Enjoyed this essay, and the comment above.

Another fan of eclecticism here. I appreciate the importance of having a frame of reference; a sort of grounding. But, as you say, even our English language is eclectic. Perhaps the sorting into useful or not useful is a skill to master, rather reject something outright because it lacks that elusive quality, purity. What is purity, anyway? Seems like a little might be good, but too much will stagnate.

Appreciate the image of Bifrost as an astral connection between Midgard and the Gods.

Also, this helped me see more clearly the importance of the images on my altar, and the small daily offerings made.

Thanks,
Valerie

I think the sorting is a very useful skill to master! Discernment and intuition are two of the keys, and many wise people have expounded the virtue of those virtues.

Thank you for the kind words, and I'm glad there were some helpful takeaways.

As usual, there's a lot of grist for the brain mill in this one and the comments. I've responded with rather a lot, but I've used headers to try to organize it helpfully.

Frame of Reference
I might look at the "Frame of Reference" argument as something of a combination of the "tracks in space" Fortune talks about and as a support for the vividness of imagination in support of will in the style of Levi (both as pretty heavily filtered through JMG in my case). I can see how living life a certain way, knowing certain myths, performing certain rituals, all in ways that reinforce and strengthen one another could lead to easier and/or stronger magic-working through a handful of means. On the other hand, you run more risk of sticking with less effective methods or being closed off to conceptually useful notions (for example: if your exquisitely complete frame of reference didn't include reincarnation, a whole swath of spiritual knowledge and technique would be closed off to you). A broader frame of reference solves this problem, as you mention in the post, but it is also likely harder to make as emotionally intense and doesn't have the support of others laying down the same tracks in space ahead of you.

The Allure of "Purity"
As someone who somewhat fell for this and finds some aspects of it enjoyable and interesting, I kind of get it, but recent experience and the influence of JMG have also led me to think very differently about it. I think the core of the problem is a pair of patterns of thought wrapped up in modern rational materialism: Legibility and Coherence.

Legibility
So, this concept originates with Seeing Like a State by James C. Scott, but I learned about it (and absorbed certain interpretations) from the blog sam[]zdat: https://samzdat.com/2017/05/22/man-as-a-rationalist-animal/ Sam[]zdat is an interesting case of a rationalist who is appropriately skeptical of much of rationalism, but struggles to try to find a way. Anyhow, "Legibility" is the idea that those of a rationalist bent, most of all organizations based on supposedly rational aims and methods, seek to understand through simplification and abstraction. "Purity" is attractive from this point of view because it makes things much simpler if you can whittle down to the "real" or "original" core and ignore all of those pesky local details and nuances. It also gives you a "justification" for making decisions "well, I do it this way because it's the oldest/purest/most authentic. Do you know anything older/purer/more authentic?"

Coherence
This is my own term. When you try to engage with spiritual/religious/mythological material from a rationalist-materialist viewpoint, it's hard to find a foundation or grounding for why to go with any one set of beliefs over another. "Coherence" can seem like a justification to go with a tradition - "well, it all hangs together, which means it's true enough to base my beliefs on". A broad polytheist few cheerfully blows this up: "it all works! For some folks in some places at some times. So find what works for you here, now."

Identities of Gods
This is one I've struggled with as well, and continue to do so. As a practical example, I was convinced by the historical scholarship that worship of Freyja and Frigg derived from earlier worship of a single Goddess, and so began by looking for ways to worship a Goddess who somehow made sense as both, or maybe that they were aspects of the same Goddess the way Zeus Polieus is not the same as Zeus Hyes. Intellectually it makes a certain amount of sense, but my experiences praying and meditating have convinced me that I need to give worship to two different personalities and treat them like different beings. I'm thinking about digging into Neoplatonic theology to try to get some traction with this particular head scratcher.

Linking Traditional Western Occult Philosophy with the Heathen Tradition
This is also something I've been thinking about over the past few months as well. One example is looking for links between the planes and the "multipart soul" that Thorsson, Krasskova, and others have elaborated on. I'd be interested to hear your and other's takes on this:
- Physical Plane: Lich/Body, maybe some of Aethem/Ond
- Etheric Plane: Aethem/Ond, Wod/Odhr, Hama/Hamr
- Astral Plane: Hyge/Hugr? Minni?
- Mental Plane: Hyge/Hugr, Minni?
- Spiritual Plane: Fetch/Fylgja, Hamingja, Wyrd/Orlog?

Clearly, the biggest snag I ran into here was distinguishing between the Astral and Mental plane, but there were many concepts that seemed to span more than one plane (I originally worked this out on paper with dotted lines extending into planes I was less sure about)

Origins of Aesir/Vanir Merger

slithytoves123, I have not read about the proposed Phoenecian link with Proto-Germanic, but that's interesting. One theory about the Aesir/Vanir split I find delightfully intriguing, but perhaps impossible to pin down is that it goes waaaaay back to the formation of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Dumezil was one of the first to point out that several IE cultures have a "war of the functions" myth where the wizard kings and warriors fought the farmer-craftsmen, and either won or negotiated a settlement that included keeping large swaths of the farmer-craftsmen culture intact. There is solid archaeological evidence (and now genetic evidence as well) that groups we're pretty sure were directly ancestral to/spoke early version of PIE moved from the Ukrainian steppe into one of the river valleys of eastern europe (I want to say the Danube?), became overlords of the established rich farmers there, and that the culturally and genetically blended folks from there proceeded to re-blend with the originating steppe people and spread into what look archaeologically like the root cultures for the various PIE migrations (this is somewhat simplified, of course).

Now, what's intriguing to me about the semitic hypothesis is that these "first farmers" of Europe started out in Anatolia way, way back, around the agricultural revolution (modern day highland Sardinians are the most closely related group alive today). It's not crazy at all to think that they might have had cultural or linguistic links with the proto-Semitic speakers and their gods, but this is so far back that there's lots of speculation involved. If the hypothesis argues for literal historical Phoenecian, that's a bit of a taller order to link that far back.

First, let me say that I'm honored you've given this much thought to this conversation, and I feel blessed with the privileged to participate and help facilitate this level of engagement among such deeply thinking participants.

Yes, connecting "frame of reference" to "tracks in space" makes a lot of sense to me. This is why I agree with the advice to go deeply into one frame of reference, and then expand. And yes, I think to break new ground you've got to go past where the train tracks end, but, you've got to walk the tracks first. Even just gaining another frame of reference broadens and deepens the first, especially (I think) by meditating on the conflicts and tensions. But, I think very few people actually go beyond the tracks. Even JMG is mostly just bringing forward old ideas and synthesizing! It's hard enough to master one frame of reference.

In terms of legibility, this is why I find JMG's distinction between authenticity and validity so darn helpful.

Coherence: yes, and again why I think it's quite important to master one tradition first, then expand. But this is why it can be very helpful to play around with several possibilities before committing to one for many years: you gotta know what works for you!

As far as the identities of gods, I agree and have had similar experiences.

With the multiple soul/planes thing: I'll probably do a post on this soon and we can really get into it.

I think that is the most polite way I've ever seen someone say "that is incredibly long!" But thank you, and I'm just thrilled to have some folks to talk to about this stuff.

I agree that JMG's emphasis on validity over authenticity has been incredibly useful, and is one of the things that broke me out of the "purity trap". I suspect that many folks who go in for authenticity/purity/legibility do so because they don't actually believe that magic is "really" doing anything.

Hmm, that's an interesting point on some of the value of coherence - it certainly can lend itself to the kind of imaginative and emotional resonance the "Frame of Reference" gives. On the other hand, I'm afraid I might not have clearly conveyed what I was trying to say about coherence, so I'd like to give it another shot. It's the one place above where I was maybe too brief!

I think that "coherence" is a virtue that is appealing to the rational intellect, and especially to the kind of rational thinking that wants to systematize and abstract everything. As you say, it is a virtue, but perhaps one that is over-valued in our society. I also think this goes back to the same point about validity above - if your way of worshipping/doing magic works, who cares if it's a bit messy and idiosyncratic? On the other hand, if you don't have any notion of efficacy, but you still want a justification for believing in/doing something, even if you escape the authenticity trap, you might still get caught by "but look how elegantly this all fits together!" It's the lure of figuring out epicycles to make the nice, neat circular orbits work out, rather than considering elliptical orbits.

Basically, I think that legibility and coherence are two particular flavors of a wider issue with our Faustian culture - the idea that the solution to every problem is to think through rational cause and effect, to apply abstractions, or to analyze to first principles. Obviously, there's a lot of strength to this approach, but it leaves us ill-suited to handle nuance, messiness, and particularity. Nothing new here, JMG and others have made similar observations, but I have found legibility and coherence useful tools for applying the insight.

I see how "coherence" can be a trap, but for me it's a balancing act. I am actually a bit messy, and very idiosyncratic, eclectic and eccentric, but it does work for me. I know many folks who fall out the other side though and never hit water in their well digging by dissipating their energy on distractions. The main thing is if the practice(s) works!

I like your legibility and coherence ideas, it's a nice pair of lenses, and I'm also glad to have folks to discuss this sort of stuff with!

Edited 2021-09-15 02:03 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Towards an Understanding of Magic: Frame of Reference

A Foolish Quest for Consistency

Re: A Foolish Quest for Consistency

Re: A Foolish Quest for Consistency

Re: A Foolish Quest for Consistency

Re: A Foolish Quest for Consistency

Re: A Foolish Quest for Consistency

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject