Towards an Understanding of Magic: Frame of Reference

[gullindagan]

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.
 

Comments

[jprussell]

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.

[gullindagan]

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!