[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# RE: William Mistele and Evocation

#### Message 01406 of 3835

- To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: RE: [BardonPraxis] William Mistele and Evocation
- From: Craig Bolland <craig@...>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:09:34 +1000
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <biq92b+g7p9@eGroups.com>
- Reply-to: craig@...

    Hi Peter (and Rawn, if you like).

    Why do you think Bardon, who undoubtedly knew what he was doing,
    included so large a section of PME if it is 'essentially useless'? Was
    he mistaken? What were his motivations?

    It seems to me you view the entities discussed as having little
    objective reality - to the extent that one person's encounter might be
    radically different to another (ie: subjective), or that a genuine
    encounter might be *veiled* through expectation, or that, indeed, "this
    sort of problem will manifest in almost any
    attempt to contact a spirit that another person has come in contact with
    and evoked". If the entities exist only as a manifestation of individual
    expectations and filters, perhaps they exist only within the individual?
    If an entity has certain observable 'truths' separate from the observer,
    then surely one person's account is useful - in the broad sense if not
    in the details?

    It seems to me that when one is genuinely working at this level, the ego
    is largely to one side, and any filters or personal perceptions are
    necessarily absent and therefore irrelevant. In short, one does not
    perceive these things through the ego-self.

    While I agree that the 'everything is an aspect of self / there is no
    observed without the observer' paradigm is a valid and internally
    congruent metaphor for mystical truth, it doesn't strike me as being the
    more traditional hermetic paradigm Bardon worked within, except to the
    extent that all mystical streams begin talking the same language at some
    point. But moreover - although it's fashionable nowadays to eschew
    tradition and objectivity in favour of the personal experience, in order
    to understand the author one needs to understand his assumptions and
    axioms. If Bardon wrote within a traditional hermetic frame, as he
    himself claims to, we need to get within that frame to understand the
    truths there, not retranslate it into modern quantum-magick.

    The ecclectic/traditional dynamic is a fascinating one in modern occult
    circles. I think your argument here is an attempt to mistranslate a
    traditional objective approach into a modern subjective one, which is
    fascinatingly representative of modern magickal dialectic, but
    ultimately flawed.

    And therefore, to allow Ouroboros her course and to trail back around to
    my first point, the $64,000 questions that arise from your assumptions
    are - did Bardon know what he was doing and believe what he was saying?
    If so, why throw in 'essentially useless' information?

    LVX,

    Craig.

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re: William Mistele and Evocation
    - From: "ihya1347" <ihya1347@...>
  - Re: William Mistele and Evocation
    - From: "peter_reist" <peter_reist@...>

- References:
  - William Mistele and Evocation
    - From: "peter_reist" <peter_reist@...>

- Prev by Date: Broken my practice, advice needed1
- Next by Date: Re: Broken my practice, advice needed1
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: William Mistele and Evocation
- Next by thread: Re: William Mistele and Evocation
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index