Thanks to the Anonymous comment above at 2018-04-22 11:17 am (UTC), it has come to my attention that there was a response by Michael to one of my comments on the old thread that I didn’t see until now. If it’s okay, I’d like to respond to it here.
If you indeed intended no deception at any point, then it is understandable when you say you don’t appreciate being accused of deception and willfully misleading people into danger. I’d like to point out, though, I didn’t just go running out there shouting “He’s a liar!” As I detailed in the linked comment, I noticed an odd discrepancy between things you said at two different times. It being an internet forum and you not being a part of the conversation yet, I didn’t have you to ask, and I simply hypothesized what seemed a likely-seeming reason to me; as you weren't present in the conversation yet, it didn't even occur to me to couch it in more pleasant language.
You then wrote “If you have questions about my beliefs and the ways I practice, I encourage you to reach out and ask me directly. I'm easy to find and not hiding anything. I'm more than happy to engage respectfully with anyone, regardless of our differences, but if you call me a liar, that's a great way to end the conversation.”
Michael, I don't understand, as in fact, I *did* contact you personally! Furthermore, if I may quote the original e-mail I sent telling you about JMG’s post, I explicitly wrote these words: “I stand by the concerns I detailed in the thread below this main post, though I am willing to entertain at least the possibility that you were not being intentionally devious.” In other words I was inviting you to explain yourself. Which you then kindly said you would do. I hope you agree with me that my conduct here is pretty much the exact opposite of anonymous internet flamethrowing.
All that said, to my mind, you still haven’t made an attempt to explain yourself about that particular issue yet, other than say you’ll stop the conversation if I call you a liar. So I officially retract my insinuations pending further information; you are not a liar yet in my book. Please do explain why you apparently implied different things about blowback at different times. Quite possibly I read the wrong things between the lines. If you take the time to answer the first comment I left above on the current thread here (https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/19932.html?thread=781788#cmt781788), I think that might shed some light on the issue.
You then write, “As for the ‘rules’ of magic, let's just say I don't think anyone has the official Dungeon Master's Guide to Practical Magic®, even JMG, who is one of the smartest people I've ever met when it comes to occultism. And if you look beyond the western esoteric traditions to the magic of indigenous cultures and the eastern traditions (like Tibetan Tantra), you'll see many different schools of thought when it comes to using magic for defensive purposes.”
What JMG refers to as the “raspberry jam rule” (i.e. that you can’t cast a spell, benefic or malefic, without getting some on yourself), I find compelling not because JMG is the ultimate magical authority, but because I observe it at work in my own life, with our without magic being involved. If I treat people, places, or things poorly; if I do things to gain advantage for myself at the expense of others (yes, I have done this a fair bit, I am sorry to say), bad things start happening to me that have no apparent connection to anyone or anything I mistreated; likewise, if I am conscientious toward others, if I try to find ways to help even when it does me no obvious good, good things begin happening as well. Instant karma. Surely partly this is psychological; other times, where the synchronicities get kuh-razy, can only be explained by deeper forces at work. Doesn’t matter, they’re all different octaves of the same melody. As above, so below.
I will come back tomorrow to respond to the argument you make about “defensive magic” meaning different things in different cultures. I look forward to seeing how any of the preceding conversations develop in the meantime.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Replying to Michael's comment on the old thread
Date: 2018-04-23 03:54 pm (UTC)My original comment: https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/15011.html?thread=460707#cmt460707
Michael’s response to my comment: https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/15011.html?thread=769699#cmt769699
And finally, the following is my reply to that.
Michael,
If you indeed intended no deception at any point, then it is understandable when you say you don’t appreciate being accused of deception and willfully misleading people into danger. I’d like to point out, though, I didn’t just go running out there shouting “He’s a liar!” As I detailed in the linked comment, I noticed an odd discrepancy between things you said at two different times. It being an internet forum and you not being a part of the conversation yet, I didn’t have you to ask, and I simply hypothesized what seemed a likely-seeming reason to me; as you weren't present in the conversation yet, it didn't even occur to me to couch it in more pleasant language.
You then wrote “If you have questions about my beliefs and the ways I practice, I encourage you to reach out and ask me directly. I'm easy to find and not hiding anything. I'm more than happy to engage respectfully with anyone, regardless of our differences, but if you call me a liar, that's a great way to end the conversation.”
Michael, I don't understand, as in fact, I *did* contact you personally! Furthermore, if I may quote the original e-mail I sent telling you about JMG’s post, I explicitly wrote these words: “I stand by the concerns I detailed in the thread below this main post, though I am willing to entertain at least the possibility that you were not being intentionally devious.” In other words I was inviting you to explain yourself. Which you then kindly said you would do. I hope you agree with me that my conduct here is pretty much the exact opposite of anonymous internet flamethrowing.
All that said, to my mind, you still haven’t made an attempt to explain yourself about that particular issue yet, other than say you’ll stop the conversation if I call you a liar. So I officially retract my insinuations pending further information; you are not a liar yet in my book. Please do explain why you apparently implied different things about blowback at different times. Quite possibly I read the wrong things between the lines. If you take the time to answer the first comment I left above on the current thread here (https://ecosophia.dreamwidth.org/19932.html?thread=781788#cmt781788), I think that might shed some light on the issue.
You then write, “As for the ‘rules’ of magic, let's just say I don't think anyone has the official Dungeon Master's Guide to Practical Magic®, even JMG, who is one of the smartest people I've ever met when it comes to occultism. And if you look beyond the western esoteric traditions to the magic of indigenous cultures and the eastern traditions (like Tibetan Tantra), you'll see many different schools of thought when it comes to using magic for defensive purposes.”
What JMG refers to as the “raspberry jam rule” (i.e. that you can’t cast a spell, benefic or malefic, without getting some on yourself), I find compelling not because JMG is the ultimate magical authority, but because I observe it at work in my own life, with our without magic being involved. If I treat people, places, or things poorly; if I do things to gain advantage for myself at the expense of others (yes, I have done this a fair bit, I am sorry to say), bad things start happening to me that have no apparent connection to anyone or anything I mistreated; likewise, if I am conscientious toward others, if I try to find ways to help even when it does me no obvious good, good things begin happening as well. Instant karma. Surely partly this is psychological; other times, where the synchronicities get kuh-razy, can only be explained by deeper forces at work. Doesn’t matter, they’re all different octaves of the same melody. As above, so below.
I will come back tomorrow to respond to the argument you make about “defensive magic” meaning different things in different cultures. I look forward to seeing how any of the preceding conversations develop in the meantime.