Defiers of Culturally Imposed Reality

I was reflecting earlier on how direct and personal experience and practice of the numinous is a maligned lifestyle in modern culture. I then reminded myself that this is far from new – since the decline of ancient paganism and occultism and the spread of authoritarian monotheism, forging one’s own foray into the world of spirit is an activity which has been both frowned upon (and officially persecuted) for well over a thousand years.

Psychics and occultists have long been the defiers of culturally imposed reality – or, to put it more accurately, defiers of culturally imposed interpretations of reality.

In sixteenth century Britain, spiritual beliefs were more widespread than they are today, but people were immensely restricted on what they could do with spirituality and how they manifested it. There was a belief in non-physical entities, but summoning and communicating with these entities yourself was strongly condemned. Likewise, belief in magick was normal – but practicing said magick was an offence, an affront to the sensibilities of the religious leaders, who proscribed witchcraft as an act of evil, of devilry, wickedness of the highest order. This is one of the reasons why alchemists often couched their views in esoteric language – symbolism which would be understood only by an elite few. To put their pronouncements in laymen’s terms could very well have meant imprisonment or death.

Now even in these very anti-occult times, it was possible for a few people to get away with openly deviating from majority Christian ruling. (John Dee, adviser to Elizabeth I, practiced scrying and openly conducted communication with angelic entities who dictated the famous Enochian language.) In general, however, publicly declaring yourself to be practicing witchcraft, or some other form of verboten spirituality, would have been suicidal. The only valid manifestation of spirituality was to be undertaken through adherence to Christianity, with metaphysical powers to be the domain of God and His angels. Attempting to develop these metaphysical abilities yourself was seen as sinful.

In many ways, the modern UK is vastly more tolerant, but by no means all. The contemporary West is just as anti-occult as ever, it’s just that the invective is mostly a result of wider acceptance of strict materialism. (There are still some fundamentalist monotheists who think that witchcraft is ‘the devil’s work’ but their voices are waning and have been losing traction with the growth of liberal and moderate monotheism.) In my experience, I’ve found that if you’re open about your practice of occultism in the UK, you’re much more likely to be scolded and sneered at by some smug self-proclaimed “sceptic” than you are to be told that you’re evil and going to hell.

Materialism, while not the lone worldview, is very culturally strong at the moment, certainly much stronger than alternative spirituality and occultism. And the “rules” of the materialist worldview is that the material world is all there is; that there is no “spiritual” plane, no magick, no non-physical entities, nothing except this world here. Inevitably, the rise of materialism will continue (not necessarily intentionally) the cultural alienation of psychics, New Agers, occultists…those who experience and practice stuff that, according to the radicals, DOES NOT, CANNOT AND MUST NOT exist.

Witchcraft is no longer illegal, true (though it’s worth noting that the Witchcraft Act of 1735, which continued the criminalisation of witchcraft, was not a product of religious bigotry but of Enlightenment-era intolerance, in which it was assumed that witchcraft was impossible, so anyone trying to do it or claiming to do it was to be punished with fines or a prison sentence. The Witchcraft Act was repealed in 1951 – up until then, anyone publicly practicing witchcraft was breaking the law. To put that into perspective, consider that it was in 1967 that homosexuality was decriminalised – it was only a mere sixteen years before that, that witchcraft was decriminalised.)

So we’re currently free to do what we will, and many of those with a materialist persuasion are willing to live and let live when it comes to innocuous manifestations of spirituality. There is, however, a movement of radical materialists whose aim is to eliminate *any* kind of metaphysical belief or practice, and they have agitated for legislation which would impinge upon our rights. I don’t doubt that if radical materialists gained significant political power that we would shortly be seeing a curtailing of our spiritual freedoms.

It’s hard to imagine a world in which alternative spiritual beliefs are the cultural philosophical norm. Occultism and the paranormal went through a wave of popularity in the 1960s and 1970s, but even then, it hardly became mainstream. Maybe acceptance of occultism will rise. Or maybe not. But in the here and now, psychics and occultists are what they have been for many, many years – defiers of culturally imposed interpretations of reality.

All I can say to the rest of you, is – keep on keeping on. I know it’s hard. A lot of people just don’t “get” you. Some hate you and think you’re dangerous. Some will bully you. Some want to criminalise what you do. But as we defy culturally popular interpretations of reality, we can also defy the prejudice of the ignorant – by standing true to what we think and what we practice, to upholding the dream of a diverse and tolerant society and solidly refusing to break away from our practices due to taunts or peer pressure. Continue defying culturally imposed interpretations of reality by thinking for yourself and creating your own path. For it is free thought – and marching to the beat of your own drum – that are some of the beauties of occultism. 

My Disillusionment with the Mainstream Left OR Bring Tolerance into Left-Wing Discourse

I will say at the outset that I try to avoid being an overly politically-minded person, since the subject is of very limited interest to me. I seldom engage in matters of politics, finding much more enjoyable things to do with my time instead. If pressed to identify where I naturally lean politically, I’d identify myself as a moderate leftie – I have socially liberal views and dislike the extremes of both sides. But overall, politics is something I try to keep at arm’s length.

So this kind of post is rare for me, but after exposure to some malefic attitudes and behaviours which appear to be characteristic of the mainstream Left, I feel the need to explain why, as a liberal, I feel so disillusioned with contemporary left-wing perspectives.

NUMBER ONE – THE PREJUDICE AGAINST ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITY

I used to naively assume that the Left was the champion of those who deviated from the norm, of harmless eccentrics. Even if they thought some of the people were rather batty, I believed that they offered friendship, kindness and open-mindedness.

Well, no longer, at least not when it comes to alternative spirituality.

I am an occultist who has been interested in New Age and esoteric studies since my teen years. It has been my misfortune to find out the hard way that the mainstream attitude of the modern Left is to show a shocking level of bias against such subjects as psychic ability, witchcraft, astrology and many other alternative metaphysical beliefs and practices which would fall under the umbrella of ‘occult’. I am not the only person who has noticed, for example, that when The Guardian runs an article on something to do with the paranormal or the spiritual, there is a likelihood that the standards of journalism will descend to those of The Daily Mail. The Left generally prides itself on its pro-science stance, but is decidedly very anti-science when it comes to the evidence supporting telepathy or mediumship. In general, they appear to have thrown in their lot with fundamentalist pseudo-sceptics and dogmatic materialists, a trend which I find most distasteful.

NUMBER TWO –INTOLERANCE, BIGOTRY AND DOWNRIGHT NASTINESS

Following on from the contemporary Left’s unfairness in regards to occultism, I have often been very disturbed by the intolerant, draconian and cruel rhetoric that they rain upon not just the metaphysical concepts themselves, but also the people who incorporate alternative spiritual beliefs and practices into their lives. The majority, by far, of us new age occult types, are completely innocuous, yet the Left seems to regard us all as enemies and as targets for bullying and oppression. Only this very morning, I took a look at the comments on a Guardian article on why young women were taking an interest in witchcraft, and saw the usual hateful and bigoted garbage. After wading through two pages of this sludge, I’d had enough. These people are entitled to be as mean as they want, but if that’s the way the Left is going, I want nothing to do with them. Far from being interested in upholding our right to do what we want in our personal lives, too many on the Left seems to want to take away our right to practice magick, astrology, the tarot, or whatever form of occultism we’ve taken up.

NUMBER THREE – PRO CHILD SEX ABUSE???

This third reason may be a little sketchy, and I don’t actually believe that being in favour of child sex abuse is a common view amongst those on the Left. On the contrary, I think it is still, at present, a minority opinion. I also recognise that that there have been numerous individuals of the political right who have inflicted abuse upon children; it is not simply a left-wing problem.

That said, I am including this reason here because I have tended to find that, in cases where there is outright support of child molestation, such sympathies have often been espoused by outlets aligned to the political Left.

I also want to make an important distinction clear. I have no issue with any left-wing support of non-offending paedophiles (i.e. those who have resolved never to harm children.) I sympathise with paedophiles who genuinely hate the way they feel and are committed to obeying the law. Articles in defence of them – fine. Similarly, left-wing support of treatment options for paedophiles in order to help them control their urges, stop them re-offending, or stop them offending in the first place – fine. I am objecting specifically to left-wing sources that have actually come out and appeared to sympathise with actual child sex abuse. One example I can think of is an article from The Guardian which maintained that it was uncertain as to whether child-adult sexual relations were harmful to children. (As far as I’m aware, there is tons of evidence that in most cases, it certainly is.)

Again, I don’t believe that support of child sex abuse is a normal view amongst left-wingers, but I am wondering if it is in the beginning stages of a slow-growing trend. If so, it is something I want to distance myself from. If pro child sex abuse views were ever to become the mainstream of the political Left, then I would think that would be a major nail in the coffin of their most historic values. Isn’t the Left supposed to be in favour of looking after the vulnerable?

I am in no way trying to imply that every single left-winger (or even the vast majority) holds all of these views or adopts all of these behaviours. I know for a fact that  there are lefties who remain true to the values of tolerance and compassion, who are kind and polite in conversation, who are capable of respecting those with whom they disagree. But it does seem to me that it has become conventional for left-wing outlets to be hotbeds of bigotry, dogma and bullying, and while they remain that way, this liberal will just grow more and more disenchanted. 

Spirituality: Sex for the Soul

Recently I’ve been giving some thought to the connection between sex and spirituality and, influenced to some extent by John Michael Greer’s series of postings on ‘Sex and Occultism’ at The Well of Galabes, I’ve decided to articulate some speculations of my own.

Asexuals aside, some form of sexual fulfillment is a physical need for most of us. Hon-harmful and non-abusive expressions of sexuality are as natural as eating and drinking. Most of us are familiar with the biological purpose of sex – to bear offspring, to bond with your partner. But mystics have also held that there is also a spiritual purpose to sex and that, undertaken in such a way, it can be a means of connecting to the Divine, of transferring our consciousness to an alternate plane, or of giving a powerful boost to our psychic and magickal workings.

Many will be familiar with the creeping disconnection from our regular framework of awareness as we surge closer to orgasm, the physical and mental energies becoming more intense until, in a short moment of disassociation, we climax. The human orgasm can be thought of as a brief spiritual experience, as in both cases the individual undergoes a change in consciousness.

I make it well-known that I think spiritual fulfillment is also a fundamental human need for most people. My definition of spirituality is quite broad and includes manifestations of a non-mystical and physical nature, readily enjoyed by people who don’t believe in spiritual phenomena. In no way does a person need to be a ‘believer’ in order to get what I think are their innate spiritual desires satisfied.

Whichever way we indulge our spiritual urges – material or mystical – I think these urges are as natural a part of our being as sex. Of late, I’ve been thinking of spiritual and mystical experiences as ‘sex for the mind or soul’ or, to be even more precise, an ‘orgasm for the mind or soul’. As stated before, sex and mysticism both result in changes in consciousness, a transfer of awareness. During those moments of sexual climax, I think we are tapping into realms of psychic power to which occultists open themselves up in mystical practice. Magicians have used sex in their sorcery for good reason; the basic belief being that the force of sexual energy provides greater power to the spell and increases the chances of the ritual’s effectiveness.

Just as it is unethical to prohibit non-harmful and non-abusive forms of sexual activity, it is also unethical to prohibit non-harmful and non-abusive forms of spiritual activity. The radical pseudo-sceptic who would like to see witchcraft, psychic demonstrations and palm-readings illegalised is no different to a homophobic hate preacher who desires to see gay sex banned. 

The Actor as an Occultist

A friend of mine once told me that the paths of the actor and occultist are quite similar. With my local drama club’s auditions for ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ now upon us, this is something I’ve found myself considering.

I’ve long thought of the arts as numinous; that is, I believe that when an artist creates, they are accessing similar realms to those of the mystics. I think this is mostly done unconsciously; an artist certainly need not include concepts of spirituality as part of his belief system. In simple terms, I think that the creation of art is a spiritual enterprise, regardless of whether the creator is aware of this or believes in it.

Complexities of occultism notwithstanding, in the most basic sense, an occultist employs non-physical means – magick – to manifest physical results. The artist uses non-physical means – imagination – to produce a tangible product. To relate this to acting, a magician forms a vision of their intent and brings this to fruition via the medium of magick. An actor will work within the boundaries placed upon them by the writer and director’s vision, but will use their own creative skill to bring life to their character.

Both actors and occultists use material adornments to aid in their work. Actors will use stage props, costumes, or rather more technical apparel if they are working on a film. Many occultists will use candles, crystals, wands and costumes of their own in their spell work. But in both cases, the material items are not the main force behind the creation work. They are tools to help the process, and in the case of acting, to add realism to the project. But the essence of acting, as with the essence of occultism, is a non-material force invisible to the naked eye.

Actors and occultists both undergo changes in consciousness whilst at work. An occultist will usually meditate or use another technique to achieve the focus required for a successful magickal operation. Watching an actor is like watching someone under an enchantment. The rehearsing thespian is not so very different from the witch in a trance petitioning Aphrodite for help in their personal relationships.

As occultists shift their focus to a spiritual realm, actors shift their focus to the world in their script. Both temporarily remove themselves from the here and now, this physical portion of reality, and apply their consciousness to a separate environment. I’ve watched actors and directors ‘in the zone’; they are entirely divorced from their material homes and appear to be operating on an entirely different plane to that of the casual observer. So it is with occultists.

To me, imagination and spirituality are very much the same thing; I would even suggest that imagination is our connection to the spirit realm and the mind a tool we utilise to traverse it. It’s been a long time since I believed that imagination was mere fantasy; I think the universes and worlds and characters created by the imagination of writers each have a valid reality of their own, but on a plane that is physically inaccessible.

Looked at from this perspective, the paths of the actor and occultist are not so very different. One could propose that the creation of art is itself an act of magick. Indeed, the actor is a very fine occultist…

The Rational Explanation

Whenever mainstream newspapers cover a story about the possibility of the afterlife (for example: the subject of mediumship or NDEs) you can usually count on a materialist (i.e. non-spiritual) solution being touted as the “rational explanation.” The same is true for various other reports of paranormal phenomena, but we’ll just stick with the afterlife here.

Near-death-experiences, for example? The familiar arguments that these are hallucinations brought on by a dying brain (which, while a possibility, is hardly set in stone) are held up as the logical way of looking at the subject. With mediums, we are told that they’re either one of two things: charlatans bilking people out of their cash or well-meaning but delusional individuals. A similar array of explanations are given for poltergeist activity, ghost sightings and numerous other incidents of such kind.

There is nothing wrong with raising these arguments and giving them consideration. Indeed, in some – perhaps many – cases, they may be the correct answer to what occurred. What is irritating, however, is the media’s tendency to claim that a materialist explanation is *the* one singular rational way of looking at what happened. They don’t just say that it’s a rational explanation, they assert that it’s THE rational explanation – i.e. any view that allows for the possibility of a spiritual element is irrational and therefore wrong.

If mainstream newspapers are looking to discourage the public from being open-minded to the idea of an afterlife (or, indeed, the paranormal in general) then this is probably a useful technique. After all, who wants to think they’re irrational? Committed believers who know more than a few titbits about the subject will usually have their views unaffected by some prejudiced comments from a journalist, but those on the fence may well be shamed into rejecting the potential of an afterlife. As for the committed believers, the newspapers can just mercilessly ridicule them, and often do. In ideological conflict, ridicule is a very effective weapon – if you want as a few a number of people as possible to take a subject seriously, what better approach is there than to make fun of that subject and its supporters?

All that said, is the ridicule justified? Sometimes yes, but on many occasions, no. Is the materialist explanation the only one true rational viewpoint? In my opinion, no - it’s one of several rational viewpoints, some of which include an acceptance of spirituality.

What many mainstream newspapers are either unaware of or ignore, is that there is a rather strong body of evidence supporting the afterlife hypothesis, which stretches back to the 19^th century. The Society for Psychical Research was founded in 1882, whose mission was to investigate spiritual phenomena “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the SPR’s experiments with mediums yielded results that are not easily explainable by materialism alone. Academic parapsychology has also provided scientific data which supports the potential for survival of bodily death. As for NDEs, the “dying brain” hypothesis does not encompass every part of the experience. There are those, for example, who experience veridical NDEs, that is, NDEs in which they feel themselves leave their body and are able to accurately report on conversations which took place while they were unconscious.

These are just a few sweeping examples of some of the evidence for an afterlife. There is a lot more, but one does have to work to find it.

Given that there is fairly substantial scientific evidence for an afterlife, it seems more than a little unfair to me to consistently be reminded by news outlets that the materialist approach is the only rational one. No it’s not. It’s a rational way of looking at the situation, it’s a possibility, it deserves to be taken into account and considered – but it’s not the ONLY rational interpretation of an NDE or a clairvoyant experience or other matters of that nature. My belief in the afterlife is based upon the evidence and on a few personal experiences of my own. Since the afterlife hypothesis is supported by evidence, it is no less rational than a materialist view.

It would be nice if the mainstream media would admit that a viewpoint which allows for the afterlife is just as logical as its opposite, but it’s highly unlikely that they will do so anytime soon. For now, people like me will just have to settle for browsing the latest Guardian article on NDEs and hoping that the writer isn’t too sneering and malicious.