Just got back from the Taboo Revue, showered off the sweat and the glitter, and am now eating a bagel.
Voodoo and I preformed our geek number tonight. I'm the geek, she's a dove, and I rip her throat out at the end. It's fun times! It went over well, and I managed not to choke on my blood capsule.
One of our longtime Screaming Chicken volunteers, Karen, was chatting to me at intermission and she had some very kind words to say to me, that basically boiled down to "we can really tell you've been working on choreography." That honestly made my whole night, because I have been working on becoming a better dancer.
I have three numbers - not counting the giant Satan orgy group - planned for October. I'm doing a solo for Monster Bop, I want to pitch an Elvira tribute number for the Taboo, and I've been given the okay to do a solo for AbraCadaver. I want to do just an awesome job on all of them, and part of that means devoting a lot of time to the choreo. I'm not a trained dancer, and my physique can sometimes present some challenges, so this is kinda daunting. But I am excited for it.
Anyway. Tonight's finale was... amazing. There are no words. It was hilarious and actually really physical too. I just sat in the audience and laughed hysterically. It used the following song, which Canadians my age and older may remember...
"Tessa Campinelli? You were fucking Tessa Campinelli?! You're such a bastard!"
In my late teens, I remember seeing a copy of 'The Mystical Qabalah' by Dion Fortune in the local metaphysical bookstore. I leafed through it... and put it back on the shelf.
Part of what turned me off was the fact that the subject matter seemed to be very deeply rooted in Biblical tradition. I was a teenage transplant to a city that was the buckle of the Bible Belt, and anything that mentioned Yaweh was pretty much automatically on my 'do not want' list.
Later on, I bought 'The Witches Qabala' by Ellen Cannon Reed. The book presented the concept of the Tree of Life in a way that seemed easier to relate to. It included meditations on the spheres, with descriptions of the temples of each should you decide to travel up the tree in trance. I attempted this. I never got past Yesod.
And that was about it for the Qabalah in my life for years.
"These are weird fucking balloons..."
When you work with tarot a lot, as I do, the Qabalah tends to pop up in a lot of the reading material as the Major Arcana cards are associated with the paths between the sephiroth on the Tree. I eventually wound up with 'The Forest of Souls' by Rachel Pollack, which relates both the Qabalah and the Zohar to tarot throughout the text. I wound up purchasing 'Dreams of Being Eaten Alive' by David Rosenberg in a used bookstore because it was mentioned in Pollack's book, and it was after reading that in conjunction with 'Forest' that I really started to see the Qabalah as more than a diagram in old books.
In my personal experience, a lot of pagans don't seem overly interested in the Qabalah. Magicians do, but then magicians tend to gravitate more towards definite structure than, say, eclectic witches. There also seems to be something of a gender bias, as Qabalah has a long tradition in Western Ceremonial magic and although there are certainly women in magical lodges, there is a definite emphasis on the masculine as good in those systems that can put women off. I think perhaps this is why I never saw much about it outside of tarot books, as I was usually reading neo-Wicca sources or Chaos Magic stuff, before moving on to folk magic and hoodoo. (And honestly, all the chaos magic shit I was reading also seemed geared towards men, which certainly didn't make me want to read more Ceremonial stuff.)
Recently, I acquired 'The Kaballah Tree' also by Rachel Pollack. Actually, I also got 'The Mystical Qabalah' by Fortune after all these years too, but I started with Pollack's and I'm glad I did. The book has, for me, opened up the subject in a way that is utterly fascinating and something that I can relate to my own life. Unlike a lot of the other things I've read about the Qabalah, this book seems to give a reason to give a shit about it. (There is a good review of the book here.)
The Qabalah, as I understand it, is a method for understanding the universe. Ooh, lofty. It is at once both vast and simple; it's a subject people can and do devote their lives to studying. I... uh, don't. I don't even go to a trendy Qabalah centre and wear one of those little red cords Madonna has. I am honestly only now am beginning to truly look at the details of the whole thing and go, "ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"
The Qabalah, for me anyway, was a diagram. One I didn't really care to understand - it seemed one-dimensional and overly intellectual. More Ceremonial wankery, basically. But as with so many things I dismissed when I was younger, there's a lot more depth to it. Looking at the Qabalah with a more open mind, it seems to make sense
regardless of what religious tradition you're following. If the true
nature of an ultimate god is hermaphroditic, and the universe exists
because this unknowable force wanted to know itself, then we can then
see a reflection of the divine in everything. It seems to transcend
Judaism or Hermeticism and become a truly universal way of discovering
the world and our place in it. Gods, angels, devils, spirits... they all
seem to fit naturally onto the tree without it merely becoming a
classification system.
The Tree of Life is a living thing. It exists in our bodies as well as our souls. It moves through different levels of existence, and ultimately forms a ladder by which we can achieve god-consciousness.
...told you it was lofty. Ooh.
Now. Back on earth... Is there sexism in Qabalah? I would say it depends on who is interpreting it. There seems to be such a cross-fertilization on the tree that even though the pillars are described as 'male' and 'female' with the stereotypical associations of those attached, there really isn't a cut and dry gender to any one sephiroth. It seems, to me anyway, that if we place gender bias on the Tree it's our own fault for being fallible human beings, and not the fault of the Tree itself.
It's a fascinating subject. I've only really just begun to study it, and I feel that it's one of those things that may need to be experienced and not just read about. The path up the tree is fairly daunting, and I've always been afraid of heights.
But maybe I'll at least make it past Yesod this time.
I burnt myself bad enough to blister with hot glue earlier this week. On my birthday, actually. I was less than pleased.
Today, in preparation for the Taboo Revue on Friday, I was waxing up the nether regions. I told my sister, naturally, because there's nothing quite like that awkward moment when your sibling comes into the bathroom for her toothbrush and finds you with your legs akimbo and a strip of muslin.
"Don't burn yourself again," she cautioned me.
"If that happens I'm fuckin... busting into your room, all 'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHH! HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLP!' waving my hands at you with pubic hair stuck to all my blisters."
So, I'm sitting here reading this article on Jezebel, about the 'woman-child' and it's leaving me feeling sort of torn.
The author probably isn't that much older than myself - I graduated high school the year she did college. So I don't think it's some massive generational thing. I'm an adult woman - my thirty-first birthday is this month. I have no desire to be the candy-coated sort of female she's discussing...
But she loses me a few times.
The author says, "I consider brushing my hair making a major effort on the appearance front."That blows my mind, not gonna lie. I can understand being baffled by "enormous fluffy slippers from Japan with cat faces on the front" but for Christ's sake, woman, you don't brush your hair? How is that any different form Sarah Silverman's 'adolescent' look you were just bitching about?You can't go on about being sophisticated and then not brush your damn hair.
More seriously, the author's observations on marriage and even on the reasons behind this apparent embracing of childish culture are sort of... sketchy at best. The point behind the whole thing seems a bit vague too - is she criticizing other women based on their taste, or merely observing a cultural fad? Her language leaves it open to interpretation and the result is that you're not sure what her point is beyond, "WTF you guys?" She also unfairly seems to equate all 'feminine' interests as infantile, and holds motherhood as this benchmark for being an adult female.
Still, I find parts of the article interesting, as some of it dovetails with things I myself have noticed. Not so much the whole "holy shit, nail art is for little girls" thing (although I'm biased - I spent way too much time last night doing this to my nails) but in that some women do seem to prefer being, well... really young.
I work in an industry saturated with nerds of both genders. Nerds are, to be perfectly blunt, prone to arrested development. Toys and comics are expected in every home, and when you meet a guy who owns a suit he's either gay or a hipster. The uniform is a Threadless t-shirt and jeans or shorts. These are superficial things, to be sure, and it has no bearing on whether or not someone is adult enough to pay their bills or whatever.
Female nerds, by and large, also own a fuckton of Threadless t-shirts, and for whatever reason... knee-socks. So, SO many knee-socks. This is something I have seen countless times, and it never gets less weird to me. I'd blame it on me being an old fuck, but here's the thing - the women wearing these are not in their early twenties. They're my age. That means they were alive when Clueless came out, dammit. Knee-socks in the 90s were a vaguely sexualised teenager thing. (Don't remember that shit? Here.) And rainbow knee-socks? Yeah, I dunno. If you're not at Burning Man or something it seems an odd stylistic choice.
But again, fine, wear what you want! You paid for it! You probably hate my shoes!
Everyone has their hobbies and interests. I guess what throws me off is the fact that some people - male AND female - seem to have deliberately veered away from 'adulthood' and act like it's some awesome thing to be celebrated. It's not just doing your own thing, it's more of a weird "you losers are stuck with your mortgages and shit, while I can play Final Fantasy every day and live on Skittles" form of bragging. Some of the nerds I know and love are clearly nerds and always WILL be... but when I walk into their homes I don't feel like I'm on an episode of My Strange Addiction about My Little Ponies or Transformers. It's an adult home, albeit with quirky shit like a wall of vintage game consoles.
I guess what I find off-putting about the 'woman-child' is not her girliness or enthusiasm. It's the fact that she seems actively afraid of aging. It's not just, "fuck off, I like this," it's the sort of balls-to-the-wall obsession you exhibit, well, when you're a teenager. And it creeps me out, because I wind up sitting there feeling like I'm twice their age even when we were born the same year.
(Although I enjoy cupcakes and board games. ...just fix me a nice cocktail at the same time, okay?)
So, yeah. Problematic article, but it made me think. ...mostly about knee-socks.
Possession. The word conjures up images of crucifixes, floating beds, tortured screams and James Woods pretending to be Max von Sydow.
In the neopagan and magical community, possession is a topic which is either dismissed outright or a subject considered so vast that you really need to specify what type you're talking about.
When the topic is dismissed, there's not much you can do but shrug. The reasons people may disbelieve in the phenomenon vary. They maybe of the opinion that possession is really a form of mental illness - a disassociative disorder usually - or just the play-acting of someone seeking attention. Other times the reason behind the dismissal is that possession may seen as solely as something relating to demons, and if the person in question has had bad experiences with Christianity they may associates the word 'possession' with oppressive behaviour. And of course there's always the people who believe the spirit world is Disneyland, and as such negative entities could never exist, therefore neither can possession.
The topic is clearly a pretty big one to break down.
So perhaps the first thing we must do is distinguish between positive and negative possessions. Positive forms of possession are those that are voluntary, generally in a religious context, and tend to end in a timely manner. Being ridden by the lwa in Voudou would be an example of this form, or being possessed by the Holy Spirit in Pentecostal Christianity or by the deceased in Spiritualism. Negative possessions, then, are those that not desired and serve to harm the person being possessed.
In the modern neopagan community, possession is now more likely to be encountered as a result of African diaspora religions becoming more visible. At the same time, while Wiccan groups have always had the 'Drawing Down' ritual, it seems more pagan groups are also incorporating actual deity possession into their rituals. All of these rituals are considered controlled (when done properly anyway) and beneficial to the ritual group at large.
Much possession seems to be culturally or religiously specific. Voudou, as a common example, is a religion in which possession is commonplace. Consequently it has a formula for dealing with the act that results in no harm befalling the ritual participants. Outside of a Voudou ritual, you rarely hear of lwa possession occurring. Voluntary possession, then, can be characterised as occurring within a ritual framework. The possessed do not just start acting up in the middle of dinner.
This is one of the main points in which involuntary possession differs - outbursts by a demon or unwanted spirit can occur at any time.
The other point, of course, is that involuntary possession is harmful. In cases of possession by the dead or by demonic entities, the victim very often is driven to harm their own bodies, or even to suicidal behaviour.
A pause to consider the demonic: as was mentioned earlier, a number of neopagans seem uncomfortable with the word 'demon.' This seems to be because the word is associated with the Devil, a figure many pagans are quick to deny. "There's no devil in the Craft," is a common claim, and indeed there is no Supreme Evil Overlord in Wiccan practice or indeed even in many other pagan faiths. However, unless a person is naive or in denial, most everyone can agree that there are in fact negative entities out there. People with a background in Ceremonial Magick tend to just go with 'demons' or sometimes 'qlippoth' and the former is good enough for me. Hey, if it quacks like a duck...
So. Involuntary possession - whether by the dead, spirits or demons - is not a desirable state. Thus the rites and rituals of exorcism exist. While the Catholic exorcism may be the most famous thanks Hollywood, all religions have ways of kicking nasty entities out of people.
There is some argument over whether anyone can be possessed, either voluntarily or no. Generally negative possessions are said to be the result of curses of the breaking of taboos, while positive ones are simply the result of either something innate in the person, or divine intervention. If one does tend to be a good host for gods, I would heartily recommend finding a group that has experience with such.
If a person honestly thinks they are being possessed by a negative entity, they too should seek magical help. Symptoms of possession traditionally include insomnia,fever, roaming, compulsively eating repellent substances, anorexia, 'repulsive stench' (which I assume means more than just, "oh god, I had milk and I'm lactose intolerant!"), foaming spit, rigidity of muscles and freezing up, superhuman strength, coprolalia, and 360 degree cranial rotation. Okay, not that last one. Anyway, these are serious symptoms no matter what may be the cause, and medical help should obviously be sought. In fact, do that first, THEN call your local magical lodge.
Although we've been using the term 'involuntary possession' thus far, there are some who hold that no possession can occur unless the possessed somehow allows it to occur. This on one level makes sense, as otherwise wouldn't gods be taking over the bodies of humans just for shits and giggles at this point? On the other hand, in the case of the demonic, this can feel a little like blaming the victim. But if the theory is incorrect, does this mean negative entities are closer to humanity somehow? Are they stronger than gods... or just way less polite?
No easy answers. This is a topic that neopagans will, no doubt, expand upon in the years to come as more faiths cross paths and grow and form new traditions.
In the meantime, don't eat the pea soup.
Resources: Monsters by John Michael Greer How About Demons? Possession and Exorcism in the Modern World by Felicitas D. Goodman Drawing Down the Spirits: The Traditions and Techniques of Spirit Possession by Kenaz Filan and Raven Kaldera Psychic Self Defense by Dion Fortune
So the Pagan Blog Project is on the letter R right now and I'm posting way behind.
I was busy doing important nothing! Whatever, here's another N.
So. You want to know about the Necronomicon, eh? As you should!
Necronomicon Ex Mortis. The Book... of the DEAD. "Bound in human flesh and inked in blood, this
ancient Sumerian text contained bizarre burial rites, funerary
incantations and demon resurrection passages. It was never meant for the
world of the living." I think it's actually illegal for anyone to call themselves a horror fan and NOT know that line.
The Necronomicon is a fake grimoire made up by the author Howard Phillips Lovecraft in the 1920s. In the stories of H.P. Lovecraft and those of his contemporaries (such as August Derleth) the Necronomicon was said to have been written by 'the Mad Arab' Abdul Alhazred sometime before the year 738. Lovecraft himself stated quite firmly that the book was a fiction of his own creation, as was the history of it. He referenced other writers such as Robert Bloch and Robert E. Howard, who had also created 'terrible and forbidden' books in their fiction.
So. We got that? The Necronomicon is fake.
"But Mama," you might be saying, "I saw the damn thing for sale in a used bookstore! It had a black cover with some white squiggles on the cover, and the back mentioned the Mad Arab and everything!"
Yeah, that's it
That, boils and ghouls, is what we in the biz know as "The Simon version" so called because the supposed 'editor' went under the pseudonym 'Simon'. It was published in 1977, and has been reprinted about a million times since. The version I own - bought for fifty cents at a garage sale - is the paperback version printed in 1980 and contains a 'preface to the second edition' in which makes some pretty fantastic claims.
Now, here's the thing about the Simon book: up until the 'Prefatory Notes'? The thing is actually not obviously bullshit. The author spends a fair amount of time making links between H.P. Lovecraft and Aleister Crowley via Sumerian mythology and what was then accepted occult history.
Various Sumerian deities are equated to the Ancient Ones and Elder Gods of Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos, and then to deities Crowley mentioned in his rituals. For example, the Dunwich Horror was compared to Choronzon (Crowley) and then to Pazuzu (everyone's favourite movie devil!). Further comparisons are made between the fictional Azathoth and the Egyptian Thoth, as the author claims 'Azag' is Sumerian for 'Magician' and Thoth of course is... well, Thoth. Azathoth, the author claims, is therefore "a Lord of Magicians."
...except anyone who reads Lovecraft knows Azathoth is the 'blind idiot god' of pure chaos. Sooo, that's a bit of a stretch there, Simon, if you want us to buy that Lovecraft was on the same wavelength as Crowley or even some dead Sumerians.
The book really goes off the rails in the prefatory notes, where the most typically Lovecraftian elements concerning forbidden books are laid out: renegade priests, sudden disappearances, and of course tragic accidents that befall those involved with the book.
The publisher also claims, of course, that they cannot show us the original Necronomicon manuscript from which they've gleaned their translation. Natch.
These things all point to the fact that the Simon Necronomicon is simply an occult text based vaguely on Sumerian myth, with the Lovecraft connection conceived as half marketing strategy and half obvious joke.
So then why the hell do people still believe the Necronomicon is real?
Kenneth Grant, a disciple of Crowley's, believed that Lovecraft and Crowley shared an unconscious connection in that they both drew on the same occult forces in their work... although Lovecraft interpreted these as pure imagination. Lovecraft himself was a pure materialist, finding the thought of real magic downright ridiculous and insulting. Still, this didn't stop him from claiming in the fictional history of the Necronomicon that one of the translators of the dreaded book was the famous Elizabethan magician John Dee.
Still, these are pretty flimsy claims to authenticity. The real issue at play is that everyone wants there to be an almighty grimoire somewhere, a book whose very name inspires dread, and whose study causes calamity and disaster.
There are other versions of the Necronomicon floating about, of course: Donald Tyson seems to have made it his life's mission to write extensively on the subject - he has put out a version of the book closer to the source material than the Simon version, and a few other Lovecraft-related tomes including a real-life spellbook based on the Cthulhu mythos.
This last, The Thirteen Gates of the Necronomicon, is a pretty hefty volume that tries to place the various deities and creatures of Lovecraft's stories in a magical system based on the thirteen 'true' zodiacal constellations. This is a book that truly does aim to blue the line between fiction and reality.
So. Does it work?
(There's a token chaos magician out there right now yelling, "sure!")
My answer is "dunno." I own the book - I can see it from where I'm sitting right now. ...watching me...
No, seriously, I got it when my mom's shop closed up.
I've yet to read it, but I will. And when I do, dear readers, you'll be the first to know if I summon a shoggoth. And on that note, I leave you with this...
