I've been holding off on sampling
Dioscorides entry on Enchanter's Nightshade
until I can find a few more interesting annotations to append to it.
I should have done it with the Mandragora
entry, but I was feeling lazy and about to house-sit.
In the
meantime (and while I work on a couple more book reviews), I wanted
to answer some private questions I had directed my way about this
blog. One reader complained that while I was diligent about trying to
compile some primary sources on subjects, I sometimes used archaic
phrasing or alluded to somewhat obscure subjects without fully
explaining them. In fact, I'm always keenly aware of this problem and
at odds with how to deal with it. My general decision is to make
appropriate links where possible, or at the very least provide
sources so that people can check them out if they feel so inclined.
However,
some subjects just aren't designed for discussion in exceedingly
simplistic terms, either. It would be impossible to talk about
certain plants in flying ointments, for example, without also
discussion the active alkaloids in them.* Furthermore, failing to
discuss those alkaloids also creates room for error by potentially
disguising the similar use of them in parts of the world which don't
correspond to the west. Eventually, I'm going to have to bring up the
use of tropane alkaloids in South America and the Caribbean, because
they have a more-than-passing resemblance to the way that flying
ointments are designed. Even though the plants that are used are
different (Brugmansia versus Enchanter's Nightshade
or the Mandrake root),
the use of scopolamine
by criminals in Columbia follows precisely the same utility as the
Evil Sleep
(Sophorific) spells in
the PDM. It also is massively similar to the way the Hand
of Glory was used in folktales,
folk magic, and so on.**
Additionally,
we also find these chemical agents being used – throughout their
history – for oracular purposes, for Theurgia,
and on and on. Nick Ferrell may think that people only discuss
“scientific” topics when it comes to magick because they are
noobs, but that's his problem.*** My problem is putting my cards on the
table. Thus if The History of Psychopharmacology
has relevant information on the subject and has a reliable source
(which I consider it to), then I'm going to quote it. To not do so
would be a silly as failing to provide Dioscorides entries in his De
Materia Medica, which almost
every secondary source on the subject is going to bring up. And you
know what? It hard as hell to find a decent copy of the fourth book
of De Materia Medica,
so I'm going to put that up, too.
Sometimes,
however, I do not feel the need to explain myself at all. If I've
already introduced an idea previously, I try to link back to the
entry. But sometimes I get lazy, again, because this blog is intended
to look more like field notes than to look like someone's Book O'
Magick or something. I also don't sell my services, so maintaining (what would be for myself) a
false mask of “professionalism” is bullshit. I
don't blame those that do it, I simply don't feel compelled to be one
of them. And I enjoy the freedom from that compulsion, and the leeway it provides.
If you
don't like what I put up? It's totally cool to stop reading the blog.
I really don't mind. I won't, like, mock you forever because you
rejected something I typically imagine only myself and some others
are interested in. After all. It's a disposable medium.
That's
what I like about the
prospect of blogging. It doesn't have to be perfect, and for an
insufficiency one blog has, another can help fill in for. If we all
wrote the same thing, wouldn't that make for a very boring set of
semi-literary prospects?
Jack.
* The
word Alkaloid
is derrived from the Latin root Alkali,
which comes from the Arabic al-qaliy:
“the ashes, burnt ashes.” It is one the basic chemical components
of the plant kingdom. These components are some of the ones that
interact with our own unique (as the response from person to person
can be very different) biology in a variety of ways.
**
Seriously, I could write about this stuff, or hero cults, not to
mention read about it,
for the rest of my life and still not be satiated. That I can also
put it to use is a massively enjoyable bonus. As for Sophorific Spells, if you hunt through the witch-hunting texts, that's precisely where that material shows up. So failing to give you the technical term is also a crap idea.
*** I am simplifying his statements, of course. He'd probably be on board with someone discussing alchemy and bringing up Chemistry. Maybe. I dunno. Ask him, I guess. I also knew plenty of Chaotes with the tendency, and never really faulted them for it. Chaos Magick was kind've designed to be a hybrid pursuit, which is one of it's strong points. Even if a given person abuses the subjects they're using, that doesn't mean it doesn't work for them or that they'll be forever stuck doing so.
*** I am simplifying his statements, of course. He'd probably be on board with someone discussing alchemy and bringing up Chemistry. Maybe. I dunno. Ask him, I guess. I also knew plenty of Chaotes with the tendency, and never really faulted them for it. Chaos Magick was kind've designed to be a hybrid pursuit, which is one of it's strong points. Even if a given person abuses the subjects they're using, that doesn't mean it doesn't work for them or that they'll be forever stuck doing so.
1 comment:
I also don't sell my services, so maintaining (what would be for myself) a false mask of “professionalism” is bullshit.
That's the beauty of blogging. I enjoy the informality. I like finding out what people have actually done, and the results they've gotten; I like finding out the connections they've made between the different books, ideas and methods they've explored. I like the fact that we can be subjective and personal here if we wish.
Post a Comment