Worship of the Valar

Pettytyrant101 wrote:that you weren't involved in the right rituals - that is, ones that work- Kenelm

Or the premise is flawed.

And my experience is not limited to Wiccan either- that was just a stop along the route.
I have been through a lot of different ways from masonic ritual, Casteneda (from where my online username is derived) to Crowley (whose Magick in Theory and Practise still adorns my bookshelf).

I have also studied for decades now a variety of religious and spiritual practices from all over the world.

So perhaps you can enlighten me as to what these mysterious rituals are that uniquely work?

If the purpose of the ritual is to contact spiritual beings, then there are many that work, including some that you have mentioned. Of course, not all rituals have this as their purpose. I feel disinclined to speculate further as to why none of the rituals you did worked.

If the purpose of the ritual is to contact spiritual beings, then there are many that work- Kenelm

Thats a pretty narrow field for ritual.

And it was just not me these things did not work for- out of all the people I knew who were involved in such things not one of them could or can provide a shred of evidence of it working.

Perhaps you could film yourself performing such a ritual and contacting a spiritual being for us all to see, if it works for you.
I would be very interested in seeing such proof.

The James Randi Educational Foundation provides a $1,000,000 dollar prize for "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I'd say go for it, if you're sure of it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If the purpose of the ritual is to contact spiritual beings, then there are many that work- Kenelm

Thats a pretty narrow field for ritual.

And it was just not me these things did not work for- out of all the people I knew who were involved in such things not one of them could or can provide a shred of evidence of it working.

Perhaps you could film yourself performing such a ritual and contacting a spiritual being for us all to see, if it works for you.
I would be very interested in seeing such proof.

Well, as I said, there are many types of ritual, for many purposes.

Spiritual beings, being spiritual, are not, I suspect, likely to appear on film (though arguably there are exceptions). Their presence manifests in other ways.

But you seem to have expected nothing from your rituals, so got nothing. A classic case of finding exactly what you think you'll find, a very well known psychological effect.

bungobaggins wrote:The James Randi Educational Foundation provides a $1,000,000 dollar prize for "evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I'd say go for it, if you're sure of it.

James Randi is well known for devising tests that don't measure what they are alleged to.

Just as a blatant example, in a test for dowsing, he got in 100 volunteers off the street. Is this how you would test for a talent, or would you go to the people who knew what they were doing?

Their presence manifests in other ways. -Kenelm

Such as, handily, only ways that remain completely unprovable.


'But you seem to have expected nothing from your rituals, so got nothing.'- Kenelm

I was more than 20 years younger when I started out Kenelm, and just as passionate, enthusiastic and believing as you are now when I started.

What has changed is time, experience and the lack of any proof or evidence from any quarter at all (including but not limited to my own experiences) that ritual has any effect other than sometimes a mental placibo effect.

Don't assume I expected nothing just because experience taught me so eventually over time.
I not only expected something, I often thought the something had happened- thats what is dangerous about ritual- its easy to make events fit and its easy to ignore statistical probability when you want to believe in a thing.

bungobaggins wrote:

Are these anecdotal incidents supposed to be convincing of something? In which case, you'll have to explain what it is.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Their presence manifests in other ways. -Kenelm

Such as, handily, only ways that remain completely unprovable.


'But you seem to have expected nothing from your rituals, so got nothing.'- Kenelm

I was more than 20 years younger when I started out Kenelm, and just as passionate, enthusiastic and believing as you are now when I started.

What has changed is time, experience and the lack of any proof or evidence from any quarter at all (including but not limited to my own experiences) that ritual has any effect other than sometimes a mental placibo effect.

Don't assume I expected nothing just because experience taught me so eventually over time.
I not only expected something, I often thought the something had happened- thats what is dangerous about ritual- its easy to make events fit and its easy to ignore statistical probability when you want to believe in a thing.

Your standard of proof seems designed to exclude all possibility of proof. As you've just admitted, in effect, by saying that even when your rituals actually worked, they didn't really. How is it possible to argue with such a position? You have your view and experiences of the world, and I have mine.

And, incidentally, I've been involved in rituals of one sort or another for more than 30 years.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

I was more than 20 years younger when I started out Kenelm, and just as passionate, enthusiastic and believing as you are now when I started.

What has changed is time, experience and the lack of any proof or evidence from any quarter at all (including but not limited to my own experiences) that ritual has any effect other than sometimes a mental placibo effect.

I used to listen to a radio show Coast to Coast AM with George Noory/Art Bell when I was a kid/teenager. They frequently talk about aliens, paranormal occurrences, secret government conspiracies, predictions about the future, etc. I was hooked, and would stay up until 4 AM on school nights so I could listen to the whole show. I was very impressionable and believed in ghosts, spirits, UFOs, conspiracy theories. You name it, I bought it.

Then I got older, and realized that none of the predictions that the guests on the show were making came true. There was no actual evidence of any paranormal activities; "orbs" on photographs were specks of dust, "ectoplasm" was smoke or fog. Photographs of ghosts were double exposures or long exposures. People lied about a lot of things, and fabricated evidence to get attention. None of it was true. It would have been better for my brain to view it solely as entertainment, but at least I came around eventually.

No my standard of proof simply requires actual proof.
Not things or events that have other far more plausible natural explanations, which is how things turn out to be once closely examined and hope, faith and belief are removed from the equation.

Ritual has its place, it displaces actively in the mind and allows for certain types of information to be embedded in a deeper state, usually called Higher or Second attentions- this is in effect how all Masonic ritual functions.
Its why when you start out you are blindfolded, threatened, noosed ect the ritual displaces activity in the mind and provokes a higher awareness due to the unusualness of the situation the candidate finds themselves in and the uncertainty that generates.
Learning therefore takes place at a deeper level.

That all well and good, and even effective use of ritual.
But the pagan stuff- the circle stuff, contacting deities and spirits ect thats what happens when people confuse the ritual with the effect and falsely start to believe the power lies in the right incantation, or the right actions ect.
Its a false premise and a huge misunderstanding of the role of ritual in spiritualism.

'You have your view and experiences of the world, and I have mine.'

Yes but not all views are individual- we both know if we drop something it will fall to the ground- thats a view we share because it is obvious and repeatable to check.
Ritual however is not such a thing- it cannot be proved to work- in more than two thousand years of recorded history there is not a single example of proof of it working. Despite millions having tried it and millions of rituals having been performed world wide.

If you conducted a scientific test that many times and always got a negative result the conclusion would be the premise is false.

bungobaggins wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

I was more than 20 years younger when I started out Kenelm, and just as passionate, enthusiastic and believing as you are now when I started.

What has changed is time, experience and the lack of any proof or evidence from any quarter at all (including but not limited to my own experiences) that ritual has any effect other than sometimes a mental placibo effect.

I used to listen to a radio show Coast to Coast AM with George Noory/Art Bell when I was a kid/teenager. They frequently talk about aliens, paranormal occurrences, secret government conspiracies, predictions about the future, etc. I was hooked, and would stay up until 4 AM on school nights so I could listen to the whole show. I was very impressionable and believed in ghosts, spirits, UFOs, conspiracy theories. You name it, I bought it.

Then I got older, and realized that none of the predictions that the guests on the show were making came true. There was no actual evidence of any paranormal activities; "orbs" on photographs were specks of dust, "ectoplasm" was smoke or fog. Photographs of ghosts were double exposures or long exposures. People lied about a lot of things, and fabricated evidence to get attention. None of it was true. It would have been better for my brain to view it solely as entertainment, but at least I came around eventually.

Art Bell has always described it as entertainment, for which the listeners are invited to make up their own minds, but you appear to be making the assumption that just because some items are fakes, all are.

Every so often one hears news reports of fake doctors. Are all doctors therefore fakes? It is a very basic logical fallacy to assume so.

Bungo I was just the same- I swallowed all that stuff as a kid and as a teenager, loved it, scared myself half to death most of the time, but couldn't resists it- I had monthly magazines subscribed to on UFO's, I had books and books on ghosts.
I really wanted that stuff to be true.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No my standard of proof simply requires actual proof.
Not things or events that have other far more plausible natural explanations, which is how things turn out to be once closely examined and hope, faith and belief are removed from the equation.

Ritual has its place, it displaces actively in the mind and allows for certain types of information to be embedded in a deeper state, usually called Higher or Second attentions- this is in effect how all Masonic ritual functions.
Its why when you start out you are blindfolded, threatened, noosed ect the ritual displaces activity in the mind and provokes a higher awareness due to the unusualness of the situation the candidate finds themselves in and the uncertainty that generates.
Learning therefore takes place at a deeper level.

That all well and good, and even effective use of ritual.
But the pagan stuff- the circle stuff, contacting deities and spirits ect thats what happens when people confuse the ritual with the effect and falsely start to believe the power lies in the right incantation, or the right actions ect.
Its a false premise and a huge misunderstanding of the role of ritual in spiritualism.

'You have your view and experiences of the world, and I have mine.'

Yes but not all views are individual- we both know if we drop something it will fall to the ground- thats a view we share because it is obvious and repeatable to check.
Ritual however is not such a thing- it cannot be proved to work- in more than two thousand years of recorded history there is not a single example of proof of it working. Despite millions having tried it and millions of rituals having been performed world wide.

If you conducted a scientific test that many times and always got a negative result the conclusion would be the premise is false.

You seem to have bought into the reductionist view of the world. Of course you can contrive explanations using this method - that's what it was invented for. I prefer Occams razor. If it looks like a duck, quacks like one etc. then it probably is.

I think claiming contact with spirits whilst being unable to present any proof of such activity at all (covering the entire history of humanity) is perhaps a better definition of contriving an explanation.

I really don't see a point in continuing this conversation.

I'm out for the day.

Of all the topics discussed here, this one is the oddest. One would almost think that one is being coerced or persuaded to the views of the poster in question ? I find it curious that someone has to have the need for rituals. Is one so alone or lacking in their life that this need fills a vacuum ? Or is it just interest in a subject that is ...interesting ? This thread has no warmth, no jovial banter. Discussion is a flowing river but this.... sounds, I cant think of the word, its not 'domineering' but you know what I mean    Maybe some people dont like the pebbles of life dropping into the stream of illusion.

Is one so alone or lacking in their life that this need fills a vacuum ? Or is it just interest in a subject that is ...interesting ?- Azriel

Well for me it was the latter Azriel when I was young- it was curiosity, a desire for such things to be real, and a willingness to be open to the possibilities being offered.
I have always been fascinated by spiritual stuff from ghosts to Gods.
I still am, its just now I am more fascinated by the effect it has had on people and history rather in the effects of such things themselves, which dont appear to actually exist.

Ditto     My feelings also.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think claiming contact with spirits whilst being unable to present any proof of such activity at all (covering the entire history of humanity) is perhaps a better definition of contriving an explanation.

Here, again, you are expecting an extraordinary standard of proof. What proof is there that the Battle of Hatings took place on Saturday, 14 October, 1066? Written texts, dozens of them. What proof is there that spiritual beings have been contacted in ritual? Written texts, countless thousands of them from all periods of history and all cultures. Do you doubt the Battle of Hastings?

Anyone who comes to the rituals will have all the proof they need.

Um no we know about Hastings, not only from many separate accounts but from archaeological evidence- both from the battle itself and the battlefield, and from other artefacts created after commemorating or lamenting it- we have physical proof of it - bits of actual evidence that can be seen and touched.
Also the history surrounding it, even if we knew nothing about such a battle would indicate it- the genetic changes in the population of England for example which can be traced and dated, changes in the language with incorporation of a large number of French words and phrases into everyday English language, the subjugation of saxon beliefs ect.

Almost nothing in history rests for proof solely upon texts, and when it does it is considered not proven even when it is considered as likely.


'Anyone who comes to the rituals will have all the proof they need.'

Well I've been and taken part in and witnessed loads, and I've yet to see a single shred of anything that would count as proof.

azriel wrote:Of all the topics discussed here, this one is the oddest. One would almost think that one is being coerced or persuaded to the views of the poster in question ? I find it curious that someone has to have the need for rituals. Is one so alone or lacking in their life that this need fills a vacuum ? Or is it just interest in a subject that is ...interesting ? This thread has no warmth, no jovial banter. Discussion is a flowing river but this.... sounds, I cant think of the word, its not 'domineering' but you know what I mean    Maybe some people dont like the pebbles of life dropping into the stream of illusion.

A ritual, when done properly, is a very powerful experience, and reconnects us with the divine in nature.

It saddens me sometimes that those who have not experienced such a thing have such a distorted view of it, but each to their own, as they say. Our gatherings are open, and all those with honourable intent are welcome. But everyone must choose their own path in life.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Um no we know about Hastings, not only from many separate accounts but from archaeological evidence- both from the battle itself and the battlefield, and from other artefacts created after commemorating or lamenting it- we have physical proof of it - bits of actual evidence that can be seen and touched.
Also the history surrounding it, even if we knew nothing about such a battle would indicate it- the genetic changes in the population of England for example which can be traced and dated, changes in the language with incorporation of a large number of French words and phrases into everyday English language, the subjugation of saxon beliefs ect.

Almost nothing in history rests for proof solely upon texts, and when it does it is considered not proven even when it is considered as likely.


'Anyone who comes to the rituals will have all the proof they need.'

Well I've been and taken part in and witnessed loads, and I've yet to see a single shred of anything that would count as proof.

Archaeological evidence would tell us nothing about the date of the battle, or even the exact year, or the names of the people involved (most likely) and all sorts of other information that is accepted as fact by all historians. You are basically advocating double standards.

But if you want archaeological evidence for rituals, there's tons of it. Stone circles, for example. If the rituals didn't work, why bother building them for so long, over such a widespread area? I fully expect that you'll come up with a psychological explanation - the people involved were deluded, or whatever. But I take the most obvious explanation, the one that fits all the facts.

But if you want archaeological evidence for rituals, there's tons of it. Stone circles, for example. If the rituals didn't work, why bother building them for so long, over such a widespread area?- Kenelm

There is evidence of stone circles, not of rituals. There is evidence of animal sacrifice not what they were for or who to or why.

As to stone circles we know some of what they do. The can be used to predict eclipses, to tell the time of year and thus know when to sow crops and the like- hugely important things for a primitive culture to have knowledge of and that give a substantial technological advantage- evidence by the spread of the technology (and it is technology) from the north of Scotland to as far afield as the Mid-east and Africa.

The ritual involved in a stone circle is completely unnecessary to reading a stone circle- you can make one yourself with nothing more than a length of string and a stick if your patient enough to mark out the points of the circle according to where the shadow falls throughout the year.
And it will work perfectly without a single element of ritual required or involved.

Im sorry Kenelm, But, there is nothing, I repeat, nothing solid or concrete that suggests, proves or intimates that any form of spiritualism actually exists. Its merely interpretation of the ideas one would like to see as truth. You cannot bring the Battle of 1066 into it by saying "what proof is there....." Ive been dragged into a trap I feel, Your right, we all have to walk the path that suits us    May your path bring you enlightenment, fulfillment & happiness. I shall bow out of this before I blow a gasket    IL let Petty blow his