(UA) The Problem With Magick

[Bryant Durrell]

Markleford Friedman writes:
> But what about other schools?  Without a "videotape grail", or a patron
> Ascendant to follow, other schools would see a mindboggling variance between
> practitioners.  One reason for my problem here is that there is no
> cosmological support behind these schools: there's no "patron god" or
> "primal element/force" behind them.  

That's an interesting contention.  I'd actually been thinking that
every magick school is defined by one of the archetypes.  Pornomancers
are the obvious one, but I can easily imagine The Sot, The Historian,
The Daredevil, and so on.  And if this is the case, things start to
suddenly make a lot more sense...

> I believe that the 7 provided schools should have presented merely as
> examples, rather than "this is the state of magick in the world today". 
> These 7 schools of magick are pretty kick-ass and off-beat, but I can't see
> them as being "THE dominant 7 styles" on the planet.  I could've taken it
> better as, "here are 7 *examples*".  Yes, they're quite handy for
> demonstrating charge-balancing between effects, and this helps out with the
> process in "Creating New Schools".

This is certainly how I thought of them -- examples.

-- 
  Bryant Durrell [] durrell at innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
 [----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
  "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that
            one's work is terribly important."  -- Bertrand Russell