The Pragmatics of Fluff?

[Gideon Starorzewski]

I'm in a bit of a strange situation. I'm generally very picky about what I use in practicing any paradigm, but I also prefer very practical hands on material over books that are mostly theory and dogma with no direction or examples for ritual and practice.

Thus against my better judgement I picked up Christopher Penzack's The Inner Temple of Shamanic Witchcraft. Essentially I picked it up because I previously bought his Instant Magic for the exercises, of which many are useful.

So unsurprisingly, the exercises and practical side of The Inner Temple of Shamanic Witchcraft is great. There's alot of stuff in there that works and is open ended enough to be easily modified as necessary. It's about as ecumenical as anything like that could be expected to be.

However, the theory side of things is almost pure weaboo. Even if I didn't have the dedication to follow up on any claims he makes that I don't already know the veracity of, you can see the bullshit coming a mile off and it comes in thick. I couldn't help but laugh when I was watching a talk given by Douglas Rushkoff and Daniel Pinchbeck in which Pinchbeck reminds the audience of how misappropriated shamanism has been by the New Age movement in that shamans are not viewed in their native cultures as being these carebears who radiate healing energy and poop psilocybin, that in many cases they're shunned and feared despite their important contributions to the society because of how blatantly Penzack follows that ridiculous notion. Not that I needed Pinchbeck's reminder.

I can't honestly say I'm in any way concerned about the ethics of using the book because I have absolutely no intention of taking his anthropology or absurd spiritual notions seriously, I'm only interested in using the rituals presented as a template for building a more refined and informed practice (a practice that I will not identify as shamanism unless I find that path opened to me).

So my question is thus; have you ever, to borrow a phrase, panned for gold in the cesspit of the human psyche? What limits do you place on potential sources of information, theory, and practice in your chosen paradigm? Is there a point at which there is enough fluff to invalidate the complete work for you, and if so, what is that point?  

[godhi]

The late science fiction writer, Theodore Sturgeon coined the following addition to Murphy's Laws:

Sturgeon's Law:
90% of Everything is Crap.

This especially applies to books on witchcraft and the occult. However, if you know what to look for there are occasional diamonds in the compost heap.
Once in a while I'll find some interesting tidbits of lore in some of the most fluffy books on the occult; the hard part is finding them, as sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio in such books (especially those published by Llewellyn) makes them almost worthless. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule: for example, you can bet that anything written by Fiona Horne will have no redeeming value whatsoever...  

[Pelta]

Gideon Starorzewski

So my question is thus; have you ever, to borrow a phrase, panned for gold in the cesspit of the human psyche?

Yes. I think the internet is a great example. In this case, over 99.9% of everything is crap, but doing so also led me to the little gem of sacred-texts.com. Not a bad find after all the sifting...

The same thing applies on a smaller scale to some books. The educated reader knows to read skeptically when researching. So a book full of bollox can have a few gems. A Witch's Bible was a bit like that; some interesting tidbits surrounded by lots of stuff I wasn't interested in. It really just depends what you're looking for and how you go about finding it.

Though there is a point where the bad outweighs the potential usefulness. This is why I've stopped bothering to research stuff online... neutral  

[ShadowSharrow]

godhi

The late science fiction writer, Theodore Sturgeon coined the following addition to Murphy's Laws:

Sturgeon's Law:
90% of Everything is Crap.

This especially applies to books on witchcraft and the occult. However, if you know what to look for there are occasional diamonds in the compost heap.
Once in a while I'll find some interesting tidbits of lore in some of the most fluffy books on the occult; the hard part is finding them, as sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio in such books (especially those published by Llewellyn) makes them almost worthless. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule: for example, you can bet that anything written by Fiona Horne will have no redeeming value whatsoever...

How that is just not true, one of her books does an excellent job of
stopping one of my tables wobbling.  

[wikkedpixie]

Pelta

Gideon Starorzewski

So my question is thus; have you ever, to borrow a phrase, panned for gold in the cesspit of the human psyche?

Quote:

Yes. I think the internet is a great example. In this case, over 99.9% of everything is crap, but doing so also led me to the little gem of sacred-texts.com. Not a bad find after all the sifting...

I agree with you on this on because that is one of the main problems that I have. I have to look up all that I want to reserach on the internet because I am trying to finish school, so I don't have money right noe to buy books.

Quote:

The same thing applies on a smaller scale to some books. The educated reader knows to read skeptically when researching. So a book full of bollox can have a few gems.

This is true also. You can research all that you want to, however if the things you find in you research are full of bollox, then your time was just wasted.

 

[Deoridhe]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. 3nodding The trick is knowing WHEN.  

[Starlock]

Gideon Starorzewski

What limits do you place on potential sources of information, theory, and practice in your chosen paradigm?

On simply potential souces? None whatsoever. Everything is a potential source of information and inspiration. I don't descriminate on potentiality; I look to anything and everything for inspiration. There hasn't been a book or source I've run across YET where I haven't found something useful in, agree or disagree with it. Because of that I'm not stingy in what I pull off the shelves; I look at everything and anything. I do keep in mind the nature of the source, though. Every source has something interesting to say, even if you don't agree with most or all of that something. Often it can be the sources you disagree with that tell you more about your path and who you are than the ones you DO agree with.

I love aspects Penczak's series, but I have the same reactions you do actually about a lot of his theory that he uses. I don't agree with a lot of how he structures the more metaphysical ideas, and some of them do strike me as absurd. But then I try to ask myself why that is, and that ends up helping me learn more about what I really DO believe and what does feel right to me. Penczak still does a better job of presenting things than many of the other sources I've read out there, agree or disagree with him.