Quote from: Aos;445500Some people really dig drama, it makes them feel important. The medium is almost secondary.

(The fundamental theorem for drama inclined individuals).


The possible mediums of choice are all isomorphic to one another.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPundit;445498The thing is, magick doesn't "fail to work".  It does very specific things in reality.  One of them is the psychosomatic effect.  But there are other more powerful things beyond that.

If you say so.

QuoteThe point is that the way to be "authentic" about it is not to say "here's the propaganda party line about how this ought to work, and we're going to pretend that's how it does even though everyone knows that's not true".  The way to be authentic is to show things as they really are, and how magick is a parasite-infested cesspool that sucks you in where only the very careful or the very crazy can get more out of it than what it costs them (to their wallets, their sanity, and their connection to society).

So play Sorcerer if that's what you want.

Quote from: ggroy;445503(The fundamental theorem for drama inclined individuals).


The possible mediums of choice are all isomorphic to one another.  :rolleyes:

Yeah, the pundits description of the way wiccans behave kind of made me think of some grad students I've known. The wiccans sound like they might be slightly better people, though.

Quote from: Aos;445507Yeah, the pundits description of the way wiccans behave kind of made me think of some grad students I've known. The wiccans sound like they might be slightly better people, though.

The same can be said of academics (ie. professors, postdocs, etc ...) in general.

I got stick and tired of all that sort of stuff.  (Many years ago I gave up a tenured professor job at a liberal arts type college, for the private sector).

In general, life is very much like that.

There's always going to be somebody who wants to be the person on top or the "king of the castle", even if it's a small group (or in their own minds).

Quote from: ggroy;445509The same can be said of academics (ie. professors, postdocs, etc ...) in general.

I got stick and tired of all that sort of stuff.  (Many years ago I gave up a tenured professor job at a liberal arts type college, for the private sector).

I did both my undergraduate and graduate stuff really late in life ( I got my BA at 40).  I've been out for a couple of months now and I knew I wouldn't pine away for it, but man, I didn't even miss it for an hour. I'm looking at working for a community college (I only have a MS), which, from what I've been is not such a toxic environment. I remain skeptical.

Quote from: ggroy;445511In general, life is very much like that.

There's always going to be somebody who wants to be the person on top or the "king of the castle", even if it's a small group (or in their own minds).

Grad students with these issues are usually lacking in subtlety- to say the least. I'm especially fond of those that pretend at secret knowledge or some kind of higher status.
However, as you hint, there is plenty of this in the private sector as well, but it is somewhat mitigated. The difference I think is best stated by Dan Akroyd as  in Ghost Busters "You've never worked in the Private sector, they expect results!"

Quote from: Aos;445513I'm looking at working for a community college (I only have a MS), which, from what I've been is not such a toxic environment. I remain skeptical.

Same sort of toxic environment at a community college, but more localized.

At a liberal arts or research university, the toxicity isn't just localized at the university level.  There's also the toxicity from one's particular chosen field (ie. journal referees, conferences, etc ...), as well as from funding agencies.

Quote from: Aos;445515However, as you hint, there is plenty of this in the private sector as well, but it is somewhat mitigated. The difference I think is best stated by Dan Akroyd as  in Ghost Busters "You've never worked in the Private sector, they expect results!"

What I liked better about the private sector, is that there's many more different places to find work.

At a college/university level, there are not as many places to change employment to if one gets stuck in a very toxic environment.  The exception would be a Nobel Laureate, who can pretty much sign their own ticket anywhere.

Quote from: Aos;445515Grad students with these issues are usually lacking in subtlety- to say the least. I'm especially fond of those that pretend at secret knowledge or some kind of higher status.

I use to be like this when I was younger.  Many other grad students and younger assistant professors were like this too.

Having also been an academic I can say that the main differences between academia and occultism is not that academia is "legitimate" and occultism is not, but that Academia has a much more stratified set of rules of "if you do a, b, and c then everyone has to believe you are accomplished".  Whereas occultism doesn't have the same kind of stratification to the methods, leading to more people just being able to spontaneously declare themselves a "Witch Queen" or the "Grand and Illustrious Outer Head of the Order", or to say that they've spoken with aliens or the earth mother or whatever, and you are left having to see if you believe them or not.

Note that this is why I basically don't believe in the "legitimacy" of academia anymore.  Because if someone knows how that stratified system works, its very easy to become an "accomplished academic" without having to actually know anything at all that's real about your subject matter; you just have to know a lot about how academics speak about the subject matter.

There is some of that in occultism also, but there being no "approved code" like there is in academia, no set defined steps you go through to "be somebody",  so whether you're somebody or not tends to depend much more on the eye of the beholder.  This is sometimes good, because if you are capable of looking at people without a bias, you can examine them based on what they have accomplished and how they are rather than whether they've filled in certain checkmarks without any regard to how.
On the other side, its often bad, because most people interested in occultism aren't unbiased observers. They're full of the worst kinds of bias, particularly the bias of "anything that challenges my flimsy world view is a menace" and "anyone who looks like they do more work than me or know more stuff than me is a menace because they'll make me look bad, and others might expect me to actually do stuff too".

RPGPundit

Quote from: ggroy;445519I use to be like this when I was younger.  Many other grad students and younger assistant professors were like this too.

It's a common problem- and, really, I can see how I might have indulged in some of it had I been a bit younger. It is an environment rife with uncertainty. It is difficult to adjust to, especially when one considers that most people in grad school emerged from undergraduate programs as top dog.

Quote from: RPGPundit;445521Note that this is why I basically don't believe in the "legitimacy" of academia anymore.  Because if someone knows how that stratified system works, its very easy to become an "accomplished academic" without having to actually know anything at all that's real about your subject matter; you just have to know a lot about how academics speak about the subject matter.



RPGPundit

Indeed. It varies from department to department, but this is, ime, essentially true. My discipline is also in the midst of a thirty year plus identity war, which means you have to mouth the proper party line, or out you go.

Some academics can be fooled by their own "tunnel vision".

For example, the infamous Sokal Hoax from 15 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair

Quote from: RPGPundit;445497I'll tell you something else, 15 out of every 20 wiccans or "magicians" (or should that be magickians?) I have met have never actually even attempted to "cast a spell" in their lives.  Their efforts amount to sometimes just calling themselves wiccans or magicians, in some cases owning one or more books, in fewer cases actually having read at least one (but not practicing anything at all from it), and maybe owning a tarot deck.

Of the other 5, 4 out of 5 have only ever done the most absolute basic practice (ie. the "lesser banishing ritual" or "casting a circle") and infrequently.

That leaves about 5% of the total "occult" population who have actually done something. And in general, there is a pretty steep curve with those guys where it begins with doing some spells here and there or dabbling in the goetia, and then very quickly go into seriously fucked up "unknown armies" territories.

An incredible amount of it is all about "rep" in the community, and the number of "wars" I've seen in local communities is just ridiculous.  Put 5 occultists together in a room and within an hour they'll have formed a group, within two hours they'll have split into two groups, and after a bit they'll be 3 groups, and then none.
A lot of it is massive complexes and egos; Israel Regardie once said "wicca is the only religion I know of where you can find two grown men beating each other up over who gets to be called 'Lord Merlin'".  He forgot to mention that his own branch of ceremonial magick, the "golden dawn" has had so many schisms and massive conflicts over "legitimacy", "magickal authority", who has got the approval of the "secret chiefs", etc. that essentially there is no way (besides random preference) to judge who is the "real" Golden Dawn.  Sadly a great deal of this infighting often happens among the 15 out of 20 people who do no magickal practice whatsoever (besides reading).

Those are the kinds of things you have to portray if you are going to show real "authentic" thaumaturgy in a modern game.

RPGPundit


RPGPundit

As an observation, nothing more, when I started doing my university dissertation, which was on funerary rites, I approached a North London based Wiccan group. They were excessively keen for me to come and observe them, I guess it gave them a certain 'credibility'. However after a couple of visits a few things were obvious. the first is that their "traddition" could reallistically be traced back to about 1890 and that was being generous 1970 would be more accurate, that it wasn't a living religion in the sense that living religions have rights of passage that form a genuine fabric whereas these guys just had a bunch of rituals with no authentic context. It also dawned on me that none of them were going to die soon, despite a couple in their 40's who looked about twice that due to lifestyle choices.  So I went to the Greek Orthodox church in Camden instead, loads of people dying there so it was perfect ....