Sean Ciall
Jul. 27th, 2004 10:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
angelakI would love nothing more than to post about FoL as soon as possible. But this post will have to wait, as something *ELSE* is deep on my mind RIGHT now.
I, like everyone else on or off the ritual team, has a unique and personal experience and story to tell. But right now--- it seems thwarted by a certain level of questioning that hit me directly after this weekend. It came from an outside source, and after all of the Saturday/energy/post ritual emotions....
....
Well, it’s really been the wrong time to ask my heart of hearts to explore some of these things. So many things to say, so little words to say them. So much hurt and discomfort I have felt in regards to any of this. Sean ciall itself, I still have faith in for regards of working magickal method--- it’s the publicity, the lousy web-page, the witchvox article, and documentation and connotation that has surrounded it. It all scares me now, because it’s all so close to my heart, the group, the methods, everything.
I had already thought to myself that I needed to re-write the way it was stated to something less wordy for web use. But now... I just don’t know if I want any of it on the web.
Criticism to me right now seemed impossible to bear and actually take it away logically. My head is so deep in the experience and the group that it is very hard to read the things I began reading last night.
Mostly--- a ton based off of THIS post.
Basically calling us a bunch of faking/cultists. Alright. So be it. I had personally agreed that none of it really was written in a way that most people could read and understand as truly OUR group. I don't feel that the writing out there, reflects sean ciall the way I think it should. It's not written with the feeling I get from our circle. The writing in all of Bobby’s documentation was kind of over the top. But there are now gaps on so many levels and disagreements from other people that seem to point towards lack of authenticity of some of the sean ciall claims. Suddenly our group is associated with a bunch of wanna-bes.
Joshua told me to take it as a grain of salt. My head wasn’t at a space where I could take much of anything as a “grain of salt.”
I want to bring these specific issues to the spell circle and discuss the specifics mentioned in these critiques. If a group can’t uphold scrutiny... where IS it’s validity?
While going through all this, a myriad of things went through me:
2 separate articles, opinionated editorials so to speak, I read one after the other, including this post, made me so angry, so hurt, so scared, and so confused, like I would have to lose my group because it was being associated with fools. Or that they were calling us fools.
I don’t know how I feel now. It’s a matter of sorting through all the crap and understanding my feelings. I wish I could talk with Cheryl.
*sighs*
Anybody offer any thoughts on this?
Where do we take these questions? How will people react to these questions?
How "ancient," is sean ciall?
Later I’ll post my ritual experiences.
I strongly recommend all sean ciall participants to read
THIS post.
-Angela
I, like everyone else on or off the ritual team, has a unique and personal experience and story to tell. But right now--- it seems thwarted by a certain level of questioning that hit me directly after this weekend. It came from an outside source, and after all of the Saturday/energy/post ritual emotions....
....
Well, it’s really been the wrong time to ask my heart of hearts to explore some of these things. So many things to say, so little words to say them. So much hurt and discomfort I have felt in regards to any of this. Sean ciall itself, I still have faith in for regards of working magickal method--- it’s the publicity, the lousy web-page, the witchvox article, and documentation and connotation that has surrounded it. It all scares me now, because it’s all so close to my heart, the group, the methods, everything.
I had already thought to myself that I needed to re-write the way it was stated to something less wordy for web use. But now... I just don’t know if I want any of it on the web.
Criticism to me right now seemed impossible to bear and actually take it away logically. My head is so deep in the experience and the group that it is very hard to read the things I began reading last night.
Mostly--- a ton based off of THIS post.
Basically calling us a bunch of faking/cultists. Alright. So be it. I had personally agreed that none of it really was written in a way that most people could read and understand as truly OUR group. I don't feel that the writing out there, reflects sean ciall the way I think it should. It's not written with the feeling I get from our circle. The writing in all of Bobby’s documentation was kind of over the top. But there are now gaps on so many levels and disagreements from other people that seem to point towards lack of authenticity of some of the sean ciall claims. Suddenly our group is associated with a bunch of wanna-bes.
Joshua told me to take it as a grain of salt. My head wasn’t at a space where I could take much of anything as a “grain of salt.”
I want to bring these specific issues to the spell circle and discuss the specifics mentioned in these critiques. If a group can’t uphold scrutiny... where IS it’s validity?
While going through all this, a myriad of things went through me:
2 separate articles, opinionated editorials so to speak, I read one after the other, including this post, made me so angry, so hurt, so scared, and so confused, like I would have to lose my group because it was being associated with fools. Or that they were calling us fools.
I don’t know how I feel now. It’s a matter of sorting through all the crap and understanding my feelings. I wish I could talk with Cheryl.
*sighs*
Anybody offer any thoughts on this?
Where do we take these questions? How will people react to these questions?
How "ancient," is sean ciall?
Later I’ll post my ritual experiences.
I strongly recommend all sean ciall participants to read
THIS post.
-Angela
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 10:37 am (UTC)The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 10:44 am (UTC)Does that mean I know any better than they know, or they know any better than I? I still want to discuss this with the circle. It gives me a very bad vibe.
-Angela
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 10:54 am (UTC)I agree that we should all discuss it. Damn it. That means we have to have this sitting over our heads for 2 weeks before we can. Gah.
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 10:58 am (UTC)I need the sounding board, support, and ideas of the group itself. If we need to meet in order to find ways to bring it UP to Bobby, so be it. I want a support group and I want it fucking fast.
That's what our group is about in a way, isn't it?
-Angela
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 11:04 am (UTC)Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 11:09 am (UTC)I also don't think it'd be a bad idea to include Steve. Half of this came about because he is seriously in consideration of joining spell. Not as an observer, either. As a full fledged participant in the energy work.
Steve is very logical and methodical about his endeavors. He was systematically collecting data and one of the people he holds a lot of esteem gave him their own opinion on the group. Josh referred me personally to the post I indicate here. There are just all manner of strange feelings I have about it at this point. I want to sort this out.
-Angela
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 11:12 am (UTC)Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 11:22 am (UTC)The issue is out there. There are people who are getting the wrong image.
How much do we care?
How much of what they say holds true to itself?
How much of what WE say holds true to ourselves and our work?
Seriously.
I don't want to do a whole "that sucks cause it's attacking us," mindframe. I want to do a "that sucks because their statement *here* can be dis-counted by *this*" or that sucks because they aren't understanding what our group is REALLY about.
It's hard to discount the things they when you ONLY read the web content, and you ONLY read the workshop list, or you look from the serious OUTSIDE of our community.
NO--- not everyone is a goddamned sex fiend. But it sure looks bad if I read all this from the outside.
Bobby didn't help it by saying at the workshop Saturday that the "reason we don't do sexual work," has something to do with the "participating MINORS," in spell. It almost felt like he was saying, "well, this is the only reason we don't do this kind of work."
Should we explore motive and goals on the "eventually," scale. Where are we headed? What's the intention? I trust Bobby very much-- but shouldn't we discuss this openly? I think so.
-Angela
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 12:11 pm (UTC)As far as those people that made that post can go, most of their claims that it isn't scotts irish can be backed up from other works where it is quite obvious some of the themes were taken from.
As some of you may know I have been doing some research on Sean Ciall trying to figure out what it is all about. The fact that the only person on the Web and in the Seattle area that really knows anything about Sean Ciall is Bobby is another point of scrutiny. One would think that if the tradition that he brought here originated from the south(not sure which state) and there are plenty of people talking about it on the web out here about it that there would be atleast 1 or 2 people that posted something on the web about it. The fact is there isn't any other writings about sean ciall anywhere other then what Bobby and some of his students have written.
Anyway I found an interesting article on Lugh here. if you want to read it :)
http://www.leyline.org/cra/articles/lughnasadh.html
http://www.celticspirit.org/lughnasadh.htm
http://thunder.prohosting.com/~cbarstow/lammas.html
http://cyberpict.net/sgathan/essays/lghnsdh.htm
I perticularly like the last article as it has a bibliography at the end. One of the things that I found as a pretty common theme to these articles is that there is no "We need to kill the god so that we can live". While there is a death involved man does not perform the killing. Instead Lughs foster mother gives herself freely to help the harvest. Lughnasadh is when Lugh is in mourning over his loss and the festival is an attempt to appease him and make him happy so that he will not destroy the harvest.
Anyway thats enough for now.
-Steven
Re: The truth?
Date: 2004-07-27 06:02 pm (UTC)If you'll allow me to take issue with THIS: L-O-N-G Post!!!!
Date: 2004-07-27 11:19 am (UTC)Okay,I'm going to read this article piece by piece, and commentate where I think its weaknesses lie, and perhaps its strengths where they exist. His/her first contention is that skyclad is an unauthentic form of Scots Gaelic relgious practice. That being said, his/her rationale is not based on archeological evidence so much as temperature--ie Scotland is too cold to be naked in. Now, I wonder if this person realizes what goes under a kilt? I wonder if they know who the Picts were, or that they were famous for fighting naked and wearing deep blue wode? The lived in Northern Scotland--which I believe it's fair to say is cold. Somehow, this initial arguement doesn't strike me as being very strong.
Onward to what I believe to be the next contention:
"I'm also dubious of the "authenticity" of the whole wickerman concept. I can't think of an historically authenticated instance where such a figure was definitively used in a religious/spiritual connotation." I remember posting the same question in a more thoughtful manner to Cheryl in her LJ. I thought of it because of what I learned in college; namely that the wickerman is kind of a medieval fabrication designed to show the barbarity of the Celts, because in that version they put people in the wickerman to be sacrificed. This makes scholars roll their eyes, and films like The Wickerman don't help to dispell this image. Regardless of some historical "authenticity", Cheryl explained to me the significance of the wickerman in regards to the 21st century ritual put on by Sean Ciall in Washington. Attempting to plumb the depths of what was "historically accurate" is not so different from trying to see the future--most everything we proport to know is still in essence merely our informed speculation. So he says the wickerman is not historically authentic, and there are good arguments for that; where did anyone say specifically that it was meant to be historically accurate?
The rest of the article really takes issue with authenticity--a very perilous word indeed. He/she makes a good point that a four element system probably stems from continental Europe, siting Hermes Trismegestus as the source--although he really ought to go much further back and credit it to the likes of Plato, Erasmus, and other Greeks who are widely known for using it. Did the the Celts use the four-element system? I believe they used three. I do know that Brigid is Celtic, and that has fire in it. I also know they have similair elemental systems in China and other parts of Asia, so it's not unthinkable that it spread to other parts of the world.
The crux of his/her arguement rests with the observation that, "...this is people in Seattle, who are improvising on their own on Gaelic culture. This is as offensive as someone who, for example, isn't an initiate into traditional Lakota Sioux medicine practices attending a seminar and then going out and teaching bits and pieces of what they've learned and cobbled together as "authentic" Lakota shamanism." At first it seems pretty hard to argue with that logic. I can imagine someone going out and attending a seminar in Lakota Sioux medicine and shamanism. I see nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when they want to teach what they have learned to others--what is the most appropriate way to do that. My own personal belief is to first throw the word "authentic" out the window, and realize that attempting to replicate a centuries-old lost religion is impossible.
Part 2
Date: 2004-07-27 11:20 am (UTC)From what I have heard of Sean Ciall, it is not attempting to do that. I have certainly listened to Robert speak before, and he seems perfectly aware of where his relgion comes from--ie all over the place. Even the citations mentioned in the article demonstrate this understanding. Most any half-decently informed pagan like myself knows that Gerald Gardner invented many of the conventions the more fluffy/ignorant among us cling to as cardinal truths of ancient life. My question is where in Sean Ciall does it actually claim the "veneer of authenticity"? I don't think it does, you guys know better than that.
Then we get to "brilliant" comments like: "Looking at the website for their gather and how often the term 'skyclad' is used... as well as stating the 'adult' nature of the event... yeah, it's just another get together to allow ugly pagans to get laid." Talk about things that put the dark helmet on me!!!! I mean, just calling people ugly like that is such a telling sign of shameless trivialism and primal stupidity! I quote this merely to remind everyone of the quality of people we have criticising Sean Ciall...
Ultimately, my dear friend Angela, this is what I honestly think: When you make a film, or write a book, or give a speech, or form a religious organization for that matter--there will ALWAYS be people who take it upon themselves to somehow "thwart" it. Why are there people who do this? Because there are people the world over who inwardly feel small, scared, and alone. Sean Ciall by its nature is communal and quite open to public scrutiny--it is a threat to the fragile egos of the fearful. Oddly enough, the best lesson I can think of in regards to this kind of human behavior comes from the Bible of all places: "Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone." Funny how nobody ever does, isn't it?
Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-07-27 11:28 am (UTC)You're right on many ways and I value your insight. Beyond belief.
I found it petty to mock the website, in itself. Considering there is only ONE author out there currently on sean ciall...
I guess I'm still reeling from the energy of Saturday and wasn't ready to take scutiny.
The words you've given me are wonderous food for thought.
Thanks kindly, as I know how difficult your time and catching up on LJ has been. I miss you so much, and thought of you much on Saturday. *hugs*
-Angela
Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-08-03 01:23 am (UTC)Re: Part 2
Date: 2004-08-03 08:46 am (UTC);)
-Angela
no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 11:34 am (UTC)First, let me ask you this--did any part of that ritual feel like you were a wanna-be? Like it wasn't real? Does it matter if that was ever the way things were "really" done? Does it matter if a bunch of people who, as far as I can tell, are not people we even know (correct me if I'm wrong, although it looks like a couple of those charming folks might be related to Slighe nan Gael) decide to get pissy about something they did not experience and yet feel qualified to judge? And what, may I ask, do those people offer to their community, other than the snarky, bitter discussion generated by that post? Don't they have better things to do with their time?
The truth of the matter is, my friends, that NO ONE knows what the pre-Christian Celtic spiritual practices were. Because those practices relied on oral tradition. We have hints and glimpses here and there, but we will never know what was really going on because we weren't there.
And from what I've heard Bobby say about Sean-Ciall, and having read the original BOS myself, I don't think he would ever come right out and say "we're doing exactly what they did before." If his words were taken that way, that's the choice of the reader. It is a reconstruction, NOT a recreation, and there's a difference. Sean-Ciall was passed down over many generations, and each generation added the not-necessarily-Celtic spiritual trend of their day to it.
Spiritual practices of all flavors have been maligned and scorned over time because people get it in their heads that there is only one right and true way to do it. Look at Christianity, and how many different ways there are to do that "right." Same thing is happening here. Celtic fundamentalists exist, and those were some of them.
Beyond that, there is the issue of community politics. Bobby and I have been around the block enough that when I read a thread like the one you linked to, I can smell that in the background. When people see another group doing something successfully, that always, always, always opens the group up for criticism. It's always easier for people to bitch about what you did and what THEY think is wrong with it than for them to get off their sorry butts and do it better themselves. Always. But when you have put your time, your heart and your naked body on the line to create that success, when that process has left your emotionally flayed open and unable to shield from it, that criticism fucking stings. It's the kind of incident that creates bad blood among Pagan groups that share a common community, and it's shitty, but some people seem to find great delight in stirring that pot.
Please believe that the folks who are trashing FoL fundamentally do not understand what we are doing. They weren't there, they don't get it, and they are judging us without asking questions. Try not to let it get under your skin--I know that's hard, but realize that this is less about the gift you have given to your community than it is about the smallness of their hearts and minds.
There are also people in the world who believe that the Gaelic language should not be changed in any way to accomodate modern cultural terms. So I guess they just want to sit around talking about sheep and turnips all the time, since that's the vocabulary the language has from history. And there are others of us who recognize that when language and tradition stops changing, it dies.
Out of an entire field of barley, only a few of the seeds are saved to replant for next year. Genetic drift happens, and the plants change over the generations. And in like fashion the way we honor the dying God and look toward His rebirth is different now than it was generations ago. That is not only OK, it is as it should be.
You all rock. I hope you know that.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 11:38 am (UTC)Wow
Date: 2004-07-27 11:50 am (UTC)The ritual felt authentic to me. There was no, "wanna be," in it at all, from within me.
I feel better about it already.
It's true, that type of hype and critism is hard.
It's true, they aren't us and they did not experience it.
Perhaps I panicked on it. But my mind is being slowly set to ease... more things make sense to me now on a whole.
-Angela
Dude...
Date: 2004-07-27 11:55 am (UTC)Try not to let jerks like that shake your confidence. If you need to re-check your facts, so be it. If you want to re-word the explanations, so be it. But don't for a second let them make you doubt yourself or your path. There is nothing wrong with ignorance until it is used to degrade others, as they have tried to do. So long as you all rise above their pettiness, you should have the utmost pride in yourselves.
*end rant*
To Angela specifically: I've already said everything I have to say, but I'm thinking we still need to be in touch, unless your plans have changed, and even then I'd still like to know. So call me? Or email? Or I'll try to call you? Please?
~Lb
Re: Dude...
Date: 2004-07-27 11:58 am (UTC)You rock, nobody.
I miss your ass so badly I can't even express it. I can't wait to see you... this weekend is going to rock.
*sighs sighs*
AND YES. We need contact.
But I answered your questions as promptly as I could!
-Angela
Here's one more thing to post
Date: 2004-07-27 12:01 pm (UTC)He speaks from it's term, calling it, "objective," and basically saying I am not taking it objectively. I think it must be impossible for me to have that kind of "objective."
He's not quite so snobby about it AT all, but he agreeds with some of the wording and assumptions they make. And he's also heard it from Bobby himself. [WHich he doesn't mind Bobby either, thank gods.]
But jeah. I guess that is one more reason why I took it to heart. He was very much exploring those people and someone also very much like them [the person he has a lot of respect for in regards to occultism...] and jeah.
I guess it's just the mere projection...
I thank everyone who was blessed enough to aid me in ALL OF THIS VALUABLE FEEDBACK.
Right now, it's meant the world to me.
My mind was out of sorts, and it's getting to a better space.
-Angela
sean ciall
Date: 2004-07-27 05:10 pm (UTC)This is Bobby writing from herongrrrl's account, having first obtained permission from Angela to view this thread.
First off, as my wife said, having been in the public realm for many years now, we fully expect this sort of thing, and don't bother to worry about it. People who are doing the work don't have time to kvetch about the work other people are doing, those who have the time to kvetch aren't doing the work.
Regarding the four element thing, yes, we are well-aware that most books (correctly) attribute a 3, 7 or 9 element system to the Gaels, and fully expected our own four-element system to tweak the "authenticity buttons" of some Celtic traditionalists. This is why I specifically cited the Caith Maigh Tiureadh in that passage, which clearly supports it.
To the best of my knowledge, Sean Ciall is NOT an ancient system of magick. If even the pseudo-history that I myself learned is correct, it is only about 200 years old, and was a deliberate reconstruction. Whether a reconstruction is 2 centuries old or 2 weeks old (or for that matter 2 millenia old, every religion was started by somebody) is of very little relevance, save for the fact that this particular reconstruction has apparently well-withstood the test of time.
The idea that the tradition, or for that matter anything I've ever written about the tradition, has been influenced by Crowley and Wicca are of course absolutely correct. The idea of a coven structure (loosely though we use the term) and the term "skyclad" almost certainly came from Gardnerian Wicca, although the use of ritual nudity in the line is apparently older than that (and yes, it is used in the British Isles even to this day; Scotland's climate is very, very similar to Seattle's. Clearly the person writing had never actually been to the British Isles). But as for Crowley, one line in the ritual ("Than iomadachd dha...") is stolen directly from his Star Sapphire ritual, by me. It was damnably difficult to translate into Gaelic, as the Latin concept of "nihil" ("nothing") simply doesn't exist in the Celtic mindset. But it said what I wanted the ritual to say.
As far as there not being any other source material than my own currently available for the Sean Ciall tradtion, that is, sadly, absolutely true. It is my hope that my Witchvox article will flush out some from the woodwork, but until that time, the best "objective proof" (both words being utterly meaningless, which is why I put them in quotes) anyone besides myself has is that I myself created the whole thing whole-cloth. And was too modest to claim credit for my artistry (right). But, recognizing that as a criticism that might legitimately arise, I've waited many years before openly disseminating and teaching the material, to a time when outside of my Sean Ciall initiations I have at least 3rd° initiations in Wicca, OTO, Freemasonry and A.:A.:, so that if I were to create a new tradition out of thin air (which, essentially, we did with OLOTEAS, and which I may well do again) it would be accepted as legitimate based on the authority of my credentials and experience. And, more importantly, the experience of the participants. Because in the end, "legitimacy" in magick rests not with lineage but in efficacy, either it works or it doesn't; success, as Crowley said, is our only proof. Whether or not other "Celtic reconstructionist" groups have ever been as successful as Sean Ciall I don't know, I have yet to see any evidence of it. But, we wish them well on their Work, nonetheless.
Shade and sweet water,
Bobby
Re: sean ciall
Date: 2004-07-27 11:03 pm (UTC)Oceanor
Re: sean ciall
Date: 2004-07-28 03:14 am (UTC)Bobby, if it does transpire that you yourself created the whole thing whole-cloth, I for one would not think any the less of you. Gerald Gardner did exactly the same thing, after all, and he had help.
THey're just being
Date: 2004-07-29 09:45 am (UTC)We all have differnt outlooks, and hey, that's awesome. These people are choosing to respond in a weird way that is actually more harmful to them than anything. They choose to feel anger, hate, and distaste for something they don't understand. What we don't understand we fear, and what we fear we fight. It is almost sad to me to see how they react, and all group together to just attack a webpage. How does the webpage effect them? How does it harm them? It ought to be a null issue. But rather than state, "I disagree with this page and shit!" the author went on a rant, and called out the village with torches. It is SAD that the village answered her call. It is SAD that she made the call. If anything, I am sad for her and her "village" of friends. What made them so freaking bitter?
Be proud of what this community has become, and be proud to be part of it. Know that some people just have crap going on for them, and redirect it in odd ways. Do their opinions become any more valid than yours? Are they better, worse, nor null? People will be people. And you are Angela, be glad that you're Angela, and part of the SC community, and look at where you are in life. Does it look like SC has done anything negative for you? If not, then smile and know that it is a positive experience. No matter what other people offer up.
Hugs,
Cheryl