Don't get me wrong, I like Lon a lot, and have spent some time with
him on and off duty. At the same time the adventurousness you describe
is done in a fairly well circumscribed space, and even that much would
be disapproved of by other fans of this over emphasised manual.
The Goetia of Solomon has an odd reputation, being much used by
'traditionalists', when its prominence is due solely to the
involvement of such 'modernists' (from a trad perspective) as Mathers
and Crowley; explaining its commercial success. There are probably
hundreds of equally goetic grimoires, in one sense of that word, yet
to many 'goetia' is interpreted solely as a reference to this early
modern text. Goetia proper of course is ancient Greek, and taking that
on board - along with the fact Agrippa and co used the term to
describe most of the grimoire genre - provides a considerable
enlargement of the topic.
Enlarged compared to various takes on what after all is said and done
is a 1904 reprint of one 1640s English conjure book.
ALWays
Jake
On 26 March 2010 20:54, jason winslade <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I'd agree with that assessment of DuQuette's work (and of course, he's definitely NOT an academic, but does apply some academic methodology). In fact, I'd say that DuQuette's talent for improvising, questioning tradition and personally connecting to goetic demons is exactly the opposite of being stuck with 'books that must not be changed'.
>
> As far as individual consciousness goes, I always defer to DuQuette's dictum in Chicken Qabalah that 'it IS all in your head, it's just that your head is much bigger than you think' or something like that. So he does take into account levels beyond individual consciousness. But I do appreciate his attempt to connect to the external through the internal - macrocosm and microcosm, don't ya know.
>
> --- On Fri, 3/26/10, Jake Stratton-Kent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Jake Stratton-Kent <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 12:41 PM
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> excuse my over serious or passionate response, it's just me! ;)
>
> On 26 March 2010 17:10, jason winslade <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, in another example of how difficult definitions are, I'd disagree with the notion that Pagans MUST believe in a deity. I consider myself somewhat of an agnostic Hermetic/Pagan, in that I approach deities as archetypal, psychological entities that *MAY* have external existence, but they may also just be things we humans made up. However, when it comes to effective practice, that distinction is irrelevant, because I practice 'as if' they were external entities. Sort of like Lon Milo DuQuette's approach to the Goetia.
> >
>
>
> LOL - that's two cases of difficulties with definitions! The approach
> to entities you outline isn't necessarily too different from my own,
> though I place the emphasis exactly the opposite way around.
>
> Trouble with 'the DuQuette model' is it makes no case whatever for
> much updating of a thoroughly derivative methodology (case in point,
> so far from being 'The' goetia, it is arguable if it is any goetia at
> all!)
>
> I'd argue that the emphasis does make a difference to effective
> practice, as follows. Imagine if the entities concerned might be
> hacked off by an outmoded approach which relies wholly on an early
> modern text indifferent to their origins or 'true nature'. We then
> have some motivation for exploring the past more fully, for comparing
> our approach with living traditions elsewhere in the world and - to
> cut it short - for improving our magic.
>
> This is very different from taking it on and off the shelf unchanged
> from 1650 to the present. Something magicians in earlier periods did
> not do, so why should we?
>
> Otherwise we're stuck in an inaccurate 'historical re-enactment' slot
> where everything is done by rote and remains the same. Not for me as
> you've likely gathered! ;)
>
> Thing is with the 'all in the mind' scenario is even if it is true we
> too easily forget it isn't just our individual mind. Persephone was
> obsessing Empedocles before JSK was a twinkle in his father's eye, or
> his father in his etc., and will still be current long after I've
> gone.
>
> From where I sit it is not only easier to work effective magic by
> considering them functionally separate from our individual selves and
> immortal (which they are in both cases by this definition as well as
> older perspectives) but easier to improve what passes for magic, and
> our understanding of that of others. Of course it is very inconvenient
> for magic (or our understanding of it) to progress, rather than sit
> still and be analysed. But art, politics and religion do, and the
> analysts have learned to cope with that.
>
> In any case, most, if not all species of magic are focussed on
> spirits, whereas we have now made the centre a pile of 'books that
> must not be changed', that is phenomenally skewed, and doesn't aid
> comprehension even for a non-practitioner.
>
> ALWays
>
> Jake (probably a polytheist, still making up my mind)
>
>
>
> > --- On Fri, 3/26/10, Samuel Wagar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Samuel Wagar <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Religious Topics and Personal Judgements
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Friday, March 26, 2010, 11:58 AM
> >
> > > Are you saying that a Neoplatonist is not a pagan? I know Neoplatonists who
> > > would say they are pagans; are they wrong?
> >
> >
> > No, just that Hypatia wasn't. There's a very good biography of her, "Hypatia of Alexandria" by Maria Dzielska (Harvard U Press, 1995) based in part on letters written by prominent students of hers, including a couple of Christian bishops.
> >
> > I, personally, think that Paganism includes deism - one can't be a Pagan without believing in a deity or several.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Sam Wagar
>
|
