On 2 July 2010 10:43, toyin adepoju <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Jake.
> Your argument is intriguing and tantalises one to learn more about this
> subject.
>
> To clarify your point about how to refer to the spirits of the GoS as well
> as the spirits worked in Goetic magic in the classical sense as you describe
> it,could you suggest your own terminology for these two groups of spirits
> and describe your rationale for your suggestion?If you have done so before
> on any of these threads then I have missed it.
various approaches would be needed. The two main ones being:
A. The Classical world where goetic work would include 'angry ghosts'
(nekyodaimons), but also Heroes and various important mythical figures
(eg: the Idaean Dactyls, Orpheus, Melissa of Corinth &c, &c) all
variously conceived of as dead humans or demi-gods of a former age.
There is some crossover with more contemporary Saints, Ancestors and
so on, as I believe Agrippa noted. Oddly Saints are largely neglected
in generic modern magic, but not in Hoodoo and ATRs etc. They
nevertheless provide a role for a more positive view of evu-ul
necromancy (essentially synonymous with goetia proper).
B. The grimoires where there is a whole dialectic still to undergo, between:
1) literalism: where the generic term is demon but we'd also refer to
demons by their various ranks etc.
2) interpretation of origins and other identities: ie elementals and
others who have become associated with the 'demonic' stereotype (this
can be seen fairly painlessly by reading Comte de Gabalis and then
comparing the grimoires, some of which obviously favour this only
apparently frivolous interpretation. 'Spirit guarding treasures aren't
avaricious, we are' and so forth)
3) reinterpretation: where the spirit conjuring process and the
understanding of the nature of spirits undergoes transformation,
likely in some ways a return to older models or embracing New World
precedents. With either the demons and elementals etc. might tend to
be seen in a similar light to the dead, some of a sympathetic cast and
some otherwise.
> I wonder if your argument does not need to be clarified on these points:
> 1. Are you arguing that the GoS is not Goetic because it is different
> from classical Goetia?
to a degree, yes, but more that it has been mistaken for the whole
deal. On the first count though, the deferring of the term devalued
term 'goetic' onto the spirits does involve a unique evasion. This is
the idea that it is the spirits who are evil, whereas if the magician
was identified as goetic, they would have to defend themselves from
that idea.
Previously magicians would say they practised theurgy or magic, which
to some at least were more respectable terms, and that it was only bad
magicians who practised goetia. With the unique spin of the GoS the
magician could say 'its not me who is goetic, its the demons', and
then show how they punished these said spirits. That is a departure
from *all* the previous devalued uses of the term, but without
returning to the earlier sense.
This semantic excursion leads to a whole tangent of how the Lemegeton
also misuses the term Theurgy, and is best left here. The essential
point is the first, that GoS is mistaken for the goetia, the whole
goetia and nothing but the goetia, when it is nothing of the kind.
> 2.Are you arguing that the GoS needs to be understood as part of the
> developing ensemble of ideas and practices known as Goetia but as not
> restricted to that one book?
kind of, though I'd take issue with the word 'developing' I don't
think it has assisted the development of goetia very much, just
promoted a stereotype. This is largely due to the over emphasis placed
on the book by its association with Mathers and Crowley, as compared
with other conjure books of equal or greater historical and cultiral
importance.
> This is intriguing but I wonder if it is not an exaggeration:
> "Goetia proper,as the ONLY genuinely continuous element of the magical
> revival, deserves to be clearly demarcated and understood."
> I am curious as to the representative character of the aspects of the
> Western magical tradition that practice Goetia proper,
> as you describe it,particularly since you argue that this distinctive (?)
> Goetic practice is inadequately appreciated.
once we understand that the grimoires are essentially goetic, and
represent exactly the continuous strand I am describing, the claim is
perfectly justified. Granted that some of the grimoires deal with
angels (or claim to, characters like Cassiel are more than a little
dubious) but that did not prevent Agrippa labelling the whole genre
goetic, and indeed the distinction between conjuring angels and other
types of spirit don't much change the fact that the conjure books
represent the sole continuous strand of magical practice in the
magical Revival.
Hutton remarks too much the same effect when establishing the real
pedigree of Modern Pagan Witchcraft, that it doesn't need an
artificial descent from a Neolithic Great Goddess, since it is linked
to the ceremonial magic stream which is both ancient and continuous.
It is largely superfluous to point out which elements of the revival
are NOT continuous. While a case might seem to be make-able for
astrology, insofar as historical astrology is magical it is also
linked firmly to grimoire practice.
Ergo, since goetia is the most accurate descriptor of the entire
grimoire genre, and was also associated with their predecessors (the
Orphic Books,the Magical Papyri, the Byzantine Solomonic texts and the
Picatrix, it is the only continuous element in the Magical Revival .
Jake
http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
|
