LOL - since we're talking about writing and presentation on another
thread I concede 'densely marshalled' is right and just. It is a long
term affliction which I have struggled with. Once looked back at a
short para and realised near every phrase could be expanded to
paragraph length or even turned into headings. On that occasion I
managed to do so, but... ;)
ALWays
Jake
On 2 July 2010 12:05, toyin adepoju <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks for this detailed response.
> I appreciate your insistence on tracing the origins of the GoS spirits as
> well as the history of the concept of Goetia in order to appreciate how they
> has developed,the word developed'' meaning changes undergone with
> time,along with an assessment of the degree to which growth in terms of
> expansion or refinement has actually occurred.
>
> While I digest your comment on how to name these spirits, one notes that
> the spirits of the GoS,for one, have varied antecedents,some of them being
> God forms from Semitic religions,other being such God forms that were
> demonised by Judaism.That complicates the effort to find a unifying name for
> them apart from the present one.
>
> I need to investigate this subject further while looking carefully at your
> densely marshalled ideas and your arguments.
> thanks
> toyin
>
> On 2 July 20 11:26, Jake Stratton-Kent <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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/
>
>
--
Jake
http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/
|
