redirected to more useful thread position:
On 2 July 2010 12:49, toyin adepoju <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I got the impresson you are defending a position distinctive to you which
> you argue is not much appreciated,rather than one " that is largely self
> evident and gleaned by access to academic or primary sources."
It is distinctive to me not because I invented it, but because I'm
taking a lone stand somewhere it is as yet not being grasped and needs
to be.
It is not much appreciated, by occultists who have yet to wake up to
what it means for them, and by academics who while knowing the origin
of the term, have their interest largely elsewhere. So presently the
provenance is mentioned strictly within the context of Greek religion,
which is usually the subject in hand. Few studies specifically cover
goetia as a stand alone subject as yet, the best one being in German,
by Walter Burkert. Even that is in the context of the 'Greek
shamanism' debate, rather than the history of Western magic. The
debate is among the most interesting in academia over the last decades
from a western magical perspective however, if the full implications
are grasped.
It is self evident since the origins of goetia are established in
Classical studies, and the link between those origins - via Orphic
texts, Magical Papyri, Byzantine and Arab conjure books - and the
grimoires is virtually non-controversial. It is important for the same
reasons, and because of the wider application of the term which these
origins establish.
> An important aspect of scholarship is clarifying to oneself and others what
> might look obvious to one.
mainstream Western Magic has sidetracked itself into a pointless
exploration of its supposed roots in Kabbalah. The neglect outside of
academia of Greco-Roman magic and its influence on subsequent
developments, is not something I'm going to resolve single handed. It
took about 20 years for my interest in the Lunar Mansions to be
reflected in occultism rather than academia, and it certainly wasn't
through my efforts alone when it happened. With goetia there is the
additional hazard to navigation of widespread conviction that folks
know all about it already! ;)
>Even then,I get the impression you are still in
> the process of thinking your ideas through.
If that is your impression you need to examine the implications of
what I have said, not because my study is or ever will be exhaustive
but the contrary. On a personal level I've identified what I need to,
and am taking time out from working with it on occasion to try and
interest others in real origins and the scope of what is latent
through neglect. The subject embraces far too much for any one person
to deal with single handed, - which is to say it offers a good deal,
much of which the revival is sorely lacking. If occultism neglects
this task, it must expect to become increasingly marginalised while
Living Traditions eclipse the fledgling Revival entirely. If we want
to contribute to the emerging synthesis that current 'global'
conditions permit, we need to re-examine the origins and first
intentions of Western magic, since without doing so the gulf between
ourselves and those traditions is so much the wider, and our potential
contribution so much the smaller.
In short, I don't consider myself exceptionally qualified, and the
task really requires a good many folks getting involved: academics AND
practitioners. Meanwhile, having identified the core area - ie goetia,
with all its implications - I feel obliged to point it out solo if
needs must.
I repeat, if this study is neglected by magicians, their loss will be
immeasurable. Mistaking goetia for conjuring spirits for personal
reward alone is an error, Western magic at present has no discernible
eschatology, a fundamental requirement of any real spiritual tradition
- in goetia properly understood it has one that is its rightful
inheritance. The phrase 'selling his birthright for a mess of pottage'
springs to mind.
ALWays
Jake
|
