On 2 July 2010 08:47, toyin adepoju <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jake,I am intrigued by this comment of yours:
> "The spirits originally associated with goetic magic have
> definite characteristics and hierarchical strata. Insofar as the grimoires
> are a goetic genre, the 'Goetia of Solomon' has no particular claim on such
> spirits either in their older or later guises. There is also, incidentally,
> no such thing as 'goetic spirits'; the usage cannot be called an evolution
> of language so much as a degradation of a terminology both practitioners and
> academics need to understand properly. Goetia refers to the type of magic
> performed by a 'goes', for it obtains its name from the practitioner, the
> spirits involved require different terms."
> Are you indicating that the "characteristics and hierarchical strata" of the
> Goetic spirits is different from that developed in contemporary Goetic texts
> as Solomon's Goetia? If you are ,what makes you attribute  authority to one
> classification in relation to  another?

not at all, as observed to  Dan Harms earlier, the dead - the primary
concern of ancient goetia - were seen as organised hierarchically and
possessing particular characteristics. They are distinct from the
'evil spirits' of the GoS and other grimoires, in that while often
unruly they were not seen as collectively malevolent. The lowest forms
generally were, but others were either evolving or capable of
evolution, in this way closer to Ancestors and other dead in New world
and other traditions.

> Secondly,how would you approach  the question of a generic name for the
> spirits popularly  described as Goetic spirits? Why should he spirits be
> named  differently? What is lost in giving the same name to the spirit and
> the practitioner?Is the kind of magic done by a 'goes' so different from
> that of the contemporary Goetic form?Even if it is,can this naming not be
> understood to include a broader category of practices when referring to the
> practitioner  themselves?

generic names already exist, 'demons' in the case of of the grimoire
spirits, which as said are not restricted to the GoS. A good deal of
clarity has already been lost by misuse of the term goetia; see for
example Konstantinos (ik) who calls demons from the GoS 'goetic' but
not those from the GV. This misuse has become widespread and made
discussing goetia as a genre much more difficult. Both academics and
magicians interested in historical sources should take care with
antique terminology, it is in their interests to do so. Admittedly
there are layers of goetic history, Greek and Grimoire phases, and the
devaluation of the term also needs to be recognised (goetia was often
associated either with black magic or fraud, and the term developed
more universal negative associations than 'magic', although in origin
fairly respectable).

Clarity is lost, but what is gained by giving the same name to the
spirit and the practitioner? Absolutely nothing unless acquiescence in
a misnomer making for an easy life is a gain. Using it to describe
spirits means as little as calling them 'magics'.

Is the ancient form of goetia very different from grimoire
applications today? Absolutely, it formed part of funerary practice
and involved distinct eschatological and initiatory practices and
beliefs, as well as simply getting spirits to do what you want.

Even in the grimoires, goetia is a far broader term than a reference
to spirit summoning in a highly formalised fashion. There are goetic
forms of divination and of spell working that do not require the
procedures of the GoS, can in fact be done on a kitchen table.

> I doubt if your insistence on the ancientness of the magical tradition that
> has emerged in what you describe as the attenuated form represented by
> contemporary Goetic thought and practice  necessarily invalidates the
> reference to the spirits of the Goetia as Goetic spirits.  In speaking of
> Goetic spirits,one is referring to the sequence of spirits described in
>  particular books popularly known as  Goetia.

not so, in the misuse I describe it is taken that only one book
involves that term, and that the others don't - Agrippa on the other
hand refers to virtually the entire grimoire genre as goetic (as in
fact did Mathers and Waite, while Crowley begins the slide into
contemporary misunderstanding by never referring to Goetia separately
from the GoS). Having been in regular discussion for some years with
contemporary 'grimoirists' I can assure you that this understanding is
not widespread. The misusage is completely invalidated by the
historical background of the term, and its applicability to a wider
genre, 'demons'' don't need to be called Goetic spirits, and the
demons of one particular book are not distinct from the others in
nature or attributes. If one needs to distinguish the spirits of one
book from another, the books generally have titles, and acronyms like
GoS, KoS and GV provide easy and briefer alternatives. Goetia proper,
as the ONLY genuinely continuous element of the magical revival,
deserves to be clearly demarcated and understood.

>The etymology of the word might
> be different from that more modern use of the term,the spirits might have a
> much longer history than reflected in contemporary Goetic practice  but the
> contemporary reality is that,as far as I can see,the most widespread use of
> the magical tradition represented by  the concept of Goetia is in relation
> to the books  associated with   Goetia.

see above, in general usage *ONE* book is so understood, its
applicability to the wider genre even of books of the same type is NOT
widely appreciated. This understanding is both mistaken and unhelpful
in a variety of ways: in understanding historical terminology,
appreciating what goetia is and where it comes from.

Were we discussing Qabalah/Kabbalah folks would speedily point out
that gematria is not interchangeable with Kabbalah but a
sub-discipline. We wouldn't dream of saying - or not remarking on a
reference to the Tree of Life consisting of 10 Qabalahs. In astrology
we are carefult o disitnguish Houses from Signs, let alone planets and
aspects, and would not dream of referring to the practitioner as a
chart. Why should goetia - an enormous and fascinating subject - not
deserve such terminological precision? Perhaps I'm not ideally placed
to rectify the widespread misuse, but to defend it serves no purpose
at all.

The fact is I am sure modern academics are perfectly capable of
developing a meaningful shorthand and refer to ancient terminology
appropriately. How many of them will actually take a lead in
regenerating goetic magic is another matter, that requires addressing
'popular' understanding, and the finer points of the scientific
history of language are not the first thing on people's minds. It is
better to lead by example, and point out the historical usage and why
it is important, than to wade around in a mish mash out of deference
to 'the evolution of language'. The idea that language evolves is not
something I oppose. My point is that technical terminology is a
different category, and that referring back to sources requires
familiarity with the way these terms were used.

I personally do not see any advantage to retaining or defending the
contracted usage of this term. Particularly in the climate where both
goetia and an understanding of it have so much to offer.

ALWays

Jake

http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/