 |
 |
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/