BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The God(desses) we work with.

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
slinkyvagabond
21:00 / 18.05.03
Well, have you ever held the hand of the man who reads the news? (yes, I paraphrase) I've never had that dubious pleasure with Dubya but I'm still scared of him.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
12:36 / 19.05.03
Well, you've kind of reversed the implication. We believe the newsreader and GWB are real, even though we've never shook their hands. Are Horus et al on the same order? Maybe we don't need old gods, who may not be as relevent to our lives as, say, the triune goddess of Monica (advisor and/or noblewoman), Rachel (lamb) and Phoebe (moon).

I feel like I should say that I don't have an agenda here -- just exploring the idea.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
14:02 / 19.05.03
Maybe we don't need old gods, who may not be as relevant to our lives as, say, the triune goddess of Monica (advisor and/or noblewoman), Rachel (lamb) and Phoebe (moon).

I think all you're really changing is the outward anthropomorphised personality of the God/dess, not the essential nature. I mean, the concepts represented by Venus, Mars, Mercury, etc.. aren't exactly out of touch with the condition of modern man. You don't really have to come up with a new God to watch over, say, the bicycle courier, or delivery of e-mails, as these concepts are already watched over by Mercury and the crossroads/messenger Gods of a thousand pantheons. Our technology and culture might have changed, but the essential human condition hasn't really altered all that much. Gods seem to represent these bigger conceptual ideas that don't really get old and out-of-date.

The process you're describing seems closer to finding new filters for the essential energies - earlier on in this thread I was talking about how the personalities of venerated ancestors may have been grafted onto the archetypal 'forces' of the universe, and I think what you're talking about is quite close to this. Interacting with the archetypal 'forces' through the filtering medium of a remembered human personality, which in theory could just as easily be based on someone from a TV show as it could on our ancestors' ancestors.

I think there's a lot of mileage in this idea, and I often used to consider summoning the Spirit of Stone Cold Steve Austin to wreak havoc in the office where I used to work. But I also think there's an element of re-inventing the wheel here, depending on how its approached. Gods and Goddesses seem to gain much power from the belief invested in them, and the continuity of that belief over time. I think the creation of new God/desses is a process that occurs at a cultural level, and I don't think a person can effectively just 'make Gods up' one afternoon in such a calculated manner. You might create something workable, but it may not have the degree of oomph! and independent existence that specifically characterises working with God/desses.

Personally, I would find it difficult to believe in the cast of 'Friends' as anything more than a bunch of unbearably smug actors and actresses on a TV show - I don't think they fully embody the concepts that you're attributing to them. Obviously certain 'characters' do exist with enough iconic status to be interacted with quite successfully at a magickal level, but there's still the issue of independent existence and how this may connect to the continuity of belief over time.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
14:33 / 19.05.03
You don't really have to come up with a new God to watch over, say, the bicycle courier, or delivery of e-mails, as these concepts are already watched over by Mercury and the crossroads/messenger Gods of a thousand pantheons.

What bothers me here is that Mercury was Hermes and Hermes was Pan... or Pan-like. He was a rural fertility god, a Priapus or Midas, and was edited, or edited himself, or evolved, or reproduced so that Mercury is actually a descendant of Hermes--I think it depends on how you view the "biology" of it, but you get my drift--to fit the cosmology of more civilized people. We're pretty far from the pastoral context of the priapic Hermes. When we talk to Mercury, are we talking to Mercury the messenger or Mercury the thief? Because, y'know, you might not want to trust the thief. I think the Romans knew who they were talking to, or at least had clear ideas on how to figure it out, but these lines are extremely tangled for us because of language (another Mercury) and cultural barriers. Our cosmology is more sciency--we don't believe the universe was vomited by a serpent or shaped from clay by Khnum--so shouldn't we have our own Mercury? Isn't the FedEx Eagle or maybe the MSN Butterfly more a Mercury for our time?

And if the difference between Mercury as messenger and as thief is defined by the differentiator, then isn't something to be said for developing your own approach?
 
 
slinkyvagabond
23:14 / 21.05.03
I think that Gypsy was trying to say that the essence of whatever god/ess remains the same (or maybe s/he wasn't...). It doesn't matter if you call that force Mercury or Fed-Ex, the principle of such an entity is pretty much the same. The god/essess have always been mutable - I mean, they perform very similar functions in many cultures under different names, so conceivably it's perfectly feasible to call embodiment of love or war or whatever by whatever name is resonant in your culture and time. Perhaps it would be easier to access said force using a more culturally specific moniker but personally the reason I'd plump for Aphrodite over, I dunno, some hot actress who beds a lot of men (which I would feel is disrespectful in any case, to myself and to "love") is because there is a history of use and belief behind that particular embodiment of "love". So one can be more satisfied that one is using the best medium possible for connecting to that force, that lines won't get crossed. Or something. It just strikes me as having more power because there's collective will behind it but if it turns out that there's enough collective will to make the MSN butterfly the embodiment of safe/competent/intelligible delivery of messages (I can see that being hotly contested) then fair enough.

But isn't this just coming back to "what works for you"? I prefer chaos magic over very ritualised forms but I see the place for rituals within the (or should I say my?) CM system. But at the same time I'm not going to get down on myself if my ritual involves cigarettes rather than flaming torches (I'm being hypothetical here )

This probably belongs in that other thread. Gah.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
01:42 / 22.05.03
Yeah, I think a better way to get at what I was getting at is that maybe there are entities we work with every day who perform the same duties, enabling us to access and integrate them more fully into our lives. I wasn't proposing anything like "fuck the old gods."
 
 
6opow
09:38 / 22.05.03
"I am god. You are God. We are all God. Preposterous! I am God. You are God. Ridiculous! We are all God. Our God doesn’t operate that way! I am God. You are God. We are all God. Preposterous! I am God. You are God We are all God. Ridiculous! I am God. You are God. We are all God. Nonsensical! May all beings everywhere be enabled to carry out their lives in peace. And unless we are free of fear, peaceful and happy, we cannot fully bring an other to peace and happiness. So just once more with feeling. I am God. You are God. We are all God."
~Negativland

I like to work with people, so I guess those are the gods and goddesses I work with.

444
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
12:44 / 22.05.03
I tried something really weird last night, at the behest of my guardian goddess. She told me to go into a trance, focusing on a loved one, and just let my hand scribble or write whatever it writes, and then not to look at it. So I did that. Then, she told me to focus, and go to the dreaming and ask Dream to deliver the message to said loved one in their dreams. Which I did as well. I thought the whole experience took about an hour, but as soon as the message was delivered I left the Dreaming, and four freakin’ hours had past. I know using Gaiman characters isn’t quite the same as ancient goddesses, but any thoughts on this, anyone?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
06:51 / 14.06.03
Gaiman knows his myths (the basics, anyhow), so his characters are a good place to start interfacing IMHO.

Not strictly a Goddess either, but patron-wise I've been working with Marge Gundersson from Fargo for the last month or so. I'm hoping she'll help me to track down the things I need for my life here. I chose Marge for her persistancy, stability, and unflappability. She's not glamourous, but she's solid and smart, and gets what she needs from people without intimidation or agression. She's also got a nurturing element: she's totally supportive of her husband's wildfowl painting, and of course she spends the entire film being extremely pregnant.

Marge doesn't stand on ceremony and my invocations are therefore kept simple. I just watch scenes from the film on DVD and sip coffee.
 
 
FinderWolf
17:45 / 17.06.03
Has anyone heard about this book, THE DaVINCI CODE? Some interesting god and goddess-related bits from today's CNN article on this book:

>> It opens with a shocker: Jacques Sauniere, curator of the Louvre Museum, is shot in the Grand Gallery. As he is dying, he realizes he is the only person left to pass on an important secret. Later that night, an urgent visitor from the French equivalent of the FBI awakens Robert Langdon, a Harvard University professor visiting Paris, summoning him to the Louvre. Langdon, who studies symbols, had an appointment with Sauniere. But the curator never showed up.

>> It's a bizarre crime scene: Sauniere is found naked, arms and legs outstretched. Drawn on his chest in his own blood is a five-pointed star. Many would see the symbol as something satanic, but Langdon knows that its origin is quite different -- Venus, the goddess of love and beauty.

Whoa -- the five-pointed star is a Venus symbol? Where does this info. come from???

>> More clues are uncovered as Langdon is led to the "Mona Lisa," the "Madonna of the Rocks" and "The Last Supper." He recalls that Leonardo was part of a brotherhood that guarded an ancient secret dealing with the quest for the Holy Grail and the story of Jesus Christ. Later, he discovers that Sauniere was Leonardo's modern-day counterpart.

Leonardo DaVinci was part of a brotherhood that focused on the Grail?? This sounds like fact; I don't think it was invented for the novel.

>> Readers learn about early religious beliefs -- especially goddess worship and how it vanished through the years.

>> "In the early days ..., we lived in a world of gods and goddesses," Brown says. "Every Mars had an Athena. The god of war had the goddess of beauty; in the Egyptian tradition, Osiris and Isis. ... And now we live in a world solely of gods. The female counterpart has been erased.

>> "It's interesting to note that the word 'god' conjures power and awe, while the word 'goddess' sounds imaginary."

Interesting, eh....?
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply