| |
|
Do the workings serve a similar purpose or is Lovecraftian magic distinctly different to demonology (or some Vodoun for that matter, dealing with the dark side of life)?
Quantum - I think you've raised an interesting point here regarding 'purpose' and it's relation to magical systems. Firstly, in relation to 'demonology' - by which I take it that you mean working with the collections of spirits (demons?) of the Goetia (tomes such as the Lemegeton, Picatrix, etc.) then 'purpose' is really determined by the operator. If you look at, say, the Lesser Key of Solomon, you've basically got a collection of spirits that are associated with particular tasks - from gaining a facility to foreign languages to divining the fate of kings. Other than that, there's no 'overall purpose' inherent in the practice other than ordering a spirit to go and do something on your behalf - all wrapped up in good old judeo-christian blood 'n' thunder (which provides the 'atmosphere', so to speak). Now one could argue that Goetic practice (basically evocatory) restricts the user to a limited range of 'purposes' - i.e. it's great for sorcery-type purposes but not so good for, say personal identity work.
If you look at a more 'sophisticated' magical approach - for example, Tantra, then you're looking at a 'system' which includes both a strong transpersonal approach and sorcery-type workings. Now with Tantra, one might say that it's ultimate 'purpose' is Liberation, but that term is fuzzy enough to encompass a wide range of meanings. If magical systems were work tools, then Tantra would be a swiss-army knife, whereas the Goetia would be a spoon. Does that make sense?
Moving back to 'Lovecraftian magic'. First of all, there isn't really a 'system' there - and I'm not convinced that making a magical 'system' out of Lovecraft is particularly useful in the long-term. As Leap points out (and yr thread in the 'books' section discussed) August Derleth spectacularly mangled Lovecraft's fragmentary ideas on a literary level - and attempts by occultists to 'fit' Lovecraft's entities onto the Tree of Life, or relate them to Crowley's work (as Kenneth Grant does) have a similar feel to me.
Secondly, as to the matter of 'purpose' in relation to Lovecraftian magic - again, it's pretty much up to the user. Just 'cos Lovecraft paints the Great Old Ones as 'orrible, doesn't mean that it restricts a magician to workings of a 'dark' nature. In fact I'd draw an analogy here between the GOOs and Kali here. If you look at say, early western (and, indeed, some Buddhist/Jain) depictions of Kali, you'll get a picture of her that's dark, horrible, degenerate, lustful etc. (a projection of British colonial attitudes about India, basically) - India Jones and the Temple of Doom sort of thing. Kali's much more complex than that, of course, but you wouldn't necessarily know that unless you started to either work with her magically or try and find out more about her.
To give you a very concrete and simple example of how Lovecraftian work has 'shaped' my magical work, reading The Dunwich Horror, with it's hill-noises, themes dealing with primal nature and general fortean weirdness inspired me to start looking into Earth Mysteries, go out for walks in hilly, desolate landscapes, and get into just digging the awe that one experiences standing on top of a mountain, feeling how precarious human habitation is in such places. This has also led to me re-evaluating my feelings about doing magic outdoors. A couple of weeks ago, standing on top of Thor's Cave in Derbyshire, I felt myself back in "Great Old Ones" country.
On a slightly different tack, Hermes' point about Lovecraft's 'tragic heroes' is also interpretable from a magical perspective - Lovecraft's 'heroes' often feel themselves to be 'outsiders' - standing 'apart' from the day-to-day concerns of their fellows. They browse through the Necromonicon, or have some kind of experience which draws them into a world of magic and heightened significance. This changes them - they can't go back from it - they are impelled by their realisations to act from that basis. Okay, Lovecraft has them ultimately ending up as a GOO breakfast snack, but this process can be read as an analogy for the process by which someone gets interested in magic, does stuff, is changed by the experience, and either draws back into rationalism, goes loopy in a dysfunctional way or goes loopy in the way that we 'all' know and recognise as being a 'magician' (or Illmatic's lovely acronym, PIMP). |
|
|
