BARBELITH underground
 

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


Fiction Suit: A User's Manual

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789

 
 
Fiction Suit Five
19:06 / 16.10.01
The fiction suit.
Is it a mask? Is it a shield to protect us and our fragile egos?
Or, is it an avatar?


Digital avatar, perhaps, of a new dimensional age. Anyone read A Voyage to Arcturus (A V a t AR?)? Good read. Now they'res a visionary chappie...
 
 
Rex City-zen
19:10 / 16.10.01
Try reading your favorite novel/story.
Replace your name with one of the characters/ people in the tale...
see what happens.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
20:10 / 16.10.01
I managed the reverse. Named a character in a game after a character in a book. Got used to responding to assumed name.

Reread book, started jumping when "my" name was used.
 
 
Seth
13:04 / 17.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Rex City-zen:
Try reading your favorite novel/story.
Replace your name with one of the characters/ people in the tale...
see what happens.


Already doing that with The Man Who Was Thursday (well, in a way).

One of the reasons I tried the Barbestreak was to see whether the name change could be permanent, the idea being that the name expressionless becomes used for something else entirely (off-board). Usage of the name on the board would “charge” it for it’s ultimate intended purpose. I probably will change my fictionsuit at some point in the near future in order to release the name expressionless, but I’ll do it by logging in with a new e-mail address, and I definitely won’t use my real name again (too weird).

Please don’t read that as “I always had another intention for the expressionless suit,” because I didn’t. It’s become something that I’m thinking of taking out into meatspace, not as a personal fictionsuit but as a band name. The name was originally going to be Thursday, but I gather this has already been taken by another band up in Scotland. This leads to another interesting question (this thread is overloaded with interesting questions already!): what may be the effect when a pre-existing name suddenly signifies something/someone else?

This is probably my favourite thread in my whole time on the site, and has inspired a hell of a lot of thinking and soul searching (at least, on my part). Thanks, Rex.

[ 17-10-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
Persephone
14:33 / 17.10.01
I am glad that expressionless is back. It's odd how you get attached to someone's name, I felt actually sad... as if expressionless had died. Now that is weird. It sort of makes me understand death differently. If you believe in reincarnation, you know that bodies die but not the spirit... i.e., the spirit of expressionless was obviously still alive and well and walking about the board in a new suit, but I *missed* the old suit & wanted it back. I also felt sad that Jack the Bodiless, the suit, lost his brother-suit (bodiless and expressionless seeming linguistically related).

Must think this over.
 
 
Rex City-zen
17:14 / 17.10.01
Perhaps the best way to revive this thread is to take the questions out and post them on another thread for true analysis and that way they won't get lost in the fun...
hmmm?
Oh...your welcome.Thank you for making it interesting.
We haven't even scratched the surface yet...
 
 
Seth
06:17 / 18.10.01
Persephone: That’s really sweet. No, I don’t mean that in a patronising sense. ‘Gis a big hug!

It’s interesting that you mention the linguistic relationship between my fictionsuit and Jack’s. It’s something I didn’t think about when I started on the board (funnily enough, my first name here was body-cavity-magnesium-nine, which also links to big brother’s name) – I just chose the first names that seemed natural. While I may not leave expressionless altogether, I do have plans for a new suit (which – coincidentally? – again links to my brother’s fictionsuit, this time thematically). Point is: I didn’t plan it that way, it just sort of happened. Is there a force involved that directed my hand? I couldn’t get over the strange sense that, for me, posting under my real name had somehow “offended” Barbelith (not the people here, some kind of ambiguous collective consciousness, I don’t know. Is the board alive? I would say a resounding “yes.” )

Rex: That sounds like a great idea. I agree that there’s a hell of a lot more to this, a lot more to explore. I recommend you cut out what you feel should form the basis of a new – fluff free – topic, and then we can all cut in anything we feel is important that you’ve missed.

[ 18-10-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
A. Machine
03:00 / 19.10.01
I agree that this whole thread has much promise. I'd like to see another iteration of it, now that it seems to have found it's feet, so to speak. Maybe open a new thread and state at the onset our assumptions and definitions, and go from there. Or start a thread to define and then another to actually cross-pollinate.
There are quite a few susbtopics here that I found got me thinking, I seem to have much different sets of assumptions than a lot of y'all. I had always used 'fiction suit' as a more casual term for godform. Given that I am a lot more free and casual in my views on godforms, I like the term. This whole thread, to me, reads like a talk on godforms and identity. A large topic that encompasses a lot of stuff, to be sure.
 
 
Rex City-zen
17:22 / 19.10.01
Very good Mr.Machine.
Your post is exactly the thinking I have been trying to solicit with this topic.Godforms/Avatars/Fictionsuits. "Fictionsuit" of course being the "hip" term of the moment.
Is it possible to create a whole new persona/suit that you can use/wear at will? To the point of having a new identity, foreign even unto yourself at points?
The dreaming body is a term used often in nagualism/shamanism. The perfected form of the self cast in the ether.Do you feel the fictionsuit ties into that train of thought?

Just a point:
The start of this whole idea came from reading the invisibles of course, but not in the way you think. Sure Morrison pointed out the idea- but it hit home to me when I looked up the Latin translation of Rex Mundi.

Rex= King,Ruler,Tyrant,Despot
Mundi= World,Universe,Fashion and Toilet.

I kid you not.
Why were all the characters named Jack/John?
Toilet.
Hence the black grail.
Think about this and get back to me.

(oooooohhh.....)
Always looking for a more interesting answer.
 
 
Mordant Carnival
17:51 / 19.10.01
After my little spat with Luke Wing over in the conversation, I've realized that my paranoia is now so sophisticated it's almost an independant entity in its own right. I've been toying with the idea of creating an identity for it, maybe even giving it a user name so it can hang out on the board.

The big advantages of this are:

#1: I could veiw my paranoia more objectively and it would cease to have power over me.

#2: If it's an independant entity, I could, in the fullness of time, sacrifice the bastard to Baphomet (or any other passing godform, really. I'm not that fussy.)
 
 
Rex City-zen
18:08 / 19.10.01
Hey...I like that.
Alot.
The creation of an individual entity with it's own quirks and history that can be dropped at any time.
Kind of like raising fictionsuits for slaughter??
Really takes the fuss out of ego obliteration- pick an ego, any ego-
The real question is similar to abortion: When does life begin??Are there any moral issues attatched?
A million questions leading to a million more...
koo koo ka choo
 
 
Ierne
18:44 / 19.10.01
I had always used 'fiction suit' as a more casual term for godform. Given that I am a lot more free and casual in my views on godforms, I like the term. – A. Machine

The term "godform" or the term "fiction suit"?

When I first came here I picked a pseudonym based upon a godform (Utherben). When the board crashed I re-registered under the name of a dead person (Ierne). I really haven't noticed a difference between posting under either name. I've posted more as Ierne, but I attribute that to getting more comfortable with the bb medium over time (Barbelith is my sole experience with a bb).
 
 
Rex City-zen
19:29 / 19.10.01
And all this time...I've been calling you Irene.
<<< Hangs head in shame>>>

I thought you were an irish girl who didn't bother with the nickname game on the BB.

<<<Shakes head from side to side>>>

Sorry.

ps.. FICTIONSUIT sounds so less pretensious than GODFORM eh?

[ 19-10-2001: Message edited by: Rex City-zen ]
 
 
Rex City-zen
20:11 / 19.10.01
If you believe strongly enough about something in the past will it become reality/ change the future? (ie Retroactive Enchantment)
 
 
A. Machine
20:58 / 19.10.01
<b>The term "godform" or the term "fiction suit"?</b>


Fiction suit. Though I use all sorts of terms interchangably, some have better connotations in some circumstances, as with anything.

This is a good catalyst to get me to think formally on this topic, thanks. Godforms/identity/masks and the matter of the relative 'truth' of them in actual practice has been a thread of thinking I've been let cook on a back burner for a number of years. Until just now, I've just sort of operated in regards to them on a subconscious hunch sort of level (which is how I get anything done, really.)
*stops writing for an hour to ponder*
I'm unused to having to communicate my thoughts to people who aren't trained in my personal metaphor alphabet. This takes some thought. I suspect it's going to come out as a rambly sort of stream-of-conscious list of ideas.
Playing with your identity is a possibly unhealthy thing if you go into with anything but full knowledge of the details, I think. Godforms are like bombs, dangerous to just pick up and toy with, fine and terribly useful in many situations if you know about demolitions. I don't think this is news to anyone, or at least I hope not. This thinking should apply to nearly any esoteric undertaking. It just seems that fiction suits or godforms (I'm going to use them interchangebly, I think, if I like to or not)
are especially dangerous to the unwise, as they can be picked up and used as an escape from identity instead of an extra one when the core is mastered. It can be used to hide from yourself, and this runs directly counter to what, for me, is the root of magic. You master what you have and learn to improve it, not flee from it and slap a patch over the bits you don't like.
See, I spent many years as a mask-wearer. A dishonest projection of self. A slick, idealized charlatan of a hipster named Machine. I don't think this is abnormal for most folks, most everyone spensds their teens uncomfortably trying to be what they think is cool. Machine, like many masks, got out of hand, though. I had no idea who I was or why I idealized the Machine's personality traits. I was holding a bomb with no demolitions training, so to speak. By wearing a fiction suit over an unrealized core self, I was rotting at the core. So, I stopped and became plain ol' Will for a few years. Mastering the 'factory suit' before getting any custom work done. (How can you reap the ample rewards of being whoever you want to be if you can master just one self?) Once I was Will well enough, a suit (Gator) organically developed over a period of a few more years. Gator grew a step at a time as a response to what my tribe needed and what facets of myself I could make to fit those needs. Gator grew to be my prime self, eventually, and I think maybe was too narrow to encompass all the things in my life. Machine, now A. Machine, just sort of reformed himself from the now-stable foundation I could provide, and he and Gator mooshed together into a binary unit. Two names for two aspects of the same suit. Like MPD, but controlled.

I hope this illustrates my point, and I'm happy to clarify if not, as always.
 
 
A. Machine
09:07 / 20.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Rex City-zen:
If you believe strongly enough about something in the past will it become reality/ change the future? (ie Retroactive Enchantment)


This is actually a key bit in the construction of A. Machine. We in the industry call it 'making shit up about your background until it's canon'. Retroactive enchantment is a nice term for a lie well-told. Inethical? Fuck no, you're being who you want instead of what circumstance makes you. Only when it's at the expense of others is it no longer morally viable. So, yes. "Reality is what you can get away with."
 
 
Seth
09:07 / 20.10.01
It’s not a new or particularly original thought, but the mapping and creating of separate identities could be seen as a particularly powerful form of neuro-linguitic programming. The logical progression from using individual techniques to target change in certain areas is to find a technique that can accomodate a spectrum of changes simultaneously. The new identity interacts with the identity/s that existed prior to its development, one or more identities becoming subsumed (or characteristics mingle and cross over).

As A.Machine’s post perfectly points out, you have to be careful how you resculpt yourself. These tools are only as good as the knowledge and character of the practitioner, which is why I questioned the lack of regulation on the therapy industry in this related Headshop thread (although these techniques don’t have to be used as therapy necessarily). These are not the kind of abilities you want to give to anyone irresponsible or unprepared.

I also agree that the past is pretty mutable if it exists only as memory. We’re in the business of consciously and unconsciously changing our memories everyday. Again this demands great responsibility. I only use it to try to get to the bottom of past experiences that I don’t understand, as a tool for finding the truth about myself and coming to terms with my past. I would say it’s best to make subtle changes to aid in self-growth, but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s successfully implemented a more radical overhaul of their memories. What did you change, how did you change it, and what were the advantages and disadvantages of doing it?
 
 
Rex City-zen
01:10 / 21.10.01
Welcome to machine.
The three preceeding posts by A.Machine and expressionless are perhaps the most well thought out posts I have ever seen and far exceeded anything I could have expected. (No offense to anyone...you're all brilliant)
I feel way in over my head...
But don't stop,please...
 
 
Rex City-zen
19:41 / 21.10.01
As well, is it not benificiary to be in control of Multiple Personalities as opposed to it actually being a hidden medical problem? I mean, knowing is the half the battle. Perhaps the problem lies in losing the original "factory" identity.
Look at Superman the movie, for example. The scene where Supes takes Lois flying and then Clar appears after his departure. Even though she is enamoured with him as Superman, he portrays a jealousy as Clark that her affections are for another man, beyond man, and in his current mindset as Clark, seems to incredible to compete with. Here is the problem: WE FORGET WHO WE ARE
I am not Rex or my "factorysuit" or any other of my secret identities. They are outfits I wear while I search for my TRUE self...
I hope that made some sense.
Danm Inferno Vodka...
 
 
Mordant Carnival
09:06 / 22.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Rex City-zen:
The creation of an individual entity with it's own quirks and history that can be dropped at any time.
Kind of like raising fictionsuits for slaughter??
The real question is similar to abortion: When does life begin??Are there any moral issues attatched?


No. It's my paranoia, for fuck's sake. It's a total bastard. It doesn't like anyone. If you locked it in a room by itself it would probably beat itself to death anyhow. Sacrificial slaughter's too good for it.
 
 
Persephone
09:43 / 22.10.01
I guess I don't understand how "godform" can be used interchangeably with "fiction suit." I understand fiction suit to mean a created identity that serves as an alternate self. Is that right? And if so, is godform an alternate self, not externalized?
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
09:43 / 22.10.01
I think Godforms and Fictionsuits are completely different things.

For example, Ganesh (the Barbelith poster) has chosen a fictionsuit based upon Lord Ganesh, the son of Shiva, Lord of Hosts, Lord of Obstacles, and first among the Hindu gods (a 'Godform' - i.e. a God with a nonthreatening PC title)

What Ganesh (barbelither) did was a respectful honoring of a godform.

Believing you are that god form or that the godform exists only in your mind is a different thing altogether.

Chaos magic dogma seems to lean towards the 'everything exists only in your mind and beliefs' end of things.

My experience with Gods (I'll stop using the PC 'godforms' term now) is that they are the sum of the core energies they represent (e.g., a death god represents the natural processes that we call 'death') plus the beliefs, prayers, etc. of their myriad believers over the years. They are alien and (within the domains of 'magic') more powerful than my 'Higher Self', 'Magician Self', or any other 'Fiction Suit' I could create.

Of course, they can't enjoy the pleasures of having a body. At least not without 'riding' someone.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
09:43 / 22.10.01
quote:Originally posted by A. Machine:
Two names for two aspects of the same suit. Like MPD, but controlled.



This is one of the aspects that I find hard to get my head around: Is it REALLY like MPD?

Do you forget your other selves as completely as MPD or is it just 'method acting' and/or intense roleplaying.

The reason I ask is that while I don't use a fiction suit on the board I have participated in the standard Chaos magic ego modification stuff, I've got my 'Magician Self' that I use when doing thaumaturgy etc. The only thing that has come close to feeling like MPD is when I allow a spirit ally to embody me during a shamanic session which is very different than a created 'persona'.

If it's not REALLY like MPD then doesn't using it in reference to it - based upon the 'MPD as a lifestyle choice' line from The Invisibles - inaccurate and just feeding into the hype of a marketing tagline?

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: Lothar Tuppan ]
 
 
Seth
14:22 / 22.10.01
I'm running a bit to catch up with the godforms concept (it's not a word I was familiar with prior to joining the board). AT the moment I'm working on inference. Does it mean different things to different people? Anyone got a "dictionary" definition?
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
15:42 / 22.10.01
I'm not sure there is a hard definition but here are some examples of usage from various Chaos magic practitioners.

"All rites, wherever they originate, are open to adaptation for individual needs and the following banishing cum opening rite is no exception. It does not, however, rely on the use of particular god/dess forms or obvious symbolism and does not rely on any particular scenario in order to be effective."
- from 'The Caltrop of Chaos' by Ray Sherwin

"The source of the Priestesses’ "weird voice" produces ideas related to the lunar oracular state BATHKOL, mentioned in Kenneth Grant’s books. The fact that in the vision the Priestess’s image and voice were sexually alluring connects the idea of this form of lunar magick with the god-form of this path, Khephra, the god who has "union with his hand", formulating the succubus, or shadow woman of the moon."
-from 'Kephra' by Stephen Sennitt

"Cthulhu is a suitable god-form for the stimulation of telepathic 'sendings', and R'Lyeh a 'gateway' to the collective consciousness. This premise was the subject of a series of workings performed between 1979-80, sending a 'vibration' throughout the West Yorkshire region, acting as a kind of psychic telegram to draw other occultists into contact with Fra. Zebulon."
- from 'Cthulhu Invocation' by Frater Zebulon

"This vision of Sri Ramakrishna has a distinct erotic (particularly homoerotic) subtext. It suggests a range of possibilities for erotic meditations on the chakras. You could visualise yourself as entering each chakra in turn and stimulating it into ‘wakefulness’, perhaps visualising the ‘lotuses’ as labia or phalluses. As a variation, you might visualise an appropriate god or goddess-form (Shiva, Mohini, etc. or even succubi & incubi) doing the same, or a lover, or an ‘ideal type’ lover-image."
- From 'The Erotic Body Alchemy of the Chakras' by Kalkinath

All of the above examples seem to indicate that 'God Form' is a new-fangled term for god or deity or entity etc. It's also a term that relegates the entity in question to a status of almost a programmed robot. They are no longer gods, they are god forms.

The term can be useful in that it keeps the discussion from dropping into a religious debate of who's way of worshipping their GODS are correct (we're talking about the emotionally neutral 'god-form' not a GOD) but essentially it's just Chaos Magic jargon.
 
 
Seth
17:06 / 22.10.01
It does sound a bit disrespectful to the beings involved (and therefore dangerous). Maybe I'm still failing to fully grasp the concept, but I get the feeling that if they realised the manner in which you were addressing them they might turn round and twat you one on the back of the head. I am missing the point, aren't I?
 
 
Ierne
17:09 / 22.10.01
All of the above examples seem to indicate that 'God Form' is a new-fangled term for god or deity or entity etc...The term can be useful in that it keeps the discussion from dropping into a religious debate of who's way of worshipping their GODS are correct (we're talking about the emotionally neutral 'god-form' not a GOD) but essentially it's just Chaos Magic jargon. – Lothar Tuppan

I admit that I tend to use the term "god-form" in mixed company. It doesn't work for me internally, but serves to defuse tension in discussion with atheists, monotheists or those who insist on control in all spiritual matters (a "god-form" that one can interact with isn't as scary as a deity that has an agenda of hir own which one may or may not fit into).

I thought you were an irish girl who didn't bother with the nickname game on the BB. – Rex City-Zen

Ierne is indeed an Irish name...and was an Irish girl, once upon a time long ago...But I'm shy, and I like my privacy, so I use her name & not mine. So far she's not come back to complain!
 
 
Ierne
17:16 / 22.10.01
but I get the feeling that if they realised the manner in which you were addressing them they might turn round and twat you one on the back of the head. I am missing the point, aren't I? – expressionless

I think they would be more...creative than that! Even the more marital ones (Thor, Ares, Horus, Morrígan...) would find a clever way to show you who indeed IS in charge.

Or they'll just ignore your request/spell/working.
 
 
Rex City-zen
18:18 / 22.10.01
Here is where it starts to get tricky...ideas lost in definitions. What about the chaos dea of creating god-forms?? Sort of the same way Lennon was used in the invisible's trip? Could one invoke John, let him "walk-in"/ assume the identity as a fiction suit? Play piggyback with the pop god?
"We are what we pretend to be, so be careful what you pretend to be..."
I wish I could remember the quote exactly and who said it...but it stuck with me.
I'll do more research.
This thing is getting massive.
(er...the concepts being discussed,i mean, not anything , ahem, dirty.)
I can't believe this is upt to 6 pages...


[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: Rex City-zen ]
 
 
Persephone
18:54 / 22.10.01
Are we agreed that we are going to use "godform" to mean an entity, and "fictionsuit" to mean an outfit, so to speak?

Because then is what you are saying, what about the idea of letting a godform share your fictionsuit with you? So it would be me in here, *plus* the actual Persephone princess of darkness? Because to tell the truth I think she's moved in.

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: Persephone ]
 
 
Ierne
19:22 / 22.10.01
...what about the idea of letting a godform share your fictionsuit with you? – Persephone

That was (sort of) my original intention with Utherben. Not so much that He would take over, but sort of guide me through the ins and outs of the (then) new experience of posting to a bulletin board. I didn't really spend enough time as Utherben to know how Bendigedfran (Bran the Blessed) affected my posting here, if at all.

I certainly don't feel as if I've taken on any characteristcs of the original Ierne, although I did choose her for her outgoing & eloquent nature (which I myself lack!).
 
 
A. Machine
19:35 / 22.10.01
I'm the final rounds of a bout with Old Man Sleep Dep, and he's been winning. So, while there is a bunch of stuff in this thread I'd normally try to quote and address/discuss, for now I'm just going to ramble a bit and maybe come back to it when I'm more able to.
On the topic of the terms godform and fiction suit: I don't consider a god and a godform the same thing. A godform is a tarot card you wear. (Bear in mind, I seem to be of a decided chaos magic bent. I don't normally identify as one to myself, but my thinking, especially in conversation with a multitraditional bunch, is clearly chaos. When discussing things of this nature with others I am generally talking purely of technique and it's applications, not belief. If you think a godform a God or merely a fiction suit, that's your thing. Go to town. The practice is in most cases the same, no matter what you believe about what's going on.) And so, some may make what is simply an alternate identity. Others may be riden. Others may invoke a mask of a God symbolically to gain traits related to the God. Is this latter option actually being part of the God? It only matters to the person doing it and the God.
Personally, I work within whatever parameters of the above systems suit the situation (my state, the goals of the working, the entity in question, etc, ...). I /do/ identify with Gods and spirits, for the curious. I do not, however, feel myself possesed by them (normally), more akin to becoming one of their court, or a cell of the God. More shamanic, less, um, orishan?

I play with a wide variety of entities (call them what you will, I'm afraid to use a term at this point ), some Gods, some constructed masks, some spirits, one past life, and my late father, some fusions of 2 or 3 of the above. Some call all these different things, some subdivide them even further, some would consider them all different versions of the same thing based on the similarity of technique used in dealings with the entities. The point, I mean to imply no judgement on anyone's way.
For the curious, a quick list of stuff I work with: Horus, Ganesh, Legba, Archangels Michael and Gabriel, Nanite, Jesus, Thor, Pikachu, Odin, Superman, Batman, The Man With No Name, and others.

On the matter of MPD, it was perhaps an unwise term to use literally. I don't feel I can address the questions asked of me in regards to my use of it. I am often out of touch with myself<s> and my past, by design, circumstance and predisposition, and so cannot really make a valid statement. This may be an answer in and of itself.

I can't imagine I won't have more to say on this later, after I am rested. Again, apologies on my current state.
 
 
Persephone
01:19 / 23.10.01
Did anyone see what expressionless wrote in the PKD thread about Jesus being a fictionsuit for God? That blew my mind so hard, I think I have to lie down now.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
14:17 / 23.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Rex City-zen:
Here is where it starts to get tricky...ideas lost in definitions. What about the chaos dea of creating god-forms?? Sort of the same way Lennon was used in the invisible's trip? Could one invoke John, let him "walk-in"/ assume the identity as a fiction suit? Play piggyback with the pop god?



But here's the thing, and it has less to do with definitions and more with what is actually being done by the magician: The chaos magician isn't creating the 'god-form'. Lennon was 'worshipped' (almost literally) by huge amounts of screaming fans. His music still touches large groups of old and new fans, and he died publicly as a martyr of sorts. All of those things gave him an extra boost out of the range of an ancestor spirit into the realm of potential 'god-hood'. Similar things have happened within the Louisiana flavor of Voudoun with the original Dr. John and Marie Laveau. Both powerful people that when they died became more like true Loa and less like ancestor spirits. Similar to the concept of Sainthood and becoming a Buddha.

Isn't that kind of why Lennon is considered a 'Pop-God'? What separates him from, say the dead guy from Milli Vanilli is how many people loved and continue to love him.

All the Chaos Magician who chooses to 'channel' Lennon's spirit is doing is the same thing that various magicians have done for ages: Let the spirit ride around in their body and share power and knowledge. Whether it's called a shamanic mask, or being a 'Horse' etc. It's the same thing.

Even the Chaoate use of Lovecraft's pantheon is potentially successful because so many different rubes over the years thought the Necronomicon was real.

So yes, you can invoke John and let him play piggy back but it's no different than the Voudoun practitioner who invokes Marie Laveau and lets her ride piggy back or a shaman who invokes a powerful shaman ancestor and lets the spirit work through him. The only thing that chaos magic has done differently is think outside of established traditions as to who/what could be considered elligible for such activities.

If a magician actually 'creates' a 'god-form' it starts off as a servitor and it'll take a lot of work for it to get as powerful as someone/thing that has been worshipped, in one way or another, by lots of people.
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
14:48 / 23.10.01
quote:Originally posted by A. Machine:
On the topic of the terms godform and fiction suit: I don't consider a god and a godform the same thing. A godform is a tarot card you wear. (Bear in mind, I seem to be of a decided chaos magic bent. I don't normally identify as one to myself, but my thinking, especially in conversation with a multitraditional bunch, is clearly chaos


Here's a question then and I don't mean to single you out with it, it's more of a chicken and the egg question since quite a few people define 'god-form' in the same way you do. Part of the reason I'm having problems accepting the concept is that I can't really find any references to it.

In all of the stuff on Chaos Magic I've read (the above examples from my previous post, 'Prime Chaos', 'Condensed Chaos', 'The Psuedonomicon', and 'Liber Kaos') all seem to use 'god-form' as another name for god or deity, with the exception of "The Assumption of God-Forms" section in 'Condensed Chaos'. And that brief section describes nothing more than allowing yourself to be ridden by a chosen spirit/god/etc. (i.e., letting it into your body, merging to some degree with you for a specific purpose - the same way that cultures have done for ages just with Chaos Magic terms).

So where exactly do people get the idea that a 'god-form' is an assumed personality that the magician creates and wears come from?

What have I missed? Is there a text that covers that concept and practice or is this interpretation a misreading of the existing concept and practice?
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789

 
  
Add Your Reply