BARBELITH underground
 

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


"Stupid" magick, religion and spirituality questions

 
  

Page: 1 ... 6768697071(72)7374757677... 83

 
 
EmberLeo
08:48 / 27.11.07
Hmm, I agree with the bit about most gods preferring to be acknowledged as actual gods, not ideas of gods.

But I think I disagree to the latter. Then again, maybe I have a more strenuous definition of "relationship" with gods than you do, but I have definitely had once-off arrangements with one or another power. I find it to be a bit like hiring an expert contractor. As long as you keep up your end of the bargain, and respect them and the work they are doing, there's no particular reason why a short-term arrangement *can't* work. And if you can arrange something that works at all, I expect it works much better than a servitor, because gods aren't anywhere near as limited in energy or wisdom as a servitor you constructed yourself.

It's just... well, it doesn't sound like this particular instance would include that kind of respect.

I am curious, I admit - why would a constructed servitor not require respect? I mean, once it's manifested, it's as real as anyone else, no? But then I've never been clear on whether they're meant to be machines or beings (and I'm not clear that machines aren't beings, for that matter...)

--Ember--
 
 
trouser the trouserian
08:55 / 27.11.07
See the Sloppy Servitor thread for relevant discussion here.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:21 / 27.11.07
Yeah, I'm a bit concerned that despite all the attempts that have been made in these parts to interrogate the concepts of sigils, servitors etc and to challenge the assumptions behind them, they still seem to be being taken as gospel (or at least as GCSE Physics) by some folks round here. If no one else has scared up the links to a few sigil threads by the time I get back from work, I'll have a go...
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:45 / 27.11.07
What I find really interesting about this is the power contained in the act of writing about magic. It's really fascinating how ideas and principles of magic can take root in popular consciousness once they have been written down and have this enormous hold over people and how they experience these things. For instance, I can't remember the author, but I clearly recall reading an essay on chaos magic in the late 90s called "Sigils, servitors and godforms" which detailed each approach as a sliding scale of results sorcery. All it takes is for someone to put down an idea like that convincingly, then it just seems to reverberate through other people's magic for decades afterwards. If chaos magic was about anything, it should have been about the importance of questioning and interrogating this sort of received definition of magic and not just accepting these second-hand principles as some sort of absolute. Yet here it is: "Should I use a servitor or a godform for this?" as if these two ideas and the assumptions behind them were basic principles that we all agreed on. As if there hasn't already been pages and pages of dialogue and discussion in this forum, probably even in this very thread, that tries to critically engage with the fundamental assumptions that this question seems to be operating from.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
10:28 / 27.11.07
If chaos magic was about anything, it should have been about the importance of questioning and interrogating this sort of received definition of magic and not just accepting these second-hand principles as some sort of absolute. Yet here it is: "Should I use a servitor or a godform for this?" as if these two ideas and the assumptions behind them were basic principles that we all agreed on.

That's a really good point Gypsy - perhaps something to continue on the meta-thread (which has moved on somewhat from matters of temple etiquette)?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:55 / 27.11.07
The whole "sigils, servitors, godforms" thing is one of the ideas in chaos magic that I really have a problem with because it's so reductivist and seems to distill all of the passion and creativity out of magic by boiling it all down to these basic mechanical principles that your choices are effectively limited to. I find this extremely theoretical and divorced from the lessons and realities of practice.

My experience of results magic is that every situation is totally different and any magical response that you make has to take into account all sorts of different tangential factors impacting on that situation. To reduce your responses to sigil, servitor or godform doesn't seem to engage with any of this. Akira didn't even tell us what s/he was actually trying to do, as if that bit of information is unimportant or wouldn't have any real bearing on the choice of servitor or God. When really, in reality-based results-orientated magic, the specifics of the situation is the most important thing to try and make sure you have a clear understanding of.

It might be the case that the problem at hand is impacted by a variety of other issues, and each issue will need a tailored response in order to swing things in the right direction. Sorting out one part of it might not make the whole problem go away, and you have to really get to grips with the complexity of what is going on at various levels if you're going to have any impact. Some situations are much simpler and more straightforward to work with than others, obviously, but even the simplest problem can benefit hugely from the kind of analytical attitude to the matter at hand that reductivist approaches to results magic often seem to skip over or dispense with entirely.

This is all ground that I think we've covered before, somewhere or other, but I find it interesting how you can spend years making lucid points like this in forums like barbelith and they are largely ignored or not taken particularly seriously. But if you were to put the very same ideas into a book or an authoritative sounding article on the internet somewhere, they would almost certainly be taken with more gravity and most likely haunt you for the next thirty years as people take your personal observations as gospel rather than observing their own results and thinking for themselves. I wonder if the person who wrote "Sigils, servitors and godforms" still adheres to the perspectives in that article as vigorously as significant bodies of chaos magicians on the internet appear to.
 
 
illmatic
10:59 / 27.11.07
I think it raises some interesting questions about the way our written descriptions of the world condition our perceptions. Just 'cos it's written down doesn't mean it's true.

Yet here it is: "Should I use a servitor or a godform for this?" ... As if there hasn't already been pages and pages of dialogue and discussion in this forum

But why should we assume that Akira has read all these? He has been on the board for awhile IIRC but that doesn't mean he has read or understands and remembers all those discussions that me, you, Mordant, and Trouser have been embroiled in to various degrees.

More broadly, not focusing on this particular poster, I think there's a way in which the most simple ideas have a kind of "shelf life" that more critical perspecitves do not. (This is what Koenig's essay "The McDonaldisation of Occulture" is about.) This simplification is one of the things behind Chaos Magic's success on the intenet.
 
 
illmatic
11:02 / 27.11.07
X post woops.

Not sure I agree with this: But if you were to put the very same ideas into a book or an authoritative sounding article on the internet somewhere they would almost certainly be taken with more gravity and most likely haunt you for the next thirty years as people take your personal observations as gospel

....insofar as I think what would survive is the most radically dumbed down version of your ideas, with all the context and spirit stripped out.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:26 / 27.11.07
But why should we assume that Akira has read all these?

Well, that's a comment I was going to make myself. Not everyone who comes to magic does so from the same position and perspective. Although there's a common tendency to assume that when someone uses any magical term such as "energy, servitor, sigil" that everyone else will understand what we mean - in practice, it's more often the case that what different people mean by the same terms are wildly different, as numerous threads in the temple amply demonstrate.

But if you were to put the very same ideas into a book or an authoritative sounding article on the internet somewhere, they would almost certainly be taken with more gravity and most likely haunt you for the next thirty years as people take your personal observations as gospel rather than observing their own results and thinking for themselves.

Ha! Ha! Yes, indeedy! I can certainly relate to that comment. I do think there's a wider discussion here about how certain types of textual productions (i.e. books) are given more "authority" than, say, discussions - be they oral or textual.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
11:53 / 27.11.07
But why should we assume that Akira has read all these?

Akira has been registered on here since 2001, longer than I have been in my current version, so whilst I can't remember any specific incidents, I find it very difficult to believe that there's someone who's been on barbelith for that amount of time who I haven't been involved in an argument with about this sort of stuff at one point or another!
 
 
Quantum
15:10 / 27.11.07
I do think there's a wider discussion here about how certain types of textual productions (i.e. books) are given more "authority" than, say, discussions - be they oral or textual.

I think that's well worth a thread.
 
 
Talas
16:57 / 27.11.07
Gypsy Lantern:

Are you thinking of Marik's essay, "Sigils, Servitors and Godforms", here and here?
 
 
EmberLeo
18:50 / 27.11.07
seems to distill all of the passion and creativity out of magic by boiling it all down to these basic mechanical principles that your choices are effectively limited to.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that distilling is limiting. I find it very useful to get to a distilled idea behind a complicated practice, because it helps me clarify which sorts of variations are appropriate, and which defeat the purpose...

I feel like those kinds of distilled ideas are seeds, from which more intricate things may grow. But only if you bother to water them, and give them light, etc.

--Ember--
 
 
illmatic
08:27 / 28.11.07
Ember: I take your basic point, but to illustrate through example, look at Spare's orignal work on sigils - embedded in a complex and strange metaphysics, combined with all kinds of perculiar concepts like "organic belief" and "atavistic nostalgia", symbols that weave in and out of beautiful artwork, and indeed weave in and out of a strange hermetic South London life...crabbed, ciphered, weird...

Compare that with the dumbed down "draw a squiggle, have a wank and you've got the cheat codes to universe" verbiage which fills the internet. I know which one I find more magical and inspiring.
 
 
illmatic
08:29 / 28.11.07
That article doesn't look as terrible as I thought it would be on first glance. Not had the time to read it properly yet though.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
09:16 / 28.11.07
That article doesn't look as terrible as I thought it would be on first glance. Not had the time to read it properly yet though.

That's sort of the point though isn't it. The original essay may have sang with the complexity and creativity of someone's magical practice, but the version that gets the most airplay is the lowest common denominator understanding of what s/he was trying their best to put across. Same sort of process as Spare and sigils.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that distilling is limiting. I find it very useful to get to a distilled idea behind a complicated practice

I wasn't claiming that the process of distillation is limiting in all circumstances. Without the process of distillation we wouldn't have alcohol, and then where would I be? But just as it's possible to distill something complex to its essence in order to better understand it, it's also possible to distill something in such a manner that you lose all of the qualities that made it interesting or valuable in the first place.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:19 / 28.11.07
Two threads which may be of interest here:

Sigils Are Boring and the older Limitations of Sigils.

(Actually, think I may X-post the links to the porn thread. Could be helpful.)
 
 
EmberLeo
18:57 / 28.11.07
Posting to say that I understand and agree with the distinction Rex and Gypsy are making, and it's the same distinction I was making, so it's all good.

--Ember--
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:11 / 04.12.07
The Salvia vs Glue thread made me think about all these binary distinctions that are made (Levi-Strauss here we come).. Quantum said: speaking to the spirit of Oak would be better than speaking to the spirit of an empty crisp packet I think.

I think he was trying to say that Oak is somehow more worthwhile than Empty Crisp Packet.

Now, I'm not talking to any spirits at all as far as I'm aware, so I'm asking: Why, Quantum?
I can certainly speculate: Oak is much older, and has a heck of lot more cultural & spiritual association around it. But on the other hand - have anyone here actually been in touch with the spirits of empty crisp packets? Or to take a less frivolous example - the spirit of a car? A gun? Plastics sui generis? Elevators?
 
 
Quantum
13:21 / 04.12.07
It's a 'bigger' concept. Car would be about equivalent to Oak IMHO, and as I said in the thread;
Glass spirits, electricity spirits, concrete spirits, the London Underground, I don't see how we can distinguish 'natural' from 'unnatural' myself. If everything's alive and conscious in some way, that includes man made objects just as much as plants and animals and rocks and rivers. I personally don't have much experience with spirit work but I can think of some buildings that seem alive and have an aura of magic about them, even though they're 'unnatural'.

Communing with the spirit of Bus is going to be more interesting and useful than the spirit of this particular pack of Quavers.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:32 / 04.12.07
Hm... So if I follow the broader concept idea, what's the difference between "Car" and "plastic snack containers"? I mean in terms of quality spirit time.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:33 / 04.12.07
Sorry, meant bigger, not broader.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
13:52 / 04.12.07
Which actually leads me on to another, slightly related question, about entity categorisation (in) magic.

Now, in cognitive anthropology there's been done a good deal of work in figuring out how people classify organic things into families and species and whatnot, so-called folk, or naive, biology (PDF). It turns out pretty much every culture out there puts animals, plants and other stuff into hierarchical, tree-like conceptual sets.

Is it somewhat the same for the spiritual realm? In the Christian worlds there seems to be at least two axes along which the supernatural is classified: material vs spiritual, with things, animals and people at one end and God at the other and the saints and angels in between. Then there's the holy vs unholy binary, basically good vs evil, angels vs demons, God and Satan.

How does your bigger v smaller idea fit into existing taxonomies of spirits?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:54 / 04.12.07
what's the difference between "Car" and "plastic snack containers"? I mean in terms of quality spirit time.

Why would you want to develop an animistic relationship with an empty packet of Quavers? I can think of any number of reasons for developing an animistic relationship with an individual car or with "Car" in an abstract sense. Shamanic work like this could perhaps best be thought of as a creative mechanism for better understanding mankind's relationship to the automobile, all that it means to us, how its existence has shaped our built environment, how it has contributed to the development of human civilisation since it was invented, how our dependence on it is impacting on our environment, right down to the specific day-to-day way that we relate to our vehicles, how we interact with them, how we think of them, what we do with them. A shamanic animistic relationship with "car" gets you very deep into this sort of territory and has you thinking about this ubiquitous object from all sorts of angles and perspectives that you otherwise might not touch on. Magical work along these lines essentially reframes how you perceive and relate to the object in question, be it car or oak. To some extent, it's a matter of utility. Cars are rather important to the human species, trees are even more important to the human species. You can learn a lot about your relationship to these things by interacting with them in this sort of way. I'm not sure what you might hope to learn about from a conversation with an empty packet of Quavers... Perhaps there's scope for taking an animistic perspective on "discarded packaging" in general, its certainly something that impacts the environment and the species. It's a bit of a weird direction to go in, but who's to say you wouldn't learn something from trying to really meditate on the idea of all this waste packaging that we fill the world with as some sort of collective spirit that's been brought into being.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
14:00 / 04.12.07
In reply to your first question, Gypsy Lantern: I haven't the foggiest. You give some good reasons, though.
 
 
grant
15:14 / 04.12.07
I'm not sure what you might hope to learn about from a conversation with an empty packet of Quavers...

I imagine a forensic pathologist examining a crime scene would have a few good questions, but yes, that's just further along what you're saying.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:00 / 04.12.07
Perhaps there's scope for taking an animistic perspective on "discarded packaging" in general, its certainly something that impacts the environment and the species. It's a bit of a weird direction to go in, but who's to say you wouldn't learn something from trying to really meditate on the idea of all this waste packaging that we fill the world with as some sort of collective spirit that's been brought into being.

Dude! Are you saying you don't hang out with Junk? Surely you do. Man, I don't know where I'd be without Junk (or La Basura as She is known in this neck of the woods). Half the best furniture in my flat came to me through Junk. I've had clothes, books, drawing and writing materials gifted to me by Her, not to mention any amount of componants for mojos and spells, gear for my altars, and divinatory messages. I'm not as tight with Junk as people I know who've had to live on the streets, but I give Her her due and I get good things in return.

It's a complex relationship. You feed Junk by sort of not feeding Her; the empty-crisp-packet componant of Her being isn't terribly worthwhile or helpful to anyone, so minimising the amount of empty-crisp-packet-type stuff you input will help guarantee a better, more intelligent, more profitable interaction. So there's a big incentive there to re-use, recycle, don't buy so much crap etc., but you should also ensure that Junk has good things to pass onto others. We have very active, thorough tribes of scavengers in my barrio so offerings are easy to make. Dumping a bin-bag full of good-quality old clothes isn't a waste because I know that someone will have them out as soon as it gets quiet enough to make the rounds. I also drop coins and other useful items near the dumpsters now and again.
 
 
Princess
17:15 / 04.12.07
There's a big section on her in "Urban Primitive", she's called Skor there, but basically the entity/dynamic.

Have you read it? Or is it just people having similar experiences?

I'm a big fan of her, personally.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:56 / 04.12.07
I haven't read it, no, although I've thumbed through it. Heathenry and NT is/are very animistic, very much about the spirits of the place as much as the big-name Gods. For me, approaching the City Spirits in this way is just a natural extension of that animism. If I was a farmer living 1000 years ago I'd be pouring milk out for the dwarf who lived in a nearby rock, but since I'm a 21st-century city-dweller I leave out offerings on junction-boxes and by dumpsters. (I do the rock-spirit thing too, of course. Got to make nice with the neighbours.)
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:05 / 04.12.07
My relationship with Junk is actually a very important part of my spiritual life in many ways. I see Her as many things. She is arguably the personification of much which is woeful (impending environmental cataclysm etc), but She's kind of an inevitable co-habitant of any human space. Everyone has junk. So She connects me to the City of which She's a huge part; She connects me, via Her more negative expressions, to the environmental concerns which are part of my portfolio of duties. She connects me to the rest of humanity. She connects me to the future ("what are we going to do with all this crap?") and She also connects me to the past as digging through our ancestor's trash reveals much about their lives.

And She's given me some really great chairs. Hail Junk!

(Hai guyz, do we need a junk thread?)
 
 
grant
18:10 / 04.12.07
Yes. I've been thinking about dedicating 2008 to clutter-whispering.
 
 
Princess
18:26 / 04.12.07
Well, we've got maybe six threads with the words "City Magic" in the title. Maybe four of them aren't about Grant Morrison, would communing with Junk fall into the remit of one of those threads?

Or would it be a thread of it's own?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
18:35 / 04.12.07
I think maybe rezzing a City Magic thread is a good idea. If only so that I can corrupt and ossify them with my fossilised hardline orthodoxy.
 
 
Quantum
19:31 / 04.12.07
(teehee, you orthodox fossil you)

How does your bigger v smaller idea fit into existing taxonomies of spirits?

Like choirs of angels or demons or families of spirits? Well, the Oak is like Michael, captain of the hosts of the Lord and the Quaver packet is like the Imp of Stale Bong Water.

I think of the spirits embodying concepts, and some concepts are more important than others. When I say 'bigger' I'm thinking of higher-order concepts that include others. The spirit of Junk is well worth having a relationship with, and the quaver packet is under her domain. Like the spirit of Oak is 'bigger' than any particular acorn or twig.
I should repeat the caveat that I don't work with spirits, this is just the way I think about them.
 
 
eye landed
04:42 / 06.12.07
i wrote this a while ago on facebook. since this is the 'stupid' thread, i hope we wont mind if i crosspost it.

the old deities have taken new forms, not just new names. but still, they touch our world from many directions in many dimensions: behind and inside as well as facing us. ubiquitous in obvious places, they can be seen by application of magic or during particular moments of syzygy (if you think there is a difference).

GODS are deep structures of brains or dna that create human values and dreams. they arose to prominence during the process of civilization, subjugating an older competing set of values based on nonhuman nature spirits. gods are a semiotic duality, in which a symbol and its reference can exchange features, thus making gods dynamic and alive. likely to have begun through chronic public invokation of an egregore, such as ritual reverence for a dead leader along with a physical symbol of his/her power-- for example, a skull, a weapon or tool, a likeness, a flag or emblem, or even a totem animal.

ANGELS are mathematical and selective principles of the universe in which we live. they can be conjured, interpreted, and exploited though not confined directly by a human mind. however, they can be confined by larger angels, which may be the basis of demon creation. those attached to the material world-- such as with a tree-- will present a face that we call a SPIRIT, which is part angel and part material. angels are perfect, since the machine of existence runs on their consensus. however, angels who are tied to the material can develop flaws, since that is the basis of material existence (there is a crack in everything, thats how the light gets in).

DEMONS are principles that humans use to control the world. are they tortured angels? are they forbidden spawn? are they imprisoned by the angel lucifer at our command? technology is the means used by humans to exploit demons. demons are imperfect: in addition to consuming psychic energy as fuel, each demon has a fatal flaw that will eventually lead to its messy doom, which often undoes the benefit the demon brought (leading to the necessity of the next demon). demons are entropic, and thus they contribute to the human metanarrative rather than providing a setting in which the story unfolds (as angels do).

ANIMALS are animals. those with relevance to human civilization have godly allies who often share a distinctive characteristic, but each animal specimen is a manifestation of its own animal deities. as a different species, it is usually difficult for humans to distinguish pluralism in the deity of each animal. canis lupus (and its familiaris variant) certainly has the most complex pantheon, but equus and ursus have decent genus-level pantheons, and class aves is mostly represented by order, with suborder distinction probably locally determined-- raptors and fowl to me, and of course passerines. animal deities vary by area, but their relevance to humans is mostly a matter of filling roles prescribed by the human brain. so one cultures wolf-myth is similar to another cultures tiger-myth, but not identical, because the roles are distributed across the spectrum of observed animals rather than assigned one-to-one. non-urban cultures may have gods who are mostly animal. if cities become political entities in such a culture, its gods will become progressively more humanish (my prediction).


sorry for going into such detail on animals, i was studying behaviour and taxonomy at that time. it made me wink that id just used the crack/light line in another thread here. clearly time to commune with the spirit known as leonard cohen (maybe hes on his way to godhood/head).

just to clarify in light of this thread...a car would be a demon, gruesomely patched together from tortured spirits of metal, the children of the rubber tree, rotating angels, and some kind of upholstery imp, and filled with the power of the oil djini...an oak tree would be a spirit that can act as a messenger to the 'oak' office in the bureaucracy of tree angels...jesus is a god who lives in a particular complex of thoughts and images which activate an electrical pattern in our brains, which inspire us to create particular thoughts and images.

and remember, i want you to tell me im wrong. so much that i will probably forgive you for not being nice about it.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 6768697071(72)7374757677... 83

 
  
Add Your Reply