BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Temple >

The importance, use and power of modern pop icons in (chaos) magick...

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
johnnyfuture
23:49 / 09.06.04
hey barbelith, long time listener, first time caller.

or at least first time in a long time.

so i guess i'm curious as to the differing opinions on the subect i've presented here. i've been a practitioner of chaos magick (in a myriad of forms) for the better half of a decade (not much for time, but i swear i've got some pedigree), and i have had some fine success with the invocation and evocation of, what most would call, pop icons - pop icons who are no longer with us in the flesh suits, are really more akin to pop-legends.

in this modern world, from my perch, these modern gods have power. i feel more connection to the movers and shakers of the past one hundred or even two hundred years (and to diverge, what of heroes long since gone, heroes and heroines we know from history books - ancient legends, yet still an epoch removed from the gods...) than i do to gods and legends of, egypt and india, or even christendom.

so i guess, i'm big on archetypes, and archetypical forms and transmissions - i dare say, some gods have even more primal and primordial archetypes, and that most gods are combination archetypes (thus losing much of their archetypical-ness) - this is not much different when applied to the 'pop-icons' of other ages. what were the ancient heroes but pop-icons of their day, whether lavishly imagined, or realized (and lavishly embellished)...

to me, a combo archetype is a combo archetype, no matter when it became what it is. that being said, i've never tried anything with a living legend - i figure there would be too much interference, and i'm not big on subjucation of will, and therefore, not big on possession, and that's a little close to the bone.

but what about you? eh? is this something you've tried? accomplished? scoffed at? ever evoked the spirit of john lennon? (ala the invisibles?) have you ever invoked the spirit of action? (ala bruce lee?)

what of fred bear? eh?
what of ghandi?
what of your ancestors?

for aeon, we have evoked and invoked, honored, respected and at times called upon, the spirits of our ancestors... in this growing and modern world of globalization and multi-lateralism - a world of strife between the western way, and the old way (my god, the pantheon of the modern world even has it's own dichotomy) - pop icons transcend the only boundaries that we have left, culture boundaries and national borders.

most gods couldn't do that without sparking wars, or blood feuds or... worse?

and history is not without it's darkness, the 'dark' finds it's friends among the hitlers and the stalins and the khomeines - dark gods, that when seen in different lights, aren't so dark at all - like a twisted sort of driven...

if the dead live on through their legends, isn't that enough? and in theory, wouldn't he/she/it only need (and i emphasize, need) to be a legend in your own mind?

chaoooooooo-te

the difference between yesterday and tomorrow is today - work it like you need it girl.

johnny
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
00:49 / 10.06.04
Bollocks mate.

There’s only one religion. If any of this is real, in a greater sense than a wish fulfilment construct of your conscious mind, then how could there ever be anything other than one religion. Anything a magician does is an approach towards the same essential experience filtered through a different cultural perspective. The tendency to pigeonhole another cultures conception of the structure of reality into modern western belief systems such as Jungian psychology is problematic to say to least. What you approach in terms of Superman might very well be the same essential structural component of reality that the Greek’s approached in terms of Apollo. Look at something like Santeria, and the 21 aspects of Ellegua, and how they differ. Think about that. The concept of Jungian archetypes is a woefully outdated way of describing a more integrative, creative, holistic, fulfilling, scarier and sexier approach to the same unfathomable Mysteries.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
00:58 / 10.06.04
Put in mod request to delete woefully unneccessary angry last sentence. Drunk. Model of occultism I think deserves overdue criticism. No offence intended towards the previous poster. Just drunken annoyance at something that I really think needs picking apart and looking at from an alternative perspective.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
01:22 / 10.06.04
Looking aghast at previous post. Really sorry mate. I'm just absurdly passionate on this subject. And Sicilian.

I just think you're missing the most desperately important point, which is to say that the conceptual mechanisms by which we approach the nature of reality/the universe/whatever, are the map not the territory, to use a filthily cliched turn of phrase. Which is not to say that our experience of these things is not significantly modified by the filters we approach them through, but neither are they just sub-routines of a psychological pattern existing entirely within our central nervous system. There seems to be more to it than that, in my opinion. By approaching these things from a perspective where you've seemingly already made your mind up as to what they are and the parameters by which they might operate, then I think your reducing your scope for development as a magician. Which is why I like to challenge this stuff.
 
 
johnnyfuture
01:52 / 10.06.04
the western perspective isn't a perspective? my perspective isn't a perspective? i asked a question with a smile on my face, and in turn, i will not allow the pure existential fury of your better-than-me reply in any way hinder the furthering of my courious -ness.

i guess when you say:
"What you approach in terms of Superman might very well be the same essential structural component of reality that the Greek’s approached in terms of Apollo. " i may have invoked comic books, but i never said superman.
it feels like you're reiterating my point as a matter of polite acquiesence. so thanks. i agree with you too... i think?

one religion - what do you mean? is it my religion, and your religion or is it your religion, and fuck all? is it my religion, is your religion, is his religion, is the religion?

when you say:
"Anything a magician does is an approach towards the same essential experience filtered through a different cultural perspective." you are correct, and that is another point in support of my question. so why all the fuss and ruccus?

one religion, journey through the unfettered -ness at the core of everything. cores, unfettered -ness -ness, union with the unity, and jiggaddy jiggaddy joo joo boo. one religion, many beliefs - and we're all looking for and at the same thing, and then we confuse it in the details.

noticing is half the battle.

the long of the short is, no matter how similar everything is, it's all different. whether it's vodou, voodoo, kaballah, kabballah, qabalah - if it's all the same thing, if it's really just the one religion. all the same, all different, yet the same.

all roads lead to rome compadre, so long as they lead to rome. the picture is all things, and that means ALL of it, large small, right wrong, ever last opposite, every last thing is the one thing, is made of the one thing, but in this world, the one thing is every different thing - what matters is how you understand it, that's the way to do it.

the way that works is the right way.

so go with what is a more integrative, creative, holistic, fulfilling, scarier and sexier approach for you - my journey is all those things enough for me, and i'll walk and dance and learn and suffer at my own pace, and with my own ideas and ideals, thank you.

i thought i was dealing with magickians and chaotes and creative folk not so much pricky assholes and their metaphysical high horses.

consider myself woken.

nothing is true, everything is permitted.

do what thou will is the whole of the law. love is the law, love under will.

how dare i, how dare i oh my oh me oh my fucking god.

you're picking at me, i'm picking at you, and in the grand scheme of all things, this is absolutely rediculous, and unimportant, so i leave you with a picture:
"dancing, with the fire of insanity, through a field of unburnt grass. the moon is full, her energy a torrent. and i bask, i bask, i bask, and i dance" if you can dance, dance.
 
 
johnnyfuture
01:55 / 10.06.04
well. poo.

you got me all fired up, and then we both cooled off. i'm down. let's dance.

sorry mate
 
 
johnnyfuture
02:04 / 10.06.04
"By approaching these things from a perspective where you've seemingly already made your mind up as to what they are and the parameters by which they might operate, then I think your reducing your scope for development as a magician. Which is why I like to challenge this stuff."

good valid point.

the magickal journey is as long as life, never-ending. the magick along the way is worked and re-worked, and re-issued and re-used and refined all along the journey.

so far as magick is concerned, i'm just stating from a personally proven postulate. i know no bounds, and i do not presume that anything, or anyone else does either...

good phrase about the difference between the map and the terrain, excellent. a very very key and clutch point - to which i must say, the map is wholly not necessary - but it makes it easier to get back, and to get around, from place you know, to place you know, to places you don't.
 
 
eye landed
08:32 / 10.06.04
Well!

Pop icons are valid gods, but not replacements for the old ones.

Ancient deities represent ancient neurocultural structures, while recent deities represent recent ones. Deities that last for thousands of years represent structures that endure, while John Lennon might be meaningless in 2023. On the other hand, Charles Darwin represents some aspects of new culture far better than Quetzalcoatl.

A further complication is in modern gods who claim/seem to have ancient cognates, like Superman or the Lovecraftians.

As far as more power, Id say no. But in some cases, modern gods are far more efficient. For example, a lot of people will respond better to the four Beatles than the four sons of Horus: you can use the similarities to explain a concept to such people.

What kind of interference do you expect from 'living legends'?
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:40 / 10.06.04
Note to self. Do not drink six pints of Stella then look at the Temple.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
08:42 / 10.06.04
And in the cold light of morning, I'd still rather be described as a "pricky asshole on a metaphysical high horse" than as a "chaote". Whatever that means.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
10:20 / 10.06.04
Ultimately, I wanted this thread to develop into something other than the usual round of "Yeah, man. Pop culture godforms! Isn't that cool!". Because I don't think that gets us anywhere. I think that pop culture icons can reflect some of the concepts embodied by older entities, but its not as simple as that. I think that, say, James Dean or Marilyn Monroe, function as archetypes and can be worked with as such. But I don't think it's actually those specific people, who lived and died and ate cornflakes, that you're working with. I think that they function as a modern permutation of something more primal and hardwired into the human experience, and as such this practice is possibly analogous to the process whereby a culture's ancestors are accorded divine status.

I think that working with pop-culture icons is a valid practice, but it can be a bit problematic. I think that a lot of this comes down to how Gods tend to be approached in chaos magic and contemporary western magic in general. There's a sense that the Gods are functional, like an amped up version of a servitor. When you want something done, you might do a ritual to petition them one evening. If fact, the idea that a "godform" is just a servitor that's been really well fed is a really popular bit of chaos magic dogma, and is also, in my opinion, problematic. If you're working with entities according to this model, then I can see how pop culture icons might be more rewarding and approachable than those of Ancient Egypt, because in a certain sense they are more alive and vibrant within our culture.

However, working with entities is, or can be, a more complex, challenging and rewarding a deal than just a series of cold magical transactions. It can be about living relationships, and the union between yourself and something larger than yourself. There's a whole religious devotional aspect to working with God/desses that a lot of contemporary magicians seem to shy away from. Most probably because of bad experiences with organised religion and church dogma, but in a lot of ways I think that's throwing the baby out with the bath water. As far as I'm concerned, the religious and devotional aspects of working with God/desses is where it's at. More often than not, the pop culture icon approach to entity work excises this aspect. It encourages us to think of God/desses as something that can be easily categorised, explained away in terms of popular psychology, and effectively undermines the essential component of awe and mystery that makes entity work so powerful and rewarding.

I think that one of the problems with the pop culture icon model, in its current incarnation, is that it provides too much of a post-modern safety net. You're unlikely to be quite so scared of working with Darth Vader as you are with some other personalities I could mention. In the back of your head you're always going to be thinking "this is just a fictional character, somebody made this up, it's all just in my head and the entity is just a tool that I'm using towards a certain end of my own devising". That's a bit of a cage with golden bars. If your entities don't have the potential to terrify the hell out of you, dissolve your ego, and push you into areas that really test you and your notions of self - then we're not really talking about the same thing when we say entity work.

In a similar sense, you are might not have quite the same qualititative experience meditating on the vast 1000 year old tapestry of associations, range of personality and complex of meaning expressed by the Goddess Kali, as you might if you were meditating on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Unless what you address as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is actually something more primal that is willing to be approached in terms of that pop culture mask.

Am I making any sense? I thought at the very least you deserved a more lucid version of my thoughts on this subject. I'm not normally quite as ridiculous a character as the "drunken crazy person" version of myself that you encountered at 3am last night. But it happens.
 
 
illmatic
10:48 / 10.06.04
Just thought I'd chime in with a comment on the whole "Jungian archetypes" things - I've had a number of experiences with what I would class as "archetypal" material ie. it's material coming from a source within me, somewhere, but still very far from my conscious self. I don't know to what degree these validiate Jungian ideas, I'm not that well read in his work, but I still think the whole notion of archetypes, and other elements of Jung's work, are useful concepts. Babies, bathwater and all that.

I'd add that working with this stuff doesn't provide a reductive safety net - when it "goes live" in your head and you can't drop off to sleep for 5 minutes without being lauched into some kind of archetypal scenario it can still scare the crap out of you. Working with
entities or scenarios that may be "interior" to your psyche can still be powerful and moving.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
11:03 / 10.06.04
The pantheon of the song of the moon

The rascally rabbit
The greedy bandit
The hunter who never catches
The fustrated duck
The bird that always gets away
The crafty but hungry coyote
The eating demon
The invading outsider

and above and behind them all...
The animator

They are as much gods as Apollo...
Magick doesn't HAVE to be about religion though.

Another fecund cultural source for magick is the comic Johnny the Homocidal Maniac and the related series. In the series Johnny externalizes his inner drives and conflicts onto fetishes outside himself. The fetishes are fed "energy" from him and an outside source. They take on a life of their own. Several magick ideas are developed through out the series and in the sequels. HE does in fact face religion but it turns out to be irrelevant to him. Sigils appear throughout the work. Johnny himself would make a poor god form but there are items and characters/halucinations that would make better ones. There is more work on chaos exorcism through evoking and binding than there is "gods"
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:11 / 10.06.04
I think it really is a case of babies and bathwater, on both sides of the debate. My particular axe to grind is that the rhetoric of the pop icon/cultural archetype model tends to presuppose that its specific framework is all there is to entity work. I'll strongly challenge any statement that seems to say: "This is how it *really* works anyway, it's all just in your head, so there's no difference between working with Mickey Mouse and Odin". Because I don't personally believe, based on my own experiences, that this is the most accurate or useful model of the processes at work. It's often presented as a bit of a glib dissmissal of other people's practices and beliefs, which tends to grate with me a bit.

I don't doubt that you can work with archetypes at a magical level and have profound internal experiences working from that perspective. It really depends on the individual user. But that's certainly not the only valid or valuable model and approach to entity work. It winds me up when its implied that it is. I think there's something slightly fascistic about post-modern occultism, and certain areas of contemporary magical practice (such as pop icon godforms) rest on a whole complex of under-examined assumptions that are shaky at best. For instance, I hate the impetus to find a psuedo-rational explanation for everything, and fit magic into a structure that you could readily explain to the taxman. I think that magic is actually far stranger, more mysterious and inexplicable than the various aesthetically or intellectually pleasing models that we construct around it.
 
 
SteppersFan
12:15 / 10.06.04
Christ, this thread could do with a rewind.

There's still mileage in using pop icons, in my view. Just been having a most diverting discussion about the use of Barbie over at WiccaUK, funnily enough. Equally, lets not get too dismissive about Jungian archetypes.

Johnny, you named some examples, howzabout figuring out:

* what you'd use the deity for
* what sacrifice or devotional practice you'd give it
* what parallels / correspondences there might be between pop deities and trad deities

"Be nice to one another."
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:21 / 10.06.04
Magick doesn't HAVE to be about religion though.

No, but arguably the process of developing a relationship with something you consider to be a God or Goddess is by definition a religious one.
 
 
SteppersFan
12:42 / 10.06.04
Ancient deities represent ancient neurocultural structures, while recent deities represent recent ones. Deities that last for thousands of years represent structures that endure, while John Lennon might be meaningless in 2023.

I just wanna challenge this a teeny, tiny, little bit. I agree with lots of it but I just want to weaken the firmness of the conclusion.

I'm not sure that deities that "are" thousands of years old {i.e. appear to have persisted as culturally meaningful representations?} are necessarily consistent or even persistent structures. Clearly they change a lot; clearly they acquire new cultural and "magickal" associations; clearly they will have been transmitted largely orally and have changed a bit.

So if Lennon is meaningless in 200 years, well, that's been the fate of many deities.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
12:52 / 10.06.04
I'm not actually dismissing the idea of using pop cultural items in magic. I use pop cultural items in my magic. What I'm criticising is the various implied assumptions that tend to go along with that. I think there's more than one way to look at these things. For instance, when you place Barbie on your altar and make offerings, what is it that you are actually doing? Are you feeding a plastic doll and its accompanying international marketing scheme or are you using Barbie as a representation of the primal area of human consciousness that other cultures may have approached as Aphrodite. When you work with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, are you expecting Sarah Michele Gellar to intercede on your behalf, or are you actually doing business with a primal protective female force that hunts in the night, and doesn't mind being approached in those terms. I think that talking about these things as archetypes within the collective unconscious is no more or less accurate a model than calling them something like Spirits in the Waters.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
13:52 / 10.06.04
Johnny Future, I thought your post in response to my vicious unprovoked aggression last night was really good, and I agree with most of it. Certainly it was a more lucid sane and reasoned response than I at all warranted. Please keep it up. New voices in the Temple are exactly what's needed here. I shouldn't have been anywhere near a computer after nine hours of solid drinking. Not good at all. Although having said that, if it entices quality thought-provoking posts out of people and leads to a fresh and interesting debate, then a bit of fire and passion in the Temple is more than OK in my book.
 
 
Chiropteran
14:04 / 10.06.04
Just a little personal experience to throw in the mix (FWIW): I have worked both with Papa Legba, the Opener of the Way in the living tradition of Haitian Vodou, and with Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King from The Nightmare Before Christmas. My relationship with both was largely devotional, but I also petitioned for aid in appropriate magickal projects.

In my* experience there are significant differences, both in intensity of experience and day-to-day-life resonance -- and the differences, I'll hasten to say, are qualitative, not quantitative. That is, a service to Legba is not more intense than one to Jack, but it feels very very different.

To extrapolate from my experience, I might suggest that pop-culture figures are more readily approachable, more "willing" to work on our terms, more immediately intimate, and Jack at least even seems grateful (or better, "graciously appreciative"?) for the attention ("ah, someone is paying attention, someone notices I'm more than just a cartoon..."). Gods, on the other hand (or the Lwa or Orisha, etc.), seem to clearly have Their Own terms for how the relationship will progress, and for how close they will get to their worshippers, the types of offerings they will accept, and the petitions they will choose to answer. I think it's not stretching things too far to make a "dogs : wolves" analogy.

Legba also seems to have no qualms with knocking me on my ass when I go too long without giving him proper service, something Jack hasn't shown any inclination to do.

This being said, I also have the very definite impression that "Jack Skellington" is the face that a far older spirit or force is willing to assume in order to interface with me. Whether this is some specific ancient deity "re-born" or some other coalescence of "spiritual energy" (he says, waxing airy-fairy vague...) that never before cohered under a name and personality, I don't know. I do prefer to work under the assumption of an "external" reality of spirits, but experience of that "reality" seems to be pretty mutable and subjective.

I'm not suggesting any conclusions, just sharing observations.

~L

*YMMV, etc.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
15:11 / 10.06.04
Lepidopteran, what you wrote there is so close to my own experiences of those areas that I might have written it word for word.

When I worked extensively with the Lovecraftian entities I got the impression that I wasn't necessarily working with "Yog Sothoth" as a fictional character, but approaching some vast primal cosmic door opening mechanism of the universe that can be loosely comprehended in the terms provided by Lovecraft's fiction. I'd speculate that pop culture icons like Jack Skellington, Barbie or Buffy the Vampire Slayer might operate along similar lines. Which, to my mind, is really interesting and suggests that there's a bit more depth to working with pop culture items than the school of thought that says "all these things are just psychological tools, so Harry Potter is more potent than Horus by dint of his mass popularity". All I'm really arguing is that it's not as simple as that.
 
 
Nobody's girl
15:13 / 10.06.04
the way that works is the right way.

It has always been my opinion that in magick- if it works, use it.

How can magick be anything other than deeply personal? I decided 9 years ago that I would not join any magickal groups because all I had encountered would dictate to me the best way to do my magick. What arrogance!

Pop icons are valid gods, but not replacements for the old ones.

Why on earth not? I can see how pop icons could be infinitely more effective depending on the purpose you have in mind. Why is age automatically trumping our new icons? Who knows, perhaps clinging to old god-forms is detrimental to our spiritual evolution, like people who can't get over their past issues.

As far as I'm concerned, the religious and devotional aspects of working with God/desses is where it's at.

That's what works for you. Subservience has never worked for me in magick. I AM divine and see no reason to consider myself lesser than god-forms, just different.

In the back of your head you're always going to be thinking "this is just a fictional character, somebody made this up, it's all just in my head and the entity is just a tool that I'm using towards a certain end of my own devising".

I see no reason why the same thoughts would not appear when working with any God/dess. After all the God/dess of ancient peoples were just stories about their spiritual perspectives. Ancient Egyptian people did not have a more valid spiritual perspective than I do.

If your entities don't have the potential to terrify the hell out of you, dissolve your ego, and push you into areas that really test you and your notions of self - then we're not really talking about the same thing when we say entity work.

You've never had a nightmare that terrified you so much that you wake up screaming and unsure of who you are? I have. I was plagued by nightmares as a young girl. Guess what the central fear in these dreams was; not lovecraftian gods, not Kali, not Choronzon- it was the television. Television is associated to god-forms but it is most certainly a modern icon.

Unless what you address as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is actually something more primal that is willing to be approached in terms of that pop culture mask.

But thats what it always is- a facet of the greater god-form. Whether you approach it as Buffy, Kali or Margaret Thatcher. No one is objectively more valid. What works for you is most valid for you.

Because I don't personally believe, based on my own experiences, that this is the most accurate or useful model of the processes at work.

Good. You know what's most effective for you. There's no need to become hostile to other approaches and innovation. Personally I believe innovation is incredibly important to magick. Because that works for me.

It's often presented as a bit of a glib dissmissal of other people's practices and beliefs, which tends to grate with me a bit.

There's nothing glib about tolerance. It is the foundation of compassion, a most important magickal tool.

If I were to approach a Christian and tell them that the way they pray to their God was the wrong way, I would be arrogant, intolerant. Why is asserting your magickal practice is the best way any different? What's worse is you are curtailing important discussion on new directions in magick. A dreadful shame.
 
 
EvskiG
15:27 / 10.06.04
Hmm.

Gypsy Lantern and I had a discussion on this very subject a few weeks ago. As a result, I decided to try a bit of entity work myself, using Crowley's Liber Astarte (with a few modifications) for the basic structure.

Planned it out in some detail, started yesterday, and the synchronicities started popping up fast and furious before noon. And now this discussion.

I'll have more to say 29 days from now, once I've had a bit more time to practice and draw some conclusions. But it sounds like GL, Johnny and Co. already have reached a rough consensus that I've agreed with for some time . . .
 
 
SteppersFan
15:46 / 10.06.04
Well, yeah, OK Gypsy, that's a great conceptual framework for analysing the meaning of an icon.

But I'm interested in the HOW and the what, regardless of the why.

For, you've established a framework for critiquing the use of pop icons. OK. But it seems to me one can do the same job on any magickal practice. I think it's more important to look at how one would go about doing something with it, and pick up the methodological and philosophical issues on the way, while doing some thing. :-)

Not that I personally want to use Barbie :-).
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
16:11 / 10.06.04
What's worse is you are curtailing important discussion on new directions in magick. A dreadful shame.

Really? Apart from my thoroughly reprehensible initial drunken post, which I've felt quite rightly ashamed about all day, I thought I was posting a critique of an idea within contemporary magical practice in order to further debate around the issue. I'll be back in a minute to take you up on some of the other words you've just put in my mouth, but for now:

Subservience has never worked for me in magick.

I'm resolutely not talking about subserviance. Devotional practice is not subserviance.
 
 
Nobody's girl
16:19 / 10.06.04
Really? Apart from my thoroughly reprehensible initial drunken post, which I've felt quite rightly ashamed about all day, I thought I was posting a critique of an idea within contemporary magical practice in order to further debate around the issue.

Ha! Good point sir.

Devotional practice is not subserviance.

Hmmm. Not so sure about that, why call it devotional if so?
 
 
Chiropteran
17:28 / 10.06.04
RE: "devotion = subservience"

I am devoted to my mother. I am not subservient to her. I think it is entirely possible to show another being respect, care, even deference without rendering oneself a slave.

In Haitian Vodou, the Lwa possess members of the congregation to accept their offerings, give advice, and perform feats of prowess. They are very much present, and they make their power known. Nonetheless, if they get rowdy and disrupt the service (which of course is being held in their honor), the houngan or mambo will respectfully intercede and ask them to calm down and let the service continue, and with some incarnations of certain lwa will even scold them. Devotional, but not subservient.

In fact, while Vodouisants speak of "serving the Lwa," it is very much a two-way relationship: the Lwa need to be fed, so one gives them offerings and holds dances in their honor, and in return they protect and guide their devotees, sometimes granting direct, personal aid.

Also, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Asatru or other manifestations of Scandinavian "heathen" religion, but I was told (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) that the Aesir much prefer a devotee who has the inner strength to "stand and look them in the eye," who can show them the proper respect without grovelling or being overly, well, subservient -- which is in keeping with the characters of the gods, at least as we know them today.

With respect to "pop icon" entities, I again quote my own experience with Jack Skellington: "I use the word "worship," but in actuality it was less a religious experience than a... political one, perhaps, or a sense of affiliation? It felt less like I was making offerings to a God, and more like I had joined, say, a law firm and was making a toast to the senior partner or, I don't know, something like that. My feeling is that Jack rules Halloween because Jack is the best at Halloweening, but while he loves to be the center of attention, I think worship, per se, is a little...embarassing? Like he doesn't quite know what to do with it. Instead, during and after the ritual, I had a sense of being "on his team," like an agent or deputy, even a "knight" to the King - but not a follower or supplicant. The paradoxical image is of a monarch ruling over an anarchy - I don't quite know how else to describe it - the Autumn People conform to Jack's wishes when and if they choose, and we choose to recognize him as King, because he's so good at it. He's the Bone Daddy. *sigh* This has all spilled out in hindsight, trying to capture in words the feelings of last night. I don't know how clear I'm being."

So, yeah. I guess for a slightly lame closer I'll just repeat: devotion and devotional ritual do not necessarily entail subservience.

~L
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
20:04 / 10.06.04

Ha! Good point sir.

Cheers.

I’m really just trying to provide an alternative perspective so that we might gain more insight into the complexity of the matter under consideration. I’m playing devils advocate to a degree I suppose, but I think its necessary to openly critique some of these increasingly popular ideas within contemporary magic. I’m not a chaos magician, but surely that is what chaos magic should be about. Questioning received theory and practice. Considering things from multiple perspectives in order to comprehend more about them.

I genuinely feel that the discourse of contemporary magic, inclusive of chaos magic, has become a bit fat, bloated and decadent. I think it’s due for a bit of a shake up, and my way of contributing in some sense to this ongoing process is to try and engage critically with some of this stuff: sigils, servitors, pop culture icons, the notion of separate magical systems, etc… I find that I don’t really agree with a lot of it, and I think that there is a lot to be gained from openly challenging these things. All I’m really attempting to do is to try, in some sense, to encourage people involved with magic to perhaps reassess some of the most dominant contemporary modes of theory and practice. See if they come apart. Find out what’s there.

I post in the Temple because I want my perspectives on things challenged. If I’m going to go to the hassle of having a really heated debate about magic on barbelith, then I hope to come away from it with something to think about. Something that progresses my own position on things by exposure to other peoples perspectives and experience.

Hmmm. Not so sure about that, why call it devotional if so?

I’m not sure I have much to add to what Lepidopteran just said about the nature of devotional work. The use of the word “Devotion” is a bit semantically slippery isn’t it. The Lwa and Orisha each represent Powers, and by making offerings and service to them, you are brought within the presence of that Power. It’s a little like making really powerful allies, but it isn’t done in a conniving political way, it’s done with love and open heart because what you are actually making devotional service to are the divine operating principles of the universe and consciousness. It’s a religion, but it’s a gloriously Gnostic religion about the worship of things that are worth worshipping, the Sun, the Sky, the Ocean, Life and Death, Passion, Industry, the Crossroads at Midnight.
 
 
johnnyfuture
20:14 / 10.06.04
first, it's wonderful to see a thread explode into wonderous debate after writing a post last night that i was sure was just going to put a cap on everything i was trying to explore wit'yall.

second, i must agree with nobody when the girl says all she says about personal experience and practice. this milkshake? damn right, it's better than yours.

and lastly, except for some of the cutting lines from my initial response to the gypsy, i was never trying to belittle or marginalize anything/diety/one's beliefs or practices, nor was i attempting to state that pop icons are what i use solely in my practice... just that i find it easier to relate to 'icons' that have lived in the current epoch, the epoch that this manifestation has made it's time home.

and now, to get back to topic...

in all this talk of devotion, i must again agree with nobodysgirl, and to further and combine one of her points, devotion and subservience are like varying degrees of the same similarity, it's just a matter of how devoted, or how subservient you are - it's a matter of respect and power, how much respect you have for the object / diety / jiggady jiggady poo, and how much power you let someone / thing have over you and yours.

so far as the needing to be scared, and needing to be unsure... i can see it's necessity in certain situations, with certain works... but the same can be said for working with what you know and understand.

so long as you can work within the boundaries of the known, while still exploring the uncharted domains, you're doing ok by me. the gypsy makes an excellent point, when he alludes to the necessity of never stopping to learn, grow and evolve.

magick is neither here nor there - yet still both (and so are we).

and onward to godforms / archetypes / primal manifestations of the jiggady jiggady...

i'm going to have to say that i have had some strange experiences dealing with 'the ancients.' powerful and moving, but not so much suprising or frightening. there is a harshness (which is probably more like a dangerous, unpredictable ambivalence). dealing with gods from differing cultures and eras is a different experience. they are, well... different, and so it's beleivable.

the symbolic sacrifice of odin (his eye for the runes) is not something that surfaces often (enough) in 'western' or 'modern' culture.

some forms of change can be explained as sacrifice or as an exchange, it depends on your point of view. in this 'mine is mine, yours is yours (until it's mine)' world, we don't find too much sacrifice. it's an easy maze to get lost in, makes sense why so many people get lost in it.

it's just more fun to stand on the walls, skipping from start to finish, while playing everywhere in between.

it's so much easier to see and breathe up here.

without the bounds of human perception, all things are equal, as all things are one thing. without us, all things are just one thing. just 1 thing. i theo stun jung.

and some parting thoughts and replies:
what if the mystery of the old gods is half of their modern power? what if it really is just as simple as harry potter is more powerful than horus because he's more popular. ahh, the power of fear, and the fear of the unknown walking hand in hand.

lepidopteran, your words are true:
"To extrapolate from my experience, I might suggest that pop-culture figures are more readily approachable, more "willing" to work on our terms, more immediately intimate, and Jack at least even seems grateful (or better, "graciously appreciative"?) for the attention ("ah, someone is paying attention, someone notices I'm more than just a cartoon..."). Gods, on the other hand (or the Lwa or Orisha, etc.), seem to clearly have Their Own terms for how the relationship will progress, and for how close they will get to their worshippers, the types of offerings they will accept, and the petitions they will choose to answer. I think it's not stretching things too far to make a "dogs : wolves" analogy" - like bingo scoob
and:
"Also, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Asatru or other manifestations of Scandinavian "heathen" religion, but I was told (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) that the Aesir much prefer a devotee who has the inner strength to "stand and look them in the eye," who can show them the proper respect without grovelling or being overly, well, subservient -- which is in keeping with the characters of the gods, at least as we know them today" - i know a little, and i know that.

2stepfan: the analytical structures we use to tear down, are the same we use to create. it's the same tool box, you can pund and smash with the hammer, or you can pound the nails, but the only way to pound the nails into your own coffin, is to let someone else do it (or just let it be done). i agree with your critique, yet i must defend the gypper's methods.

i would like to state that i have never worked with barbie, and do not want to be associated in any way with this gross rumor - and furthermore, i haven't worked with any other character of modern fiction, pop or otherwise and although i can see the validity of it, and what i see doesn't really matter anyway, it wasn't the goal of my topic. it has however peaked my interest and i may give it a gizzle.

jiggady joo. jooo joo boo.

so 2stepper? you askin me for my opinion on my examples? you wanna see my papers? or is that like an op-en question to the floor to inspire thought from and on this topic?

to gypsy, i must agree, and expound my view, so that it can be dissagreed with. the godforms and their whatnots are not 'merely' creations of the mind, but i'd say that there is a helluva lot more to the mind that what we notice, enjoy and experience (even in the deepest depths of a magickal working) - and in this respect, it is my thought that they very well could be, and if we're all simply manifestations of a greater jiggady, this becomes even more true in my eyes.

ps, i've felt your apologies. even in a rage, the intelligent can remain friends - sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never kill me... 'course if you don't listen to them, you'll probably never learn anything from them.

pps, a label's a lablel's a label's a label... mate.

ppss, i too have posted in a passionately drunken rage at the apparent imbiciles on the other side of a screen - it's like it's own form of gnossis...

and i leave you with a final thought...
i wish that i had jesse's girl, (na nananananana) jesse's girl (na naananannanana) why can't i find a woman like that. (don't think i don't know!)
 
 
Z. deScathach
20:15 / 10.06.04
Dangie. I always seem to get in on this late.... The question that I have is, "Why does this need to be an either-or situation?" Looking at history, it's obvious that the gods of antiquity grew out of the imaginations of humanity. Over time, cults formed around them that no doubt gave them even greater power, and I would hazard, sentience. An example of what I'm talking about is basically along the lines of what has been said above in terms of qualitative and quantitative difference. I've worked with Xena Warrior Princess as an archetype. I suspect that the workings turned out well due to the fact that the series was in full swing at the time of the working. I wouldn't do that working now, however, as the series has sunk into obscurity. I believe that herein lies the difference. I've also done work DIRECTLY with the female warrior archetype, without using any intervening godform. What appears there is far more primal, a lot bigger, and more unpredictable. Still, the deity that appears to me is obviously symbolic using my own internal symbolism. Therefor, I conclude that the vision that I receive of this godform is a symbolic link to the force itself. Of course, all of that is just a model, but I find that it is one that has greater flexibility than some others.
 
 
johnnyfuture
21:07 / 10.06.04
i do most of my working in a method similar to z-man's.

i have found that i have a more proufound and fulfilling experience working with archetypes as opposed to 'godforms.'

i'm not a big fan of dogma (the movie was great, but the concept in application? ehhhh, not my thing man.)

i see archetypes as raw emissions from the source, like an ever cresting, never ending series of waves crashing on the shore of my psyche. as simple headers for the grand filing system. simple, yet simply complex beyond words.

i was more curious about anyone elses experiences with the use of pop-icons as 'alterna-gods' (as different faces for the combo-archetypes, as different combinations there of within the never ending stream), than i was stating their importance... that was part of the question.

wow, i guess i didn't realize how popular this brand of thought was. to diverge a little, it's an interesting thought of a modern culture having a magickal system. to have our own groups of gods, gods like television and money, incredibly powerful and potent in this society, so powerful that they almost leach the will right out of people into blind devotion, much like the ancient religions did to the dumbfounded (or simply primitive) masses. just as it is the same today, and the 'magickians' are the ones who understand the stories behind the ideas of the stories - teacher and student, yet set apart still.

in any sort of modern, or pop-magick working, you are definitely dealing with base constructs as powerful as any, but you are working within a system that has marginalized the very idea of magick.

but there is so much more to the magick than the system from whence it stems. there is your belief, and there is your need, and there are ten gazillion other factors, as no matter how strong your connection, to 'the source' or whatever, is, the effects and actualization of it all is filtered out (if not in aswell) through the details.

to use a downright vague, and pretty much just horrible example(i repeat horrible), let's say that luke works a little jive to win suzy over to his side. it's a really generic concept, and the working will filter through the details of life, and of course the working will succeed, if done correctly, it always will, but depending on the details, it might seem like a failure (it hasn't happened to me when i've worked like this, but there are scenarios where it might not).

i've done alot of work with the vague method, it's been seemingly effective and productive, and i feel like it's less of a tug on the whole cosmic string. it's like the magick of patience or something. it works... but sometimes, it just takes quite a while to filter down into the details.

i have found that all 'godforms' whether pop icons or ancient gods or whatever else the jiggady jiggs have their place within my workings. everything has it's place and purpose, it's just a matter of finding it.

you can hammer a nail with a screwdriver all day and never get the results you're looking for. every tool has its use, we've all got a different set of tools for a different job.

i like places like this because they let us all share our tools.

and somebody axed me about static, well lemme get it off my chest. i guess the static that i assume is present regarding living legends would stem from the living half of the legend tapping into the legend. or ... hrm...
i guess it's just not my thing.

and wow, i guess i just didn't realize that there was this whole wave of bloated chaos magickians trying to push some sort of dogma 'round on the resta-us - i was too busy doing my own thing, i may be a little dissapointed, but i guess i don't really care either...

it's just not my bag baby, e-yah
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
22:05 / 10.06.04
I've worked with Xena Warrior Princess as an archetype. I suspect that the workings turned out well due to the fact that the series was in full swing at the time of the working.

Hmmm. Whilst I tend to avoid embracing the whole “more popular equals more potent” equation, I can certainly appreciate the logic in that. I think that all of my perspectives on this subject are strongly modified by the nature of the entities I work with. When I talk about a qualitative difference between established entities and pop culture icons, what I’m really talking about is working with the Lwa and Orisha, who are of course the focus of a massive worldwide magical religion. It’s not quite the same experience as communicating with a dormant Sumerian demigod that hasn’t been worked with for 5000 years. The Powers in Vodou and Santeria are alive within the world. They don’t seem to have much of a problem relating to pop cultural items. I might place a picture of Beyonce on my altar, not to worship Beyonce Knowles, but to worship the Power that is riding her. The Saint that’s in her head when she ceases to be a normal person and embodies something, dare I say it, archetypal within popular culture. I don’t think there’s too much difference between that and placing an image of a Catholic Saint on an altar to represent the Lwa.

It’s not so much the concept of archetypes that I’m critical of, as it is the tendency within occultism to construct a glib psychological model of magic around that concept. I understand the term “archetype” to mean something more than a sub-routine of the brain, to the point where the word “archetype” becomes entirely synonymous with words like “Goddess”, “Saint” or “Power”. Or perhaps, if these processes are all happening entirely within the magicians mind, then what we call mind must be something far larger, more beautiful, complex, profound and mysterious than we could ever consciously imagine.


Therefor, I conclude that the vision that I receive of this godform is a symbolic link to the force itself. Of course, all of that is just a model, but I find that it is one that has greater flexibility than some others.

That’s pretty much been my experience of working with fictional and pop culture entities. I think what I’m clumsily grasping towards is more a reassessment of the “archetypes” model than a refutation of it.

it's just more fun to stand on the walls, skipping from start to finish, while playing everywhere in between. it's so much easier to see and breathe up here.

Yeah, but down here we’ve got a wicked soundsystem, all the best tunes, and the finest food, wine and drugs you’ve ever tasted.

I think you’re really missing my point about the nature of devotional practice, and how it differs from subservience to an external force. Devotional work tends to dissolve some of the self and other distinction. It encourages a conception of reality where we are part of an ongoing divine process rather than a single individual alone and disconnected from everything else. This is, I believe, the proper function of a religion. And if you just have that, in a truly Gnostic sense, and without any of the baggage and dogma that we tend to associate with organised world religion, then I think you’ve got something interesting going on. It’s not a case of bowing down to a controlling force, it’s about building good positive healthy relationships with the manifest nature and principles of reality.
 
 
Gypsy Lantern
22:23 / 10.06.04

and wow, i guess i just didn't realize that there was this whole wave of bloated chaos magickians trying to push some sort of dogma 'round on the resta-us


Well it’s not really that, so much as the general discourse of contemporary magic hasn’t really moved on a great deal from chaos magic. I think that chaos magic, as a magical current, has been on a big plateau for ages and is sinking into a bit of a decadent phase as all its best ideas permeate and ultimately become the mainstream. I think that contemporary magic is on the verge of another of its periodic mutations. Which is a good thing. There has to be movement and development in magical discourse.
 
 
johnnyfuture
23:59 / 10.06.04
to each their own.

my comment of skipping atop the maze was more of a metaphor for remembering that there is more to the 'mundane' world than what we see.

when you say:
every metaphor means something different to someone else, even when it means the same thing. the way it filters through the details.

"Devotional work tends to dissolve some of the self and other distinction. It encourages a conception of reality where we are part of an ongoing divine process rather than a single individual alone and disconnected from everything else." - i couldn't agree more. i'd say that any devotional work does the same thing, religious or otherwise. losing oneself in the divine process is bliss, it is ecstacy.

and it's different for everyone, or at least different for most. ahhh, differences. it's from our differences that we learn that we're so much the same.

some people transcend and some people connect, and thousands others do thousands of other things to get themselves back to their source, their ecstacy, their jiggady-boo, and it's all a part of the divine plan. even the (seemingly) anti and random elements are part of the divine plan.

some people see what is, some people see what isn't, but we're all seeing the same thing.

and as for the bloated gut of chaos magick, i'd have to say that... with inter-circle / magickian dialogue (such as this), the open eye and mind of chaos has the capability to grow exponentially, pushing the envelope. as different individuals share their knowledge with each other, we have more raw material to work with (in an almost scientific capacity). it's just a shame that the open eye and mind of chaos isn't so easily suited to the human mind of aesthetics and differences.

but, if that's the way people are doing their thing, that's the way they will do their thing, so long as i'm doing mine, it's cool. HOWEVER, there has been far too much magick lost over the years, and the established traditions do have their use/place/importance in the grand scheme of things, and i will not tell someone that they can't believe in something because it doesn't work for me, so long as it's working for them.

just do what works.
 
 
EvskiG
00:21 / 11.06.04
It's not so much the concept of archetypes that I’m critical of, as it is the tendency within occultism to construct a glib psychological model of magic around that concept. I understand the term "archetype" to mean something more than a sub-routine of the brain, to the point where the word "archetype" becomes entirely synonymous with words like "Goddess", "Saint" or "Power". Or perhaps, if these processes are all happening entirely within the magicians mind, then what we call mind must be something far larger, more beautiful, complex, profound and mysterious than we could ever consciously imagine.

It might be helpful to look at Jung's own thoughts about archetypes. Here's one example from On the Nature of the Psyche:

I must stress one aspect of the archetypes which will be obvious to anybody who has practical experience of these matters. That is, the archetypes have, when they appear, a distinctly numinous character which can only be described as "spiritual," if "magical" is too strong a word. Consequently this phenomenon is of the utmost significance for the psychology of religion. In its effects it is anything but unambiguous. It can be healing or destructive, but never indifferent, provided of course that it has attained a certain degree of clarity.[fn] This aspect deserves the epithet "spiritual" above all else. It not infrequently happens that the archetype appears in the form of a spirit in dreams or fantasy-products, or even comports itself like a ghost. There is a mystical aura about its numinosity, and it has a corresponding effect upon the emotions. It mobilizes philosophical and religion convictions in the very people who deemed themselves miles above any such fits of weakness. Often it drives with unexampled passion and remorseless logic towards its goal and draws the subject under its spell, from which despite the most desperate resistance he is unable, and finally no longer even willing, to break free, because the experience brings with it a depth and fulness of meaning that was unthinkable before. I fully appreciate the resistance that all rooted convictions are bound to put up against psychological discoveries of this kind. With more foreboding than real knowledge, most people feel afraid of the menacing power that lies fettered in each of us, only waiting for the magic word to release it from the spell. . . . .

[fn] Occasionally it is associated with synchronistic or parapsychic effects. I mean by synchronicity, as I have explained elsewhere, the not uncommonly observed "coincidence" of subjective and objective happenings, which just cannot be explained causally, at least in the present state of our knowledge. On this premise astrology is based and the methods of the I Ching. These observations, like the astrological findings, are not generally accepted, though as we know this has never hurt the facts. I mention these special effects solely for the sake of completeness and solely for the benefit of those readers who have had occasion to convince themselves of the reality of parapsychic phenomena . . . .
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply