| |
|
Invocation and evocation... I sometimes wonder how useful those categories actually are in terms of describing what happens when we interact with entities. To what extent are our actual experiences shaped by these classifications that we apply to them? I often find that evocatory work tends to involve a level of internal overshadowing, and invocatory work tends to seep over into the atmosphere of wherever you happen to be. How do you gauge whether something is conjured up and present in the room, or conjured into yourself or another? Is it really as clear cut as that? Is there an overlap between these conditions, and if so, is the categorisation of "invocation" and "evocation" a fairly arbitary one imposed onto the experience by the magician? How useful is it? What purpose does this classification serve? Does magic actually operate with this kind of self/other divide or is it something we construct ourselves as a filter on the experience?
Also, how would you differentiate invocation and evocation from possession? Generally, in possession work, you would do various things to call a Spirit down into a place, such as drawing their symbols on the ground, making offerings to them, drumming, dancing, etc... all of which has parallels with the idea of evocation. However, the aim of this evocatory work might be for the Spirit to take possession of someone in the ceremony, which is more like invocation.
I suppose you could argue that invocation in ceremonial magic tends to be a gentler and more subtle overshadowing than, say, a full possession in Vodou, where a celebrant's personality is completely displaced by the Spirit and they give prophecy, work magic, hold court, and so on. But I often find that there are different levels of possession anyway, ranging from being fully ridden to a mild overshadowing. My experience is often of a shift in the atmosphere of a place, which makes me feel differently – as if there is a strong presence in the room, which in turn effects what it feels like to be in that room. It's a bit like if a really angry, aggressive, confrontational person is present in your home, that presence would directly effect your experience of being there in the house with them. Working with Spirits seems to operate along similar lines, but the presence isnt tied to a body, so it can make you feel differently to the extent that you essentially start to become that presence yourself. Sometimes you embody the presence in the room or shift in atmosphere to such a degree that you are fully possessed by it, other times the shift in atmosphere may only bring on a shift in mood.
So how does this sort of process corelate with the categories of invocation and evocation? It seems to be a bit of both, and it does lead me to speculate that the use of such categories is something we impose onto the experience of interacting with an entity. Which is fair enough, if there's a good reason for applying these filters to the experience. Perhaps we want the specific effect of evoking something into a triangle, or invoking an emanation of divinity into yourself, and these experiences are integral to some Golden Dawn style system of spiritual attainment we're trying to make progress in. But for the most part, I'm not sure that's the case. It seems as if the inherited categories of invocation and evocation are just something that many contemporary magicians apply to interaction with entities as a matter of course, and they set artificial parameters for that interaction that might not always be useful or necessary for what you're trying to accomplish.
So to gear this more towards the question, I'd say that it's worth thinking in terms of interaction rather than evocation or invocation. Work out what it is you're actually trying to accomplish and approach it from that angle, rather than letting the form dictate the experience before you've even worked out which entity you want to speak to. I'd think about why you want to do this, which entity or spirit you want to communicate with, and what you hope to get from the operation. Then work out the most effective format for getting the kind of results you want from interaction with the specific entity you have in mind, taking into account the culture they belong to, the way they have traditionally been interacted with by previous generations, their likes, dislikes and idiosyncracies. What you ultimately want is results, so you have to gear the whole process in such a way that you will increase your likelihood of getting those results, conditioned by the resources available to you and what you can realistically accomplish.
I think entity interaction is best approached with a similar general ethic to human interaction. Say you were going on a date with someone who you know has refined tastes, and you wanted to impress them and attract their interest. A bunch of flowers and dinner at a flash restaurant is likely to influence that interaction and its outcome quite differently from a bag of chips and visit to your grimy local pub. I think that entity work operates on similar principles. If you know the Spirit in question likes all the pomp and circumstance of high ceremonial magic, then the closer you get to that, the happier and better disposed the entity is likely to be towards you. If you know they like a bottle of whisky, plates of spicy food and some drumming, then that's what's likely to get the best response, and therefore the best results. |
|
|
