| |
|
Ghadis
...is a pretty inane comment. Trying to equate Ghede and Buffy as both potential deitys who at one time or another have to battle through the obstruction of past beliefs and ideas of people to gain their position is just stupid. It has nothing to do with the newness of a deity at all. It does have something to do with how that deity came about. Buffy is a fictional character. Thats it really. You can of course take a lot of ideas and inspiration from that character, you can also see that character as a form or a manifestation of deity and do a lot of magical work with her. But Buffy is not a potential deity and was not intended to be by her creator.
Intent by the creater vs. impact on the people who choose to work with said entity. The intent that I have with what I write, doesn't entirely govern how you choose to work with the book or perceive the ideas, as should be obvious from this thread. Nor does the intent of the creator of Buffy entirely govern how people choose to work with her, perceive etc. And how do you know Ghede isn't fictional? What makes Ghede more real than Buffy? Can you point to an actual historical personage that was Ghede? If not, I don't see how Ghede is different persay other than that he's been around a bit longer and worshipped/worked with as such.
Of course you could say that most Gods and Godesses have been built up and given form by stories and myth and have been syncretised with other ideas and gods but this has always been in the context of them already being Deity. If the pop culture approch to Buffy is to force Deity on to a fictional persona then that just leaves me with the question, why?
Why don't you qualify your definition of deity for me, because to me the ancient myths are just another form of fiction and the characters in them are fiction. But that's my opinion. Some may be based off of history, but not all of them. And yet people choose to believe in fictional gods and work with them. As for why to forcing deity, in your words, onto a fictional persona...again why not? If people choose to invest attention, belief etc in the characters that gives those characters life beyond the television screen, book, etc, which gives rise to the possibility of working with said characters. There's power in what people choose to invest their attention and beliefs in. tolkein's Lord of the rings is a good example. It's now considered a classic work of literature and has lasted long enough to be made into several different versions of movies. People invest a lot in the reading/watching of Lord of the rings, invest belief in the characters. And I think it's a waste not to work with that energy.
I think the problem that myself and a few others on this board have with this idea is one of depth and challenge. There is nothing wrong with building your own magical system and world view but i think it should be something that you have to work for.
This is a rather bald assumption on your point. Have you created a system of magic? Just fyi, it takes a lot of work to create a system of magic, as well as some borrowing from other systems of magic, which means you have to work at knowing those other systems and understanding how that's going to correlate/translate into a new system you're creating. Then you have to be able to explain how it works to other people and of course because it's untried territory, you're experimenting, which involves a lot of work as well. Some of what you do isn't going to work or will need to be tweaked in a different direction. I don't see how with any type of magic that you could not work at it. To make any kind of magic work, you have to put the time and persistence in.
The terms The Mysteries and The Work, i feel, are paramount to what magic is. You have to work your way through the mysteries and gain insights along the way. You can't do that with a system that you have completely made up yourself. You won't be challenged. We all have blind spots and weaknesses and i could make up a system of magick for myself tommorrow using charactors off childrens TV or Star Wars or something but that will still be my own system and it won't get under my skin and really bring out of myself what magick should bring out. We need the Mystery.
If you haven't done it, how do you know? Just because I've helped create a system of magic doesn't mean that I don't get anything out of it, that it doesn't get under my skin. Particularly if you share said system of magic with other people, it's going to evolve and change beyond your original intent. and let's not forget that by choosing to work with any entity, including a pop culture entity, you're still dealing with a being that has it's own perspective, and consequently is going to intervene or act in your life in ways you don't expect, getting under your skin and and making you work at it. To me working with pop culture is part of the Mystery...it's taking something that's current and seeing how working with that works or doesn't work. It's an experiment, with lots of unknowns. That's the fun of Mystery. I don't know if working with a particular pop culture entity will work out, but lets find out anyway. That's my approach and lo and behold at least for me it has worked. If it doesn't work for uou...if you need Ghede or some other older form of Deity to work with than go with that and get your mystery and work there. It goes back to what I said earlier: It's what YOU the magician chooses to invest in your approach to magic that determines how effective that magic is. You're absolutely right that you have to put the work and time into what you choose to do, but don't assume that just because an approach uses pop culture it's less valid than your own, at least not until you've tried it and put some effort into it. |
|
|
