BARBELITH underground
 

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


Gods vs Superheroes: talking about entity work

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Dead Megatron
19:24 / 04.01.06
Here are some examples of what I mean>

The companion of Odin

The companion of Thor


(pay attention to the myth of giant-builder, where the gods try to fool an honest giant, and after their scheme is fooloed by Loki's friendly behaviour with his relative, he is forced by the other gods to "make the con work after all", which he does, and Odin gets a big prize out of it, while Loki gets nothing but scorn)

Loki in other myths

(see here how, by cutting Sif's hair, Loki ends up providing the gods with very useful tools, the best of is none other than Thor's hammer, Mjolnir)

The character of Loki


So, in sum, Loki is the instigator of chaos, which in turn brings progress. More than a god of mischief, he is a god of cunning , playing pretty much the same role Ulysses plays in the Iliad: The Man with the Plan, and not just the Warrior that crushed all into submission, and thus, much more "likable" to modern mentality.

And, in those texts, you can see how unfair others gods are towards him. He always start by making some innocent prank (in this sense he is, indeed, a trickster god) that goes bad, usually due to other gods bad behaviour, than he is forced to fix everything, which he does better than expected, but still ends up being punished. Damn those self-centered Aesirs (who, without Loki, would have accomplished nothing).
 
 
Sekhmet
19:35 / 04.01.06
I always had the impression Loki may have been seriously slandered in norse mythology

I'll go with you on that to an extent, but do keep in mind that the surviving lore is the best record we have to work by, and it certainly doesn't paint Loki as a saint. He was clever and articulate, sure, and not generally cast as a fighter, but that doesn't mean he was just the smart guy who got bullied by the jock-gods. Loki wasn't merely perceived as a trickster; he lied, stole, swindled, sneered, mocked, seduced, and gave rise to monsters. That's what most of the stories are about; if it wasn't for Loki getting up to mischief, Norse myth would hardly be worth reading... and the gods would be lacking many of their greatest treasures. There are, of course, multiple ways to interpret myth.

However - to get back to the thread topic - if what you're talking about is the gods in the Marvel comics, and not the ones in the Eddas, it's another ball of wax entirely.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
21:20 / 04.01.06
Well gosh. Thanks for that, Dead Megatron; good thing you were here to scare up those links for us. I for one would never have thought to investigate the lore surrounding the Norse Gods in general and Loki in particular before I started, y'know, worshipping them.

Incidentally, you don't need to pluralise Æsir since it's already a plural (the singular is Áss, feminine Ásynja, feminine plural Ásynjur).

(Yes, I'm being a complete hard-on about this, but I'm feeling a mite nettled here.)
 
 
gravitybitch
01:43 / 05.01.06
Back on topic....

There's the idea of Greater and Lesser Mysteries - the Lesser you're not "s'pozedto" talk about, and the Greater you just can't talk about - language just cannot encompass the experience.

MC, you're definitely dealing with a Mystery of the Greater variety. I think the best you can do is say exactly that, explain that words are completely inadequate but you're going to try anyway, and then do your best to make your point from there.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
04:32 / 05.01.06
Controversially, I do believe in historical inertia, old gods are more powerful than new.

I've often wondered what people mean when by statements such as x god is more powerful than y god. Anyone care to take a crack at this?
 
 
Quantum
11:23 / 05.01.06
Who would win in a fight?

What *I* mean is in the sense of a more powerful idea, for example 'Beauty' is a bigger idea than 'This beautiful sunset'. Thor is more powerful than a god of light breezes, the Earth Mother is more powerful than the Hearth Deity of a particular house. Any god or goddess of Love is going to be more 'powerful' than a god of Hospitality in my humble opinion, the broader and deeper the domain of a deity, the more powerful S/He is.

I don't know how coherent it is but I guess I equate Power with Importance. I would have said 'effect on the world' but a) it's pretty hard to pin down and b) minor spirits might interfere more with human affairs than the gods themselves. Zeus might be more powerful than Hermes, but he's more likely to send Hermes with a message for you.
Which is why I rate Hermes over the Flash, who could be considered an aspect of Hermes but certainly not vice versa.

Anyone with a clearer idea care to blow me out of the water? Is War In Heaven in fact the best way to find out who the most powerful God is?
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:38 / 05.01.06
Is the right sized spanner more powerful for loosening a nut or does a pair of pliers work just as well? or is it the hand that turns? or the mind that understands the notion? The relationship between all the factors? The inventors of the tools? The evolution/creation of the hand? The exsistent impermanent conditions that allow the nut to become loose?

Where is the power? Is the whole universe involved in loosening the nut? Or will eventually over time the nut loosen itself?

Is power a matter of highlighting certain attributes over another or recognising that all attributions carry the power? Is the power in the image or in the relationship with the image?
 
 
Quantum
13:34 / 05.01.06
Is the Flash as powerful as Hermes then? Is power a red herring? Will there be anything but questions in this post? Is a spanner more powerful than a pair of pliers? Do you use the Gods of the Aesir interchangeably with Marvel villains and characters you make up on the spot? Are all entities equally valid? Do Gods have an existence beyond your personal experience?
 
 
Dead Megatron
13:52 / 05.01.06
I for one would never have thought to investigate the lore surrounding the Norse Gods in general and Loki in particular before I started, y'know, worshipping them.

I don't worship Loki, I just sympathize with the guy. Poor tragic looser...

And, Mordant, thanks for the correction, I really dislike making mistakes like that.

Changing the subject a little, what about fictional gods? (fictional as in created for literary work in the last, say 200 years, and has become pop-culture archetypes). I was thinking about Lovecraftian and Tolkean pantheons, specifically. Do they respond to worhipping? And, if so, do they "work" better or worse than ancient gods from past cultures?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:58 / 05.01.06
Power in this context can mean different things to different people. I don't really like to use the word myself. I would go so far as to say that one might have a more powerful personal experience with god x as opposed to god y, but other than that I don't know.

My (hideously ill-informed) take on it: I think that from the perspective of a regular-sized human trying to engage with a particular set of mysteries via communion with a particular being, the idea of relative power can be a bit of a red herring. You don't necessarily need the fight-winningest being EVAR on your side. You need what you need.

There's no point carefully selecting the Most Powerfullest of the Powerful if ze going to ignore and/or squish you because you're not important enough. Sometimes a being will be interested enough to take your case but will have 'people to do those things,' other spirits that take over once the initial contact is made and who you'll need to to deal with for the day-to-day stuff. No point sacrificing your auntie to a fertility god for a fruitful harvest if you're not also going to leave something out for the land-spirits that watch over your allotment.

Other times, the reason a particular being is seen as so powerful is because ze has very broad portfolio, which will often include things you don't necessarily want to mess around with. The idea of beings that can be slotted neatly into one little box marked "{Name}, God/dess of {Basic Concept}" is recent and unhelpful.

If you want to set up a working to learn more about writing poetry, you could go all out and approach Odin... and quite possibly find yourself getting a side order from one or more of His other areas of interest (war, madness, and death by hanging, among other things). Or you could try Odin's less 'powerful' son Bragi, who's also a god of poetry but is rather more specialised and traditionally not so keen on fighting and fine print.

(I guess this is another crucial difference between working with godforms and working with gods: in the first case it's quite usual to set up a ritual to work with godform Such-And-Such in a specific aspect, and to assume that all other aspects will be conveniently left at the door. If you accept involvement with a conscious being, you may also have to accept some of their other attributes and like it.)
 
 
trouser the trouserian
09:00 / 06.01.06
Mordant
I do feel that "power" - in the sense of "is god x more powerful than god y?" is largely, a red herring - and yes, I agree with you Mordant, this 'conversation' seems to go hand-in-hand with the rather utilitarian view that deities can be classified according to particularised domains of activity - and - clearly-defined hierarchies of relationship between each other, and other beings - as we can see in the popular "arrange them all neatly on the Tree of Life" approach you mentioned earlier. As you noted earlier And that's really hard to get away from, really hard to escape, because the attitudes become part of what magic "is". However, in order to break away from these "implicit beliefs" requires that some attempt be made to unpack them, if only to allow a different way of thinking about gods and our relationships to them - and how we describe those relationships - can emerge.

Gypsy's point earlier regarding the christian mindset underlying ceremonial magic is apposite, but I'd propose that it is far more influential in informing implicit beliefs regarding our relationships with deities - or rather, how we frame those relationships. In other cultures, one can find relationship patterns between gods & other beings that are much more fluid and protean. As a further point, I'd suggest that as, in Western culture, the concept of distinct individuals is privileged, so this shapes our tendency to view deities as discrete individual beings. In other cultures (South Asian for example) where identity is highly relational, you'll find that the notion of deities as distinct beings is a lot less stratified.

Moving on to Take away humans from the gods and goddesses, and they are still there.

Whilst this is doubtless a useful proposition for challenging the rather reductionist notion of "gods need worship" I's say it could be equally limiting to ignore how our implicit beliefs, personal knowledge, cultural predispositions etc., contribute to the experience of deities (the question I posed in this thread).

Moreover, this viewpoint, whilst seemingly 'radical' can be viewed as another implicit belief of the Western Occult Tradition - particularly the sophia perennis favoured by many ceremonial magicians, and Jung's theory of archetypes (which also exist a priori in the sense that they are not created, but simply received useful critique of Jung here).

Quantum - if you follow the 'domains' argument, then surely the Judeo-Christian God has the largest domain and is therefore, the most "powerful". Just a thought.
 
 
Dead Megatron
12:30 / 06.01.06
Once I saw an interview of a scholar on the role of gods in the Iliad who said that every god is all-powerful within his/her domain. The questions, then, is how broad is this domain...
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:46 / 06.01.06
That might be the case with the Greek gods--I know very little about them so I couldn't really say. However, it's not necessarily true of every other culture's mythology.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:06 / 14.01.06
THI: Take away humans from the gods and goddesses, and they are still there.

trouser: Whilst this is doubtless a useful proposition for challenging the rather reductionist notion of "gods need worship" I's say it could be equally limiting to ignore how our implicit beliefs, personal knowledge, cultural predispositions etc., contribute to the experience of deities...

Moreover, this viewpoint, whilst seemingly 'radical' can be viewed as another implicit belief of the Western Occult Tradition


This is one of the issues I'm trying to address, here and elsewhere; these terms aren't radical at all, they're actually a rather clunky attempt to express/understand something largely unfamiliar to me (and, I suspect, most of the people reading this). There's a lot of potential conceptual pitfalls once you get into this kind of area, and I guess this is one of them.

I'd definately agree that "implicit beliefs, personal knowledge, cultural predispositions etc." excercise a strong effect on the way a deity or a spirit is experienced, from fairly subtle influences and aspects to very powerful, basic ones (such as whether the interaction is seen as positive and beneficial or entirely negative).

Another thing that surprised me is that interacting with people seems to affect the beings themselves in some way, as if they 'learn' from their believers. Working with a being that's had a lot of continuous direct-contact type interaction with people over many years is (in my limited experience) a very different beast than working with a being that's had little or no such interaction for a long time. Communication with the former seems more fluent somehow, more as if you're both speaking the same language. Communication with the latter seems fraught with confusion, misunderstanding and incomprehension on both sides.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
11:53 / 19.01.06
Working with a being that's had a lot of continuous direct-contact type interaction with people over many years is (in my limited experience) a very different beast than working with a being that's had little or no such interaction for a long time.

I had a conversation with Gypsy recently which revolved around this notion. My observation at the time, was that starting a relationship with a deity is (at the sharp end of practice at least) not dissimilar to starting a relationship with another person, and can develop in much the same way as one moves from one's own assumptions about the other, towards discovering shared values, differences, and perhaps things one finds troubling or difficult. And its always interesting to find out that third person may have a completely different relationship with that other, and 'see' them in a completely different way than you do. An aspect of their self-presentation which you find irritating, might for another, be part of their charm. Thinking about my interaction with deities in this way leads me to suggest that rather than taking an overly narrow (reductionist) viewpoint that it's all "in my head" as it were or that deities have a 'real' essential existence - that its the relationship which is important. van der Rohe said that "God is in the details" I'd say that God is in the relationship. Where this relates to your point above is the idea that some deities are seem to be "easier" than others for me to establish a relationship with - and of course it follows also that I have different kinds of relationship with different deities - and that my relationship with those deities will change according to time and context.

So my question here is, what factors influence that supposed difference - between a deity who's apparently had lot of continuous direct-contact type interaction and one that hasn't?

I've been reflecting quite a bit on my experiences with Eris-Discordia, as mentioned in the recent thread on same. I've been thinking particularly on what factors shaped my view of Eris at the time - which primarily was gained from reading Illuminatus! and the Principia Discordia and getting excited by the notion of a playful goddess of chaos. Of course, as has been pointed out many times in the Temple, this view of Eris is quite distinct from the portrayal of Eris by Hesiod and Euripides. But at that point, I hadn't read much in the way of Classical Greek Myth, nor had I met any other Discordians (or any other chaos magicians for that matter) and, praise be, there was no internet to get distracted by either. The only magical text which springs to mind is Cardinal Rites of Chaos which came out in 1985, although I cannot recall whether or not I acquired it prior to working with Eris or during that phase. What also doubtless influenced my perception of Eris was prior experience of doing deity-oriented ritual/practice (mostly gained through being in Wiccan covens) and further shaped by Crowley's Liber Astarte, which was a big influence on me at the time.

I'll admit that I didn't even consider whether or not Eris had been worked with by other people - what mattered was that she appealed to me. Nor was there anyone around to issue dire warnings about the "dangers" of chaos (there was enough craziness on my life anyway). And its this quality of "emotional resonance" which I find to be personally significant in the process of becoming involved with deities, be it a full-blown passionate romance or a "quickie" one-off ritual or visitation. Now, with hindsight, I would say that as I was very much getting into experiencing the world as chaotic, playful, weird, then a goddess who encapsulates - or better yet - embodies that worldview seemed quite natural to me at the time (and still does) and so proved "easy" to get into. Yet Eris-Discordia is conspicuously modern (pop-cultural, even) and one might say that Her "cult" has only been popularised since the mid-seventies with the publication of Illuminatus! However, she didn't come across to me as unformed or 'difficult' in any way, and out of that 'relationship' have emerged some of the most significant 'shaping' experiences I've had in my life and in many ways I'm still surfing the wave that I found myself upon, over two decades ago.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:25 / 19.01.06
So my question here is, what factors influence that supposed difference - between a deity who's apparently had lot of continuous direct-contact type interaction and one that hasn't?

Dude, I really don't know!

I have no idea what these consciousnesses consist of, so to speak, so I don't really know if they could be said to 'learn', or if the differences I've experienced were born entirely out of my own expectations. All I can do is relay what I've experienced and present some speculation on it.

Bear in mind I've only been doing the whole direct contact thing since late April last year*, and I've limited my interactions to those beings who seemed to approach me rather than proactively seeking to form relationships. (By approached me, I'm talking about vivid dreams, visions, heavy synchronicity, and spontaneous contact.) So, small sample, very short timeframe.

So far I've interacted with a few members of Team Norse, plus Eleggua**. I'd say that of all of them, Eleggua felt the most... up-to-date, in a way. There was still a kind of chasm there, because I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the Orisha, but the divide didn't seem that vast really. It was as if Eleggua knew me somehow, in the sense of knowing the kind of person He was dealing with, the resources I was likely to have available, the 'language' I was most likely to understand. There was a sense of having the dialogue simplified for my benefit, of allowances being made.

Working with the more 'popular' Norse gods has been different. Usually communication there is fairly easy, as these things go, but sometimes it's as if I'm expected to have a body of lore to hand that I just don't. Most of the time they use methods of communication that are appropriate to my situation, but there are many odd lapses.

There's been a couple of instances of verbal communication in some language I don't speak--a variant of Old Norse, I assume. The imagery that comes through is often hard to interpret: symbols that might have been immediately recognisable at one time but are unknown to me, and have to be researched later. Other things, natural phenomena that look loaded with meaning but which I can't understand. There's a sense that great tracts of information are just going straight over my head at times.

And then there's the really lost Gods, the ones who've been relegated to a name or a brief description in lore, if that--Mordgud, for example, who just sort of jumped me one night. I wrote a post about working with Mordgud here.

I don't properly understand what was happening there, although I've offered my own interpretation. The thing that really sticks with me about that experience was the powerful feeling that there was this parcel of assumptions on Her part, as if She's mistaken me for someone. I got a very clear sense that She was expecting to find a group of people, maybe a sort of communal dwelling, and that these people would be expecting Her and would be ready to interact. it felt like She was genuinely bewildered to realise that this was not the case.

My theory is that behind those few lines of lore there's the memory of some psychopomp Goddess, someone who might have been well-known and revered in Her own time, and who had a particular kind of worship associated with Her. This is pure speculation, of course but it's all I can come up with. I certainly wasn't expecting to get a visit from Her; in fact, I didn't recognise Her name right off and had to think for a while before I remembered reading it.

To have any hope of being able to answer that earlier question I'd have to do a lot more work involving many different beings: old Gods who've been left unworshipped, old Gods who've been worshipped continuously up to the present day, more 'novel' beings who are worshipped today. At some point I'd like to work with Discordia!Eris, say for six months or so, and compare that experience with working with Loki. They seem to share a lot of the same mysteries so there should be at least some basis for comparisom between them.

(Of course, one could argue that Loki is also a novel deity since we have no record of Loki-worship in history. But there ya go.)



*I have had an ancestor harrow for rather longer than that, and there's also a couple of nice people that've been around for a few years who claim to be my guides. But the work I do with these guys feels very different.

**I don't know why Eleggua. My interpretation is that He saw me hanging around on His turf with booze and tobacco, and decided to glom His fair share.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:28 / 19.01.06
Apropos what I said in my lost post regarding relationships, another way of looking into how we interact with deities might be to use Wolfgang Iser's theory of "aesthetic response" which examines how readers interact with a text, and how meanings arise within a virtual space created between a reader and a text:

If a literary text does something to its readers, it also simultaneously reveals something about them. Thus literature turns into a divining rod, locating our dispositions, desires, inclinations, and eventually our overall makeup.
Iser: The Significance of Fictionalizing

It strikes me that Iser's view of texts can also be applied to deities - that as much as we are focusing on a 'character' (if you like, and obviously with varying degrees) we are also focusing on ourselves. And there may be elements of that character which, like a text, are specific, and others which are more ambiguous. Also too, I think there is often an element of familiarity present. For example, when I began to worship Santoshi Ma ("Mother of Contentment") - all I had to go on was a colour postcard, her name, and her association with "contentment". I didn't quite view her as a "lost god" - I just assumed that she was merely one of the millions of Indian goddesses I'd never come across before (it was a few years later before I discovered her historical recency). Yet, in that very little to go on there was enough - if only because "contentment" is something anyone can relate to, i.e. it's familiar. As much as I was interacting with Santoshi, I was simultaneously reflecting - through her - on my own feelings regarding what constitutes "contentment".


The imagery that comes through is often hard to interpret: symbols that might have been immediately recognisable at one time but are unknown to me, and have to be researched later. Other things, natural phenomena that look loaded with meaning but which I can't understand. There's a sense that great tracts of information are just going straight over my head at times.

I'd suggest that this type of experience is not uncommon when working with deities (again, something which Gypsy & I were discussing). For example the 'chanelled writing' I had from Eris - a series of thoughts which welled up, unbidden, as I waited for my train the morning after the first time I'd invoked Eris in a group. Obviously very influenced by Crowley's style - but still very significant to me at the time. But this was a one-off - mostly for me it has been a sudden 'rush' of ideas - or even the vague sense (an adumbration, as Kenneth Grant might have it) of something waiting to come together, yet remains elusive. A glimpse behind the veil, if you like, or the beginnings of a new set of understandings.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply