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 >

Sloppy servitors

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Papess
10:04 / 26.01.07
David-Neel also defines tulkus as "phantom bodies" in (I think) "Magic & Mystery in Tibet".

You are kidding, right? I find that to be a leap. I don't want to rot this thread with this, but I think he is confusing his kayas.
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:47 / 26.01.07
How do servitors relate to the idea of memes?
 
 
electric monk
15:11 / 26.01.07
Whats the characteristic difference between creating something to perform a task and say devotional action to get something to act on your behalf, what sets of motivations are involved and what differing emotional characteristics drive the actions to achieving the same goal.

Is there a distinct difference in method? or is it just two different approaches of many to fulfill a personal desire.

For me, the method I use depends on what I'm in need of. For the bigger stuff, say deeper understanding of the Tarot, I'd petition Thoth because Thoth, as I understand him, is the keeper of the knowledge I seek. For smaller stuff, like help with paying bills, I'd be inclined to make a servitor. I'm sure there are gods I could call upon for monetary aid, but what's going to help me in the long run are the small reality tweaks that a servitor can provided and the mindfulness of money matters I practice when I'm feeding, contemplating, or communicating with the servitor. Eventually, the essences of that good practice can be reabsorbed into by the prepared vehicle (me) and I can keep that mindfulness and use the lessons I've learned, hopefully with renewed skill and vigor (much the same could probably be said of diety work, come to think of it).

These are two approaches on a spectrum, I think. The difference, I'd say, is essentially the difference between invocation and evocation. When you're dealing with the gods, you're taking in; when you're creating a servitor, you're pushing out.

How do servitors relate to the idea of memes?

Cousins, possibly? The difference for me is in the working aspect. To be effective, a meme needs to be spread around. Servitors can be kept to oneself. But now that you've asked the question, I can't help thinking that they're more alike than they are different.
 
 
electric monk
15:29 / 26.01.07
Or, more poetically in regards to the servitor/god question:

I have money troubles. This is like a broken leg. I am hobbled and my smooth movement in the world of money is greatly hindered. I could ask Someone if I can put my arm around Their shoulder to ease my progress, OR I can extend my own arm down to the ground, essentially creating my own crutch and increasing my own capacity for movement despite my impediment. When the leg heals, I can retract my arm and walk with increased swiftness.
 
 
Mario
15:52 / 26.01.07
It might be worthwhile to consider the following question:

"Do we create servitors... or discover them?"
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
17:57 / 26.01.07
"Do we create servitors... or discover them?"

Hmmm. I, from what I can tell, created a servitor to aid me in creative writing. I say servitor, but who knows if that's what it is. I made an image of a figure, concentrated intent into it, anthropomorphized it, charged it with the pre-designed charging tools (coffee and strawberries), and so far seems to help when I concentrate and give the appropriate trigger devices.
For instance, upon creation I wrote a few pages of prose, then I essentially stopped "using" him. When this thread popped up I looked back to him and well, made two poems on the spot.

So, perhaps I was using some servitor out there and just placing my interpretations on it, but from what I can tell I created him.
 
 
Unconditional Love
03:01 / 27.01.07
Perhaps it is the language of personification that causes the confusion with servitors, that and the sense of relationship to an entity that then creates, which confuses servitor work with the parameters of deity based work.
 
 
electric monk
15:59 / 28.01.07
"Do we create servitors... or discover them?"

I must say that, while I'm not widely read on servitors, I've never come across an account of someone "creating" a Get Laid servitor only to discover they'd gotten a hook into the back of a 3,000-year-old sprite originally worshipped in Constantinople. And if I had, I think I'd be a little skeptical. Seems like, if you've gone to the trouble of making a servitor, you'll have used a very specific physical base, trigger mantra, function set, etc. Seems a long shot to say all that's applicable to something already "out there".

I'd certainly like to see the type of account I describe above, or hear from someone who's had the experience of getting more than they asked for in this arena. Like I say, skeptical, but still curious.
 
 
EmberLeo
22:45 / 29.01.07
Oh, I don't know - how many people in our culture think the trigger for getting laid is getting drunk at a party? Dionysus much?

Sometimes the triggers that make sense for us to set up make sense for obvious reasons that end up tapping back into something that's already there.

--Ember--
 
 
electric monk
03:56 / 30.01.07
I see what you're saying, but I can't say I've ever encountered this in my servitor work. The ones I've launched have been either right on-target or completely ineffective. And when I was on-target I never got the sense that there was anything there that I didn't put there, or that I'd inadvertently tapped into a stream I didn't intend. I would hope that, if I had been communicating with something Bigger, It would at least go, "Boo! It's really me!" after a while and allow me to thank It properly. Never happened tho.

I think it goes back to intent, really. The creator of a servitor is exercising hir will in creating a spirit. The Statement of Intent would lay out what this spirit is, what it will do, how it will die, etc. Maybe there's a drawing or sculpture intended as a "home" for the spirit or to portray the spirit's physical appearance (or both). There's no intent to house a God or call a God within the working. And while I do accept that the Gods can use any door they damn well please any time they damn well please, I'm not so sure our friend the servitor is a likely portal for Them to use.
 
 
Unconditional Love
05:52 / 30.01.07
In essence then servitors posit man as the creator of spirits, does that then extend to deity's, is this magic for people who look in the mirror and say oh look i made me, the costume and words are the facts.

All god/desses are a part of my psyche, they are not forces of nature or otherwise, still looking in the mirror. If i made it, i can kill it, dispose of it control it how i like, what selfish nonsense. Hey if all deitys are part of my consciousness as well i can jump around from system to system and shop where i like, more self centered egoic crap.
 
 
electric monk
13:13 / 30.01.07
Well, I say "spirits", but I should probably say "thoughtform". Two different things, obv, and I should have been more aware of that in writing the above.

But I think you're setting up a straw man here, Sam. Servitor workings posit man as a being of Imagination and Will. Nothing more. And working with or creating servitors doesn't automatically lead to pick-n-mix paganism. It's a pitfall, I'll grant you, but one does not automatically lead to the other.

If i made it, i can kill it, dispose of it control it how i like, what selfish nonsense.

You seem to still be thinking of these things as independent entities. They're not. They're an extension of a worker's will. Nothing is getting enslaved in this process. Rather, the magician is focusing a part of hir will toward a specific end and setting a piece of hirself aside for that purpose. They're an affirmation of some of the best of man; namely, that our thoughts can be things if we have the Will to make them so.
 
 
jentacular dreams
13:22 / 30.01.07
and setting a piece of hirself aside for that purpose

Is there therefore a limit to how many servitors can be made/maintained at a time? Or is it less literal than that?
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:22 / 30.01.07
Their is a thing being enslaved if we are to consider qualities of consciousness things, the practitioners will is being enslaved to a desire, granted that is probably a nessecary binding of will, but it raises another question for me.

Am i to treat myself and my consciousness as a tool, with all the implications that implies, is consciousness in magickal practice purely utility at this level of working, ie should i equate my consciousness to a spanner or computer program, need i buy into the whole atheist materialist paradigm to work with this kind of magic, and is that the base level of chaos magic in general a largely atheist materialist paradigm seen from a very opportunistic utilitarian view point.

Theoretically take the god servitor for example, say i utilize my experiences from school, assembly, choir etc to create a servitor that resembles my childhood experience of god, so i can relive the joy and happiness of my child self singing with other children praising god, are these experiences their for me to see as a tool, to anchor and invoke a set of emotions, another quick question how similar is servitor work to nlp, alot of the descriptions thus far remind me alot of the few bits of nlp work ive done, again very much treating consciousness/mind as a tool.

You see what gets me is that i perceive something very living to be missing from that conception of mind/consciousness. There is an awareness a living awareness relating to these conceptions, giving them life and meaning, it seems to be missing from this presentation of mind as an equation of parts.
 
 
electric monk
17:55 / 30.01.07
Is there therefore a limit to how many servitors can be made/maintained at a time? Or is it less literal than that?

I don't know. I've never reached an upper limit, but then I've never had more than two servitors bopping about at one time. I would think that you'd want to limit the numbers of servitors floating around your flat, but more out of desire to attend to each one properly than anything else.

You see what gets me is that i perceive something very living to be missing from that conception of mind/consciousness. There is an awareness a living awareness relating to these conceptions, giving them life and meaning, it seems to be missing from this presentation of mind as an equation of parts.

Perhaps it's a blind spot on my part. I'm far from an expert on servitors, and have only been speaking from my experience. YMMV. Maybe servitors just aren't something you'll ever find appealing or applicable to the work you do. Then again, if you took a stab at it, you'd be well within your right to work at it however you thought best and to relate to your thoughtform in whatever way you saw fit. My way of working is certainly not the only valid way.
 
 
Princess
18:29 / 30.01.07
In the model you are putting across Sam, I'm not sure what is happening other than the magicain "taking control" of himself. If all you are enslaving is part of yourself then ethics doesn't really come into it does it?
If servitor creation is just a way of budding off part of yourself then what the servitor feels doesn't really come into it. When you decided to make the servitor the "proto" servitor was a part of you. The servitor itself was part of the comitee that descided to make a servitor.

However, I think we are limiting ourselves here. There are methods and other models for servitor creation. People have been creating things like this for yonks. Since before the psychodynamic model even.

I know that Innuit magic workers are meant o do something similar, they carve a wooden figure and feed it with bodily fluids. And though I can't remember the name (could one of the Khemetics help please?) I know that a lot of the Ancient Egyptian royalty where buried with statues of servants/oxen/stuff so that they would have servants/oxen/stuff in the next world. There's tonnes more on the wiki page for homunculus. Look also at Golems and Mokkerkalfe.
Does this affect the ethics? Well, yes. Quite obviously. But any ethical judgement would have to take into account just how concious these beings where, what they wanted (if anything), and how much that was relevant.

Now, I'm sure there are a lot of conversations to be had around that and quite possibly some experiments too, but wouldn't an obvious first step just to ask some servitors? If people are worrying about Gek, then why don't we just ask hir if ze has an opinion or if ze has a consciousness. I know there are flaws in that plan (if it's all imaginary then I'm sure we can all imagine responses) but I think it makes an obvious first step. I'm in a strictly no magic situation for the week, but I'm sure there would b some willing volunteers to throw the cards/spin the bones/roll the eyes for us.Volunteers?
 
 
Unconditional Love
06:10 / 31.01.07
Its not ethics so much as animism, the cultures you describe have beliefs that are often called animistic, where as the approach of chaos magic and nlp seems to be largely mechanism.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of humanity as mechanism as opposed to animated with life, a majority of spiritualities and there cultures will also be, its a flat out denial of the basis of most spiritual forms that seem to have revolved around the ideas of animism and/or animatism, vitalistic philosophies that emphasize the import of organic life and its ability to procreate sympathetically or otherwise.

But then sexuality has been reduced to function, identity and mechanism as well so i shouldn't really be surprised by post modern constructions that want to reduce anything that may be held sacred to so much deconstructed mechanistic ash, though i could just be being romantic for some imagined golden olden days, its just a part of modern life that annoys me intensely, take the myth out of everything and grind to dust add unwarranted reasoning and rationalistic dissection for spice.

What was inherent in the myth and romance (devotion,love) is lost by being cut to pieces by a variety of institutions that peddle themselves as being enlightened and can describe in detail every nugget of corn and flake of the shit they are selling me.

But i am going off track apologies.
 
 
Char Aina
06:23 / 31.01.07
i don't know, man.
i'm a big fan of the animals-as-organic-tech gang of ideas, and i don't think it need be a case of trying to reduce anything that may be held sacred to so much deconstructed mechanistic ash.

i think you are just[...]being romantic for some imagined golden olden days, and i wonder what you reckon you really lose by trying to understand the mechanics of ...well, everything you can.
knowledge is good, no?

this conversation may well be for another time and place.
 
 
EmberLeo
08:14 / 31.01.07
I am uncomfortable with the idea of humanity as mechanism as opposed to animated with life

I think I'm missing where these two ways of looking at things are opposites.

--Ember--
 
 
Unconditional Love
09:47 / 31.01.07
I see how they are compatible as a form of spiritual materialism, but i also see where they separate in there approach to forging perceptions in consciousness.
 
 
Princess
09:50 / 31.01.07
What does that actually mean?
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:05 / 31.01.07
which part?
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:08 / 31.01.07
If you mean how do the language we use and meanings of the language go into setting up what mixture of philosophical view points we may communicate from and how that language then goes on to colour our self perception and how we act and relate to society at large, that is what i am getting at in how perception is forged from philosophical view points that relate and create conditions in our own consciousness that we may respond to as if those conceptions were real and had external meaning.
 
 
Unconditional Love
10:31 / 31.01.07
Materialistic perception seems to adopt a policy that even its perceptions and abstractions are somehow more 'factual' than spiritual notions, the new building on the old as a paradigm, or for example the notion of linear progress say compared with cyclic revolutions, as if thought like sentences should run in straight lines followed by other straight lines. (i am not advocating writing in circles.)

Solid notions of things(that means exactly what is says) are not as open to impermanence, they may change within the parameters of the solid foundation, but the foundation remains.

When you look at servitors for example the perception is characterised by the various influences that have been formulated within you through childhood to your current age, the two most noticeable philosophies in my childhood and forming years are that of monotheism and secular atheism, they come into play every time i focus my awareness upon meanings, they are also inherent in the language i use to communicate with, having there basis in the very structure of how that language is used to form meaning, every interaction i make contains those two foundational structures and every other philosophical view point i have absorbed, but those two are most prime to me at least due to my educational structure as i was forming.

Reforming, transforming or mutating that structure has been a large part of my own practice, also noting how that effects the work i do, how i perceive it and how i relate to it, by the conceptions i use to interact.

The basis of a servitor is coming from alot of very differing philosophical view points when being formed, awareness of these viewpoints how they interact, where they compete and cooperate, would not only lead to perhaps the better creation of servitors but more time and consideration for the meaning and notions behind the need to create servitors, whats going into the creation of servitors so they are perhaps related too in a more responsible and ethical manner and care is taken to look at the meaning and consequence of the meaning inherent in servitor creation, or if different methods might be more suitable.
 
 
Princess
11:00 / 31.01.07
So, the words we use to frame an experience shape our perception of it. And treating the psyche as if it is a computer/mechanism makes it harder to feel that there is something magical/spiritual/woohoo about it. Is that what your saying?

For a start, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Words do shape experience, but I'm not sure if the "mechanistic" model you are critiquing would really have that effect. I can imagine having quite a lot of fun in that model. I would be a rocking meat-machine. All full of open source programs and spam-filter servitors. I think people can find magic/meaning/woohoo in any metaphor if it works for them.

As to deconstructing stuff, well, isn't that kind of the point of the thread? Analysing stuff and getting rid of what doesn't work isn't reducing things down to "mechanistic" ways of thinking, it's just refining your practice. I think you can confront and analyse things without destroying them. If an idea has strength it will survive.

If you are unhappy with things being disected like that, that's ok, your opinions are your own. But if you are affecting others with your opinions, (ie spamming the Gek thread), then they should be tested and tried. It's slightly poor show to turn up in a thread, call half the temple slave owners, and then not offer the victims of that attack a chance to rationally discuss the issue with you. Simply saying "your analysis hurts beauty" is not a suitable defence. You claim you are worried about whether it's unkind to keep servitors, well that's an ethical question. Question's of ethics, of a being's rights, cannot be based on "Sam thinks it's prettier this way".

Also, no one else but you has used the word "mechanistic". All that other people have said is that the human mind is a system and that we can work in certain ways with that system. System doesn't mean CPU or robot, it any collection of things in a relationship with each other. Forests are a system, weather is a system. Analysis isn't always reductionist. I can work out how many animals there are in the woods, learn the names of all the trees and work out who eats what. That doesn't mean I've killed any of the animals, or taken away the complexity of the situation, or made them less magical. Surely this kind of analysis is the hallmark of good practice? Ignorance and whimsy do not a good magician make.

Rather than telling us all off for (what you perceive as) slavery, why not tell us what experiences have led you to think that servitors are independent? Rather than say that all CM servitor users are selfish reductionists, why not tell us what tangible benefits you get from your alternative system?

Also, full stops are your friend. I know my posts are probably all inside out and back to front, so there might be an element of hypocrisy here, but I'm finding it really hard to understand your posts. I think it might be a lot easier if you split your giant sentences into smaller, easier to digest chunks.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:45 / 31.01.07
I think I kind of get where you're coming from, Sam, but for me the problem isn't analysis or reductionism. You identify a particular mode of thought in modern magic which classes Gods, spirits and servitors as essentially similar--lying along a spectrum if you will, with baaaaaaaby homebrewed thoughtforms at one end and Great Big Gods at the other. This model generally includes the assumption that one could therefore beef up a thoughtform until it was, effectively, a God; it generally also includes the assupmtion that such Gods and spirits reside in and emanate from the magician's psyche. (We got into this a bit over in this thread)

I used to subscribe pretty wholeheartedy to this model myself, but based on certain personal experiences I came to abandon it. For me, the problem with the Gods-as-super-sized-servitors model isn't that it's too analytical and reductionistic, it's just that it doesn't fit (what I regard as) the observed facts. I've set it aside because it doesn't seem to stand up to analysis, and I poke it when I see it now because I suspect that a lot of the people who tout it as How Things Work haven't really experimented with it much in practice.

Analysis doesn't break things, dude. It doesn't diminish them. A beautiful stretch of woodland doesn't take my breath away any less because I know about photosynthesis. I believe that a more sophisticated understanding will generally enrich one's experience.

(PS: What Princess said re: breaking your posts down into managable chunks.)
 
 
Quantum
13:44 / 31.01.07
that is what i am getting at in how perception is forged from philosophical view points that relate and create conditions in our own consciousness that we may respond to as if those conceptions were real and had external meaning

A.K.A. Reality Tunnels.
 
 
Quantum
15:05 / 31.01.07
In my view servitors are more like spanners or houses than pets or slaves. You make them for a purpose and use them, where does the exploitation come in? For example, if I go Ray Mears in the woods and make a lean-to bivouac to sleep under, is it cruel of me? Is it then cruel to break it up into sticks again, or exploitation to leave it lying around and *not* to dismantle what I made?
 
 
Unconditional Love
15:58 / 31.01.07
Just one question, is the wood alive or dead, does the interaction take place with a dead or an alive environment?

I dont mean is the wood broken from a tree or taken from fallen branches, but is it alive or dead.

Is consciousness alive or dead? and if consciousness is living does it matter how we relate to it, what we form within it and how we create those formations? How does a view of consciousness living or dead change things, i know its metaphorical but this is hard to explain.

If 'reality' is considered a living experience then ever action consequently has an effect on the totality of a living system, if you perceive it as a living system every action that takes place within that living system has an effect on the whole of that living system.
 
 
Unconditional Love
15:59 / 31.01.07
So all i am really saying is, is consciousness alive?
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
16:10 / 31.01.07
So all i am really saying is, is consciousness alive?

One framework you might look at when dealing with servitors is the idea of mana. Perhaps servitors are concentrated mana, which would play into the idea of will, but also still maintain the animism aspect. It's not that it's alive or dead, it's more like electricity, you can use it, it's there, it does stuff, you don't need it, but it is helpful.

I might expand on that later, when I have time, if you feel idea is at all relevant.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:15 / 31.01.07
When i experienced this phenomena of my consciousness as part of an entire network of consciousness that was living, it opened up alot of questions to me about morality and ethics, in action, thought, imagination, feeling alsorts, if everything i do is effecting this living consciousness how should i treat it, how should i act behave and imagine, feel etc?

My old self came into question completely, and if every human being shares this living consciousness, i think about what i have thought let alone imagined, how am i relating to this living network, this system? What damage have i already done, or is that already a part of that living network, are we allowed to be that presumptuous , thats not the word i am looking for but i cant find the right one.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:17 / 31.01.07
Please expand Mr Microcosm.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:39 / 31.01.07
So another thing might be how important should conscience be in spiritual/magical work, how conscientious does one become if one accepts everything as living.
 
 
illmatic
17:31 / 31.01.07
I may be the only one but I feel this thread is rapidly moving away from the experiential focus requested by the thread starter in the opening few posts.

It seems to be posing unanswerable philosophical conumdrums rather than contributing to debate, or - shock horror - actually discussing people's experience of magical practice.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply