On 13/04/07, marqswinkels <marqswinkels@...
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jake Stratton-Kent"
> <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
> > LOL, modern understanding of Goetic magic is largely in the shade of
> > one book (called Goetia, connection ends there). Pity that Crowley
> > made one book out of the whole genre more important than it really
> Ok, but what's 'goetic' magic then? Everything that has something to
> do with conjuring 'demons'?
sorta, though with it's early history it get's more complex (not all
demons are evil spirits, come to think of it that hasn't really
changed, just got obscured).
In my opinion all *real* conjuring is Goetic, angelic magic is
diluted version of the real thing (unfashionable to say so, but hell,
that's me). See the papyri, they conjure gods as well as demons and
deads by essentially the same methods.
> May I recommend that you watch the movie 'Faust' by Jan Svankmeijer.
> It is one of the most brilliant films I know. I would say the movie
> is definatly about conjuring.
you may ;-) The old opera is pretty good too.
> > To an extent - for me, and others - results are chiefly
> > important to demonstrate it isn't all an interior process.
> I find that a weird bit of logic. It's like saying you just write
> poetry to convince yourself it can have an effect on the outside
> world. If there is any use for conjuring magic it surely must be
> something better than this.
of course it's wierd as logic, logic is left brain, conjuring,
visions, divination and spell casting are all right brain (excuse the
terminology, it is largely for convenience). What I mean is given the
nature of the beast I occasionally have to do some 'results' magic
whether I want to or not! ;-)
I'm really much more interested in the work itself, understanding
'spirits' and the magical process - being involved with the work full
time. Like I said, Goetia is very religious, so the effect on the
psyche is just as important as the results. Results don't interest me
that much, I can get laid, make money, travel etc. by mundane means
easily enough. Magick isn't a short cut to those things. So why I do
it is more a matter of a 'Path'. Plus when dealing with spirits
regularly a lot of 'results' magic becomes largely unnecessary, your
new friends cover a lot of it for you. This again ain't much like
modern perspectives, 'conjure once, never talk to them again' isn't
how the old stuff was done. So you start dealing with them on a
regular basis, and mention things that need attention now and then.
Not that spell casting becomes redundant, but there is a strong
element of art for arts sake in my approach.
So to rephrase - there is an interior process going on (the spiritual
development or whatever) and that accounts for some results all by
itself. So pushing for very specific results periodically (via spells
or specific requests to spirits) shows that you have leverage as well
as interior changes that have made life more conducive in general. Is
that more 'logical'? ;-)
> > Could say a bunch besides but the fact is the grimoires have a lot
> > more to do with the Tradition we once had than all that Masonic
> Yes, this is of course true. It takes magickal power to conjure up an
> entity, it doesn't take anything to shake peoples thumbs in weird
> > Oh, and the 'doggie fetch or I singe your ass' attitude of the GOSK
> > isn't typical of the entire genre. ;-)
> As I understand it it isn't particulary typical of the solomon
> version either, at least there seem to be different opinions about it.
yep, hey, we're talking about Magick, are we on the right list? ;-D