Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Spirit Children

Expand Messages
  • Noah Won
    I had an unusual dream last night. I had sex with a succubi (at the time I didn t realize that was what she was), but didn t cum. Shortly thereafter she
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 24, 2013
      I had an unusual dream last night. I had sex with a succubi (at the time I didn't realize that was what she was), but didn't cum. Shortly thereafter she appeared with a big pregnant belly and a protuberance where her pussy should have been. Hanging from the protuberance was a small dark amber colored sphere, about the size of a marble. Suddenly a third person appeared, an older oriental woman (midwife?). The "marble" seemed to detach from the succubi and the older oriental woman caught it and handed it to me. I didn't know what to do with it, so I looked at if for a moment and set it down.
      After I woke up I realized what had happened. I knew succubi were capable to taking human energy and using it to create spirit children. I thought the man had to orgasm for that to happen, however. I didn't know they could take sufficient human energy without a human orgasm to create a spirit child.
      Has anyone else encountered this?
    • jacklord1967
      I think what is also occurring is that you are GIVEN A CHOICE to accept or reject a relationship & that what is going on is not necessarily sex as commonly
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 26, 2013
        I think what is also occurring is that you are GIVEN A CHOICE to accept or reject a 'relationship' & that what is going on is not necessarily 'sex' as commonly thought of. But you ARE creating a karmic link with ALL of its implications by accepting( you had zero obligation to take hold of the object that was proffered to you & zero reason to to do so either). The 'contract' is implied.

        I have 'dreams ' all the time where situations that are sort of similar to yours go on. I see them as more or less temptations to take me off track with Great Work stuff & keep me engaged with superfluous activity that have no benefit to me or others in a truly meaningful way. Like astral 'grifters' so to speak.
      • Carlos-Antonio Barraza
        Wow....if I create my own children.....what an awesome army!!!
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 27, 2013

          Wow....if I create my own children.....what an awesome army!!!

          On Nov 24, 2013 10:09 PM, "Noah Won" <seermagician@...> wrote:


          I had an unusual dream last night. I had sex with a succubi (at the time I didn't realize that was what she was), but didn't cum. Shortly thereafter she appeared with a big pregnant belly and a protuberance where her pussy should have been. Hanging from the protuberance was a small dark amber colored sphere, about the size of a marble. Suddenly a third person appeared, an older oriental woman (midwife?). The "marble" seemed to detach from the succubi and the older oriental woman caught it and handed it to me. I didn't know what to do with it, so I looked at if for a moment and set it down.
          After I woke up I realized what had happened. I knew succubi were capable to taking human energy and using it to create spirit children. I thought the man had to orgasm for that to happen, however. I didn't know they could take sufficient human energy without a human orgasm to create a spirit child.
          Has anyone else encountered this?


        • Noah Won
          Interesting, thank you for your input. I ve frequently had dreams where I was handed something by someone, only to realize after I woke up that something was
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 27, 2013
            Interesting, thank you for your input.
            I've frequently had dreams where I was handed something by someone, only to realize after I woke up that something was using my social conditioning to get around my natural defenses and plant its energy inside me. I've always done a recapitulation of the dream and the LBRP to rid myself of the foreign energy. But now it seems their strategy is being taken to a new level.


            On Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:15 PM, "jacklord1967@..." <jacklord1967@...> wrote:
             
            I think what is also occurring is that you are GIVEN A CHOICE to accept or reject a 'relationship' & that what is going on is not necessarily 'sex' as commonly thought of. But you ARE creating a karmic link with ALL of its implications by accepting( you had zero obligation to take hold of the object that was proffered to you & zero reason to to do so either). The 'contract' is implied.

            I have 'dreams ' all the time where situations that are sort of similar to yours go on. I see them as more or less temptations to take me off track with Great Work stuff & keep me engaged with superfluous activity that have no benefit to me or others in a truly meaningful way. Like astral 'grifters' so to speak.


          • jacklord1967
            Yes I agree with your assessment. I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 2, 2014

              Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.

            • Jake Stratton-Kent
              yep, there is a difference between the effects we *want* or expect from banishing , and what it actually does. For regular/routine protection some good old
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 5, 2014
                yep, there is a difference between the effects we *want* or expect from 'banishing', and what it actually does. For regular/routine protection some good old fashioned hoodoo methods like floor washes, five spot salt packets, brick dust lines under the front door etc are really what we want to be looking at. That is, good old fashioned house protection. Also, for protection of the person rather than the environment, employ 'dressed' candle burning rituals (white candle dressed with power oil for instance) and spiritual baths are useful as part of a regular routine. A patron saint, angel or friendly sublunar demon is a good move too.

                PS Crappy 'demons' are usually ghosts in my experience, or started out that way. Really heavy shit & malevolent demons as such are usually either locked up/far away or have better things to do.

                ALWays




                On 2 January 2014 20:05, <jacklord1967@...> wrote:


                Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.




              • Ken Sanderson
                Perhaps your view (ie..input) of the LBRP needs adjusting. While it can be seen and used as a balancing rite, it has proven very effective for me for clearing
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 5, 2014
                  Perhaps your view (ie..input) of the LBRP needs adjusting. While it can be seen and used as a balancing rite, it has proven very effective for me for clearing areas of negative energies and beings. Intent is a huge factor in any practiced rite. By viewing the LBRP as primarily a balancing rite you are not putting the right focus (energy, thought form? ) to achieve its' protective aspect.

                  Try viewing it differently.

                  BB,
                  Bear


                  On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM, <jacklord1967@...> wrote:
                   

                  Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.


                • Jake Stratton-Kent
                  this may be due to differences of approach or other factors (like whether the spirits are internal or external in origin). *Objective* spirits in my experience
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014
                    this may be due to differences of approach or other factors (like whether the spirits are internal or external in origin). 

                    *Objective* spirits in my experience are far less responsive to the Pentagram, if at all. A Nigerian client of mine years ago was being powerfully cursed by a relative, with extremely unpleasant and objective results (some of which initially spilled into my life too). My client took up the pentagram at my suggestion, but while it made him feel better and more able to cope, it had no effect on the phenoma at all, which took 'old skool' methods to dispel. 

                    The differences between these types of magic are hard to quantify - internal & external is as close as I can get in common language - but they certainly exist.

                    ALWays



                    On 5 January 2014 16:48, Ken Sanderson <bearmagick@...> wrote:


                    Perhaps your view (ie..input) of the LBRP needs adjusting. While it can be seen and used as a balancing rite, it has proven very effective for me for clearing areas of negative energies and beings. Intent is a huge factor in any practiced rite. By viewing the LBRP as primarily a balancing rite you are not putting the right focus (energy, thought form? ) to achieve its' protective aspect.

                    Try viewing it differently.

                    BB,
                    Bear


                    On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM, <jacklord1967@...> wrote:
                     

                    Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.





                  • Aaron H
                    No offense, but I find that hard to believe. The pentagram is a graphic representation of the more ideal forms found in the number 5, which being intellectual
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014
                      No offense, but I find that hard to believe. 

                      The pentagram is a graphic representation of the more ideal forms found in the number 5, which being intellectual should make it more perfect as a tool than any physical medium such as brick dust er whatever.  Aside from that, the pentagram has a long history of being associated with Jesus Christ which in itself has a long history of exorcism, mythically and historically. And then there is also the pentagonal symbol found within the solomonic genre. The pentagram is a rich symbol.
                      The fact that the Nigerian had more success with his traditional methods might have more to do with his comfort level and understanding of the symbol and a personal preference to his traditional methods. Dare I say cultural relevance, or preference? 

                      That being said I don't think that the Golden Dawn intended the use of the LBRP to be a true exorcism. If it was, then it is a poor example of an exorcism. 


                      To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                      From: jakestrattonkent@...
                      Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:22:02 +0000
                      Subject: Re: [Solomonic] RE: Spirit Children

                       

                      this may be due to differences of approach or other factors (like whether the spirits are internal or external in origin). 

                      *Objective* spirits in my experience are far less responsive to the Pentagram, if at all. A Nigerian client of mine years ago was being powerfully cursed by a relative, with extremely unpleasant and objective results (some of which initially spilled into my life too). My client took up the pentagram at my suggestion, but while it made him feel better and more able to cope, it had no effect on the phenoma at all, which took 'old skool' methods to dispel. 

                      The differences between these types of magic are hard to quantify - internal & external is as close as I can get in common language - but they certainly exist.

                      ALWays



                      On 5 January 2014 16:48, Ken Sanderson <bearmagick@...> wrote:


                      Perhaps your view (ie..input) of the LBRP needs adjusting. While it can be seen and used as a balancing rite, it has proven very effective for me for clearing areas of negative energies and beings. Intent is a huge factor in any practiced rite. By viewing the LBRP as primarily a balancing rite you are not putting the right focus (energy, thought form? ) to achieve its' protective aspect.

                      Try viewing it differently.

                      BB,
                      Bear


                      On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:05 PM, <jacklord1967@...> wrote:
                       

                      Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.







                    • Raptor 69n
                      I use the LBRP very effectively to banish negativity in all realms and it works well for me, I also invite the arch angels and welcome them into the area and
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014
                        I use the LBRP very effectively to banish negativity in all realms and it works well for me, I also invite the arch angels and welcome them into the area and have for years. It has been for me very effective and very complete. I think it has to do with will and intent and what you focus on when performing it. I have from very early on used it the same way to completely banish any and all negativity and leave behind only positive energies for the good of man. That has been and stays as my focus every morning when I do my morning rituals. I truly think that we limit its use based on what has been written and the fact that its one of the first banishing taught in most cases. So we think of it as a beginners tool and there fore not as powerful, this comes from some questions that were asked of me by some traveling church peddlers and i thought it a good question. I just explained that I was proud they had a faith, but that the facts didn't add up for me and then the talks began hahaha. Peace to all and I wish all of you a wonderful new Year. I love these posts so much information and thoughts from so many new minds. Plus the added benefits of all you experienced brothers and sisters out there.
                        OZ 


                        On Sunday, January 5, 2014 3:46 AM, Jake Stratton-Kent <jakestrattonkent@...> wrote:
                         
                        yep, there is a difference between the effects we *want* or expect from 'banishing', and what it actually does. For regular/routine protection some good old fashioned hoodoo methods like floor washes, five spot salt packets, brick dust lines under the front door etc are really what we want to be looking at. That is, good old fashioned house protection. Also, for protection of the person rather than the environment, employ 'dressed' candle burning rituals (white candle dressed with power oil for instance) and spiritual baths are useful as part of a regular routine. A patron saint, angel or friendly sublunar demon is a good move too.

                        PS Crappy 'demons' are usually ghosts in my experience, or started out that way. Really heavy shit & malevolent demons as such are usually either locked up/far away or have better things to do.

                        ALWays




                        On 2 January 2014 20:05, <jacklord1967@...> wrote:


                        Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.





                      • thaumaturgy777
                        Hi Jake, It sounds like with your Nigerian client, that he was simply past the stage at which point the LBRP would have been of any help beyond what you
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014

                          Hi Jake, 


                          It sounds like with your Nigerian client, that he was simply "past" the stage at which point the LBRP would have been of any help beyond what you described. 


                          It's my opinion that the LBRP *is* a banishing ritual, and an effective one, at that. However, if the person's aura/mind/will/defenses have already been thoroughly penetrated, the the LBRP drops from being a source of protection to what you were just describing. It makes one feel a bit better, but it's short lived. 


                          I see this not as a failure or short-coming of the ritual, but it's more akin to a disease that has not been caught in time, and as a result, the usual methods of clearing up a case no longer work. A cancer example might look like:


                          early detection = change of lifestyle, stop smoking, drinking, eat healthy, get exercise, take certain supplements and it becomes benign. 


                          late detection = straight to chemotherapy, along with all the above-mentioned points. 


                          It seems to me that the LBRP will keep Spirit critters "out" of your head, if you want it to and if they are outside of your head (spirit/aura/soul, whatever), then you can kick them out of your house, as well, unless it's something very powerful. I do realize that some badass beings will require more than a strong warning from the Four Archangels to be kicked out. But that is another matter.


                          But one a Spirit "has your number", they have been inside your head and it's like they have your email address, your personal mobile number, your Social Security Number, a key to your house, they know your Mother's maiden name and what school you went to. They can then pipeline straight into your house and into your "sphere of sensation", any time they want. They are no longer (as you say) "external", they are now "internal" and rituals designed to keep things out, will be as useless as getting a security system when you are missing a back door. 


                          When that happens, then I completely agree that the LBRP is lost useless; not completely, but virtually so. At that point, you have to go all Hoodoo. Put your ass in the tub, use condition oils, burn incenses, smudge yourself and home regularly. Use Salt, Brick Dust, Camphor, Asafoetida, Sulphur, Holy Water, dressed candles and any of the other 238,716,698 techniques of Hoodoo. But I agree with what you said about baths and floor washes being chief amongst the most important. 


                          In LVX,

                          Magus

                          www.thaumaturgy777.com

                        • Jake Stratton-Kent
                          there s more to it than that, he was simply an example - though a rather extreme one I grant. The fact is, the LBRP only really works on one level (there are
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014
                            there's more to it than that, he was simply an example - though a rather extreme one I grant.

                            The fact is, the LBRP only really works on one level (there are theosophic terms for these levels, but they aren't much used nowadays, though the GD did employ them). Trouble is, its not the same level as demons and ghosts of any significant power - its virtually exclusively 'mental' or psychological. 

                            Back to the Nigerian client example. LBRP certainly won't have any impact on the type of sorcery that can cause infestations of flies and spiders. Along with really bad luck etc the client was getting these infestations despite changes of address, prayer and pentagram etc. As mentioned I ended up getting them briefly myself. It wasn't a matter of being a long standing problem, but the type of magic and the level on which it works.

                            Old skool techniques - including basic hoodoo - reach levels which in my experience and opinion modern Western magic *hasn't got any real grip on*. Although maybe Baron Corvo and other 'one offs' in recent history had an angle on it. For that you need old skool stuff like object links, fumigations and other 'material' approaches. 

                            It was experiences like these led me to abandon most modern magic as well as the whole 'psychological' paradigm. The mental or psychological plane is only one of many. There is magic for the mental plane, but contrary to some modern thought and much of its technique, it is very far from all embracing




                            On 7 January 2014 16:19, <thaumaturgy777@...> wrote:


                            Hi Jake, 


                            It sounds like with your Nigerian client, that he was simply "past" the stage at which point the LBRP would have been of any help beyond what you described. 


                            It's my opinion that the LBRP *is* a banishing ritual, and an effective one, at that. However, if the person's aura/mind/will/defenses have already been thoroughly penetrated, the the LBRP drops from being a source of protection to what you were just describing. It makes one feel a bit better, but it's short lived. 


                            I see this not as a failure or short-coming of the ritual, but it's more akin to a disease that has not been caught in time, and as a result, the usual methods of clearing up a case no longer work. A cancer example might look like:


                            early detection = change of lifestyle, stop smoking, drinking, eat healthy, get exercise, take certain supplements and it becomes benign. 


                            late detection = straight to chemotherapy, along with all the above-mentioned points. 


                            It seems to me that the LBRP will keep Spirit critters "out" of your head, if you want it to and if they are outside of your head (spirit/aura/soul, whatever), then you can kick them out of your house, as well, unless it's something very powerful. I do realize that some badass beings will require more than a strong warning from the Four Archangels to be kicked out. But that is another matter.


                            But one a Spirit "has your number", they have been inside your head and it's like they have your email address, your personal mobile number, your Social Security Number, a key to your house, they know your Mother's maiden name and what school you went to. They can then pipeline straight into your house and into your "sphere of sensation", any time they want. They are no longer (as you say) "external", they are now "internal" and rituals designed to keep things out, will be as useless as getting a security system when you are missing a back door. 


                            When that happens, then I completely agree that the LBRP is lost useless; not completely, but virtually so. At that point, you have to go all Hoodoo. Put your ass in the tub, use condition oils, burn incenses, smudge yourself and home regularly. Use Salt, Brick Dust, Camphor, Asafoetida, Sulphur, Holy Water, dressed candles and any of the other 238,716,698 techniques of Hoodoo. But I agree with what you said about baths and floor washes being chief amongst the most important. 


                            In LVX,

                            Magus

                            www.thaumaturgy777.com




                          • Noah Won
                            I used a combination of techniques; the  LBRP and the Recapitulation, which is a Toltec Seer procedure. Both these together have proven very effective for me
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 7, 2014
                              I used a combination of techniques; the  LBRP and the Recapitulation, which is a Toltec Seer procedure. Both these together have proven very effective for me in removing foreign energy attachments from my energy body. From what you've described it appears to me that they are trying to evoke a fear response from you.
                              Many spirits feed on human adrenal energy. If they can make you afraid, they can at least partially bypass some of your natural defenses and draw your adrenal energy into themselves, making them stronger and you weaker. Without going into details (the amount of typing would be prohibitive) I've had experiences like yours, and put a clamp on my fear. I either shut down my emotional fear responses or channeled them into rage and the urge to destroy that which was bothering me. Many spirits can't stand strong human emotions (except the ones they feed upon). A spirit trying to inspire fear in you that insteads meets a concentrated projection of rage and hate detaches pretty quickly and leaves. Especially if you are confident you are capable of destroying and dissipating your attacker.
                              Other than that, others have provided other recommendations for your consideration.
                              From: "jacklord1967@..." <jacklord1967@...>
                              To: solomonic@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2014 12:05 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Solomonic] RE: Spirit Children
                               
                              Yes I agree with your assessment.  I personally find that the banishing I try basically never works for some reason. LBRP NOT really being a banishing so much a a Balancing ritual. I have issues with these spirits, larva, & some are certainly demons, messing with me a trying to enter my body, pull energy from my heart chakra, or drag my etheric/astral body OUT of my physical body, & one particular thing that actually tries sucking my energy from my lips - I can actually 'hear' it & feel it when it tries that attack. It also has tried some VERY crafty strategies to get me to open my mouth when I sleep & can actually push my lips open slightly ( that must take a LOT of power to be able to do that on the physical plane right?) It reminds me of the Stephen King movie 'Cats Eye' . I would be interested in any specific instances you wish to share of what happens to you when your encounters go on.
                            • Jake Stratton-Kent
                              ... no offense taken - though I suspect you might have read more carefully had another writer raised the same or similar points. As mentioned there are
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 8, 2014
                                On 7 January 2014 15:05, Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > No offense, but I find that hard to believe.

                                no offense taken - though I suspect you might have read more carefully
                                had another writer raised the same or similar points. As mentioned
                                there are terminological issues regarding levels here that are hard to
                                deal with and require impartial thought.

                                Now for some further discussion.

                                >
                                > The pentagram is a graphic representation of the more ideal forms found in the number 5, which being intellectual should make it more perfect as a tool than any physical medium such as brick dust er whatever.

                                An 'ideal' graphic symbol being 'more perfect as a tool' than
                                something material sounds like philosophical malarkey to me.

                                This involves difficulties I've learned to penetrate and spent some
                                time clarifying in hardcopy. It is a matter of historical fact that
                                ancient Theurgy borrowed everything practical from Goetia,
                                superimposed a philosophical veneer reinterpreting in highbrow terms
                                ('ideal forms' etc, straight out of Plato) and then disowned the
                                source.

                                This has important implications in practice as well as historically,
                                with which some modern occultists are now engaging. Over-etherealised
                                magic is less effective in a lot of circumstances where the old skool
                                'down & dirty* stuff works extremely well.

                                There's nothing particularly difficult involved in grasping this
                                simple fact. If we can take off the straightjacket more recent schools
                                have saddled us with that is.

                                > Aside from that, the pentagram has a long history of being associated with Jesus Christ...

                                ahem, it is far older than Christianity, and its first appearances
                                historically across several continents involve cultures possessing an
                                advanced astronomy, and an interest in the cycle of conjunctions of
                                Sun and Venus. Sumerian, Meso-American etc. It originally had *zero*
                                to do with the five wounds of Jesus. Dragging religious
                                reinterpretations of a primal symbol into the discussion hardly helps
                                things. In any case it is not the symbol but the *level of working* I
                                was pointing at.

                                >... which in itself has a long history of exorcism, mythically and historically. And then there is also the pentagonal symbol found within the solomonic genre. The pentagram is a rich symbol.

                                no-one is denying that - it is the level of function of this
                                particular ritual that is in question; that and the implciations of
                                levels of operation for different magical work.

                                Take note that this is the *Lesser* banishing pentagram ritual, so
                                remarks concerning it are distinct from the level of operation in the
                                Greater Ritual of the Pentagram - for example. Even in the GD context
                                taken alone this points to the matter of *levels* mentioned before,
                                which is nothing to do with 'ideal symbols' and their *superimposed*
                                religious connotations etc, but magical technology and on what level
                                they operate.

                                > The fact that the Nigerian had more success with his traditional methods might have more to do with his comfort level and understanding of the symbol and a personal preference to his traditional methods. Dare I say cultural relevance, or preference?

                                *WRONG* and a strong indicator of careless reading and retention of
                                dogmatic notions. It was yours truly who had success on behalf of the
                                client with traditional *witchcraft and grimoire methods* that operate
                                on a similar level to hoodoo and such methods. I point to hoodoo as
                                fulfilling similar roles for general purposes. It was not employed in
                                the example given. The matter of levels has little to do with cultural
                                preferences etc either. Keep the neo-colonial noise down please.

                                > That being said I don't think that the Golden Dawn intended the use of the LBRP to be a true exorcism. If it was, then it is a poor example of an exorcism.

                                glad you got round to engaging with the issues in the end

                                ALWays

                                Jake
                              • Aaron H
                                Jake, no offense taken - though I suspect you might have read more carefully had another writer raised the same or similar points. As mentioned there are
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 8, 2014



                                  Jake,

                                  no offense taken - though I suspect you might have read more carefully
                                  had another writer raised the same or similar points. As mentioned
                                  there are terminological issues regarding levels here that are hard to
                                  deal with and require impartial thought.
                                  Now for some further discussion.



                                  An 'ideal' graphic symbol being 'more perfect as a tool' than
                                  something material sounds like philosophical malarkey to me.


                                  That is an odd response. How can someone turn their nose-up at philosophy in general (or especially neoplatonism) and supposedly work magic. Magic depends on philosophy. There is a reason why magic works, and philosophy is the understanding of those principles. Without understanding why you are collecting your dust and bones, you are just a madman playing in the dirt and hoping what you are doing is going to work.

                                  This involves difficulties I've learned to penetrate and spent some
                                  time clarifying in hardcopy. It is a matter of historical fact that
                                  ancient Theurgy borrowed everything practical from Goetia,
                                  superimposed a philosophical veneer reinterpreting in highbrow terms
                                  ('ideal forms' etc, straight out of Plato) and then disowned the
                                  source.



                                  Just because something is more primitive, doesn't make it better. Were the fields of science better in the victorian age, or today? Things evolve after much contemplation, and practice. Refusal of that fact only illustrates your personal biases here. And, since when did these neoplatonic philosophers disown where theurgy came from? I think Iamblichus was very clear where his idea of Theurgy came from in his defense On the Egyptians Mysteries. His work was to understand how and why it works. But, if you are against progress...

                                  This has important implications in practice as well as historically,
                                  with which some modern occultists are now engaging. Over-etherealised
                                  magic is less effective in a lot of circumstances where the old skool
                                  'down & dirty* stuff works extremely well
                                  .


                                  Again I find it funny that a fellow intellectual is thumbing his nose at intellectualism in general, yet this 'old skool down and dirty' preference is ripe with the same elitism(albeit inverted) that you claim theurgists possess.

                                  There's nothing particularly difficult involved in grasping this
                                  simple fact. If we can take off the straightjacket more recent schools
                                  have saddled us with that is.



                                  Straightjacket? I don't feel confined. Also, I have a hard time labeling the Neoplatonic schools of thought as "recent".


                                  ahem, it is far older than Christianity, and its first appearances
                                  historically across several continents involve cultures possessing an
                                  advanced astronomy, and an interest in the cycle of conjunctions of
                                  Sun and Venus. Sumerian, Meso-American etc. It originally had *zero*
                                  to do with the five wounds of Jesus. Dragging religious
                                  reinterpretations of a primal symbol into the discussion hardly helps
                                  things. In any case it is not the symbol but the *level of working* I
                                  was pointing at.


                                  Yes of course. It also has pythagorean, other astrologic references besides Venus, and more. The reason I brought up Jesus with the pentagram glyph was to give a *more well-known* association (certainly not limiting it here) and example of its potential as an exorcism aid. Since we are talking about the LBRP as a mode of exorcism and the pentagram is part of said ritual, I find it very relevant. Besides, you would be hard pressed to find a potent symbol without religious interpretations.

                                  no-one is denying that - it is the level of function of this
                                  particular ritual that is in question; that and the implciations of
                                  levels of operation for different magical work.

                                  Take note that this is the *Lesser* banishing pentagram ritual, so
                                  remarks concerning it are distinct from the level of operation in the
                                  Greater Ritual of the Pentagram - for example. Even in the GD context
                                  taken alone this points to the matter of *levels* mentioned before,
                                  which is nothing to do with 'ideal symbols' and their *superimposed*
                                  religious connotations etc, but magical technology and on what level
                                  they operate.



                                  Magical technology is full of symbols, and the application of said symbols. Aside from that, if you are suggesting that the LBRP is only effective in the beginning stages noisy spirit attacks, than I would probably agree. I don't think the LBRP is a very good exorcism ritual(if it is at all) even though there are elements that could be used for an exorcism. But, this has nothing to do with it being less "down and dirty". It has everything to do how the ritual is written and geared. The ritual as far I understand it from doing it daily years ago is that it is geared not to change the magician's surroundings as much as the magician itself and a way to prepare him for the later rituals of the order. What would make it more effective would be the use of psalms relevant to exorcism at the beginning, and exhortations of exorcisms before thrusting the names into the pentagrams. But then, this would cease to be the LBRP.


                                  *WRONG* and a strong indicator of careless reading and retention of
                                  dogmatic notions. It was yours truly who had success on behalf of the
                                  client with traditional *witchcraft and grimoire methods* that operate
                                  on a similar level to hoodoo and such methods.
                                   


                                  When I read this, "A Nigerian client of mine years ago was being powerfully cursed by a relative, with extremely unpleasant and objective results (some of which initially spilled into my life too). My client took up the pentagram at my suggestion, but while it made him feel better and more able to cope, it had no effect on the phenoma at all, which took 'old skool' methods to dispel." 
                                  I read it that it was your client who found the pentagram to be less effective, not you. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote.




                                  I point to hoodoo as
                                  fulfilling similar roles for general purposes. It was not employed in
                                  the example given. The matter of levels has little to do with cultural
                                  preferences etc either. Keep the neo-colonial noise down please.



                                  I'll tell you what. 
                                  I'll keep my "neocolonial noise"(what ever that is supposed to mean) down, if you turn your "GOETIA(™)" propaganda and book promotion to a minimum.  





                                  Sincerely,
                                  AH
                                • Jake Stratton-Kent
                                  ... nowt wrong with philosophy - though getting beneath neoplatonism to see what it was sublimating has its uses (see Lewi s for a penetrating
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 9, 2014
                                    On 9 January 2014 03:49, Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...> wrote:

                                    >
                                    > An 'ideal' graphic symbol being 'more perfect as a tool' than
                                    > something material sounds like philosophical malarkey to me.
                                    >
                                    > That is an odd response. How can someone turn their nose-up at philosophy in general (or especially neoplatonism) and supposedly work magic.

                                    nowt wrong with philosophy - though getting beneath neoplatonism to
                                    see what it was sublimating has its uses (see Lewi's <Theurgy> for a
                                    penetrating examination of these roots). That doesn't mean philsophers
                                    are malarkey free, or that 'sublimation' can't be taken too far - and
                                    lose touch with stuff magic is meant to cope with. Theurgy as 'the
                                    work of god' etc isn't necessarily useful for stuff that 'goetia' or
                                    'witchcraft' is perfectly adapted to. There's nothing tricky or
                                    'anti-philosophical about this concept. It does underline the
                                    limitations of over reliance on purely philosophical sources
                                    however...

                                    > Magic depends on philosophy. There is a reason why magic works, and philosophy is the understanding of those principles. Without understanding why you are collecting your dust and bones, you are just a madman playing in the dirt and hoping what you are doing is going to work.

                                    nice ad hominem, but also bass ackwards, Philosophical Magic derives
                                    its brass tacks from 'sorcery'. It constitutes a 'reform' from the
                                    perspective of the elite - but the material did not originate with the
                                    elite, nor is it their exclusive property.

                                    The fact is, neoplatonism acted as a vehicle or 'host tradition' for
                                    older approaches.

                                    That magic 'carried' by neoplatonism filtered back down to the
                                    grimoires (which certainly aren't particularly philosophical) was
                                    naturally facilitated by this.

                                    > Just because something is more primitive, doesn't make it better.

                                    naturally, I've disowned the 'older is better' concept in earlier
                                    sparring matches; you've moved on to the straw man.

                                    As is relatively well known, I cut my teeth on 'modern' magic.
                                    Recapping: from 1976 to the turn of this century I was deeply involved
                                    with the A.'.A.'. curriculum or 'Scientific Illuminism'. Found time to
                                    work through the IOT's curriculum a couple of times along the way
                                    also. Many modern authors and ideas have infuenced me immensely. My
                                    reversion to goetia &/or witchcraft and its origins was a concisdered
                                    response to these schools as well as certain developments in the
                                    academic world.

                                    >Were the fields of science better in the victorian age, or today? Things evolve after much contemplation, and practice. Refusal of that fact only illustrates your personal biases here. And, since when did these neoplatonic philosophers disown where theurgy came from? I think Iamblichus was very clear where his idea of Theurgy came from in his defense On the Egyptians Mysteries. His work was to understand how and why it works.

                                    If you've never encountered a neoplatonist writer - ancient or
                                    Renaissance - disowning or vilifying goetia I suggest you're not
                                    looking very hard. If you haven't encountered exactly parallel
                                    attitudes in the writings of more recent 'revival' authors, it's
                                    hardly surprising you're missing the point I'm underlining.

                                    I have tremendous respect for Iamblichus, and fully appreciate the
                                    importance of Neoplatonism; from which I take a good deal.
                                    Nevertheless the Platonic extreme inherent in asserting that a
                                    geometric symbol is automatically superior to work with material
                                    substances is pretty close to what Iamblichus argued *against*.

                                    To use your own words (aptly chosen in fact) Contemplation & Practice
                                    (with material substances) is pretty much his argument in a nutshell.
                                    There are aspects of this idea that have not beenparticularly well
                                    served, and aa drift back to the overly-etheral realm exclusively. I
                                    say again, the grimoires are not Neoplatonist text books, nor
                                    qabalistic ascent rituals - they are - essentially - Goetic.
                                    Approaching them through the neoplatonist or neo-qabalistic lens
                                    distorts them, and misleads in a great many ways.

                                    (much as the mentor of Pythagoras *was not* a philosopher, and
                                    occupied a 'mythological' rather than 'philosophical universe. Some of
                                    that perspective is a large part of what modern occultism is strugling
                                    to regain - with or without your approval).

                                    >But, if you are against progress...

                                    I'm not the one who has previously argued for working with magic of
                                    the Renaissance, *unscientifically* insulated from their roots. Also,
                                    one might assume, from such later developments as the GD, Thelema,
                                    Chaos Magic. If you don't see the virtue - or necessity - for
                                    re-examining our ideas about what 'primitive' magic was or is, that's
                                    your choice. I was simply offering the perspective of someone who does
                                    on the subject in hand.

                                    > Again I find it funny that a fellow intellectual is thumbing his nose at intellectualism in general, yet this 'old skool down and dirty' preference is ripe with the same elitism(albeit inverted) that you claim theurgists possess.

                                    you really don't get it do you? It requires intellectual effort to
                                    recover materials from within a host tradition (Lewy's thesis is a
                                    flawed but unsurpassed masterpiece). You appear to see me as an
                                    inverted snob, but avoiding this task on the grounds of being an
                                    intellectual is plainly the other kind.

                                    You also don't appear to be aware that a 'pro-science' school like
                                    Chaos Magic has argued for much the same reappraisal and focus on
                                    sorcery.

                                    There are in fact *many* perspectives justly demanding a
                                    re-examination - in its own terms - of what one might term 'sorcery'.
                                    Which is - I repeat - the nature of the grimoires, the main topic
                                    here; which are not philosophical works.

                                    By and large these perspectives -several of which I draw from - are
                                    anything but anti-intellectual, anti-science or for that matter
                                    anti-philosophical. On the contrary, in our time and culture the task
                                    requires input from precisely those spheres. Which however does not
                                    diminish in the least the value and importance of the 'primitive' or
                                    'primal' appraches,or their own internal coherence. Approaches and
                                    mythic structures; which originally, and subsequently have been
                                    developed at the grass roots level prior to philosophical endeavours
                                    to 'systemise' them and make them more civilised...

                                    ALWays

                                    Jake
                                  • Aaron H
                                    nowt wrong with philosophy - though getting beneath neoplatonism to see what it was sublimating has its uses (see Lewi s for a penetrating
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jan 12, 2014




                                      nowt wrong with philosophy - though getting beneath neoplatonism to
                                      see what it was sublimating has its uses (see Lewi's <Theurgy> for a
                                      penetrating examination of these roots). That doesn't mean philsophers
                                      are malarkey free, or that 'sublimation' can't be taken too far - and
                                      lose touch with stuff magic is meant to cope with. Theurgy as 'the
                                      work of god' etc isn't necessarily useful for stuff that 'goetia' or
                                      'witchcraft' is perfectly adapted to. There's nothing tricky or
                                      'anti-philosophical about this concept. It does underline the
                                      limitations of over reliance on purely philosophical sources
                                      however...


                                      I beg to differ. Theurgy is just as effective at practical things. Theurgy in the big picture is about reuniting the self with the intelligible world, yes. But that isn't limited only to oneself. It is the work of the Theurgist to unite the self to the intelligible realm, and others, and dare I say everything. Everything in the physical world has a descended soul, including material objects which are inferior forms to its idea. 
                                      Take for instance red brick dust used in hoodoo, to use a trendy-occult topic. Now how in the world is brick dust going to stop an angry ghost or evil or whatever? It won't. It is only brick dust and spirits pass through brick houses all the time, as does evil, bad luck, whatever. Sure, within the brick dust is a faint virtue of the brick wall it once was, and that brick wall is a lesser image of the indestructible idea of a boundary which unlike its physical counterpart is not susceptible to decay and corrosion. So the theurgist, in order to make this brick dust effective as a barrier against angry ghosts, needs to unite the physical form of the brick to the superior idea of indestructible boundary. How does he do this? He does this with help through the Means (gods within the cosmos , Angels, etc), which are intermediaries themselves within the World Soul, but existing above the rank of ensouled bodies. While the physical substance of the dust has not changed, the faint virtue within the physical substance has been raised within its soul. The rite may include songs with emphasizes protection, psalms, the invocation of stern gods


                                      Besides, I'm beginning to wonder if everyone misunderstands what Theurgy is.. It isn't just working with gods or angles; it is also working with heros (saints) and demons(personal genius, location spirits, etc, etc), which as Iamblichus mentions might involve blood sacrifices, and upon occasion making threats. Of course these practices change when Christendom had taken root in Europe, but not completely. The type of offerings changes more to plants and metals which fits the nature of the spirit involved, but blood never really disappears.


                                      nice ad hominem, but also bass ackwards, Philosophical Magic derives
                                      its brass tacks from 'sorcery'. It constitutes a 'reform' from the
                                      perspective of the elite - but the material did not originate with the
                                      elite, nor is it their exclusive property.


                                      You are misunderstanding what I am saying here. What I am saying is that magic is philosophical. For magic to work it has to have a sort of "reason", behind what we do to produce change. Instead of just saying this spirit does this and that one does that, the philosophers(especially those like Iamblichus and Proclus, etc) reached further to understand why the world is the way it is and how it works on multiple levels. How is this elitist?



                                      The fact is, neoplatonism acted as a vehicle or 'host tradition' for
                                      older approaches.



                                      ..Not a vehicle, but an evolution.


                                      That magic 'carried' by neoplatonism filtered back down to the
                                      grimoires (which certainly aren't particularly philosophical) was
                                      naturally facilitated by this.



                                      Of course the grimoires are philosophical. Surely not in a discursive lecture, but certainly as a practical application of philosophy.  

                                      naturally, I've disowned the 'older is better' concept in earlier
                                      sparring matches; you've moved on to the straw man.



                                      I fail to see this..

                                      As is relatively well known, I cut my teeth on 'modern' magic.
                                      Recapping: from 1976 to the turn of this century I was deeply involved
                                      with the A.'.A.'. curriculum or 'Scientific Illuminism'. Found time to
                                      work through the IOT's curriculum a couple of times along the way
                                      also. Many modern authors and ideas have infuenced me immensely. My
                                      reversion to goetia &/or witchcraft and its origins was a concisdered
                                      response to these schools as well as certain developments in the
                                      academic world.



                                      If you've never encountered a neoplatonist writer - ancient or
                                      Renaissance - disowning or vilifying goetia I suggest you're not
                                      looking very hard. If you haven't encountered exactly parallel
                                      attitudes in the writings of more recent 'revival' authors, it's
                                      hardly surprising you're missing the point I'm underlining.



                                      I never wrote that there existed no neoplatonists that ever vilified goetia. I wrote, "And, since when did these neoplatonic philosophers disown where theurgy came from?"
                                      No neoplatonist denied that theurgy incorporated earlier spiritual practices. Some were just opposed the use of such things as applicable to neoplatonism in general. Obviously Iamblichus(who utilized the word Theurgy) did not, nor those who were descended from his school. As for the Renaissance writers, there might have been some thoroughly convinced that certain forms of spirit work were indeed to be avoided; however, I bet the majority were trying to skirt the law. Agrippa comes to mind.

                                      I have tremendous respect for Iamblichus, and fully appreciate the
                                      importance of Neoplatonism; from which I take a good deal.
                                      Nevertheless the Platonic extreme inherent in asserting that a
                                      geometric symbol is automatically superior to work with material
                                      substances is pretty close to what Iamblichus argued *against*.



                                      I am unaware of Iamblichus arguing that the material is better than the ideal(in this case a pentagram) which proceeded it, especially since Iamblichus considered himself to be a Pythagorean as much as a Platonist. I dare say that is incorrect, he was a firm believer of the hypostases. His use of Theurgy was because he believed the soul to be completely descended, and not partially descended like Plotinus argued. Therefore our souls were not in constant communication with the Noetic realms, but through theurgy souls can attain states where communication is possible. 

                                      To use your own words (aptly chosen in fact) Contemplation & Practice
                                      (with material substances) is pretty much his argument in a nutshell.
                                      There are aspects of this idea that have not beenparticularly well
                                      served, and aa drift back to the overly-etheral realm exclusively. I
                                      say again, the grimoires are not Neoplatonist text books, nor
                                      qabalistic ascent rituals - they are - essentially - Goetic.
                                      Approaching them through the neoplatonist or neo-qabalistic lens
                                      distorts them, and misleads in a great many ways.


                                      I agree that they aren't textbooks as you say, but I don't agree with your statement that using a neoplatonic lens is a distortion. After all, neoplatonism extends from late antiquity through the christian era, to today. Justinian the 1st, closed the Neoplatonic schools in Athens, but they continued in Alexandria and constantinople.  And the centers of literacy, the monasteries which probably secretly penned many grimoires(attaining the beatific vision comes to mind), knew about neoplatonism although perhaps somewhat limited until the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, neoplatonism is in full bloom with widely available works including Iamblichus thanks to Ficino. So to say that the works that were created within that huge chunk of time didn't have elements of neoplatonism as the background philosophy is a stretch.

                                      (much as the mentor of Pythagoras *was not* a philosopher, and
                                      occupied a 'mythological' rather than 'philosophical universe. Some of
                                      that perspective is a large part of what modern occultism is strugling
                                      to regain - with or without your approval).


                                      I'm not certain I understand what you mean. Of course Pythagoras was a philosopher, we just don't have copies written accounts of what he taught. All we have is what other philosophers wrote about him. So I guess that could make him appear almost mythical, but clearly his mystery schools(with numeric philosophy/mysticism) were a fact; we know this by various written sources.

                                      I'm not the one who has previously argued for working with magic of
                                      the Renaissance, *unscientifically* insulated from their roots. Also,
                                      one might assume, from such later developments as the GD, Thelema,
                                      Chaos Magic. If you don't see the virtue - or necessity - for
                                      re-examining our ideas about what 'primitive' magic was or is, that's
                                      your choice. I was simply offering the perspective of someone who does
                                      on the subject in hand.


                                      Im not sure why you state that I work magic of the Renaissance insulated from it's roots. I certainly do not believe it is cut-off from the roots. I believe that the Renaissance era magic was not cut-off at all, but instead has within it the earlier roots. Again I see this as evolution. But I do have a problem with "scientific". I don't believe science is an appropriate method to text occultism. Science is only a tool which works in the physical world. You can't test something that is beyond the physical with a set of tools that only works in regards to physics. But that is a whole other topic….My rejection of GD, Thelema, and Chaos is that they all rely on post-mesmerism using terms like "energy" as if there is some kind of electromagnetic spiritual force, when "energia" originally only meant being in a state of work. So yes I personally reject some of the modern occultic movement. That doesn't mean I will always have this attitude, but for now….


                                      you really don't get it do you? It requires intellectual effort to
                                      recover materials from within a host tradition (Lewy's thesis is a
                                      flawed but unsurpassed masterpiece). You appear to see me as an
                                      inverted snob, but avoiding this task on the grounds of being an
                                      intellectual is plainly the other kind.

                                      No, I get that recovering the origin of where a practice or ideas came from is an intellectual endeavor, and I do see you as an intellectual. But it appears to me you are trying to pull and separate from Theurgy earlier forms of spirit work on the grounds that it is the TRUE form of WMT. It may not be your intent, as I can't read your mind, but it certainly comes across this way. And that is why I think you are being snobbish. Theurgy is equally a true form of the WMT.

                                      You also don't appear to be aware that a 'pro-science' school like
                                      Chaos Magic has argued for much the same reappraisal and focus on
                                      sorcery.



                                      As stated earlier, I think science is an insufficient tool to test the immaterial, and certainly magic as a cause. There are just too many variables, and not enough controls. Try doing the same ritual twice, I bet the results will come about differently and with lesser or greater results. Such is magic. 

                                      There are in fact *many* perspectives justly demanding a
                                      re-examination - in its own terms - of what one might term 'sorcery'.
                                      Which is - I repeat - the nature of the grimoires, the main topic
                                      here; which are not philosophical works
                                      .


                                      Re-examination is a good thing. I do not disagree with that.

                                      By and large these perspectives -several of which I draw from - are
                                      anything but anti-intellectual, anti-science or for that matter
                                      anti-philosophical. On the contrary, in our time and culture the task
                                      requires input from precisely those spheres. Which however does not
                                      diminish in the least the value and importance of the 'primitive' or
                                      'primal' appraches,or their own internal coherence. Approaches and
                                      mythic structures; which originally, and subsequently have been
                                      developed at the grass roots level prior to philosophical endeavours
                                      to 'systemise' them and make them more civilised…



                                      I agree with you until "grass roots level prior to philosophical endeavours
                                      to 'systemise' them and make them more civilized". 



                                      I don't think that is the motive of Philosophy, to make something civilized. 
                                      The motive of philosophy is to understand via modes of reason why and how something is.



                                    • Jake Stratton-Kent
                                      On 12 January 2014 17:24, Aaron H wrote: think we may actually be getting somewhere this time, as you have been a lot more
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jan 14, 2014
                                        On 12 January 2014 17:24, Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...> wrote:

                                        think we may actually be getting somewhere this time, as you have been
                                        a lot more forthcoming about your own position rather than merely
                                        decrying mine.

                                        > I beg to differ. Theurgy is just as effective at practical things. Theurgy in the big picture is about reuniting the self with the intelligible world, yes. But that isn't limited only to oneself. It is the work of the Theurgist to unite the self to the intelligible realm, and others, and dare I say everything. Everything in the physical world has a descended soul, including material objects which are inferior forms to its idea.

                                        incidentally, at no point have I said Theurgy is rubbish and that we
                                        must *only* concern ourselves with material things. What I have
                                        heavily implied is that when theurgy drifts back towards contemplation
                                        - or purely verbal and mental ritual etc - then it loses the practical
                                        work with stones, plants etc that Iamblichus introduced (from
                                        Hermeticism's 'god making'). This is a failing against which a
                                        Theurgist should be vigilant. When this occurs - or a tendency towards
                                        it is occuring - a corrective is necessary. The current interest in
                                        hoodoo; as well as the PGM and 'low Hermetics' is a good thing from
                                        that perspective. Extracting the most from these developments is what
                                        I am about.

                                        > Take for instance red brick dust used in hoodoo, to use a trendy-occult topic.

                                        there you go again, rubbishing things of value. I don't know where you
                                        are from but in the UK hoodoo is not something we take for granted, as
                                        it may well be in the US. Sure some superficiality may be involved in
                                        the current interest, but overall interest in it is a positive
                                        development.

                                        >Now how in the world is brick dust going to stop an angry ghost or evil or whatever? It won't. It is only brick dust and spirits pass through brick houses all the time, as does evil, bad luck, whatever. Sure, within the brick dust is a faint virtue of the brick wall it once was, and that brick wall is a lesser image of the indestructible idea of a boundary which unlike its physical counterpart is not susceptible to decay and corrosion. So the theurgist, in order to make this brick dust effective as a barrier against angry ghosts, needs to unite the physical form of the brick to the superior idea of indestructible boundary. How does he do this? He does this with help through the Means (gods within the cosmos , Angels, etc), which are intermediaries themselves within the World Soul, but existing above the rank of ensouled bodies. While the physical substance of the dust has not changed, the faint virtue within the physical substance has been raised within its soul. The rite may include songs with emphasizes protection, psalms, the invocation of stern gods

                                        and in what way does the root doctor *not* do this, and with more
                                        sincerity and power in many cases? A recitation of the 18th Psalm
                                        accompanying the laying of protection encompasses a good deal of the
                                        above. You apparently assume the drooling idiot practitioner of low
                                        magic just dumps some brick dust on the floor and that is it. Or that
                                        their practice needed philosophers to rectify it before it would work!

                                        Perhaps this is simply the way you come across, but it does smack of
                                        arrogance and elitism.

                                        > Besides, I'm beginning to wonder if everyone misunderstands what Theurgy is..

                                        aside from you of course ;p

                                        >It isn't just working with gods or angles; it is also working with heros (saints) and demons(personal genius, location spirits, etc, etc), which as Iamblichus mentions might involve blood sacrifices, and upon occasion making threats. Of course these practices change when Christendom had taken root in Europe, but not completely. The type of offerings changes more to plants and metals which fits the nature of the spirit involved, but blood never really disappears.

                                        I agree that Theurgy - when in touch with its roots and not closed
                                        minded about euither antique *or contemporary* practice - is a very
                                        powerful approach. Where I differ is largely in adopting a more
                                        chthonic worldview, rather than out and out rejection. In recovering
                                        materials from Neoplatonism for modern use inevitably a good deal of
                                        Neoplatonism comes with it, and yes, some of it was an advance - one
                                        way or other - and is worth retaining.


                                        >> nice ad hominem, but also bass ackwards, Philosophical Magic derives
                                        > its brass tacks from 'sorcery'. It constitutes a 'reform' from the
                                        > perspective of the elite - but the material did not originate with the
                                        > elite, nor is it their exclusive property.
                                        >
                                        > You are misunderstanding what I am saying here.

                                        there's a lot of that in this conversation.

                                        >What I am saying is that magic is philosophical. For magic to work it has to have a sort of "reason", behind what we do to produce change.

                                        agreed, MoL, although magic is older than philosophy. Philosophy
                                        provided explanations for archaic practice. We'll come back to this
                                        with a startling misreading later on.

                                        > Instead of just saying this spirit does this and that one does that...

                                        yes, that is a very unsatisfactory approach, which I have also argued
                                        against extensively. Spirits have to have motives etc in order for the
                                        transactions to occcur, have meaning etc. Otherwise we're just holding
                                        up an astral liquor store with a ritual knife. This is - as you say -
                                        philosophically unsatisfactory. I 100% accept that.

                                        ...the philosophers(especially those like Iamblichus and Proclus, etc)
                                        reached further to understand why the world is the way it is and how
                                        it works on multiple levels.

                                        accepted. I may not concur with all their conclusions, - and without
                                        Theurgy philosophy falls far short of this. .

                                        >How is this elitist?

                                        the attitude is: 'We take your magic, add a dash of speculative
                                        reasoning, call it our own and then look down on you'. Iamblichus
                                        saved Platonism from its ivory tower, but the idea there is no elitism
                                        involved is disingenuous.


                                        >> The fact is, neoplatonism acted as a vehicle or 'host tradition' for
                                        > older approaches.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ..Not a vehicle, but an evolution.

                                        Claiming to be more evolved is fairly elitist, apparently you don't
                                        see that. Anyhow one might argue that the older magics 'evolved' in
                                        neoplatonism, but at the same time it acted as a vehicle to preserve
                                        them. Chances are even a collection like the PGM was buried by a
                                        neoplatonist. There are plenty of examples of philosophers collecting
                                        magical texts in later history. Thus 'a vehicle' is not incorrect
                                        simply because the philosophers were 'improving' what they'd picked
                                        up..

                                        Fact is that archaic traditions were carried forward by neoplatonism
                                        and can be - to an extent - extracted from it. Some of them weren't
                                        very well assimilated, take for example the use of the Lunar Mansions
                                        (as opposed to the decans). These slide back into goetia fairly
                                        readily precisely because the neoplatonists only *preserved* them, not
                                        making nearly so much use of them as they did of the decans.

                                        Talking of which, incidentally, given that a lot of the practical
                                        magic Theurgy took on was Hermetic, are you arguing that Theurgy is
                                        'more evolved' than Hermeticism, as well as the 'low magic' of the
                                        common folk? Or are you simply unaware that Hermeticism was a major
                                        contributor to ancient theurgy?

                                        >> That magic 'carried' by neoplatonism filtered back down to the
                                        > grimoires (which certainly aren't particularly philosophical) was
                                        > naturally facilitated by this.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Of course the grimoires are philosophical. Surely not in a discursive lecture, but certainly as a practical application of philosophy.

                                        hogwash!
                                        You are ignoring the denunciation of these texts by major Neoplatonist
                                        figures (as 'goetia'), and imagining them to be part of highbrow
                                        Renaissance thinking.

                                        They include neoplatonist thinking, prinipally in the structuring of
                                        spirit hierarchies, but they're no more philosophical than Mrs Beaton.

                                        Which is why the likes of John Dee tried so hard to impose a
                                        philosophical (and theological) structure onto grimoire methods, while
                                        rigorously opposing what he saw as blasphemous or degraded in them.

                                        >> naturally, I've disowned the 'older is better' concept in earlier
                                        > sparring matches; you've moved on to the straw man.

                                        > I fail to see this..

                                        yes you do.


                                        >> (much as the mentor of Pythagoras *was not* a philosopher, and
                                        > occupied a 'mythological' rather than 'philosophical universe. Some of
                                        > that perspective is a large part of what modern occultism is strugling
                                        > to regain - with or without your approval).
                                        >
                                        > I'm not certain I understand what you mean.

                                        the clue is in the 4th to 6th words which you skipped over.

                                        >Of course Pythagoras was a philosopher,

                                        yes, exactly - he was the *first* to call himself a philosopher; while
                                        his mentor Pherecydes - who apparently you overlooked me even
                                        mentioning! - was a mythic astronomer. Its hard to argue with somone
                                        who isn't even bothering to read what you say but just makes
                                        assertions based on what they already think.

                                        Pherecydes was 'pre-philosophy' he came from a purely *magical* worldview.

                                        Philosophy interprets magic, sublimates or 'etherealises' it, but it
                                        does not originate it. Therefore you cannot claim magic is
                                        philosophical; the reverse is true: historically philosophy became
                                        magical.

                                        >My rejection of GD, Thelema, and Chaos is that they all rely on post-mesmerism using terms like "energy" as if there is some kind of electromagnetic spiritual force, when "energia" originally only meant being in a state of work. So yes I personally reject some of the modern occultic movement. That doesn't mean I will always have this attitude, but for now….

                                        So your assertion that I reject progress derives from the fact that
                                        the only part of what I am interested in that also interests you is
                                        from the past - that's a pretty odd way of reasoning! I'm interested
                                        in magic across many cultures and in many periods. Your version of the
                                        'Myth of Progress' (Philosophy 'improving' magic) is an unusual
                                        variant - since it rejects so much from the present (from Hoodoo to
                                        Thelema) while placing exaggerated value on Renaissance systems.


                                        >> you really don't get it do you? It requires intellectual effort to
                                        > recover materials from within a host tradition (Lewy's thesis is a
                                        > flawed but unsurpassed masterpiece). You appear to see me as an
                                        > inverted snob, but avoiding this task on the grounds of being an
                                        > intellectual is plainly the other kind.

                                        > No, I get that recovering the origin of where a practice or ideas came from is an intellectual endeavor, and I do see you as an intellectual. But it appears to me you are trying to pull and separate from Theurgy earlier forms of spirit work on the grounds that it is the TRUE form of WMT. It may not be your intent, as I can't read your mind, but it certainly comes across this way. And that is why I think you are being snobbish. Theurgy is equally a true form of the WMT.

                                        I never argued that it wasn't - what I have argued is that the so
                                        called primitive and 'unevolved' stuff, the low magic etc needs
                                        re-examining. Not simply the ancient materials Iamblichus was familiar
                                        with, but more recent 'low magic' too - and that this can only benefit
                                        occultism as a whole. I do - simultaneously - have a great interest
                                        and investment in some aspects of the so-called primitive or archaic
                                        perspective (such as valuing the material realm rather than seeking to
                                        escape it).

                                        This is why I hold that Iamblichus' achievement is so important. He
                                        overcame the world-hating or anti-cosmic tendencies inherent in some
                                        Platonic thought. Far more effectively - from a magician's POV - than
                                        merely arguing against the same tendencies in pessimistic gnosticism.

                                        In short, in making it magical he saved Platonism from itself.

                                        >> You also don't appear to be aware that a 'pro-science' school like
                                        Chaos Magic has argued for much the same reappraisal and focus on
                                        sorcery.


                                        > As stated earlier, I think science is an insufficient tool to test the immaterial, and certainly magic as a cause. There are just too many variables, and not enough controls. Try doing the same ritual twice, I bet the results will come about differently and with lesser or greater results. Such is magic.

                                        I wasn't arguing the case for these schools, but ridiculing the notion
                                        that I was anti-progress or holding that 'older is better'.

                                        Whether you like them or not is not the point, fact is I am not
                                        arguing for a retrogressive approach like 'pre-Hellenic
                                        reconstructionism'. Your Renaissance emphasis is more open to charges
                                        of that nature.

                                        >> I don't think that is the motive of Philosophy, to make something civilized.

                                        you give that impression, & share the prejudices of those who did.

                                        >> The motive of philosophy is to understand via modes of reason why and how something is.

                                        "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it"

                                        while it was Marx who actually said this, it can be appropriated by
                                        Magic, as comment on the marriage of Magic and Philosophy pioneered by
                                        Iamblichus.

                                        My argument is that his accomplishment was not once and for all time,
                                        but ongoing. The so called 'low magic' of our period is worthy of
                                        serious attention and can *rectify* the modern philosophical schools
                                        in the same way Iamblichus 'appropriation' of goetia and low
                                        Hermeticism did in his time.

                                        ALWays

                                        Jake

                                        http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
                                      • Raptor 69n
                                        This type of conversation is EXACTLY why I enjoy this blog so much. A subject questioned and answered through intellectual exchange, with valid points from
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jan 14, 2014
                                          This type of conversation is EXACTLY why I enjoy this blog so much. A subject questioned and answered through intellectual exchange, with valid points from both or all sides shown so well, then we or I will say it myself. I truly learn so much more as I dissect the conversation and research on what is given with  a new perspective which helps my understanding sooooo much more. Thank you my friends (if i may be so bold as to call you this) I really appreciate your knowledge and willingness to share in this forum.
                                          Oz


                                          On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:54 PM, Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...> wrote:
                                           



                                          Jake,

                                          no offense taken - though I suspect you might have read more carefully
                                          had another writer raised the same or similar points. As mentioned
                                          there are terminological issues regarding levels here that are hard to
                                          deal with and require impartial thought.
                                          Now for some further discussion.



                                          An 'ideal' graphic symbol being 'more perfect as a tool' than
                                          something material sounds like philosophical malarkey to me.


                                          That is an odd response. How can someone turn their nose-up at philosophy in general (or especially neoplatonism) and supposedly work magic. Magic depends on philosophy. There is a reason why magic works, and philosophy is the understanding of those principles. Without understanding why you are collecting your dust and bones, you are just a madman playing in the dirt and hoping what you are doing is going to work.

                                          This involves difficulties I've learned to penetrate and spent some
                                          time clarifying in hardcopy. It is a matter of historical fact that
                                          ancient Theurgy borrowed everything practical from Goetia,
                                          superimposed a philosophical veneer reinterpreting in highbrow terms
                                          ('ideal forms' etc, straight out of Plato) and then disowned the
                                          source.



                                          Just because something is more primitive, doesn't make it better. Were the fields of science better in the victorian age, or today? Things evolve after much contemplation, and practice. Refusal of that fact only illustrates your personal biases here. And, since when did these neoplatonic philosophers disown where theurgy came from? I think Iamblichus was very clear where his idea of Theurgy came from in his defense On the Egyptians Mysteries. His work was to understand how and why it works. But, if you are against progress...

                                          This has important implications in practice as well as historically,
                                          with which some modern occultists are now engaging. Over-etherealised
                                          magic is less effective in a lot of circumstances where the old skool
                                          'down & dirty* stuff works extremely well
                                          .


                                          Again I find it funny that a fellow intellectual is thumbing his nose at intellectualism in general, yet this 'old skool down and dirty' preference is ripe with the same elitism(albeit inverted) that you claim theurgists possess.

                                          There's nothing particularly difficult involved in grasping this
                                          simple fact. If we can take off the straightjacket more recent schools
                                          have saddled us with that is.



                                          Straightjacket? I don't feel confined. Also, I have a hard time labeling the Neoplatonic schools of thought as "recent".


                                          ahem, it is far older than Christianity, and its first appearances
                                          historically across several continents involve cultures possessing an
                                          advanced astronomy, and an interest in the cycle of conjunctions of
                                          Sun and Venus. Sumerian, Meso-American etc. It originally had *zero*
                                          to do with the five wounds of Jesus. Dragging religious
                                          reinterpretations of a primal symbol into the discussion hardly helps
                                          things. In any case it is not the symbol but the *level of working* I
                                          was pointing at.


                                          Yes of course. It also has pythagorean, other astrologic references besides Venus, and more. The reason I brought up Jesus with the pentagram glyph was to give a *more well-known* association (certainly not limiting it here) and example of its potential as an exorcism aid. Since we are talking about the LBRP as a mode of exorcism and the pentagram is part of said ritual, I find it very relevant. Besides, you would be hard pressed to find a potent symbol without religious interpretations.

                                          no-one is denying that - it is the level of function of this
                                          particular ritual that is in question; that and the implciations of
                                          levels of operation for different magical work.

                                          Take note that this is the *Lesser* banishing pentagram ritual, so
                                          remarks concerning it are distinct from the level of operation in the
                                          Greater Ritual of the Pentagram - for example. Even in the GD context
                                          taken alone this points to the matter of *levels* mentioned before,
                                          which is nothing to do with 'ideal symbols' and their *superimposed*
                                          religious connotations etc, but magical technology and on what level
                                          they operate.



                                          Magical technology is full of symbols, and the application of said symbols. Aside from that, if you are suggesting that the LBRP is only effective in the beginning stages noisy spirit attacks, than I would probably agree. I don't think the LBRP is a very good exorcism ritual(if it is at all) even though there are elements that could be used for an exorcism. But, this has nothing to do with it being less "down and dirty". It has everything to do how the ritual is written and geared. The ritual as far I understand it from doing it daily years ago is that it is geared not to change the magician's surroundings as much as the magician itself and a way to prepare him for the later rituals of the order. What would make it more effective would be the use of psalms relevant to exorcism at the beginning, and exhortations of exorcisms before thrusting the names into the pentagrams. But then, this would cease to be the LBRP.


                                          *WRONG* and a strong indicator of careless reading and retention of
                                          dogmatic notions. It was yours truly who had success on behalf of the
                                          client with traditional *witchcraft and grimoire methods* that operate
                                          on a similar level to hoodoo and such methods.
                                           


                                          When I read this, "A Nigerian client of mine years ago was being powerfully cursed by a relative, with extremely unpleasant and objective results (some of which initially spilled into my life too). My client took up the pentagram at my suggestion, but while it made him feel better and more able to cope, it had no effect on the phenoma at all, which took 'old skool' methods to dispel." 
                                          I read it that it was your client who found the pentagram to be less effective, not you. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote.




                                          I point to hoodoo as
                                          fulfilling similar roles for general purposes. It was not employed in
                                          the example given. The matter of levels has little to do with cultural
                                          preferences etc either. Keep the neo-colonial noise down please.



                                          I'll tell you what. 
                                          I'll keep my "neocolonial noise"(what ever that is supposed to mean) down, if you turn your "GOETIA(™)" propaganda and book promotion to a minimum.  





                                          Sincerely,
                                          AH


                                        • Aaron H
                                          I apologize for the long delay. Last week was a very busy week. ... I m only stating that hoodoo is trendy at the moment in the occult world; i m not passing
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jan 19, 2014
                                            I apologize for the long delay. Last week was a very busy week.


                                            > incidentally, at no point have I said Theurgy is rubbish and that we
                                            > must *only* concern ourselves with material things. What I have
                                            > heavily implied is that when theurgy drifts back towards contemplation
                                            > - or purely verbal and mental ritual etc - then it loses the practical
                                            > work with stones, plants etc that Iamblichus introduced (from
                                            > Hermeticism's 'god making'). This is a failing against which a
                                            > Theurgist should be vigilant. When this occurs - or a tendency towards
                                            > it is occuring - a corrective is necessary. The current interest in
                                            > hoodoo; as well as the PGM and 'low Hermetics' is a good thing from
                                            > that perspective. Extracting the most from these developments is what
                                            > I am about.




                                            > > Take for instance red brick dust used in hoodoo, to use a trendy-occult topic.
                                            >
                                            > there you go again, rubbishing things of value. I don't know where you
                                            > are from but in the UK hoodoo is not something we take for granted, as
                                            > it may well be in the US. Sure some superficiality may be involved in
                                            > the current interest, but overall interest in it is a positive
                                            > development.

                                            I'm only stating that hoodoo is trendy at the moment in the occult world; i'm not passing judgement on its worth.

                                            > >Now how in the world is brick dust going to stop an angry ghost or evil or whatever? It won't. It is only brick dust and spirits pass through brick houses all the time, as does evil, bad luck, whatever. Sure, within the brick dust is a faint virtue of the brick wall it once was, and that brick wall is a lesser image of the indestructible idea of a boundary which unlike its physical counterpart is not susceptible to decay and corrosion. So the theurgist, in order to make this brick dust effective as a barrier against angry ghosts, needs to unite the physical form of the brick to the superior idea of indestructible boundary. How does he do this? He does this with help through the Means (gods within the cosmos , Angels, etc), which are intermediaries themselves within the World Soul, but existing above the rank of ensouled bodies. While the physical substance of the dust has not changed, the faint virtue within the physical substance has been raised within its soul. The rite may include songs with emphasizes protection, psalms, the invocation of stern gods
                                            >
                                            > and in what way does the root doctor *not* do this, and with more
                                            > sincerity and power in many cases? A recitation of the 18th Psalm
                                            > accompanying the laying of protection encompasses a good deal of the
                                            > above. You apparently assume the drooling idiot practitioner of low
                                            > magic just dumps some brick dust on the floor and that is it. Or that
                                            > their practice needed philosophers to rectify it before it would work!

                                            I'm referring to the buffoons who purchase hoodoo "products," in a little shop, and expect it to do things simply because the package says it will create effects in their life. That is just superstition, and while superstition is an aid(as Agrippa states) it will hardly do the job on its own. A Spirit/Root worker has to be involved as you pointed out. 


                                            > >What I am saying is that magic is philosophical. For magic to work it has to have a sort of "reason", behind what we do to produce change.
                                            >
                                            > agreed, MoL, although magic is older than philosophy. Philosophy
                                            > provided explanations for archaic practice. We'll come back to this
                                            > with a startling misreading later on.

                                            I certainly hope so.

                                            > > Instead of just saying this spirit does this and that one does that...
                                            >
                                            > yes, that is a very unsatisfactory approach, which I have also argued
                                            > against extensively. Spirits have to have motives etc in order for the
                                            > transactions to occcur, have meaning etc. Otherwise we're just holding
                                            > up an astral liquor store with a ritual knife. This is - as you say -
                                            > philosophically unsatisfactory. I 100% accept that.

                                            Agreed.

                                            > ...the philosophers(especially those like Iamblichus and Proclus, etc)
                                            > reached further to understand why the world is the way it is and how
                                            > it works on multiple levels.
                                            >
                                            > accepted. I may not concur with all their conclusions, - and without
                                            > Theurgy philosophy falls far short of this. .

                                            I don't agree with all of their conclusions either, and I still go back and forth on some topics where they differed. 


                                            > Claiming to be more evolved is fairly elitist, apparently you don't
                                            > see that. Anyhow one might argue that the older magics 'evolved' in
                                            > neoplatonism, but at the same time it acted as a vehicle to preserve
                                            > them. Chances are even a collection like the PGM was buried by a
                                            > neoplatonist. There are plenty of examples of philosophers collecting
                                            > magical texts in later history. Thus 'a vehicle' is not incorrect
                                            > simply because the philosophers were 'improving' what they'd picked
                                            > up..

                                            If you mean "vehicle" in that an earlier text is transported to a later date through the act of preservation or being amended by the hands of a collector, then I guess I can understand what you are suggesting here.  I would assume that practitioners of the older systems probably also became involved in these neoplatonic/theurgic schools, as they were pretty popular. Of course this is speculation, but probably a safe one.

                                            > Fact is that archaic traditions were carried forward by neoplatonism
                                            > and can be - to an extent - extracted from it. Some of them weren't
                                            > very well assimilated, take for example the use of the Lunar Mansions
                                            > (as opposed to the decans). These slide back into goetia fairly
                                            > readily precisely because the neoplatonists only *preserved* them, not
                                            > making nearly so much use of them as they did of the decans.

                                            In what ways do you see the use of the 28 mansions as sliding back into goetia practice? 

                                            > Talking of which, incidentally, given that a lot of the practical
                                            > magic Theurgy took on was Hermetic, are you arguing that Theurgy is
                                            > 'more evolved' than Hermeticism, as well as the 'low magic' of the
                                            > common folk? Or are you simply unaware that Hermeticism was a major
                                            > contributor to ancient theurgy?

                                            This is where it gets complicated. 
                                            Hermeticism and Neoplatonism are both late antiquity systems, so the probably that they influenced each other is likely. Interestingly enough, there is no proof of Hermetica existing prior to the works of Plato, as was once believed. I would suggest that Platonism played a role in the development of hermetic thought within the greco-egyptian syncretic cults.
                                            And while we in the modern age like to separate Neoplatonic philosophers from Platonic ones, such a categorization didn't exist in late antiquity. Plotinus and gang were just a continuation of the Platonic school, post-aristotle of course. So in a nutshell I see Hermeticism as just a pre-theurgy-theurgy.


                                            > Pherecydes was 'pre-philosophy' he came from a purely *magical* worldview.

                                            OK so here is the problem. When you write "pre-philosophy", you are referring to the period before the usage of the actual term from Pythagoras forward. I am referring to "philosophy" in its generic sense, as a system of ideas and beliefs to formulate a world picture complete with cause and effect. So with that in mind, maybe you will understand what I mean when I say that magic depends on philosophy. In order for the immaterial to cause effects in the physical, there has to be a reason as to how or why. This can only take place if there is a well developed systemized world. 


                                            > >My rejection of GD, Thelema, and Chaos is that they all rely on post-mesmerism using terms like "energy" as if there is some kind of electromagnetic spiritual force, when "energia" originally only meant being in a state of work. So yes I personally reject some of the modern occultic movement. That doesn't mean I will always have this attitude, but for now….
                                            >
                                            > So your assertion that I reject progress derives from the fact that
                                            > the only part of what I am interested in that also interests you is
                                            > from the past - that's a pretty odd way of reasoning! I'm interested
                                            > in magic across many cultures and in many periods. Your version of the
                                            > 'Myth of Progress' (Philosophy 'improving' magic) is an unusual
                                            > variant - since it rejects so much from the present (from Hoodoo to
                                            > Thelema) while placing exaggerated value on Renaissance systems.

                                            I don't find the low magic of hoodoo to be new at all; its just natural magic and Agrippa writes about it in Book One.


                                            > > No, I get that recovering the origin of where a practice or ideas came from is an intellectual endeavor, and I do see you as an intellectual. But it appears to me you are trying to pull and separate from Theurgy earlier forms of spirit work on the grounds that it is the TRUE form of WMT. It may not be your intent, as I can't read your mind, but it certainly comes across this way. And that is why I think you are being snobbish. Theurgy is equally a true form of the WMT.
                                            >
                                            > I never argued that it wasn't - what I have argued is that the so
                                            > called primitive and 'unevolved' stuff, the low magic etc needs
                                            > re-examining. Not simply the ancient materials Iamblichus was familiar
                                            > with, but more recent 'low magic' too - and that this can only benefit
                                            > occultism as a whole. I do - simultaneously - have a great interest
                                            > and investment in some aspects of the so-called primitive or archaic
                                            > perspective (such as valuing the material realm rather than seeking to
                                            > escape it).


                                            > Whether you like them or not is not the point, fact is I am not
                                            > arguing for a retrogressive approach like 'pre-Hellenic
                                            > reconstructionism'. Your Renaissance emphasis is more open to charges
                                            > of that nature.


                                            My emphasis in Renaissance occultism isn't a form of reconstructionism I assure you. I adopt these approaches to modern day use of course. But, the reason I go back to the renaissance as my preferred source is because it is, in my opinion, the last part of a continual chain of ideas from late antiquity to relatively modern age, low magic included. The divorce in my opinion comes from the post-mesmer and post -theosophical schools, where the idea of a non-physical philosophical essence or virtue within things is switched-out for electromagnetism in order to conform to the materialists of the industrial age.
                                            This doesn't mean I don't like some of the technology(rituals) of the newer occultism, but their understanding of the mechanics of occultism, relying on some sort of energy, is no longer part of the same continual line of thought... in my opinion. 


                                            > >> I don't think that is the motive of Philosophy, to make something civilized.
                                            >
                                            > you give that impression, & share the prejudices of those who did.



                                            >
                                            > >> The motive of philosophy is to understand via modes of reason why and how something is.
                                            >
                                            > "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it"
                                            >
                                            > while it was Marx who actually said this, it can be appropriated by
                                            > Magic, as comment on the marriage of Magic and Philosophy pioneered by
                                            > Iamblichus.
                                            >
                                            > My argument is that his accomplishment was not once and for all time,
                                            > but ongoing. The so called 'low magic' of our period is worthy of
                                            > serious attention and can *rectify* the modern philosophical schools
                                            > in the same way Iamblichus 'appropriation' of goetia and low
                                            > Hermeticism did in his time.




                                            > ALWays
                                            >
                                            > Jake
                                            >
                                            > http://www.underworldapothecary.com/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------------------
                                            >
                                            > "Secrets of the Magickal Grimoires" is now available! Let me know what you think.
                                            > http://kheph777.tripod.com/indexsecrets.htmlYahoo Groups Links
                                            >
                                            > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solomonic/
                                            >
                                            > <*> Your email settings:
                                            > Individual Email | Traditional
                                            >
                                            > <*> To change settings online go to:
                                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solomonic/join
                                            > (Yahoo! ID required)
                                            >
                                            > <*> To change settings via email:
                                            > solomonic-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                            > solomonic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                                            >
                                            > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > solomonic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            >
                                            > <*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
                                            > http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
                                            >
                                          • Jake Stratton-Kent
                                            Hi Aaron H, no worries on your delayed reply, I ve been unavoidably house bound, so writing at least is easier for me currently. ... A.H. ... there are good
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jan 20, 2014
                                              Hi Aaron H,

                                              no worries on your delayed reply, I've been unavoidably house bound,
                                              so writing at least is easier for me currently.

                                              On 20 January 2014 04:59, Aaron H <enigmius.ah@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >> I apologize for the long delay. Last week was a very busy week.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              A.H.
                                              > >I'm only stating that hoodoo is trendy at the moment in the occult world; i'm not passing judgement on its worth.

                                              there are good reasons for it coming into 'fashion' and I rather think
                                              or hope it is deeper than that. Several of my interests of long
                                              standing eventually got wider attention. One might say the grimoires
                                              are 'trendy at the moment', but the standard of writing and research
                                              is good and fairly widespread.

                                              AH
                                              > If you mean "vehicle" in that an earlier text is transported to a later date through the act of preservation or being amended by the hands of a collector, then I guess I can understand what you are suggesting here.

                                              precisely

                                              AH
                                              >>I would assume that practitioners of the older systems probably also became involved in these neoplatonic/theurgic schools, as they were pretty popular. Of course this is speculation, but probably a safe one.

                                              there were also 'private religious associations' (Isis, Dionysus and
                                              various other mystery cults &c) where magic was widespread. As you say
                                              these likely included theurgic practices, and could be fairly
                                              decorous. OTOH fairly wild Dionysian initiations also continued
                                              (including raw flesh eating - followed likely by lifelong
                                              vegetarianism however)


                                              >
                                              > > Fact is that archaic traditions were carried forward by neoplatonism
                                              > > and can be - to an extent - extracted from it. Some of them weren't
                                              > > very well assimilated, take for example the use of the Lunar Mansions
                                              > > (as opposed to the decans). These slide back into goetia fairly
                                              > > readily precisely because the neoplatonists only *preserved* them, not
                                              > > making nearly so much use of them as they did of the decans.
                                              >
                                              > In what ways do you see the use of the 28 mansions as sliding back into goetia practice?

                                              in a variety of ways, my folder on them is bulky. The real Albertus
                                              Magnus wrote against them as necromantic and demonic, and certainly
                                              the materials in the grimoires s of a fairly 'old school' type,
                                              practical, hands on, involving some unpleasant ingredients and with
                                              little evident 'philosophicisation'. The Likelihood is the solar
                                              decans were more idealised early on; as pertaining to an
                                              optimistically viewed demiurge or 'Son/Son' of God. The mansions OTOH
                                              were associated with Hecate - in the PGM for instance - and likely
                                              devalued with her notwithstanding the Chaldean Oracles &c.

                                              There was a Renaissance prettification of the Decans via the Latin MS
                                              (as opposed to the less well known Gk 'Book of Hermes to Asclepius',
                                              which is a more old school 'down & dirty' treatment).

                                              This never happened to the Mansions, which - for example - always
                                              retained their zoomorphic forms, and in the PGM especially are
                                              accompanied by old school animal cries and other goetic (ie
                                              unreformed, archaic) elements as well as more 'philosophical'
                                              attributions to vowels, and a parallel 'lunar pantheism'' paralleling
                                              Helios-Apollo with the decans etc.

                                              JSK
                                              > > Talking of which, incidentally, given that a lot of the practical
                                              > > magic Theurgy took on was Hermetic, are you arguing that Theurgy is
                                              > > 'more evolved' than Hermeticism, as well as the 'low magic' of the
                                              > > common folk? Or are you simply unaware that Hermeticism was a major
                                              > > contributor to ancient theurgy?

                                              AH
                                              > This is where it gets complicated.
                                              > Hermeticism and Neoplatonism are both late antiquity systems, so the probably that they influenced each other is likely.
                                              > Interestingly enough, there is no proof of Hermetica existing prior to the works of Plato, as was once believed. I would suggest that Platonism played a role in the development of hermetic thought within the greco-egyptian syncretic cults.

                                              Oh I'm not putting Thrice Great Hermes as contemporary with Moses,
                                              Casuabon through Yates have thoroughly demolished that. Nevertheless,
                                              some 'Egyptian' texts Iamblichus referred to were apparently Hermetic,
                                              and mistaken by him for earlier 'indigenous' materials. In fact
                                              Hermeticism's Egyptian pedigree appears at least in part authentic,
                                              and the date of the 'low' or 'practical' texts is under academic
                                              reassessment.

                                              That is, the so called 'popular Hermetic cult' described by Mead and
                                              co may well have been integral to rather than distinct from the
                                              'higher' materials; indeed the so called 'low' materials are in fact
                                              the earliest and in some senses, the 'purest'. In short, the partial
                                              reliance of Theurgy on ''low' Hermetica (as well as upon 'goetia' as
                                              'low magic' in general) is nowadays increasingly established.

                                              [I'd give chapter & verse from acadmic sources but there's a temporary
                                              problemette with my files etc. EG3 will have a full bibliography
                                              however, even page references!]

                                              AH
                                              > And while we in the modern age like to separate Neoplatonic philosophers from Platonic ones, such a categorization didn't exist in late antiquity. Plotinus and gang were just a continuation of the Platonic school, post-aristotle of course.

                                              no disagreement from me there - the 'neo' is an unnecessary academic
                                              affectation, and certainly not how they saw themselves

                                              AH
                                              >So in a nutshell I see Hermeticism as just a pre-theurgy-theurgy.

                                              well here we're close enough - besides the fact that the 'low'
                                              Hermetics have had a bad press among philosophers and academics in the
                                              past. I welcome the change that is taking place on this count.

                                              JSK
                                              > > Pherecydes was 'pre-philosophy' he came from a purely *magical* worldview.

                                              AH
                                              > OK so here is the problem. When you write "pre-philosophy", you are referring to the period before the usage of the actual term from Pythagoras forward. I am referring to "philosophy" in its generic sense, as a system of ideas and beliefs to formulate a world picture complete with cause and effect. So with that in mind, maybe you will understand what I mean when I say that magic depends on philosophy. In order for the immaterial to cause effects in the physical, there has to be a reason as to how or why. This can only take place if there is a well developed systemized world.

                                              this is a bit like modern exponents of 'scientism' retrospectively
                                              claiming that any part of magic that worked was really science.
                                              Trouble is, before the Greeks get hold of Chaldean *star lore*
                                              (Pherecydes was Syrian incidentally, like a lot of the big 'Greek'
                                              philosophers and magicians) Astrology as a 'rational' system of cause
                                              and effect did not exist - it was at least semi mythic 'star-lore'.
                                              Ergo, prior to the 'ology' phase it was not philosophical in the sense
                                              you mean.

                                              Philosophy cannot backdate its association with these materials ( a
                                              common fault of lineage mongers to this day). Even if Pherecydes was
                                              thoroughly worthy of Pythagoras' strong affection and respect, he
                                              represents a tipping point between 'ology' and a more poetic and
                                              mysterious world view - also a more 'primal' one, and 'primitive' in
                                              the positive sense of first, original etc. There is, whether you like
                                              it or not, a divide between 'ology' (reason and philosophy') and an
                                              earlier mythic way of looking at things. While 'ology' is valuable and
                                              progressive, exploring the other side of that line is not without
                                              purpose for magicians either.

                                              I don't intend going back to the oldest is best chestnut, which
                                              doesn't apply to either of us I suspect. Yet survivals or examples of
                                              this 'darker layer' have been consistently badly handled,
                                              misunderstood, devalued, neglected etc etc for a very long time. We
                                              should at least understand what it is philosophy is claiming to have
                                              incorporated and superceded, understand the relations between them,
                                              and the true character - so far as we may - of the despised 'goetia',
                                              'low magic' etc. Such a reassessment is part of what my work has been
                                              intended to facilitate. Obviously my sympathies lay predominantly with
                                              the Goetic/Chthonic camp as an entirely legitimate spirituality.

                                              While largely merged with them between late antiquity and eary modern
                                              times; it is both necessary and possible to distinguish it from
                                              Hermeticism and Theurgy as reinterpretations and partial adaptations.

                                              AH
                                              > I don't find the low magic of hoodoo to be new at all; its just natural magic and Agrippa writes about it in Book One.

                                              agreed, essentially. Not only is much of it derived from European folk
                                              magic and pulp grimoires, a value of Hoodoo for us moderns is the
                                              practical pointers it can give towards getting to grips with hermetic
                                              correspondences of roots, stones, metals, plants etc.

                                              AH
                                              >> This doesn't mean I don't like some of the technology(rituals) of the newer occultism, but their understanding of the mechanics of occultism, relying on some sort of energy, is no longer part of the same continual line of thought... in my opinion.

                                              no argument, I'm an animist cum spiritist in practice; I steer clear
                                              of ontological 'beliefs' as being outside what can be proven one way
                                              or other.
                                              Psychological or energy based 'paradigms' inhibit exploration of the
                                              traditional materials and the 'Internal Mystery' of ritual in
                                              experiential terms.

                                              Not planning to revert to the cliche caveman any time soon just the same. ;)

                                              ALWays

                                              Jake
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.