Re: Goetic Evocation/Invocation... views?
lorax666
>I know everyone has their own opinions, and that some view Goetic
>Workings as evil, but I was wondering what peoples views were on
>which was safer or got a better result?
it isn't usually goetic workings that are viewed as evil but
the beings with whom one interacts during those workings --
such that it is treated as a high-tech dangerous animal or
dangerous chemical with which to involve oneself, and this
particularly in some kind of intimate way (e.g. invocation).
compare handling radioactive isotopes or venomous reptiles.
>So which do you think is safer and/or more effective,
presumably 'in relation to goetic spirits'. the question
about "effectiveness" brings up a more complex ambiguity
because you might be attempting to do any number of things
through the course of working with those spirits. I'll fill
in for you 'effective to achieving your desired goals'
so as to make it a rational question with open ends
and address all of those i can think of in the below.
> Evocation,
safer (#2). if you're trying to summon a volatile spirit
into a contained cage for purpose of interrogation and
exploitation, then this is your most effective method.
> Invocation,
least safe (#3). if you're trying to commune with
spirits said to be demonic, dangerous, or evil, then
this is probably your most effective method of
getting into a one-on-one with them.
> or just not doing it in the first place?
most safe (#1). not doing anything is usually the
most safe prior to initiating any event or
phenomenon. it returns to what would otherwise
be considered a steady state or the default rest.
this is effective if you want to remain untroubled
and have no interest in tangling with unknown and
potentially dangerous spirits, whatever spirits are.
lorax666
luckymojo.com@nagasiva
Janine Starscream
> Dark Xero <DarkX...@yahoo.com>:
i recently aquired a copy of Donald Tyson's Necronomicon. Outright,
it's a nice "travelogue" through the Lovecraft-Tysonian (hehe) mythos
current. It's pretty explicit as being one of the best works on
necromancy.
I'd wager to say that if done right it could work. I got bugs
chittering outside right now. Of course my kind isn't supposed to
venture into the dark spaces without skepticism and cyncial pragmatism
as a weapon, so for now I just view it as a pretty, if plausible,
story.
I outright deny any attempt on the "rationality" of this subject, as
"rationality" is just ONE, though very VALUABLE, aspect of this
multiply extended smooth/striated existence of mine/ours.
nocTifer
>> > ...some view Goetic Workings as evil, but I was
>> > safer or got a better result?
nocTifer:
>> it isn't usually goetic workings that are viewed as evil but
>> the beings with whom one interacts during those workings --
>> such that it is treated as a high-tech dangerous animal or
>> dangerous chemical with which to involve oneself, and this
>> particularly in some kind of intimate way (e.g. invocation).
>> compare handling radioactive isotopes or venomous reptiles.
>>
>> >So which do you think is safer and/or more effective,
>>
>> presumably 'in relation to goetic spirits'. the question
>> about "effectiveness" brings up a more complex ambiguity
>> because you might be attempting to do any number of things
>> through the course of working with those spirits. I'll fill
>> in for you 'effective to achieving your desired goals'
>> so as to make it a rational question with open ends
>> and address all of those i can think of in the below.
>>
>> > Evocation,
>>
>> safer (#2). if you're trying to summon a volatile spirit
>> into a contained cage for purpose of interrogation and
>> exploitation, then this is your most effective method.
>>
>> > Invocation,
>>
>> least safe (#3). if you're trying to commune with
>> spirits said to be demonic, dangerous, or evil, then
>> this is probably your most effective method of
>> getting into a one-on-one with them.
>>
>> > or just not doing it in the first place? =A0
>>
>> most safe (#1). not doing anything is usually the
>> most safe prior to initiating any event or
>> phenomenon. it returns to what would otherwise
>> be considered a steady state or the default rest.
>>
>> this is effective if you want to remain untroubled
>> and have no interest in tangling with unknown and
>> potentially dangerous spirits, whatever spirits are.
Janine Starscream <zevill...@yahoo.com>:
>i recently aquired a copy of Donald Tyson's Necronomicon.
how does that differ from Simon's? is it appreciably
more integral to the descriptions by Lovecraft? have
you read Harms' Chaosium compilation on the tome?
> ...It's pretty explicit as being one of the best works on
> necromancy.
is necromancy just working with demonic spirits/beings?
>I'd wager to say that if done right it could work. I got bugs
>chittering outside right now. Of course my kind isn't supposed to
>venture into the dark spaces without skepticism and cyncial pragmatism
>as a weapon, so for now I just view it as a pretty, if plausible,
>story.
I've noticed that people accept 'bugs' as some manifestation of
demonic, infernal, or necromantic energy. is that because bugs
(those ambiguous ambiguous 'bugs'!) eat up dead bodies?
>I outright deny any attempt on the "rationality" of this subject, as
>"rationality" is just ONE, though very VALUABLE, aspect of this
>multiply extended smooth/striated existence of mine/ours.
sounds unrealistic. Lovecraft had to point out that materialist
scientists have huge blind spots. of course in his fiction he
injected goo and monstrous nasty critters into those blind spots.
the radical distinction artificially created by these scientists
leaves them prone to unexpected encounters with the Unknown, and
rationality itself doesn't forbid or limit this except as it
adheres to unworkable norms.
more importantly, what does the Necronomicon have to do with
goetic demons? recently someone told me that they thought that
the qlippot orders/spirits/genii were somehow related to the
goetic spirits. I hadn't really considered it before, and yet
the Tree of Life ostensibly folds all of the real into its
symbolic classifier, so why not? but this begs the question,
how does one 'translate' accurately into any single paradigm?
recently someone asked me how i might relate them, and i must
say that i would not. that is, instead of trying to translate,
as one might in trying to 'universalize' or orthodocize one's
symbolism, i would presume that goetic spirits were associated
with the particular text directory known as the Lemegeton, and
that it didn't necessarily intersect, as a body, with those
intelligences or spirits associated with the qlippot, or
indeed with the awesome entities of The Necronomicon.
how could this be? well, my preference is to see that spirits
are relativized to individual centers of consciousness. this
may be because spirits and gods and whatnot conform to my
basic assumption as isolate intelligences interior to (the?)
human mind(s?), or it might be for some other reason, such
as that some peculiar connection has to be made in order for
contact or conversation with the dimension(s) where they may
be thought to dwell could take place. unlike some who float
the premise that i prefer, this does *NOT* lead me to the
conclusion that these intelligences are "fake" or "unreal"
or somehow "delusions". I have confirmed for myself that
they are not in many cases, but i cannot follow this out
into supposing that they are easily translatable, one set
to another, culture to culture. the descriptions are far
too diverse to be easily correlated, and selecting one
set's 'home' paradigm seems too extreme a move.
your comments?
nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
satanservice.org@nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
nocTifer
>> So which do you think is safer and/or more effective, Evocation,
>> Invocation, or just not doing it in the first place? =A0
Kisai <Aristo...@gmail.com>:
>I don't really make a distinction between evocation and invocation.
technically they are rationally discernable, though i realize that
they aren't always so as described.
>Both are varying degrees of the same process. The connection between
>the spirit and the practioner can vary "closer" and "further" during
>the communication.
>If you're unable to actually get the hang of the skills required to
>make evocation work, it's as safe as houses.
that's a rigorous critique. some describe the goetic spirit set
as as requiring VERY particular techniques to summon, portions of
which even seemed at times incomplete or irrational, such that
modern mages have at times taken to "discovering" new ways to
summon them or fashioning these for ease of apparent success.
>It can be dangerous, but not to a well trained mind. Unf., the way to
>get a well trained mind is from the school of hard knocks, and all of
>that banishing and meditiation that one was supposed to be proficient
>in before getting involved with spirit communication.
that's one way to handle martial conflict. there are others.
nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
satanservice.org@nocTifer
--------------------------------------------