This information may prove helpful: this concept of artificial daimons/spirits and even deities is, in modern magick, called a “servitor” when created by a single mage (this has unique dangers, as the servitor has to be limited in various ways or it can take on shadow characteristics of the creator and overstep its bounds) and an “egregore” when created by multiple mages working together (which has its own unique dangers, as well, as gods—artificial or not—can often overwhelm the psyches of their adherents).
Most modern magickal traditions are believed to have an egregore associated with them. This practice may have started in the 30s-40s with a German Left-Hand Path order called the Fraternitas Saturni, but that’s hard to really trace, especially since occult organizations tend to keep really bad records (present company included…I try to keep good journals, and the motto of my order is “The Method Of Science, The Aim Of Religion”, but it’s really hard to document a mystical experience in a useful way), that’s probably impossible to prove.
That's an interesting thing to compare. For the Iamblichean Platonists at least, no one can "create" a daimon, although one can certainly incarnate their influence, as happens with people groups. They'd attribute this to the power of "phantasia", which can help give form to the formless.
I'd probably then read the "creation" of deities as pretty much theurgy, as creating the conditions to help receive their constant descent. It's interesting how our modern bias towards bottom-up models affects our conception of magick and theurgy, at least for those traditions born in the past 200-300 years.
I don’t know if I would describe the tradition I work within—or rather have worked within for the last 28 years, I am going through an initiation later this month to go into the penultimate grade and I am reexamining my relationship to this tradition—as “bottom up”, exactly. Thelema sees the notion relationally. I am the God, and so are you, and so is every other instance of Hadit (complicated deity…easiest way to explain Him is as the point of view itself…of gods, spirits, humans, birds, whatever), and we simultaneously occupy that godhead with all the other spirits, gods, etc.). Basically the ultimate polycentric model.
There is, however, still a transcendentalist formula at the base of the mysticism, which I believe is actually historical rather than doctrinal. Thelema—and the order I have worked within my entire adult life, the A.’.A.’.—descended from the Golden Dawn, which itself descended from the dovetailed traditions of the Hermetic Qabalah on the one hand and the Grimoire Tradition on the other hand. I am actually working on a new polemic arguing against this transcendentalist model and arguing for a more horizontal model of mysticism that isn’t basically focused on getting out of the game (reversion/salmon going back upstream) rather than playing it well (Thelemites are called to do our true wills, essentially dynamically fulfill our ongoing *telos*, not commit a complicated version of mystical suicide where we don’t have to be us anymore).
So our core metaphysics is a bit confused, in my opinion, and much of my work in philosophy of magick is to remedy such issues that are more or less the result of historical forces like Christianity suppressing magickal practice. Magick doesn’t currently have a strong philosophical foundation…I want to solve that problem.
I'd say encosmik gods for lands and fields elements states of matter , irredgurdless of the states and flags that occupy them are always likely to influence and even follow the people that belong to the lands, Much like Plotinus saying every flame and every drop lives in a sense and will be united with its form in the ouranic life, what I've read of Butler ive found to be mis readings, People certianly treat thire nations as if thire are deities , the gods being the limit setters makes it hard to keep up a crystal icon of them but theres a general essense and the relation to them in thire pantheon is always dependent, Mammon is certianly the bastrad child of libertas, as I'd imagine Dionsyus is to Pan. or dawn to day.
There can and have been many Gods associated with the same place. Proclus tackles this phenomena in his Timeaus Commentary. So at least for him, its not a case of a simple exclusive 1-1 correspondence with a place. Proclus sees that as an unnecessary restriction on the Gods' agency. It's also one of the things that Proclus' interesting understanding of "Place" and "Space" is rather applicable to articulating. You're also sort of mixing up the relative fixity of land and the dynamic unity of people groups, who in their collectivity incarnate daimons of Gods, a phenomenon that is accounted for from at least Iamblichus forward.
I would like to know of these "misreadings" Butler does. I find him rather spot on.
This information may prove helpful: this concept of artificial daimons/spirits and even deities is, in modern magick, called a “servitor” when created by a single mage (this has unique dangers, as the servitor has to be limited in various ways or it can take on shadow characteristics of the creator and overstep its bounds) and an “egregore” when created by multiple mages working together (which has its own unique dangers, as well, as gods—artificial or not—can often overwhelm the psyches of their adherents).
Most modern magickal traditions are believed to have an egregore associated with them. This practice may have started in the 30s-40s with a German Left-Hand Path order called the Fraternitas Saturni, but that’s hard to really trace, especially since occult organizations tend to keep really bad records (present company included…I try to keep good journals, and the motto of my order is “The Method Of Science, The Aim Of Religion”, but it’s really hard to document a mystical experience in a useful way), that’s probably impossible to prove.
That's an interesting thing to compare. For the Iamblichean Platonists at least, no one can "create" a daimon, although one can certainly incarnate their influence, as happens with people groups. They'd attribute this to the power of "phantasia", which can help give form to the formless.
I'd probably then read the "creation" of deities as pretty much theurgy, as creating the conditions to help receive their constant descent. It's interesting how our modern bias towards bottom-up models affects our conception of magick and theurgy, at least for those traditions born in the past 200-300 years.
I don’t know if I would describe the tradition I work within—or rather have worked within for the last 28 years, I am going through an initiation later this month to go into the penultimate grade and I am reexamining my relationship to this tradition—as “bottom up”, exactly. Thelema sees the notion relationally. I am the God, and so are you, and so is every other instance of Hadit (complicated deity…easiest way to explain Him is as the point of view itself…of gods, spirits, humans, birds, whatever), and we simultaneously occupy that godhead with all the other spirits, gods, etc.). Basically the ultimate polycentric model.
There is, however, still a transcendentalist formula at the base of the mysticism, which I believe is actually historical rather than doctrinal. Thelema—and the order I have worked within my entire adult life, the A.’.A.’.—descended from the Golden Dawn, which itself descended from the dovetailed traditions of the Hermetic Qabalah on the one hand and the Grimoire Tradition on the other hand. I am actually working on a new polemic arguing against this transcendentalist model and arguing for a more horizontal model of mysticism that isn’t basically focused on getting out of the game (reversion/salmon going back upstream) rather than playing it well (Thelemites are called to do our true wills, essentially dynamically fulfill our ongoing *telos*, not commit a complicated version of mystical suicide where we don’t have to be us anymore).
So our core metaphysics is a bit confused, in my opinion, and much of my work in philosophy of magick is to remedy such issues that are more or less the result of historical forces like Christianity suppressing magickal practice. Magick doesn’t currently have a strong philosophical foundation…I want to solve that problem.
I'd say encosmik gods for lands and fields elements states of matter , irredgurdless of the states and flags that occupy them are always likely to influence and even follow the people that belong to the lands, Much like Plotinus saying every flame and every drop lives in a sense and will be united with its form in the ouranic life, what I've read of Butler ive found to be mis readings, People certianly treat thire nations as if thire are deities , the gods being the limit setters makes it hard to keep up a crystal icon of them but theres a general essense and the relation to them in thire pantheon is always dependent, Mammon is certianly the bastrad child of libertas, as I'd imagine Dionsyus is to Pan. or dawn to day.
There can and have been many Gods associated with the same place. Proclus tackles this phenomena in his Timeaus Commentary. So at least for him, its not a case of a simple exclusive 1-1 correspondence with a place. Proclus sees that as an unnecessary restriction on the Gods' agency. It's also one of the things that Proclus' interesting understanding of "Place" and "Space" is rather applicable to articulating. You're also sort of mixing up the relative fixity of land and the dynamic unity of people groups, who in their collectivity incarnate daimons of Gods, a phenomenon that is accounted for from at least Iamblichus forward.
I would like to know of these "misreadings" Butler does. I find him rather spot on.