Decided to share some more old posts I made on Occultism while taking on a more rationale pov. Each post is separated in bold:
Sigils and Symbols part 1
[Please note that the contents of this post comes from someone who not only doesn't use sigils, but has a rather limited grasp of their in-depth history.]
When it comes to the current (Starting from the 18th century and leading to the 21st) understanding of the nature of sigils as well as their construction, one thing appears to be consistent with their modern portrayal: they're just about individualized compared to their traditional counterparts.
From a traditional standpoint, sigils were said to be the signatures of various otherworldly beings, with their primary use being to call upon said otherworldly and then coerce them to do the summoner's bidding. Each entity had their own sigil. When compared to the modern usage of sigils, we see the following similarities:
Each sigil is specifically linked either to an entity or a cognition (mental process)
In order to invoke or summon the entity of a sigil or in modern cases, activate a cognition, there is always an exchange, a sacrifice of sorts if you will. For the ancients, this would be an offering which was used to lure the otherworldly being and in modern cases it is the destruction of the physical container of the sigil itself (do note that according to a couple of Reddit users, a sigil need not be inscribed. In fact, according to [Sharkyts|
], a sigil can be composed of an action, thus negating the need to destroy the physical container of a sigil in order to activate it.)
Each sigil has a single purpose. Usually it's to call forth an entity or to initiate a mental contraption however they could also be used for banishment and binding, the ideal being that if a summoned entity were to break free or go rogue while maintaining a form by which to interact with this world, then in order to banish them you would have to destroy their sigil. As for how sigils could be used to bind other worldly beings, this notion while not supported by Western understanding of magick, is a component of Asian necromancy. The deliberate creation of a Jiangshi is an excellent example of how sigils (Heavenly characters if you want to be technical) could be used to bind other worldly beings.
Where traditions and modern conceptions start to differ is the mechanism for why sigils supposedly work. Is it that they call forth a being according to traditional understanding or do they serve as a mental activation based on modern understanding? Another thing to note is that modern sigils are limited the individual's own psyche whereas as long as you could do the "proper" rites, almost anyone could use ancient sigils (although some of the summoned entities may harbor misgivings should either the summoner or offering is not up to their tastes). As a result, ancient sigils hold the advantage of being able to procure effects on the external environment when compared to modern sigils. On the other hand, modern sigils are said to be easier to mass produce and yet because they are so individualized, they thus cannot be shared unless a significant portion of the people using it share the same or a compatible understanding of the sigil as its creator. When one compares ancient sigils compared to modern ones, which if either holds the advantage and in what circumstances?
Other Worldly Rights - Sigils and Symbols part 2
When it comes to summoning, traditionally the summoner needed to know at least 2 things of the entity they wished to summon. One was their True Name, the other? Their sigil. It was said that their sigil represented their signature, thus by performing the rites, one could say a sigil is the equivalent of a legal signature in the Spiritual World to appear before the summoner... Or it would be if it weren't for the fact the summoned entity almost never imposed their Sigils themselves.
[
Do note this section deals with Contract Law and as always, check the laws in your area if you can and refer to a lawyer or at least someone who's very studious in the law, especially pertaining to where you live. Just make sure that if you are vibing for legal advice you get it from a certified lawyer, i.e. one who hasn't lost their license
]
Today if you were to sign a legal document using someone else's legal name, unless you've received expressed permission from the person in question to do so or are representing that person you would be committing fraud (there's a bit more nuance as in usually there's a requirement for the accused in question to have known they were using someone else's legal name without their approval upon which in court this would usually have to be proven. That or it's assumed it is the case). As ancient sigils were said to be the equivalent of an entity's signature, i.e. their legal signature, then to inscribe their sigil would in effect to be committing fraud in the spiritual world as not only did the entity in question not inscribed their sigils themselves, they didn't even give the summoner permission to do so. We can deduce this given that there are plenty of instructions encouraging summoners to coerce their summons to answer their call and obey. Of course the laws (if any) of the spiritual realm may be quite different from the mortal realm's and so maybe spirits don't have legal rights even in their own realm, though if that is the case, why do they have to respond to either their True Name or their sigil? Is it because they truly have to or could they be drawn to it?
The ancients tended to base their understanding or rather justification of the law based on their perception of the spiritual world. Given that fraud is illegal, perhaps a parallel can be made about spiritual laws should they exist. Of course all of this is mere speculation.
How Sigils gain and modify their meanings - Sigils and Symbols part 3
This post is dedicated to Deceiver
As pointed out by another user on this Amino, when it comes to the commonly used Sigils, most of them did not originally start out with a universal understanding or meaning. In order to gain the meaning (and supposed) effects they have today they had to be modified. Just like how the meaning of words can change given a drastic social change, i.e. if a word is used enough enough times under a certain context it will inevitably start to take on the traits which are associated, so too it seems that Sigils are no different.
Our current understanding of Sigils is that they are the physical embodiment of an ideal we want to manifest. Technically according to this [Reddit|
] page, they do have to be pictorial and could consist purely of actions such as singing or dancing, but for our purposes we will instead be focusing on the more common understanding of the word sigil(presumably). As stated in a previous entry, modern sigils are just as individualized as the traditional one's. As plenty of Sigils nowadays didn't start with a global meaning even from the regions of which they were derived from, through constant adaptation, their meanings (and presumably their effects and or scope) could be adjusted. Now whether the effects of a sigil could be changed by association would probably seem like a fairly obvious no to one who strictly follows the traditional path. And yet modern times have introduce concepts of magick that might make perception a bit more than a bystander.
Whether the effects of a sigil are arbitrary or if they can change is a question to ponder about. Perhaps some Sigils are one way while the rest are the other.
Traditions Part 1
Historically speaking, the practice of magick has been theistic in nature. Yes, there might have been the occasional practitioner who was a nontheist or advocated for secular ways when it came to their craft, but by and large, we can easily connect theism with traditional magick. Of course, for some religions you may not want to even suggest that their devotions often times had connections and were occasionally based on said practices.
Generally speaking, when it comes to traditional magick, we can expect practitioners to believe in a deity who intervenes in the lives of mortals and for the most part we see that this mindset remains true on a global level. While some traditions do emphasize that faith is an integral part in getting magick to operate correctly if at all, this faith based arcana does have at least one noticeable exception: Asian sorcery/witchcraft/ magecraft. For instance, the creation of a Jiangshi does not require you to believe in a deity and neither does creating a golem demand you follow the Jewish faith. So long as all the prerequisites were fulfilled, you could feasibly create a Jiangshi or a golem, belief being optional.
With all this said however, as the majority of traditional based magick is faith centric, is it any wonder spirituality is so heavily connected with the occult?
Traditions Part 2
Lock your doors at night, cough up to the might, take heed in their fight and above all, keep your children in sight. All of these things (unless you happen to live in a country like Norway where the recidivism rate is so low that people tend not to lock their doors and yes there are other reasons why or if you happen to live in a country that doesn't tax its inhabitants, of which there are a few) are traditions. Although it may seem off, traditions are like customs. They change. At what rate it can be hard to guess. Thus when a relatively new movement is introduced, at what point does it become traditional?
Human societies are geared towards survival. That means if the society finds something to be detrimental, it will attempt to snuff it out. Being realistic, this is impossible to do entirely. As such, it stands to reason that the types of movements that should have the least amount of traction are the ones demanding for current criminal activity, especially when said activity is openly condemned by the government (your neighbors in the event you live in an Anarchy). On the opposite end of the spectrum, since humans tend to find it difficulty to make drastic changes to their lifestyles, any emerging movement which utilizes and slightly modifies already existing norms is more likely to be accepted more easily. In short, the more in common a new movement has with the current settlement, the more likely it will be for it to be socially accepted and thus turned into tradition.
Another facet about traditions is that they tend to be culture specific. Sure, there are certain factors that appear to be prevalent, but when it comes to specifics, cultures and thus traditions are highly distinguished by region. As such we can see there is also a culture barrier when it comes to the transitioning of traditions across borders. This is especially the case for cultures that are closed and up to 11 if they happen to be relatively unknown.
Thus, is it any wonder that most of what is circulated about the occult stems mostly from European lore? When referring to traditional magick, perhaps as a result of the medium, what we can readily read about the occult stems from Europe. Perhaps this is because other countries didn't place much emphasis on magick or maybe Europe happens to be more open about its occult practices. Whatever the case may be, there certainly does seem to be quite a number of variables that factor in the transitioning of traditions even in the occult.
Can Spirits be racist? - Traditions Part 3
Considering that certain communities, such as those found in Africa are known to be closed, does this indicate that spirits have the ability to be racist per say? After all, if it is to be believed that unless you are born in said community or are initiated, does that not suggest an air of superiority?
Note* the definition of racism being used here is that of the belief one's race is either superior or inferior to others.
In order to understand this proposition, we first have to decide on what grounds could spirits be compared to humans. For example, let's say you believe dogs are superior to cats. Does that make you racist against cats? If we can draw a similar parallel with spirits and humans, then the word racism would seem off as under that scenario, they are not even the species. As such, if humans and spirits are not the same, then we can say there appears to be evidence certain spirits prefer certain humans such as some humans like cats. However, let's say that humans and spirits are the same with the caveat that humans are spirits with flesh. What then?
It is occasionally said that one of the major reasons for keeping a community closed is to preserve its integrity. Another way to look at this is the less outside influence is allowed, the easier it tends to be for the leaders of a group to exert their control. Alternatively, just like how one of the major reasons Africans were preferable as physical hard labor slaves on the plantations dealt with their high heat tolerance along with being harder to kill by the elements, it may very well be that keeping a community closed, this could indeed preserve its sanctity. In other words, perhaps certain races/ethnicities tend to be better at certain occult practices. To give an example, one could compare this with the mage crest from the Type-Moon universe. Still, neither of these reasons are inherently racist in of themselves and one could argue both are fundamentally rooted either in practicality or pragmatism. Potentially complicating the matter even further on whether spirits can be racist is whether the mindset of the gatekeepers of a community are indicative on a spirit's particular beliefs on the various human races.
Perhaps it is just the gatekeepers who view themselves as superior. Maybe the spirits themselves are racist as they are commonly believed to be humans who have passed over. Whatever the case may be, certain cultures and traditions have their reasons for remaining closed.
New Age Part 1
Depending on whom you ask, the term New Age is oft met with either scorn or adoration, though what does that term even mean?
Take any culture, any tradition, ideology. Did they always exist or did they come into being? Let's look at an example. Take long distance communication for instance. At first humans had to rely on word of mouth to get a message to spread. Then they discovered paper, followed by a pigeon, rotaries and finally emails. Now for something more complete, let's look at government structures. From an anthropologist standpoint, humans are very eusocial (tribal to be exact). From anarchy, totalitarian, ulitarianiam, bureucracy and currently Influencer, over time the way society functions has somewhat evolved. Finally, whenever new technology emerges, there tends to be backlash, either from concerns that in accepting the new technology we lose something of greater value in return or from nostalgia. Indeed, once we learn a handy piece of information, it is hard to update our understanding, and even if the proposed methods may offer assistance, unless we can be convinced that their implementation's benefits out weigh their cons, it is simply hard to adjust.
In this context, the term "New" Age therefore does not refer to any single movement but rather an evolution of progress. In other words, virtually every movement, belief, tradition, school of thought etc was at one point "New" Age as the result of having once been an emerging conception. With that said however, this is probably semantics at hand.
New Age Part 2
While the term "New" Age may refer broadly to any movement not yet considered traditional as the result of being an emerging conception, this is not the only definition. Indeed, this broad understanding of the term New Age is comparable to how people define and understand social ideology groups. Take Feminism for example. Depending on where you are and the time frame, it can either be interpreted as a mindset to grant equality for women (especially in the cases of countries where they have less freedom and social status) or a rallying cry behind female supremacy. Or how about BLM? Some people understand their slogan to say that the lives of dark skinned individuals, particularly those of African descent, matter just as much as anyone else's whereas you could also interpret that to say their lives are worth more than every one else's. As such, while the term New Age may refer broadly to a Age that's actually new, it can also have a specific meaning. Using Wikipedia, we can see that the general understanding of the term New Age is that it refers to a spiritual movement formed around the 1970's in the Western world which tends to place emphasis either on the ideal that beliefs in of themselves directly affect observable reality (LOA), 3-fold, auras and the ideal of unity and love. Since we can interpret "New Age" either way, which, if any, would be the more practical stance to take?
How often have you seen it that occultists who follow the traditional path tend to clash with those of the New Age? A common point of contention that appears to be held by those of the traditional method is that people of the New Age are either ignorant, their methods clearly don't work or that they defile the sacredness of the arts. In some ways, the backlash against the New Age community is reminiscent of fandom generations (or just any generation for that matter). While we could say that nostalgia is a major factor, is it feasible that we entirely dismiss their argument? After all, just like how individual humans will try to find a solution that works for them and will often attempt to get out of destructive relationship if possible, we can apply this understanding of basic human behavior on a large scale. Thus, would it not make sense for traditional based magick to be bases heavily on practicality? On the other hand, someone of the New Age may retort that those of the traditional paths aren't innovative when it comes to the arts.
Whether it makes more sense to follow the traditional methods or to try to innovate is certainly a question to be asked. Whether we should stick with tradition or accept the New Age may seem like a daunting task. Even then, unless we share a compatible understanding of the terminology, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
Lack of Distinction - New Age Part 3
Note*
While the term New Age has previously been used to refer to both the movement and a literal new age, for the purpose of this blog, we will using the phrase in regards the movement rather than the latter.
If you were to have your aura read and then you asked the aura readers on what grounds do they have confidence in their interpretations, you would most likely not receive a faceted response. Contrast that with someone who does demon summoning or just about any ancient summoning practice for that matter and you'll soon find that there tends to be quite a number of steps ensuring the integrity of the results. In short, if you were to ask someone of the New Age movement whether results, especially those of the aura, can be manufactured, you would get a no or something to that extent. Contrast that with some who follow the traditional method and you'll get precautions on deceptive spirits. In other words, the New Age movement denies duality and complexity whereas traditional occultists acknowledge it.
Ask whether it is possible for someone's True Self to be cruel and those of the New Age will tell you they are hurt. Are we the same? Despite supposedly coming from the same source (whatever that might be, i.e. it's usually love) there are things we can't agree upon. Politics, religion, ethics and even whether cats are better than dogs. Furthermore, unless you count cloning, there is also a biological difference as well.
In short, even when we look at motivation, while compatible for the most part, they are not exactly interchangeable and some of them are drastically different. Does an empath really need co-depedency? Why couldn't a sociopath also be a skilled healer? As a wise man once said, "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
Defining the Future - Divination Part 1
Divination has generally speaking throughout history and modernality been used to get a glimpse at the future (and according to some circles, reveal secrets that may have nothing to do with the future, but usually it's about reading the future) often times to serve as a warning or a guide. As such, this notion would then assume that the future is changeable. However such a statement would then contradict the notion that the future is knowable.
What is the future? In Judaism and Christianity, there are 2 basic requirements in order for a testimony to be considered delivered from GOD. The first is that the testimony cannot lead the listener away from Yahweh while the other is that the events as described must come to pass. In other words, suppose that you are told today at 9 P.M where you live you will die by heart failure and that you ought to turn your life over. Whether you do or don't, provided the cause of death is a heart failure at 9 P.M where you live, we could consider this a divine prophecy. Now suppose the prophecy is that on July 4th of this year you will be hospitalized due to contaminated meat, specifically beef. Knowing this, would you go out of your way to avoid eating beef on July 4th? Ah, but if you do that, then that can no longer be a divine prophecy as the events must come to pass. Likewise with divination/reading the future:
If the future is truly knowable, how can free will exist?
Scrying/Dowsing - Divination Part 2
Although divination is commonly used to foretell the future (ignoring the dilemma this would impose on free will as alluded to last time) another facet of divination was tracking a person(s) or an object(s). We know this as scrying and dowsing. As a side note, while functionally speak both scrying and dowsing work on the same principles, scrying has the reported advantage over dowsing in terms of locating people whereas dowsing is solely used to track objects although one could also use it to track a person albeit indirectly and more to the extent their location. If knowing the exact actions that will take place potentially compromises free will, especially in the case of the actions of sentient beings (humans for the sake of simplicity), what then about knowing where a person or an object will be? Will that also create a philosophical quandary?
Building from our examples used last time, let's say that while scrying yourself, you see that you will be in the hospital in 3 weeks. Using the same basis as last time, if this is a true prophecy as determined by the ancients it can not be averted. That said however, there is no indication of why you will be in the hospital. It could simply be for your yearly medical checkup, perhaps you've gotten pretty sick or you have a serious injury. It might be someone you know who has those conditions or maybe you work at a hospital. Now compare that to dowsing the location of a 14k diamond ring purchased from Egypt. You sense that this 14k diamond ring will make its way to the Persian Gulf into the hands of the ambassador from Germany. While both examples tell of the outcome, they do not however reveal the process and that in return can affect the meaning what happens in the end. With the example of the hospital, you end up there in 3 weeks and aside from getting randomly assaulted by some super pathogen, the reason why may vary. Likewise with the 14k diamond ring, maybe the exchange was direct. Perhaps it was stolen. We have no ideal. Unlike the previous example however, a description of the future in regards to the final destination of a person or object does not immediately dismantle free will as the meaning is subject to change. Though that begs the question of what is essential for Free Will to exist? If knowing the future includes actions, are we free? What about just the outcome?
Self Discovery - Divination Part 3
The ability to see the future or scry/douse. Both of these are areas which divination has historically been used for. In more modern times (and admittedly in the past as well) divination is reportedly also used for self discovery. Given psychology, therapy and counseling however, is this really necessary?
Psychology is the study of how the mind works, why sentient beings behave as they do and the thought process behind it. A common type of question that was asked back in the day to diviners often dealt with loved ones, either to locate them or see how they were doing. Nowadays, one common use of horoscopes is love (specifically relationship) compatibility. Questions of who's your soul, twin flame, whether you will make that promotion or not. All these questions touch based on a need to feel fulfilled. As such, surely divination must be helpful in this regard, right?
It is sometimes said that the person who knows best how to help you is yourself. Assuming your sense are still intact and your ability to treat yourself hasn't been compromised... Why not? After all, who but yourself knows exactly the entities that plague your head and how to address them?
As such, divining to know what to do to fulfill your sense of self is no different from doing a bit of a self analysis. Given time and self-awarenese, self-discovery is more or less inevitable. Why then do people still try to divine to understand themselves better? Perhaps it is the effects of high levels of distress taking its toll. Or maybe divination just happens to be the nodal for self-perception they naturally take on for themselves. Whatever their answers may be, of what we can ponder about is whether divination can be justified as practical or merely a means to stick one's head in the mud as some might say.
Dissertation 2
If one could say what sort of consistent theme there has been on this round of posts one could say it is that of consistency and change. We've seen through the Sigils and Symbols section how even ancient sigils had their meanings adapted and then we ponder if such a change could alter the results or if the outcome would remain the same regardless. We've touched upon how free choice would require the ability to change and that though it may seem having a defined future would exclude free will, such a restriction may not apply if it's on variables outside of sentient control, i.e. forces of nature. And then finally, we examined the debate between New Age and traditional occult practices or ideologies. Speaking of which, I will like to discuss my take on this matter.
When I first heard of New Age, I thought it was referring to a literal new age, which when you look at any movement is bound to happen. After doing some further research I soon discovered that the term New Age is more referring to a group. So rather than the ideal that innovation can lead to new discoveries... I was to say a bit disappointed with the overall message of the New Age group. Leaving my personal take to the side for now, while taking a new perspective could allow us to manufacture or even replicate the results of the past, we shouldn't exactly dismiss the traditional paths. After all, even assuming the ancients were mislead, unlike modern times however, such potentially misleading entities were consistent. If something cannot be reliably replicated and furthermore serves little to even a detrimental purpose to society, it is discarded. As such, even if the understanding of the ancients is such, they would have little to no reason to question if their presumptions couldn't be answered another way. Ultimately, in terms of which stance has the advantage and where, I would say New Age (not the group) is better suited to understanding and developing new methods as it emphasizes experimentality, something which appears to be shunned by the strictly traditional. And yet I would say Traditional knowledge, even if it is flawed, is more practical especially when compared to the overall teachings of the New Age group. That said however, a lot of the practices done on a traditional basis are a bit costly.
Does it profit to stick with the same methods or should one test what they've been taught? In my opinion, an unwillingness to experiment and to abruptly dismiss all new theories is intellectual laziness. Hmm, in a way you could say I am encouraging occultists to adapt a scientific principle, that of don't just accept a statement that's said. Test it out while keeping in mind that later down the road there may be further evidence that either confirms or rejects your current findings. We (supposedly) have the knowledge of the past. Let us not waste that and instead build upon what has been taught.
Next time I will be going into the area of the armchair magician.
Thanks for reading.
Sigils and Symbols part 1
[Please note that the contents of this post comes from someone who not only doesn't use sigils, but has a rather limited grasp of their in-depth history.]
When it comes to the current (Starting from the 18th century and leading to the 21st) understanding of the nature of sigils as well as their construction, one thing appears to be consistent with their modern portrayal: they're just about individualized compared to their traditional counterparts.
From a traditional standpoint, sigils were said to be the signatures of various otherworldly beings, with their primary use being to call upon said otherworldly and then coerce them to do the summoner's bidding. Each entity had their own sigil. When compared to the modern usage of sigils, we see the following similarities:
Each sigil is specifically linked either to an entity or a cognition (mental process)
In order to invoke or summon the entity of a sigil or in modern cases, activate a cognition, there is always an exchange, a sacrifice of sorts if you will. For the ancients, this would be an offering which was used to lure the otherworldly being and in modern cases it is the destruction of the physical container of the sigil itself (do note that according to a couple of Reddit users, a sigil need not be inscribed. In fact, according to [Sharkyts|
], a sigil can be composed of an action, thus negating the need to destroy the physical container of a sigil in order to activate it.)
Each sigil has a single purpose. Usually it's to call forth an entity or to initiate a mental contraption however they could also be used for banishment and binding, the ideal being that if a summoned entity were to break free or go rogue while maintaining a form by which to interact with this world, then in order to banish them you would have to destroy their sigil. As for how sigils could be used to bind other worldly beings, this notion while not supported by Western understanding of magick, is a component of Asian necromancy. The deliberate creation of a Jiangshi is an excellent example of how sigils (Heavenly characters if you want to be technical) could be used to bind other worldly beings.
Where traditions and modern conceptions start to differ is the mechanism for why sigils supposedly work. Is it that they call forth a being according to traditional understanding or do they serve as a mental activation based on modern understanding? Another thing to note is that modern sigils are limited the individual's own psyche whereas as long as you could do the "proper" rites, almost anyone could use ancient sigils (although some of the summoned entities may harbor misgivings should either the summoner or offering is not up to their tastes). As a result, ancient sigils hold the advantage of being able to procure effects on the external environment when compared to modern sigils. On the other hand, modern sigils are said to be easier to mass produce and yet because they are so individualized, they thus cannot be shared unless a significant portion of the people using it share the same or a compatible understanding of the sigil as its creator. When one compares ancient sigils compared to modern ones, which if either holds the advantage and in what circumstances?
Other Worldly Rights - Sigils and Symbols part 2
When it comes to summoning, traditionally the summoner needed to know at least 2 things of the entity they wished to summon. One was their True Name, the other? Their sigil. It was said that their sigil represented their signature, thus by performing the rites, one could say a sigil is the equivalent of a legal signature in the Spiritual World to appear before the summoner... Or it would be if it weren't for the fact the summoned entity almost never imposed their Sigils themselves.
[
Do note this section deals with Contract Law and as always, check the laws in your area if you can and refer to a lawyer or at least someone who's very studious in the law, especially pertaining to where you live. Just make sure that if you are vibing for legal advice you get it from a certified lawyer, i.e. one who hasn't lost their license
]
Today if you were to sign a legal document using someone else's legal name, unless you've received expressed permission from the person in question to do so or are representing that person you would be committing fraud (there's a bit more nuance as in usually there's a requirement for the accused in question to have known they were using someone else's legal name without their approval upon which in court this would usually have to be proven. That or it's assumed it is the case). As ancient sigils were said to be the equivalent of an entity's signature, i.e. their legal signature, then to inscribe their sigil would in effect to be committing fraud in the spiritual world as not only did the entity in question not inscribed their sigils themselves, they didn't even give the summoner permission to do so. We can deduce this given that there are plenty of instructions encouraging summoners to coerce their summons to answer their call and obey. Of course the laws (if any) of the spiritual realm may be quite different from the mortal realm's and so maybe spirits don't have legal rights even in their own realm, though if that is the case, why do they have to respond to either their True Name or their sigil? Is it because they truly have to or could they be drawn to it?
The ancients tended to base their understanding or rather justification of the law based on their perception of the spiritual world. Given that fraud is illegal, perhaps a parallel can be made about spiritual laws should they exist. Of course all of this is mere speculation.
How Sigils gain and modify their meanings - Sigils and Symbols part 3
This post is dedicated to Deceiver
As pointed out by another user on this Amino, when it comes to the commonly used Sigils, most of them did not originally start out with a universal understanding or meaning. In order to gain the meaning (and supposed) effects they have today they had to be modified. Just like how the meaning of words can change given a drastic social change, i.e. if a word is used enough enough times under a certain context it will inevitably start to take on the traits which are associated, so too it seems that Sigils are no different.
Our current understanding of Sigils is that they are the physical embodiment of an ideal we want to manifest. Technically according to this [Reddit|
] page, they do have to be pictorial and could consist purely of actions such as singing or dancing, but for our purposes we will instead be focusing on the more common understanding of the word sigil(presumably). As stated in a previous entry, modern sigils are just as individualized as the traditional one's. As plenty of Sigils nowadays didn't start with a global meaning even from the regions of which they were derived from, through constant adaptation, their meanings (and presumably their effects and or scope) could be adjusted. Now whether the effects of a sigil could be changed by association would probably seem like a fairly obvious no to one who strictly follows the traditional path. And yet modern times have introduce concepts of magick that might make perception a bit more than a bystander.
Whether the effects of a sigil are arbitrary or if they can change is a question to ponder about. Perhaps some Sigils are one way while the rest are the other.
Traditions Part 1
Historically speaking, the practice of magick has been theistic in nature. Yes, there might have been the occasional practitioner who was a nontheist or advocated for secular ways when it came to their craft, but by and large, we can easily connect theism with traditional magick. Of course, for some religions you may not want to even suggest that their devotions often times had connections and were occasionally based on said practices.
Generally speaking, when it comes to traditional magick, we can expect practitioners to believe in a deity who intervenes in the lives of mortals and for the most part we see that this mindset remains true on a global level. While some traditions do emphasize that faith is an integral part in getting magick to operate correctly if at all, this faith based arcana does have at least one noticeable exception: Asian sorcery/witchcraft/ magecraft. For instance, the creation of a Jiangshi does not require you to believe in a deity and neither does creating a golem demand you follow the Jewish faith. So long as all the prerequisites were fulfilled, you could feasibly create a Jiangshi or a golem, belief being optional.
With all this said however, as the majority of traditional based magick is faith centric, is it any wonder spirituality is so heavily connected with the occult?
Traditions Part 2
Lock your doors at night, cough up to the might, take heed in their fight and above all, keep your children in sight. All of these things (unless you happen to live in a country like Norway where the recidivism rate is so low that people tend not to lock their doors and yes there are other reasons why or if you happen to live in a country that doesn't tax its inhabitants, of which there are a few) are traditions. Although it may seem off, traditions are like customs. They change. At what rate it can be hard to guess. Thus when a relatively new movement is introduced, at what point does it become traditional?
Human societies are geared towards survival. That means if the society finds something to be detrimental, it will attempt to snuff it out. Being realistic, this is impossible to do entirely. As such, it stands to reason that the types of movements that should have the least amount of traction are the ones demanding for current criminal activity, especially when said activity is openly condemned by the government (your neighbors in the event you live in an Anarchy). On the opposite end of the spectrum, since humans tend to find it difficulty to make drastic changes to their lifestyles, any emerging movement which utilizes and slightly modifies already existing norms is more likely to be accepted more easily. In short, the more in common a new movement has with the current settlement, the more likely it will be for it to be socially accepted and thus turned into tradition.
Another facet about traditions is that they tend to be culture specific. Sure, there are certain factors that appear to be prevalent, but when it comes to specifics, cultures and thus traditions are highly distinguished by region. As such we can see there is also a culture barrier when it comes to the transitioning of traditions across borders. This is especially the case for cultures that are closed and up to 11 if they happen to be relatively unknown.
Thus, is it any wonder that most of what is circulated about the occult stems mostly from European lore? When referring to traditional magick, perhaps as a result of the medium, what we can readily read about the occult stems from Europe. Perhaps this is because other countries didn't place much emphasis on magick or maybe Europe happens to be more open about its occult practices. Whatever the case may be, there certainly does seem to be quite a number of variables that factor in the transitioning of traditions even in the occult.
Can Spirits be racist? - Traditions Part 3
Considering that certain communities, such as those found in Africa are known to be closed, does this indicate that spirits have the ability to be racist per say? After all, if it is to be believed that unless you are born in said community or are initiated, does that not suggest an air of superiority?
Note* the definition of racism being used here is that of the belief one's race is either superior or inferior to others.
In order to understand this proposition, we first have to decide on what grounds could spirits be compared to humans. For example, let's say you believe dogs are superior to cats. Does that make you racist against cats? If we can draw a similar parallel with spirits and humans, then the word racism would seem off as under that scenario, they are not even the species. As such, if humans and spirits are not the same, then we can say there appears to be evidence certain spirits prefer certain humans such as some humans like cats. However, let's say that humans and spirits are the same with the caveat that humans are spirits with flesh. What then?
It is occasionally said that one of the major reasons for keeping a community closed is to preserve its integrity. Another way to look at this is the less outside influence is allowed, the easier it tends to be for the leaders of a group to exert their control. Alternatively, just like how one of the major reasons Africans were preferable as physical hard labor slaves on the plantations dealt with their high heat tolerance along with being harder to kill by the elements, it may very well be that keeping a community closed, this could indeed preserve its sanctity. In other words, perhaps certain races/ethnicities tend to be better at certain occult practices. To give an example, one could compare this with the mage crest from the Type-Moon universe. Still, neither of these reasons are inherently racist in of themselves and one could argue both are fundamentally rooted either in practicality or pragmatism. Potentially complicating the matter even further on whether spirits can be racist is whether the mindset of the gatekeepers of a community are indicative on a spirit's particular beliefs on the various human races.
Perhaps it is just the gatekeepers who view themselves as superior. Maybe the spirits themselves are racist as they are commonly believed to be humans who have passed over. Whatever the case may be, certain cultures and traditions have their reasons for remaining closed.
New Age Part 1
Depending on whom you ask, the term New Age is oft met with either scorn or adoration, though what does that term even mean?
Take any culture, any tradition, ideology. Did they always exist or did they come into being? Let's look at an example. Take long distance communication for instance. At first humans had to rely on word of mouth to get a message to spread. Then they discovered paper, followed by a pigeon, rotaries and finally emails. Now for something more complete, let's look at government structures. From an anthropologist standpoint, humans are very eusocial (tribal to be exact). From anarchy, totalitarian, ulitarianiam, bureucracy and currently Influencer, over time the way society functions has somewhat evolved. Finally, whenever new technology emerges, there tends to be backlash, either from concerns that in accepting the new technology we lose something of greater value in return or from nostalgia. Indeed, once we learn a handy piece of information, it is hard to update our understanding, and even if the proposed methods may offer assistance, unless we can be convinced that their implementation's benefits out weigh their cons, it is simply hard to adjust.
In this context, the term "New" Age therefore does not refer to any single movement but rather an evolution of progress. In other words, virtually every movement, belief, tradition, school of thought etc was at one point "New" Age as the result of having once been an emerging conception. With that said however, this is probably semantics at hand.
New Age Part 2
While the term "New" Age may refer broadly to any movement not yet considered traditional as the result of being an emerging conception, this is not the only definition. Indeed, this broad understanding of the term New Age is comparable to how people define and understand social ideology groups. Take Feminism for example. Depending on where you are and the time frame, it can either be interpreted as a mindset to grant equality for women (especially in the cases of countries where they have less freedom and social status) or a rallying cry behind female supremacy. Or how about BLM? Some people understand their slogan to say that the lives of dark skinned individuals, particularly those of African descent, matter just as much as anyone else's whereas you could also interpret that to say their lives are worth more than every one else's. As such, while the term New Age may refer broadly to a Age that's actually new, it can also have a specific meaning. Using Wikipedia, we can see that the general understanding of the term New Age is that it refers to a spiritual movement formed around the 1970's in the Western world which tends to place emphasis either on the ideal that beliefs in of themselves directly affect observable reality (LOA), 3-fold, auras and the ideal of unity and love. Since we can interpret "New Age" either way, which, if any, would be the more practical stance to take?
How often have you seen it that occultists who follow the traditional path tend to clash with those of the New Age? A common point of contention that appears to be held by those of the traditional method is that people of the New Age are either ignorant, their methods clearly don't work or that they defile the sacredness of the arts. In some ways, the backlash against the New Age community is reminiscent of fandom generations (or just any generation for that matter). While we could say that nostalgia is a major factor, is it feasible that we entirely dismiss their argument? After all, just like how individual humans will try to find a solution that works for them and will often attempt to get out of destructive relationship if possible, we can apply this understanding of basic human behavior on a large scale. Thus, would it not make sense for traditional based magick to be bases heavily on practicality? On the other hand, someone of the New Age may retort that those of the traditional paths aren't innovative when it comes to the arts.
Whether it makes more sense to follow the traditional methods or to try to innovate is certainly a question to be asked. Whether we should stick with tradition or accept the New Age may seem like a daunting task. Even then, unless we share a compatible understanding of the terminology, it is like comparing apples and oranges.
Lack of Distinction - New Age Part 3
Note*
While the term New Age has previously been used to refer to both the movement and a literal new age, for the purpose of this blog, we will using the phrase in regards the movement rather than the latter.
If you were to have your aura read and then you asked the aura readers on what grounds do they have confidence in their interpretations, you would most likely not receive a faceted response. Contrast that with someone who does demon summoning or just about any ancient summoning practice for that matter and you'll soon find that there tends to be quite a number of steps ensuring the integrity of the results. In short, if you were to ask someone of the New Age movement whether results, especially those of the aura, can be manufactured, you would get a no or something to that extent. Contrast that with some who follow the traditional method and you'll get precautions on deceptive spirits. In other words, the New Age movement denies duality and complexity whereas traditional occultists acknowledge it.
Ask whether it is possible for someone's True Self to be cruel and those of the New Age will tell you they are hurt. Are we the same? Despite supposedly coming from the same source (whatever that might be, i.e. it's usually love) there are things we can't agree upon. Politics, religion, ethics and even whether cats are better than dogs. Furthermore, unless you count cloning, there is also a biological difference as well.
In short, even when we look at motivation, while compatible for the most part, they are not exactly interchangeable and some of them are drastically different. Does an empath really need co-depedency? Why couldn't a sociopath also be a skilled healer? As a wise man once said, "Some people just want to watch the world burn."
Defining the Future - Divination Part 1
Divination has generally speaking throughout history and modernality been used to get a glimpse at the future (and according to some circles, reveal secrets that may have nothing to do with the future, but usually it's about reading the future) often times to serve as a warning or a guide. As such, this notion would then assume that the future is changeable. However such a statement would then contradict the notion that the future is knowable.
What is the future? In Judaism and Christianity, there are 2 basic requirements in order for a testimony to be considered delivered from GOD. The first is that the testimony cannot lead the listener away from Yahweh while the other is that the events as described must come to pass. In other words, suppose that you are told today at 9 P.M where you live you will die by heart failure and that you ought to turn your life over. Whether you do or don't, provided the cause of death is a heart failure at 9 P.M where you live, we could consider this a divine prophecy. Now suppose the prophecy is that on July 4th of this year you will be hospitalized due to contaminated meat, specifically beef. Knowing this, would you go out of your way to avoid eating beef on July 4th? Ah, but if you do that, then that can no longer be a divine prophecy as the events must come to pass. Likewise with divination/reading the future:
If the future is truly knowable, how can free will exist?
Scrying/Dowsing - Divination Part 2
Although divination is commonly used to foretell the future (ignoring the dilemma this would impose on free will as alluded to last time) another facet of divination was tracking a person(s) or an object(s). We know this as scrying and dowsing. As a side note, while functionally speak both scrying and dowsing work on the same principles, scrying has the reported advantage over dowsing in terms of locating people whereas dowsing is solely used to track objects although one could also use it to track a person albeit indirectly and more to the extent their location. If knowing the exact actions that will take place potentially compromises free will, especially in the case of the actions of sentient beings (humans for the sake of simplicity), what then about knowing where a person or an object will be? Will that also create a philosophical quandary?
Building from our examples used last time, let's say that while scrying yourself, you see that you will be in the hospital in 3 weeks. Using the same basis as last time, if this is a true prophecy as determined by the ancients it can not be averted. That said however, there is no indication of why you will be in the hospital. It could simply be for your yearly medical checkup, perhaps you've gotten pretty sick or you have a serious injury. It might be someone you know who has those conditions or maybe you work at a hospital. Now compare that to dowsing the location of a 14k diamond ring purchased from Egypt. You sense that this 14k diamond ring will make its way to the Persian Gulf into the hands of the ambassador from Germany. While both examples tell of the outcome, they do not however reveal the process and that in return can affect the meaning what happens in the end. With the example of the hospital, you end up there in 3 weeks and aside from getting randomly assaulted by some super pathogen, the reason why may vary. Likewise with the 14k diamond ring, maybe the exchange was direct. Perhaps it was stolen. We have no ideal. Unlike the previous example however, a description of the future in regards to the final destination of a person or object does not immediately dismantle free will as the meaning is subject to change. Though that begs the question of what is essential for Free Will to exist? If knowing the future includes actions, are we free? What about just the outcome?
Self Discovery - Divination Part 3
The ability to see the future or scry/douse. Both of these are areas which divination has historically been used for. In more modern times (and admittedly in the past as well) divination is reportedly also used for self discovery. Given psychology, therapy and counseling however, is this really necessary?
Psychology is the study of how the mind works, why sentient beings behave as they do and the thought process behind it. A common type of question that was asked back in the day to diviners often dealt with loved ones, either to locate them or see how they were doing. Nowadays, one common use of horoscopes is love (specifically relationship) compatibility. Questions of who's your soul, twin flame, whether you will make that promotion or not. All these questions touch based on a need to feel fulfilled. As such, surely divination must be helpful in this regard, right?
It is sometimes said that the person who knows best how to help you is yourself. Assuming your sense are still intact and your ability to treat yourself hasn't been compromised... Why not? After all, who but yourself knows exactly the entities that plague your head and how to address them?
As such, divining to know what to do to fulfill your sense of self is no different from doing a bit of a self analysis. Given time and self-awarenese, self-discovery is more or less inevitable. Why then do people still try to divine to understand themselves better? Perhaps it is the effects of high levels of distress taking its toll. Or maybe divination just happens to be the nodal for self-perception they naturally take on for themselves. Whatever their answers may be, of what we can ponder about is whether divination can be justified as practical or merely a means to stick one's head in the mud as some might say.
Dissertation 2
If one could say what sort of consistent theme there has been on this round of posts one could say it is that of consistency and change. We've seen through the Sigils and Symbols section how even ancient sigils had their meanings adapted and then we ponder if such a change could alter the results or if the outcome would remain the same regardless. We've touched upon how free choice would require the ability to change and that though it may seem having a defined future would exclude free will, such a restriction may not apply if it's on variables outside of sentient control, i.e. forces of nature. And then finally, we examined the debate between New Age and traditional occult practices or ideologies. Speaking of which, I will like to discuss my take on this matter.
When I first heard of New Age, I thought it was referring to a literal new age, which when you look at any movement is bound to happen. After doing some further research I soon discovered that the term New Age is more referring to a group. So rather than the ideal that innovation can lead to new discoveries... I was to say a bit disappointed with the overall message of the New Age group. Leaving my personal take to the side for now, while taking a new perspective could allow us to manufacture or even replicate the results of the past, we shouldn't exactly dismiss the traditional paths. After all, even assuming the ancients were mislead, unlike modern times however, such potentially misleading entities were consistent. If something cannot be reliably replicated and furthermore serves little to even a detrimental purpose to society, it is discarded. As such, even if the understanding of the ancients is such, they would have little to no reason to question if their presumptions couldn't be answered another way. Ultimately, in terms of which stance has the advantage and where, I would say New Age (not the group) is better suited to understanding and developing new methods as it emphasizes experimentality, something which appears to be shunned by the strictly traditional. And yet I would say Traditional knowledge, even if it is flawed, is more practical especially when compared to the overall teachings of the New Age group. That said however, a lot of the practices done on a traditional basis are a bit costly.
Does it profit to stick with the same methods or should one test what they've been taught? In my opinion, an unwillingness to experiment and to abruptly dismiss all new theories is intellectual laziness. Hmm, in a way you could say I am encouraging occultists to adapt a scientific principle, that of don't just accept a statement that's said. Test it out while keeping in mind that later down the road there may be further evidence that either confirms or rejects your current findings. We (supposedly) have the knowledge of the past. Let us not waste that and instead build upon what has been taught.
Next time I will be going into the area of the armchair magician.
Thanks for reading.