Dabbling in 'black' arts

Nevyn

Why the retoric Stoner ?

and why the refusal to answer the question?

Is your opinion on what is considered 'Dark art's ' or 'Black' religious based ?

Stoner

Thaedydal wrote:

Why the retoric Stoner ?

and why the refusal to answer the question?

Is your opinion on what is considered 'Dark art's ' or 'Black' religious based ?

the rhyme was for the exchange about who knows the most about "black" etc.
Like Sapien I am a little confused about how Sonnenblumen "knows" that Sapien "knows" very little of very much.

Sorry if i missed a question BTW, my opinion on what is considered 'Dark art's ' or 'Black' was not really offered here.
However, what I was trying to say was that many peoples opinion of these things are developed by the society we live in, and this society (as in the one I grew up in anyway) was influenced by the COI, RC etc Churches. They are not based on facts, as I understand it Christian churches went to great lengths to "banish" other religions, I'm not 100% on this but I think that Pagans did something similar by "banishing" non Pagan Gods to sea etc.

I am a RC, but that very rarely comes into any paranormal activity I take part in. I don't attend Mass on a regular basis, and sometimes I feel guilty about that, however I would never get my fortune told or investigate communications with spirits etc., other people do and that's their business, I don't encourage or discourage them I think that I have a mutual respect thing going, I understand that as a RC I should discourage people from some activities that I observe, but that never crosses my mind, and I would not do that because everyone I have met had good intentions, by good I mean what I assume to be good in my gut. I know that I am leaving the door open for you to rock the foundations of my knowledge of good and bad etc, but it is not something I think about or evaluate, it's something that I feel, that most people feel.

Looking at the whole thing very broadly I think that Black Arts, Religions, good, bad etc all have something too them. I think the RC church recognised this and set about creating a system that very broadly could be considered to be "for the greater good" by this I mean that if a RC is thought not to take part in viewing the future, then IMO the Church must have recognised something in it. The same goes for "Black Art" etc.

With the risk of sounding like a priest here (and I'm far from it ) the basic concept of "Love thy neighbor" is a framework for peace and harmony in the world people have made things very complicated by setting up so many rules and different churches .
Now with the risk of sounding like John Lennon, Imagine if "good" prevailed and there was no war. etc. This is what I take from religion, but it is mixed up with many things. Priorities are complicated, as much as I like the song Imagine I would die for my country at the drop of a hat.

So in attempting to answer the question, I have asked more.

I do believe in some paranormal things, therefore I try to see if i can get scientific data to see if my suspicions are correct, to date I have not, if and when I do it will only satisfy me anyway.

My knowledge of the black arts is very limited, I read a Dean Koontz book years ago and that is about as much time as i have ever spent reading about it. I have plenty of crappy books that touch on it, but thats about it, ignorant was used above and in the true meaning of the word , that is what I am. I guess it is in me to resist looking into it more. The word evil has not been used here but it has something to do with how i feel about it I guess, I'm expecting to be asked to expand on this.

In my post earlier I was simply making the point that there is mystery in the subject, and curiosity often follows. I can't help or evaluate how much religion influences my thoughts on Black Arts, but it has so it must have a lot to do with my opinion.

stevenmu

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's opinions on this thread. I think, from what others seem to be saying, that there's not really going to be any way of objectivly defining what the 'black' arts are without reference to something else. For some people there idea of what a black art is is going to be based on their religion, for others it's going to be based on their knowledge of a subject, or equally on their lack of knowledge of a subject, for some others again it's going to be based more on the motivations of a person using a particular technique than what the technique itself actually is.

Personally I look at the 'black' arts as being the kind of things that people are generally warned about using without some specific knowledge or experience. Things like this are mentioned here on the forum from time to time, whenever people ask about trying out things like oiuja boards or conjuring demons, they are generally warned that such things can be dangerous without the right knowledge and experience. I'd therefore consider these things to be 'black' arts. I, for example, know nothing about summoning demons/spirits, so if I was to try and do it I would consider that to be 'dabbling' in 'black' arts. On the other hand if I went through whatever processes were appropriate to doing this and fully understood what I was doing, I would no longer consider it a 'black' art. (this is a pretty soft definition of what I'd consider 'black' which is why, like the OP, I would put the word in quote marks)

I think actually it might be interesting to talk about what some of the risks can be to "dabbling in black arts". We do often hear that various things can be dangerous, I think it would interest us all (or me at least ) to hear what the consequences actually can be ?

ladybirdirl

Both Stoner & Stevenmu raise interesting points for me.

Stoner - I see where you're coming from on the whole religion thing. I too am RC.TBH I wouldn't ever necessarily explicitly recieved or indeed bought into the whole 'fortune tellling/conjuring spirits is bad' message but where I come from there would be a huge element who strongly support that. I would think this is where we get a lot of what I would call old country beliefs around the banshee(not saying she does not exist BTW)/wakes/death etc.I do however accept that the RC church is guilty of abuse of power in the same way any big organised church is and thus maybe they didn't always have ' the greater good' in mind when they cast things as black (anyone read the DaVinci code....and yes I know it's just a story:p )

But this brings me to Steven's post in a round about way. Like Stoner based on my religion there are some things I would be afraid to try and like Steven I'm curious as to what the consequences would be if I did try - would I act/feel different, would it change my perspective, if I gained some sort of experience would that be intoxicating etc etc etc

I suppose personally my outlook has changed over recent years and therefore my definition or curiosity about what is 'black' has also changed and this is what I'm trying to explore. I'm very open about the fact that my attitudes have moved from the traditional rural RC values to more spiritual values, akin to Stoner's 'love thy neighbour'.Secondly becuase of some personal paranormal type experiences, I now believe that many more things are possible/real when I would have been a skeptic before.
As Thaedyal correctly pointed at - many people's idea (mine included) of black arts would have been a bit hollywood or harry potter ish. I know this is ignorant and Id like to broaden my horizons as to what other people consider 'black' or not and as Steven asks what the consequnces of using/abusing that can be

I don't want to get into an RC v's other religions debate - that's not the question. Stoner ( I believe) and now myself are using it as a frame of initial reference.

So in conclusion, while religion does give me a background, I would say that my more recent experiences make me believe there's more to it, makes me question what that is and makes want to incorporate whatever I learn into my own beliefs?

SimpleSam06

As far as I know, and I'm open to correction on this one, within many belief systems a common thread that would connect "black" or "bad" magic would be the use of blood in rites or rituals, more for what it attracts than what it connotates, and rituals undertaken for the purpose of vicarious satisfaction (ie, you wanted to make a sexy naked woman appear), or that produce such objects would likewise be considered bad.

This is leaving out all questions of the philosophical good and bad, of course, just the things that are likely to try and eat your head. Very much a case of you get out what you put in, in other words.

Sapien

SimpleSam06 wrote:

As far as I know, and I'm open to correction on this one, within many belief systems a common thread that would connect "black" or "bad" magic would be the use of blood in rites or rituals...

Would that include the Catholic mass?

Stoner

Sapien wrote:

Would that include the Catholic mass?

hehe, I guess it does, cos if you follow it to the letter of the law , it is blood

SimpleSam06

Sapien wrote:

Would that include the Catholic mass?

Philosophically, yes, as regards rites and rituals, no... gotta be the real deal, by all accounts. Does raise a few interesting questions, however!

kshiel

stevenmu wrote:

We do often hear that various things can be dangerous, I think it would interest us all (or me at least ) to hear what the consequences actually can be ?

This is a very interesting question, I know I have said to conjour say a demon, etc etc without a good basis of knowledge of what you would be dealing with could and probaly would be a mistake and I think that is a fair statement imo and I make it on a caution basis due to not knowing what the actual consequences would be.

To my knowledge and to what I have been told is that nothing can make you do anything you do not want to do in other words you can always say "No", again I use this lightly as I haven't met anything that can actually make you do something, the worst I have encoutered is something that can impress images, thoughts, desires etc of a strong nature that would not per say be in your nature. Now this I suppose could be one consequence as from experience this is not pleasant and can be pretty darn hard to get rid of and can become quiet confusing and difficult to deal with, within your everyday life, but at the end of the day it can be dealt with once reconigised.

If I have gone off topic I apologise.

"Black"arts to me at the moment is something be it through ritual or conjuring or what ever means it is done, it is done with the intent and design by the user to do actual harm to another living thing. so I suppose the "Black/Darkness" is to me within the person using it.

ladybirdirl

Hmmm guys now you've got me thinking......;)


Kshiel, I'm in agreement with you on 'people' doing dark things but I'm also wondering that if someone who's a complete novice got hold of something powerful (spell/ritual/whatever) what would the consequences be.

I do think we're all punching in the dark a bit though, other than Thaed's admitted experience, none of us (and I stand to be corrected here) have any experience.So I could be blowing things out of all proportion or seriously understating things and it's this I'd like to get a view on..

Maybe though, by it's very nature, we can't get that sort of answer, can we

Ladybird

Nevyn

I have done blood magic and it was for personal intent and to harm anyone and i have given blood sacrifices both that of my blood and that of the lambs who's liver I leave out as an offering once a month.

I do sex magic as well, usually tantric and have done solo sex magic work.

I have even had voodoo interactions and would not consider any of that 'Dark'.

Personally for a lot of thing I see the difference to be similar as the difference between
acts of mutual pleasure and those of sexual assualt.
Same actions but very different intent and results.

stevenmu

kshiel wrote:

the worst I have encoutered is something that can impress images, thoughts, desires etc of a strong nature that would not per say be in your nature. Now this I suppose could be one consequence as from experience this is not pleasant and can be pretty darn hard to get rid of and can become quiet confusing and difficult to deal with, within your everyday life, but at the end of the day it can be dealt with once reconigised.

I wonder, from the way you describe that it sounds like the kind of thing which could change a person ? It doesn't sound like it did in your case, but it does sound to me like a person who didn't recognise what was happening to them could be very affected by it, and while you say it can't make you do anything you wouldn't want to do, I wonder could it change someone to the degree that they would view things quite differently, and think things are 'right' that they may not have previously ?

SimpleSam06

Thaedydal wrote:

I have done blood magic and it was for personal intent and to harm anyone and i have given blood sacrifices both that of my blood and that of the lambs who's liver I leave out as an offering once a month.

As I understand it the use of blood is intended to draw the attention of the kind of creatures who would be interested in blood, ie, not so nice. Whether the practitioners are aware of the purpose of blood in their rites or not is another story...

Of course the use of blood in arcane rituals might just have its roots in Homer's poetic licence in his very widely known Odyssey XI:

'Here Perimedes and Eurylochus held the victims, while I drew my sword and dug the trench a cubit each way. I made a drink-offering to all the dead, first with honey and milk, then with wine, and thirdly with water, and I sprinkled white barley meal over the whole, praying earnestly to the poor feckless ghosts, and promising them that when I got back to Ithaca I would sacrifice a barren heifer for them, the best I had, and would load the pyre with good things.

I also particularly promised that Teiresias should have a black sheep to himself, the best in all my flocks. When I had prayed sufficiently to the dead, I cut the throats of the two sheep and let the blood run into the trench, whereon the ghosts came trooping up from Erebus -- brides, young bachelors, old men worn out with toil, maids who had been crossed in love, and brave men who had been killed in battle, with their armour still smirched with blood; they came from every quarter and flitted round the trench with a strange kind of screaming sound that made me turn pale with fear.

When I saw them coming I told the men to be quick and flay the carcasses of the two dead sheep and make burnt offerings of them, and at the same time to repeat prayers to Hades and to Persephone; but I sat where I was with my sword drawn and would not let the poor feckless ghosts come near the blood till Teiresias should have answered my questions

Which in turn was reflected in Mithraism, ancestor worship in the Roman empire, and thus transferred in all its dubious glory to Christianity (drinking of the blood of christ). So its quite possible that the use of blood in rituals is fallacious from the get-go, based on the idea that physical objects or substances would be of any interest to spiritual beings in the first place.

I find other methods make much more "practical" sense, if you will, such as the Egyptian process for creating guardian spirits for the tombs of the Pharoahs in order to carry out curses on trespassers. Rather than simply calling upon the divine will of the deity du jour, they tortured slaves to death systematically for weeks on end, all the while using persuasive hypnotic methods and suggestion to convince the "souls" of the slaves to stay on after death and do their duty. An afterlife Stockhom syndrome, really (a psychological effect we didn't become aware of until the seventies, I might add).

Thaedydal wrote:

I do sex magic as well, usually tantric and have done solo sex magic work.

Well in fairness I didn't say any magic involving sex was bad, I leave that distinction to the victorian era religious types. Channeling sexual energies is a time honoured tradition among many cultures and religions, including the Catholics. Attempting to create spiritual roofies, however, I would classify as "bad".

Thaedydal wrote:

I have even had voodoo interactions and would not consider any of that 'Dark'.

Although Voodoo is often associated with Satanism, Satan is primarily an Abrahamic figure and has not been incorporated in Voodoo tradition. Those who practice voodoo do not worship or invoke the blessings of a devil. This is why I didn't mention voodoo, nor would I consider it "dark", either.

If you mean by "voodoo interactions" you stuck pins in a pwen doll, I fear you may have been mislead by horror movies. The closest thing they get to it is nailing crude dolls with a shoe on trees near the cemetery to act as messengers to the otherworld, not for purposes of sympathetic magic towards another person.

I note in an earlier post, by the way, that you mentioned you had effected direct physical changes (temperature and pressure drops) in the environment in a reproducible fashion using magic. Why haven't you brought this to a larger audience? With the amount of people casting about for direction in a world increasingly disaffected with mainstream religion, you would have an immediate and large conversion to your faith and beliefs! Not to mention rocking the worlds of science, physics, and human knowledge to their foundations, and opening up vast new fields of learning...

kshiel

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder, from the way you describe that it sounds like the kind of thing which could change a person ? It doesn't sound like it did in your case, but it does sound to me like a person who didn't recognise what was happening to them could be very affected by it, and while you say it can't make you do anything you wouldn't want to do, I wonder could it change someone to the degree that they would view things quite differently, and think things are 'right' that they may not have previously ?

And to me in what you have stated is where the danger lies, I suppose in these sort of cases it depends on the personal strength of the person and how much they know themselves.

I think Ladybird when people stumble across these sorts of things, they would indeed fall apon the same consequences and maybe getting out of them (whatever they maybe) would be the same process as someone who knew what they were doing only it could possibly take longer and more damage or more to deal with because of the fact they know nothing about it. Saying "I didn't know that would happen" I feel wouldn't cut it and its more or less dealing with an everyday life decision you regret making but have to none the less.

Sapien

SimpleSam06 wrote:

If you mean by "voodoo interactions" you stuck pins in a pwen doll, I fear you may have been mislead by horror movies. The closest thing they get to it is nailing crude dolls with a shoe on trees near the cemetery to act as messengers to the otherworld, not for purposes of sympathetic magic towards another person.

SimpleSam, old bean, your tone of condescention is drastically miscalculated. Thaedydal knows what she's talking about, while your contributions have a distinctly Readers' Digest pitch about them. There's nothing wrong with chipping in with what you know, but it's best to keep in mind that there are people here who devote a large part of their lives to magic.

SimpleSam06

Sapien wrote:

SimpleSam, old bean, your tone of condescention is drastically miscalculated. Thaedydal knows what she's talking about, while your contributions have a distinctly Readers' Digest pitch about them.

Hmm. Unlike your contribution, which adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion. Still, I suppose you don't sound like the reader's digest, at least.

Its funny how some people equate debate with condescension.

Sapien wrote:

There's nothing wrong with chipping in with what you know, but it's best to keep in mind that there are people here who devote a large part of their lives to magic.

Nevyn

SimpleSam06 wrote:

As I understand it the use of blood is intended to draw the attention of the kind of creatures who would be interested in blood, ie, not so nice. Whether the practitioners are aware of the purpose of blood in their rites or not is another story...

Blood can be used to feed such things but it has many other uses.

Donating blood can be done in a ritual manner.
Making a ritual tool your own and to resonate with you can be done by anointing with blood.
Blood bonding with another person, blood as boundary markers.
Blood for creating a witches bottle.
There are also many uses for menstrual blood which has nothing to do with getting the notice of such creatures.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Whether the practitioners are aware of the purpose of blood in their rites or not is another story...

I would say that no one should undertake any rite that they do not understand the point, purpose, focus of it and the reasons why every word is spoken, every action take and point, purpose or use of item involved.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Of course the use of blood in arcane rituals might just have its roots in Homer's poetic licence in his very widely known Odyssey XI:

Just because he wrote about it does not mean he invented the idea or made it widespread.
Blood esp hearts blood is a very personal offering and really who can say when such practices started.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I find other methods make much more "practical" sense, if you will, such as the Egyptian process for creating guardian spirits for the tombs of the Pharoahs in order to carry out curses on trespassers. Rather than simply calling upon the divine will of the deity du jour, they tortured slaves to death systematically for weeks on end, all the while using persuasive hypnotic methods and suggestion to convince the "souls" of the slaves to stay on after death and do their duty. An afterlife Stockhom syndrome, really (a psychological effect we didn't become aware of until the seventies, I might add).

I would find the torture of anyone or any animal for magical purposes to be abhorrent.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Although Voodoo is often associated with Satanism, Satan is primarily an Abrahamic figure and has not been incorporated in Voodoo tradition. Those who practice voodoo do not worship or invoke the blessings of a devil. This is why I didn't mention voodoo, nor would I consider it "dark", either.

I don't think that a magical practice or rite or act has to be connected to satanism to be black and really that will also depend in which type of satanism you are referring to.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

If you mean by "voodoo interactions" you stuck pins in a pwen doll, I fear you may have been mislead by horror movies. The closest thing they get to it is nailing crude dolls with a shoe on trees near the cemetery to act as messengers to the otherworld, not for purposes of sympathetic magic towards another person.

Voodoo is not the only tradition which uses such sympathetic magic in such a fashion, western European witches have used poppets or corn dollies or witches bottles for a very long time and mostly for healing and protection.

They are also documented by the greeks.
The Greek tragedian Theocritus refers to melting and burning wax dolls in Idyll 2, The Witch (Pharmakeutria), which was written around 270 b.c.

But such magical practices do not make a person a voodoo practitioner
or mean that they have had a voodoo interaction, such things do not happen unless a person is dealing with or interacting with the Loa.

Nevyn

SimpleSam06 wrote:

I note in an earlier post, by the way, that you mentioned you had effected direct physical changes (temperature and pressure drops) in the environment in a reproducible fashion using magic. Why haven't you brought this to a larger audience?

Why should I ?

SimpleSam06 wrote:

With the amount of people casting about for direction in a world increasingly disaffected with mainstream religion, you would have an immediate and large conversion to your faith and beliefs!

This presumes that
a) I would want such a thing,
b) it was permissible or desirable in my faith,
c) I would want such responsibility.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Not to mention rocking the worlds of science, physics, and human knowledge to their foundations, and opening up vast new fields of learning...

Magical act and magical acts in a religious context ( which the majority of mine are ) are nothing new.

There is a lot of difference between taking measurements to confirm what I was experiencing from a quantifiable scientific data collection point of view
and opening up my spiritual and religious practices to those who are not magical practitioners, people I trust or in some cases those who are not initaties in my faith.

Nevyn

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder, from the way you describe that it sounds like the kind of thing which could change a person ? It doesn't sound like it did in your case, but it does sound to me like a person who didn't recognise what was happening to them could be very affected by it, and while you say it can't make you do anything you wouldn't want to do, I wonder could it change someone to the degree that they would view things quite differently, and think things are 'right' that they may not have previously ?

Living changes a person.
Every experience we have changes us and add to what we know and feel about things and what conclusions we draw.

The more intense and extreme the experience the more scope it has for change with in a person.

Some people will go and deliberately seek out such experience and invite radical change into thier lifes and on to their slefs and this can be done magically.

Acts of magic focus on creating change and most ofthe change comes about with the person.
some people can cope with it some people can't, some people go off the rails until they learn to cope again and some people can get burnt badly and hurt those around them.

SimpleSam06

Thaedydal wrote:

Blood can be used to feed such things but it has many other uses.

Donating blood can be done in a ritual manner.
Making a ritual tool your own and to resonate with you can be done by anointing with blood.
Blood bonding with another person, blood as boundary markers.
Blood for creating a witches bottle.
There are also many uses for menstrual blood which has nothing to do with getting the notice of such creatures.

Some good points there, blood need not be used in universally nasty rituals, whether directly or as a side effect. However, as a rule of thumb, you could do worse than to avoid such rituals.

Thaedydal wrote:

I would say that no one should undertake any rite that they do not understand the point, purpose, focus of it and the reasons why every word is spoken, every action take and point, purpose or use of item involved.

But one might think one knows what one is doing, when in actuality one might not, in fact, fully grasp what they are doing, or its ramifications. A bit like early alchemists and gunpowder, really.

Thaedydal wrote:

Just because he wrote about it does not mean he invented the idea or made it widespread.
Blood esp hearts blood is a very personal offering and really who can say when such practices started.

Well he certainly didn't invent it; the Aztecs were gutting people for their gods and never clapped eyes on the Iliad. However I would debate that the blind Ionian didn't have a large influence on making it widespread in the European context.

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't think that a magical practice or rite or act has to be connected to satanism to be black and really that will also depend in which type of satanism you are referring to... Voodoo is not the only tradition which uses such sympathetic magic in such a fashion

Okay, on the whole Voodoo thing, your post, which I took as a response to mine, since it mentioned sex and blood, also mentioned Voodoo. Rather than getting into the finer details of voodoo rites throughout the ages, the point I was making is that I did not view it as dark, when you seemed to feel I had included it in my list there. So we are, in fact, in agreement on that.

Nevyn

SimpleSam06 wrote:

However, as a rule of thumb, you could do worse than to avoid such rituals.

Why ?

An asstru blot call for blood as part of honoring those Gods in that context.
A lot of peoples negative take on using blood in rituals is based on thier own or other peoples squeamishness.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

But one might think one knows what one is doing, when in actuality one might not, in fact, fully grasp what they are doing, or its ramifications.

Many things can only be fully and completely understood by experiencing them and working through the issue that follow after and indeed it make take a life time to fully grok them.

Does this mean a person should not bother ?

To know, to will, to dare and to keep silent.

Each part of the above maxim has it's place and the order of it is important.

Life is about risks and while some risks are not for everyone we do have free will, which includes doing stupid thing we may live to regret but at least hopefully learn from, even if the lesson is never to do such things again.


There is only 1 things I can think of that specifically which I would consider to be 'dark arts' and can not be used for any gainful good that is the deliberately summoning of deamons to further a personal end.

I will not say the deliberate interaction with such things as that can be required in helping someone or getting rid of such things and thier influence.

SimpleSam06

Thaedydal wrote:

This presumes that
b) it was permissible or desirable in my faith,

Okay, so basically we can boil this down to

• Don't want to
• Aren't allowed to (which you didn't actually say)

Thats up to yourself, I guess...

Thaedydal wrote:

Magical act and magical acts in a religious context ( which the majority of mine are ) are nothing new.

As far as science is concerned, they are entirely brand spanking new, at least as far as the reproducible results are concerned.

mossieh

So, has anyone ever met a demon?

Sapien wrote:

A few.


I have summoned and created some scary things, and performed magic that could have worked at other people's expense, but rarely at the same time..

A few? How many exactly?
For someone who posts in a fairly sceptical manner on christian threads, I find your contributions on this board somewhat surprising.

You have created 'some scary things'? Really? could you expand on that statement maybe, could you describe some of them and maybe loosely describe how you created/summoned them?

Where did you summon them from? Is this place exempt from the normal universal theories?

My tone might seem somewhat aggressive and for that I apologise, but to say 'I've met a few demons' is a hell of a thing to say(pardon the pun) without expanding or backing it up.

Nevyn

Backing it up how ?

Sapien

mossieh wrote:

A few? How many exactly?

Difficult to say, not least because whether something should be considered demonic is a matter of some very uncertain categorisation. More than a dozen, according to any definition.

mossieh wrote:

For someone who posts in a fairly sceptical manner on christian threads, I find your contributions on this board somewhat surprising.

I am a sceptic. How much do you know about ceremonial magic?

mossieh wrote:

You have created 'some scary things'? Really? could you expand on that statement maybe, could you describe some of them and maybe loosely describe how you created/summoned them?

I was referring to things like servitor workings, egrigores and viral intelligence techniques. An example would be a simple intelligence to protect a person from harm, or a ritual space from spiritual influence, or short term servitors to achieve something specific that cease to exist after an allotted period.

The techniques I use to create servitors can be theoretically involved, varied in type, and range in complexity and difficulty from a simple mental exercise to a ritual that requires weeks of preparation. Summoning generally follows a similar formula, and is always difficult and long in preparation. The internet is groaning under the weight of information on these topics - I can recommend nothing better than that greatest of grimoires, Google.

mossieh wrote:

Where did you summon them from? Is this place exempt from the normal universal theories?

What are "normal universal theories"? Are they like the laws of physics? I don't consider demons to exist in a place per se. Summoning them is more a matter of communication than relocation.

mossieh wrote:

My tone might seem somewhat aggressive and for that I apologise, but to say 'I've met a few demons' is a hell of a thing to say(pardon the pun) without expanding or backing it up.

Your restraint is palpable . I understand that you may never have come across such claims before, but it's not as unusual as you might think. Ceremonial magic is doing well these days and is enjoying many fascinating advancements. With regard to "expanding", I am happy to answer well-put questions, though I will not offer my services as a tutor in the rudiments of modern magic. There is no shortage of literature out there, much of it free and web-based. As to "backing up", I've been over that with others - quite exhaustively in fact. It isn't reasonable to expect me to offer proof of my experiences on an internet forum. If you decide that you cannot believe what I say, that's perfectly understandable (even commendable), though you may find, if you ask the right questions, that magic as it is practiced by modern esotericists is not as unreasonable a proposition as you might think. As I said, I am a sceptic.

mossieh

Sapien wrote:

I was referring to things like servitor workings, egrigores and viral intelligence techniques. An example would be a simple intelligence to protect a person from harm, or a ritual space from spiritual influence, or short term servitors to achieve something specific that cease to exist after an allotted period.

I haven't come across those terms before and having checked google as you recommended, the definitions I've read seem somewhat hazy. Could you give me a specific example of how you used a servitor to achieve something specific and whether and how you measured its efficacy?

Sapien wrote:

As to "backing up", I've been over that with others - quite exhaustively in fact. It isn't reasonable to expect me to offer proof of my experiences on an internet forum.

Well, I understand that you have no obligation to back anything up but surely as a self-professed sceptic you understand why someone else would request it? Truthfully, the answers I see to sceptical questions on this forum are remarkably similar to those I see on the religious ones.

Sapien wrote:

I have summoned and created some scary things, and performed magic

Sapien wrote:

As I said, I am a sceptic.

To quote Diego Montoya: 'you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it does'

Sapien

mossieh wrote:

I haven't come across those terms before and having checked google as you recommended, the definitions I've read seem somewhat hazy. Could you give me a specific example of how you used a servitor to achieve something specific and whether and how you measured its efficacy?

I'd rather not discuss my own magical work in any detail, as I consider it, like all spiritual endeavours, to be private. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to read an account of a rather famous egrigore, written by it's creator, Fenwick Rysen. I referred above to the range in effort required for the creation of servitors by different methods. The servitor in this account was created by the simplest technique possible, but has gone on to become famous for its effectiveness and unanticipated ramifications. There are other, much more elaborate (and perhaps more reliable) ways of creating servitors.

This is not the best example to convince of the reality of servitor magic, as the servitor in question does not fare particularly well under sceptical analysis, but it will give you some idea of how it is done. As to judging the effectiveness of any given servitor, that is difficult to deal with in abstract. Servitor magic arises from a relatively recent tradition that can broadly be termed Chaos Magic, which places a great deal of emphasis on the experimental, heuristic approach. I am a scientist by profession, and I find that my scientific bent is appealed to by many authors and practitioners of Chaos.

mossieh wrote:

Well, I understand that you have no obligation to back anything up but surely as a self-professed sceptic you understand why someone else would request it?

Yes, as I have already said, I understand that it may be difficult for someone with no personal experience of magic to believe accounts from those who have. It is not merely that I have no obligation to provide proof, but no means to do so, unless I were to arrange to meet you in person, which would go a little beyond a casual chat on a forum. You will have to content yourself with asking questions, and judging the rationality and coherence of my answers.

mossieh wrote:

To quote Diego Montoya: 'you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it does'

Why not? What reason do you have to doubt that I think sceptically? Are you convinced that you know enough about what I do to reach such a conclusion?

mossieh

Sapien wrote:

I'd rather not discuss my own magical work in any detail, as I consider it, like all spiritual endeavours, to be private. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to read an account of a rather famous egrigore, written by it's creator, Fenwick Rysen. I referred above to the range in effort required for the creation of servitors by different methods. The servitor in this account was created by the simplest technique possible, but has gone on to become famous for its effectiveness and unanticipated ramifications. There are other, much more elaborate (and perhaps more reliable) ways of creating servitors.


This is not the best example to convince of the reality of servitor magic, as the servitor in question does not fare particularly well under sceptical analysis, but it will give you some idea of how it is done. As to judging the effectiveness of any given servitor, that is difficult to deal with in abstract. Servitor magic arises from a relatively recent tradition that can broadly be termed Chaos Magic, which places a great deal of emphasis on the experimental, heuristic approach. I am a scientist by profession, and I find that my scientific bent is appealed to by many authors and practitioners of Chaos.

Thank you, I must read up on the subject.

Sapien wrote:

Yes, as I have already said, I understand that it may be difficult for someone with no personal experience of magic to believe accounts from those who have. It is not merely that I have no obligation to provide proof, but no means to do so, unless I were to arrange to meet you in person, which would go a little beyond a casual chat on a forum. You will have to content yourself with asking questions, and judging the rationality and coherence of my answers.

That's a reasonable answer I guess, I appreciate your taking the time to explain it anyway.

Sapien wrote:

Why not? What reason do you have to doubt that I think sceptically? Are you convinced that you know enough about what I do to reach such a conclusion?

Because I believe the statement ' I have summoned and created some scary things, and performed magic ' is not something that could be uttered by someone who was truly sceptical. To say you have 'performed magic' is a very un-sceptical thing to say because it means you accept fully the concept of powers undocumented by traditional science and not only that but that you also posess them. Surely a scientist like yourself should recoil from such a definitive statement in such an ill-defined area.

SimpleSam06

Thaedydal wrote:

An asstru blot call for blood as part of honoring those Gods in that context. A lot of peoples negative take on using blood in rituals is based on thier own or other peoples squeamishness.

What Asatru blots have you been attending? The use of blood has a well documented history in magical rites and religious rites to summon, control and coerce the spirits of the dead and elementals of the sorts than like to hang out around abbatoirs, battlefields, and asylums. For those reasons alone, if you were to put belief in these rites, you would be well advised to steer clear of blood rituals.

Thaedydal wrote:

Many things can only be fully and completely understood by experiencing them and working through the issue that follow after and indeed it make take a life time to fully grok them.

Does this mean a person should not bother ?

In a lot of cases, yes. A very little research would give most people who might believe in such things pause.

Thaedydal wrote:

To know, to will, to dare and to keep silent.

Each part of the above maxim has it's place and the order of it is important.

Interestingly, thats the first time I've heard of that maxim. The last part in particular I find interesting, and in fact slightly disturbing, more for the mental isolation factor than the spookiness. Would you care to elaborate further?

Thaedydal wrote:

There is only 1 things I can think of that specifically which I would consider to be 'dark arts' and can not be used for any gainful good that is the deliberately summoning of deamons to further a personal end.

Doesn't that really depend on what you would consider a Daemon? In the Catholic pantheon, Lucifer looks uncommonly like Pan, don't you think?

Sapien

mossieh wrote:

Because I believe the statement ' I have summoned and created some scary things, and performed magic ' is not something that could be uttered by someone who was truly sceptical.

I don't agree, though I realise that most soi-disant sceptics would. The fact is that most people know very little about modern magic, and are happy to draw conclusions from a relative lack of knowledge. I challenge any sceptic, who is genuinely interested, to find out more about magic and maintain that there can be no logical reason for its practice.

mossieh wrote:

To say you have 'performed magic' is a very un-sceptical thing to say because it means you accept fully the concept of powers undocumented by traditional science and not only that but that you also posess them.

I am not claiming that I can accelerate an object to a speed greater than that of light, or that I have created an engine with an efficiency of 1. Physics (I am a physicist) determines more than anything else what I am or am not likely to believe. My understanding of magic does not conflict with my scientific training. In fact, science furnishes me with more concepts with which to speculate upon the mechanisms by which magic works than most other magicians have access to. This doesn't really matter, because magicians care about what works rather than how. However, as a scientist, not to mention an often rabid sceptic with a tendency to pounce on the religious, I often have to justify, to myself and others, the parameters of my beliefs. Believe it or not, it's not a problem.

mossieh wrote:

Surely a scientist like yourself should recoil from such a definitive statement in such an ill-defined area.

I haven't made any really definitive statements. I have said I practice magic. I'm pretty sure about that. What exactly magic is and how it might work are entirely different questions, and I might answer them in a more sophisticated and circumspect way than you may expect. What magic is, is ill-defined. What magicians do is not. Why, how or if magic works are entirely open questions that I would not dare to answer with authority.