I had a good reply to your post, but then the internet swallowed it. Since i can't be particularly bothered to retype nor really format this,
hope this suffices.
1. im not saying you dont, but before i answer this, do you understand the distinction between right and left hand path? , because "undersood normally"
doesnt mean much, most people in the socalled "occult" community have no idea what have the words they use actually mean. the "common" understanding is
usually a half assed dictionary definition mixed with a lil bit of idiot mysticism to make it appear "dark" or "cool". so im trying tot figure out if you
know the difference. if you dont its irrelevant, but if you do then i am quite curious on how you come to the conclusion that nekromantic traditions are
not by their very nature left hand path.
I understand the distinction, I just see it as very pointless and proceeding from a very dualistic worldview that serves very little purpose for someone who wishes
to stand at the centre of the axis mundi.
One focuses on rejecting a want to be unified with the all over self empowerment and deification and vice versa. In a basic nutshell that does it disservice.
A good discourse on why can be found in a book called Fosforos, written by Johannes Nefastos, which deals with how
they wrap around and into each other, reaching a oneness, the joined quintessences of both the Right Hand Path and the Left Hand Paths. This is what I'm interested in -
not rejecting one thing to see saw into the other.
This merging can already be seen in Luciferian Gnostic orders that describe themselves as left hand path, but actually want to reduce everything to a unifed state of non being that
escapes God / the demiurges control. These orders see the materialistic, and individualism promoted by church of satan and other groups as profane, and im inclined to agree with them,
so i don't bother researching such groups.
2. i did see other people refer to frisvold and stratton kent, yet i also saw a lot of other SHIT. so instead of dissecting every response i added my two cents: if my two cents match someone elses two cents, then im obviously not referring to them when i say previous comments were more or less useless.
You might have been better served then explaining what was wrong with that shit. You certainly seem to know alot of what you are talking about; that isn't a sly dig, i'm being honest,
so it would have been good to read as to why their sources you think are not worth reading /are incorrect. That way people could be educated. Thanks for posting the group link,
by the by.
3. i choose to spell greek words as closely to a proper transliteration as i can. its called maturity, and not bending to latinized customs when i have no reason to.
Maturity plays no part in that, considering that the most used term in modern discourse is necromancy. It could be said to be closer to either pretention or even anal retentiveness.
Not bending to latinized customs is fine and all, but in that case, why are you not using the classical greek term in its pure form?
4. konstantinos, in all honesty doesnt even merit an explanation, hes a pure right hand path golden dawn fool, with a "goth" mask on, ive read all his books and hes just a damn idiot.
I also don't put much stock in him, especially after reading about how he believes ingredients can be substituted by such weak suggestions such as red paint. Because that is clearly
going to offer up the same material effects as blood. I enjoyed your alchemical post about antinomy as a side note.
5. also you are completely wrong about magick and magic. first of all, magick is a much older spelling that appears in several middle age grimoires, letters, laws, etc. second of all, aleister crowley was the first person in modern times to use it, and his exact explanation is that he added the k to return magick to the glory it had in the middle ages when it was spelled that way, and to seperate it from spiritualism and the many hoaxes of his day. since he was the one to reinstate the spelling (despite how many testicle climbers took to it after him for cool points) and since he clearly stated his purpose in doing so, im sorry but his explanation trumps yours.
Completely wrong, no, off mark, ill agree. I do thank you for correcting me to a degree. Yes, but it was changed over time just how languages naturally evolve and change. Crowly used it
by your own admission due to wanting to seperate it from all the 'fakery', which is what I was getting to. Since this doesn't really apply to the discussion anymore now I know why you
are using the K (due to trying to be closer to the greek spelling) then fair enough. Point is moot. Its interesting to note I have a very, very personal dislike for using the K in
necromancy especially, due to its connotations with the underground black metal scene as being exceptionally poserish and childish. I therefore personally cannot use it because it reminds
me of such infantile attempts at appropriating occult themes for pure shock value.
6. necromancy and nekromancy as stated above are both the same word, i simply choose to use a k, like i do in hekate and many other word/names. however, nekyomancy and nekromancy are NOT the same thing, as i stated in a previous post in this thread.
I had a long winded answer to this, but it basically boiled down to that your distinction is one that seems rather artificial and strained for relevence, considering the dual use of . I would be highly interested in seeing sources, historical sources, that say that nekromancy was not a term used for divining with the dead in mind, considering the word literally comes from dead body prophecy in the original greek, whereas you describe nekyomancy as being the prophetic work and im guessing the nekromantic work as the alchemical/self transformation work which seems different to say the least.
7. if you like stratton kent, i highly suggest you pick up the previous copies in his encyclopedia goetica series:
-"the true grimoire" , "geosophia vol. 1" - "geosophia vol 2" .. his goetica series is by the far the biggest wealth of scholarship on the greek/thracian art of goetia.. which at this point is the only even rudimentary nekromantic tradition from europe thats still salvagable. you are missing out on quite a bit by not reading these works (and essentially anything by scarlet imprint)
I have read extracts on both, I intend to get hard copies when available. I have tracked them down and they are not out of my price range - i refuse to buy paper copies usually due to being a bit of a bibliophile ill admit.
It shows that this is one series where I have considered caving for the short term, until I can find hardcopies which wont be ridiculous shipping and import tax costs. I dont tend to read electronic copies all the way through either - i think one should support authors. But yes, fully intend to, and glad that they are as good as I thought they would be. I am especially interested in how Hekate/Hecate is approached, considering she is my patron.
8. if you can read Frisvolds works on palo and quimbanda, stratton kents works on goetia, and still tell me that nekromancy is not a left hand path tradition, then you seriously need to study up on what constitutes the paradigm of right or left hand, or you need to re read all those books over again VERY carefully. saying that goetia/quimbanda etc. are not left hand path traditions is like saying kabbalah is not a right hand path tradition.
I had another long winded explanation to this as well that the internet ate.
As such im afraid cliffnotes must suffice:
You cannot lump Goetia, Quimbanda, Palo mayombe and Kabbalah into such neat categories. They are simply systems, such which fit the paradigm categorisation system more neater than others.
To start with the Kabbalah example, traditionally Kaballah I would accept is very 'right hand path' in that in seeks unite with God and in that way self dissolution. However Kabbalah can also be worked
with the tree of death, for self empowerment, and also to work against the desire of that unity to more individual freedom and apotheosis by descending to Thaumiel. This is implicit in the system,
and has been developed and worked within by numerous people. It therefore transcends its initial limitation and shows the false veil for what it is.
Quimbanda and Palo itself does definitely not set itself into that grain as one or the other. This can be seen by how Nzambi or god contains both dark and light elements - whilst self empowering to the
point that a person can achieve sainthood as an exu, there is still a rigid structure that must be followed, rules that must be adhered, an emphasis on an overall unity with the sainted dead that runs through at the base of such
systems that actually shows where the light and dark,chaos and order, dissolution and empowerment of the ego exist as simply opposite ends of the same xis. Right and left defintions existing as one, therefore conjoining together into that synthesis described by works such as fosforos. I find examining Quimbanda and Palo Myombe from such a categorisation system as Palo as 'left hand path' would be utterly alien to many that practice those systems. Especially when you consider the role of kalunga and the ancestral ocean, and the role that plays alongside the enspiriting fire. It places limits on these traditions that have alot more to teach than reinforce such simple left right dichotomies.
