Talk:Ceremonial magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surely several of these predate the supposed inspirations?

---

Or that there are many influential people who predate Israel Regardie and Aleister Crowley. Khirad^talk

There are in fact numerous influence to ceremonial magic, as well as those who predate Crowley and Regardie. Zos 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradition?

I question the wording that CM is a tradition rather than a tool or technique used within tradiitons. Thoughts?--207.224.120.39 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The tool you mean likely is what is described in the Ritual magic article. Ceremonial and Ritual are more or less synonymous, but 'Ceremonial magic' as a composite term is quite closely attached to the RC-GD-Thelema-etc. current rather than to "technical" aspects of magical practices.

I agree it may be useful to mark the distinction, in both articles.Denial 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a sharp contrast between the two. Ritual magic is base and can be done with just a few items such as the wand, the cup, the dagger, books, etc. But ceremonial magic is more elaborate and "extended". There are longer rituals, and a intensely more complex than a simple ritual. Yet, there is a fine line between the two, one can lead to the other.

Zos

[edit] Similar question but not about tradition

I question whether there is such a thing as "grimoire magic". I understand the use of grimoires, in ceremonial and other forms of magic, but is there really anything referred to as "grimoire magic"? This seems like an artificial distinction that serves no purpose. The linked article is for [[Grimoire]] , not "grimoire magic".

Also, should the [[Goetic magick]] link lead to the Ars Goetia article? Shouldn't it lead to the Goetia article? Canonblack 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should link to [[Goetia]]. The Ars Goetia is just one of many works to be called goetic in times where the term was synonymous with black magic (i.e. all the way through the middle ages). Only today, where the Ars Goetia is the only one regularly for sale in esoteric bookstores, do the two get confused.

I think the term Grimoire Magic is contemporary as well, since when Grimoires where current, there wasn't a lot of other magic to distinguish it from. However, even if contemporary, Grimoire Magic as a style or tradition does exist, albeit sparsely. The ritual-magic Yahoogroup[1] (quote description: "Keywords: Agrippa, Ficino, Pico, Bruno, Trithemius, Goetia, Grimoire, Dee, Tuba Veneris, Heptameron, Lemegeton, Ars Memoria, Ars Combinatoria, Lull, Barrett, Solomon.") and its massive messages archive provide proof.

Grimoire magic is strictly ritual magic, but has relatively little in common with Ceremonial magic. When I say relatively little, I mean less than with with either Neoplatonism or the Magia naturalis debate or even plain old devil worship (if, in the latter case, probably intended as a description of, rather than a manual how to).Denial 05:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no such thing as "Grimoire Magic". This is just a coined term for lack of understanding. Second, the Arse Goetia is only speculated to be "black magic", and this was from a book that A.E. Waite wrote called The Book of Ceremonial Magic. The the introduction or preface to the Goetia, its specified that the "demons" in question are "portions of the human brain", and not mythological demons or fallen angels of Christianity. Third, Grimoire magic would not be concidered ritual magic because it is more elaborate and the wording is more complex. Ritual magic is more like Wiccan and Neo Pagan rituals, as well as a few individual rituals in other forms of occult, such as the petagram ritual, or middle pillar.

Zos 07:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated

I have now turned this "stub" into a more standard article. If anyone wishes to add to this, please note the sources and file it under a specific section!

Zos 09:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work. :-) I'll drop in and expand that when I find the time.Denial 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just edited out the part where I had said that Waite goes on with utter contempt. I felt it was bias after all. I added Waite into the article for the reason that not everyone agrees with ceremonial magic, I had to balance it out a bit. Waite also doesnt do too much in the way of explaining why he feels this way.....and even adds this into a section of his book called "on the importance of ceremonial magic". So, you'd think he'd find it important, and have better thigs to say!

Zos 18:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)