I have reorganised the Groups section, bringing it up higher in priority order than individual sorcerers. I also added three sub categories, one for currents and traditions, and two for the different types of group that form around those currents. Of the two groups, I have given highest priority to collectives such as ourselves, and lowest priority to hierarchical groups. This is in line with the kiamagic.com stance of opposing authoritarianism and promoting individual sovereignty. Tantra has been moved from Theory to a tradition/current. We may also choose to add specific tantric groups/orders/collectives in the appropriate subheader. --AntonChanning 14:04, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
- ) @}->----Ariadne 16:05, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Magic or Magick?
I would like to reach a consensus on this. My initial instinct is to avoid using the spelling Magick for anything not directly talking about Crowley and Thelema. Most Chaos Magic texts don't add the 'k' for example, nor do most other magic books. Our domain name, kiamagic.com, also omits the 'k', so it would seem a bit odd to use Crowley's spelling everywhere in the text. What do others think? --AntonChanning 07:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Whilst writing stuff I was thinking about that. I guess I can go either way with it. I mean Crowley had a point that Magick separated what he was doing from stage magic (Though I have heard that there are reasons relating to Gematria as well). Though these days it seems that stage magic would be the one that should develop it's own spelling as Occult Magic seems to really be more popular.
- Actually for consistency's sake I think we should use magic (without the k).--Te23 18:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Crowley did have a point about the spelling, but unfortunately in practice it has come to mean less the distinction between stage magic and occult magic, and more the distinction between those magicians who follow Thelema (or its offshoots) and those that don't. In particular, I feel the term Magick has come to refer specifically to Crowley related magic. Thats just my own perception of the matter however... --AntonChanning 18:28, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- I prefer the use of the word "magic".--Feather 21:58, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I moved Astrology and Tantra from practice to theory. Thinking that mantras, sex magic, bhakti yoga etc. would be the practices of tantra....--Te23 18:23, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Astrology was considered a Magical Science by: Egyptians, Priests of Ishtar/ ( they were burned for it at the Grand Banishment)Alchemists/ - etc.Not to mention modern magical astrologers sch as meself. Maybe thats were it should go?user: Ariadne6th May.
- I back this. Not sure if Astrology really counts as sorcery at all given the definition, but I suppose a lot of astrological theory helps in the understanding of the planets, the four elements and the three qualities. And it provides a rich source of symbolism which crosses over and shares with Hermetic Alchemical lore. These concepts and symbols can be usefully incorporated into magic. So in that respect Theory is a good for Astrology. --AntonChanning 18:12, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Of course, if we do that, we should probably move Wicca, Thelema and the like to the Philosophy Portal also, since whilst they are traditions that make use of sorcery, they are primarily spiritual/philosophical/religious traditions. Which is not to say we have to move Thelemite or Wiccan Sorcerers though. A sorcerer is a sorcerer, regardless of spiritual tradition.
- re: Sorcery: ever since the Wiki opened, I have felt limiting with having to align with that sole words to describe this community. Some of us may prefer: Witch, magician, alchemist, priest/ priestess/ occultist, to decribe their relationship to the current. Cld this be made more inclusive in the definition? I think very careful consideration should be given to not discriminateand be as inclusive & open-minded as possible as to what " sorcery" encompasses! By over categorising, one could end up being influences by common predjudices..User: Ariadne 6th May.
- I don't think there is need to discriminate as such, sorcery is only one section of this website. If something doesn't belong here, then there is a good bet it DOES belong in one of the other three sections. --AntonChanning 06:23, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
- Hmmm. That is a point worth discussing. I would say that Thelema is more intrinsically linked to Sorcery then Wicca or Tantra. Tantra is a hugely varied tradition and really is more of a heading to describe diverse beliefs. Wicca is kind of the same (though I only really say that because its traditions are so hugely varied nowadays). Though Thelema can be directly translated to theory. A lot of Crowleys magick used specific ideas from the Book of the Law. In fact to thoroughly understand Crowley's method one would have to study the Book of the Law. (Note I am not saying that you can't understand Crowley without it, I am just saying to really get into the meat and bones of his method...)
- Though on rethinking my own comments, maybe your right. Perhaps theory should be limited to ideas like alchemy and astrology. Perhaps over encompassing philosophies should be placed in the philosophy portal. Though theory becomes a difficult subject to describe. Because alchemy has it's practical applications which wouldn't fall under any other practice except alchemy. I think I mentioned this idea with Goetia. It has both the theory and practical side. Through the theory one understands the purpose of the goetia and then one does it drawing their triangles and preparing their wands and what not.....--220.127.116.11 02:10, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
Dead or Alive!
I also moved Kenneth Grant to Living Sorcerers as I am fairly positive he is still alive. He's only 83....--Te23 18:23, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Mwhaha. I didn't realise anyone put him in the dead section! I was wondering if Alex and Maxine were still alive? --AntonChanning 18:12, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
- Mmwwahaha. Sorry re: Kenneth Grant mistake. Alex Sanders, RIP. Maxine well alive & kicking! User: Ariadne 6th May.
- Not to worry, somebody beat me to moving Alex. I presume Maxine is still with us then? Its been a while since I paid much attention to paganism.
I have added a one line description to everything. I have gotten rid of the etc and plan to continue to work on this page for a while. So the list isn't complete others should continue to add to the lists. Perhaps the Spirits Work With Section could be removed and just added to the page on invocation or it could be created as a separate page and link to from both the invocation and evocation pages -Te23
- Thanks. It needed tidying up. Obviously its still a work in progress, but any improvement is better than no improvement. And you seem to be getting into a lot better shape than it was before. :) Thanks for expanding the list of sorcerors. Its still WAY incomplete, and I daresay others will come along and expand upon what we've started here. I also realise I started it with a kind of nepotism and listing my friends, but I for one have no problem with that. I daresay thats precisely what most other magicians who edit this page will do. >:) --AntonChanning 11:30, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Not sure the description of sigils should mention Austin Osman Spare. Sigils are far older than AOS. Obviously the contribution of AOS to sigil magic is significant and should definitely come up in the Sigils article, but perhaps the brief description here should say something along the lines of 'techniques involving the creation/use of magical glyphs and symbols'.
- Good point.
Spirits Work With
Perhaps the Spirits Work With Section could be removed and just added to the page on invocation or it could be created as a separate page and link to from both the invocation and evocation pages -Te23
- Thats an idea, but then we have both an invocation and evocation section, and most spirits are suitable for either. So maybe we simply need a page that lists the various entities, but with links to any collection of spirits that gets too big. For example, Goetia might have a seperate page that lists its own spirits, rather than being a subsection. None of what I did to start was intended to be set in stone, or even suggest a preference for organisation. I was simply creating lists so that things might start happening. --AntonChanning 16:35, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
- Hmmm, I like wiki as they can become very complex. I was just thinking that it would be really cool if each Goetic Spirit had it's own page with possible historical references and what not. I have never seen anything like that before.
- It looks like it might already exist on wikipedia, so we can just port the pages over when we have time. After that ours can evolve in a different direction. But they can provide a good starting point. --AntonChanning 06:32, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- Maybe we should just drop having a page listing spirits and let their own pages develop as needed. I just can't think of any other way to really fit them into the Wiki at this point. Of course some would be developed immediately. Like Goetia is part theory and part practical work, so we could just list Goetia and see what happens. Ancestor spirits would probably be linked to a page on Shamanism and the invocation/evocation pages would naturally develop some catergories...
- Yes, we might not need a complete spirit index. Or we can do it using categories or something. There are so many features in this wiki software that I don't know how to use them all yet... --AntonChanning 06:32, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
I am placing this category at the bottom of the discussion page because we aren't going to use it on the intro Sorcery page. However I think it will be good to keep it somewhere for reference to make sure we remember to add it into the wiki somehow when that time comes..--Te23 18:24, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I like the short description of me. Very funny! :) --AntonChanning 16:39, 30 April 2007 (CDT)