|
Post by stephen on Sept 7, 2015 15:13:22 GMT
Black Seals & Sixtystones
There is no doubt that both occult practitioners and occult writers are fascinated by the subject of Black Stones and Black Seals, and for that matter by a varied series of black monoliths and obelisks, idols and images as being potent foci of supernatural power and magical attraction. I myself am intrigued by the description of the black stone known as the Sixtystone in Arthur Machen’s story “The Novel of the Black Seal” and I am not entirely surprised that a similar black stone should feature as a cult object in Robert E. Howard’s “Worms of the Earth”. That a stone like a “sullen night-black object”, decorated with “cryptic characters” should play a central role in the worship of Dagon and to some extent in Romano-Celtic Yorkshire certainly is a proposition that stimulates the imagination. I would like to know more about Howard’s story, which I must admit to the disadvantage of never having read, but in the meantime, I offer the following observations.
There is no evidence that Dagon was ever worshipped in ancient Britain; the Roman Legions brought the cults of many strange gods with them, but it is very doubtful that the cult of Dagon would have been among these. As an old Semitic deity who was adopted in turn by the Phoenicians and Philistines however, it is just possible that some knowledge of Dagon might have been brought to the British Isles by those Phoenician traders who came to visit Cornwall for its tin, long before the Roman invasion.
It may be relevant to point out that Yorkshire has its Blackstone Edge, above Littleborough in the Pennines; it is the sight of a well-constructed stretch of the Roman road which runs between Ilkley and Manchester. The location is due west of Huddersfield with its substantial Iron Age hill fort at Almondbury and there may be smaller, yet interesting features in the surrounding area.
Machen’s black stone has certainly become influential in occult literature, most notably in Kenneth Grant’s book Hecate’s Fountain, although I would suggest that it was inappropriate, if not perverse, of Grant to equate the occult significance of “a lump of black stone, rudely annotated with queer marks and scratches” with the ancient Egyptian sophistication of the Stele of Revealing.
The primary source of information on Machen’s black stone is a text by Julius Solinus, a histographer circa the third century A.D., which is entitled De Lapide Hexecontalitho. In this it is stated that “They boast of a certain stone, which they call Sixtystone for they say that it displays sixty characters. And this stone has a secret and unspeakable name; which is Ixaxaar.” In his quotation of this passage, Grant adds the footnote, “Translated by Arthur Machen and quoted in his “The Novel of the Black Seal.” This makes it clear that, in common with most other investigators, Grant takes Solinus to be a historical rather than a fictional figure and his text as being an actual document. I have yet to find any material to support this.
Concerning Ixaxaar (to adopt his spelling), Grant continues: “The number of this ‘unspeakable name’ is 333, which reveals its connection with the Choronzonic Current, and which relates it directly with the Qliphoth.. This stone possesses a function similar to, but much greater than, that of the Averse Pentagram which evokes the denizens of the Qliphoth.” (1)
It is difficult to understand how such a focus of negative energy can be equated with that of the Stele 718, the talisman central to the genesis of Liber AL vel Legis. The qabbalah itself demonstrates this: Ixaxaar, 333, represents the Qliphoth alone, while the Stele of Revealing, as Stele 666 (52 + 666 = 718), represents the point of balance between the dark and light natures of the Beast (333 + 333 = 666), or the double current of Shaitan (359 + 359 = 718).
Hecate's Fountain is replete with references to the significance of the Sixtystone, indeed to an almost obsessive degree; one is inclined to recall Ithell Colquhoun’s comments: “When I first borrowed a copy of The House of Souls I was too horrified by “The Three Imposters” to continue reading it. I found the word ‘Ishakshar’ inscribed upon the Black Seal so obsessive that I had to return the book unfinished. (2) The phonetic spelling of the name lends to the Sixtystone a Babylonian colouring, a particularly occult example of one of those stone seals bearing cuneiform characters that can be seen in many museums. Kenneth Grant spells the name in Hebrew characters and adds an extra Aleph. Machen himself appears to have favoured a Mayan association for Ixaxar; Grant also comments on the fact that in “the Mayan languages ‘Ix’ is a feminine prefix” which “enters into the names of lunar goddesses”. These include the young moon goddess Ix Ch’up, ‘The Woman’ and the old moon goddess Ix Chel, ‘Rainbow Lady’ patron of medicine and child birth; and there is IX Tab, the spider-goddess to whom Peter Smith has drawn attention.
If one refers back to Solinus however, it will be seen that the Latin title of his tract refers to the Sixtystone by a Greek name: Hexecontalithos from which it might be inferred that the name Ixaxar also was the Greek rendition of some ‘unspeakable’ name in the harsh and hissing language of the race which possesses the Black Seal. Given this basis, analysis by Greek gematria might be appropriate. My findings follow, but it has to be said that they throw up unexpected as well as inconclusive results.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 7, 2015 15:19:45 GMT
Ixaxar = 232 232 = alas, salt; = Isaak, Isaac; = oninamai, I benefit, have joy.
Exekontalithos = 833 833 = apodoche, acceptance; Iakob, Jacob.
O Exekontalithos, The Sixtystone = 903 903 = baptismos, baptism, ritual washing; = parathalassios, by the sea, or lake; = parapikrasmos, rebellion.
Further gematria can be obtained by combining Ixaxar with the Sixtystone and treating them as a unified expression: either 833 + 232 = 1065 or 903 + 232 = 1135. 1065 = agnosia, lack of spiritual perception; but equally: synesis, insight, intelligence. 1135 = kosmeo, I decorate, I put in order.
While finally, Sphragis Melaina, Black Seal = 1151 1151 = amomos, faultless, without blemish; = egkauchaomai, I boast.
Adding the definite article E gives The Black Seal = 1159 1159 = atimazo, I degrade, or treat shamefully; Alekto, Alecto, one of the Furies; trytane, a balance a pair of scales.
There certainly is material here for exploring several interpretations of the powers and uses of the Sixtystone. The lack, or the ‘absence of spiritual perception’ combined with ‘intelligence’ and the tendency ‘to degrade’ supports the identification of Ixaxar as a source of Qliphothic energy. While the concept of ‘baptism’ could be taken as supporting Peter Smith’s idea that Ixaxar “represents a magical formula which encodes the transformation of the human archetype into that of the snake, or ‘Worm’…”
The most peculiar feature of the gematria is the occurrence of two related biblical names, those of Isaac and his son Jacob; in the original Hebrew, the name Isaac has the meaning of ‘laughter’, while that of Jacob means ‘taking by the heal’ or ‘supplanter’. The Hebrew correspondences of 232 illustrate an interesting contradiction, or proposition, as they include IHI AVR, “Let there be light”, which seems completely inappropriate for the cult object of a race who are said to “hate the sun” until one notes the further correspondence of LHB HNOLM, ‘the secret flame’. There is also the word TzATzAIM, ‘productions, or offspring’, which would be pronounced as ‘za’zayim’, emulating the harsh and hissing invocations that are associated with the Sixtystone.
There are no final conclusions offered here, rather a string of additional possibilities with which to cast the net of fascination wider and draw in the focus of consciousness to nourish the mystery of the Sixtystone: Ixaxar!
Stephen Dziklewicz
Notes: (1) Kenneth Grant, Hecate’s Fountain, page 34. Skoob Books Publishing, London, 1992. (2) Ithell Colquhoun, Sword of Wisdom, page 224. Neville Spearman, London, 1975.
Copyright. 1993 E.V.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Sept 8, 2015 11:18:58 GMT
There is no evidence that Dagon was ever worshipped in ancient Britain; the Roman Legions brought the cults of many strange gods with them, but it is very doubtful that the cult of Dagon would have been among these. As an old Semitic deity who was adopted in turn by the Phoenicians and Philistines however, it is just possible that some knowledge of Dagon might have been brought to the British Isles by those Phoenician traders who came to visit Cornwall for its tin, long before the Roman invasion.
It may be relevant to point out that Yorkshire has its Blackstone Edge, above Littleborough in the Pennines; it is the sight of a well-constructed stretch of the Roman road which runs between Ilkley and Manchester. The location is due west of Huddersfield with its substantial Iron Age hill fort at Almondbury and there may be smaller, yet interesting features in the surrounding area.
The primary source of information on Machen’s black stone is a text by Julius Solinus, a histographer circa the third century A.D., which is entitled De Lapide Hexecontalitho. In this it is stated that “They boast of a certain stone, which they call Sixtystone for they say that it displays sixty characters. And this stone has a secret and unspeakable name; which is Ixaxaar.” In his quotation of this passage, Grant adds the footnote, “Translated by Arthur Machen and quoted in his “The Novel of the Black Seal.” This makes it clear that, in common with most other investigators, Grant takes Solinus to be a historical rather than a fictional figure and his text as being an actual document. I have yet to find any material to support this.
Hi Stephen,
Some interesting information, thanks for sharing it. I don't think archaeology or philology equates with occultism, as inspiring as these can be to occultists - although I am impressed at your work in this area and look forward to your review in Starfire. I don't think it matters whether or not anything Grant says in the Trilogies is literally, historically, academically true. He was a magician (read: artist, poet, shaman), not an academic. Clearly his aims were otherwise, and to me it's a fundamental mistake to only read Grant the way you'd read the work of an academic. He is creating impressions, not just imparting information. The impressions aren't even necessarily the actual content of his work. See the quote in my signature - and the remarks about Machen's technique in the other thread, which for me is the "key of it all" for Grant's material. It's not about what he's discussing, it's about what's behind it. And that's not external, or literal.
That aside, could not Dagon be considered cognate with Nodens, who was worshipped in Britain? Given the documented interchangability amongst gods and their foreign counterparts in the minds of many ancient writers and the ways in which foreign counterparts were often recognised by locals in an effort to understand and relate to the other culture, or to conquer and assimilate it, this isn't far-fetched, even from an academic viewpoint. I'm no academic but it doesn't seem like a big deal, whether or not it literally happened under those names.
It could have happened under those names anyway, with no evidence remaining of it, especially if it was an occult current rather than a popular state-sanctioned religions institution.
When you say:I'm curious as to why you think this is "inappropriate", given that Grant is simply expressing a particular view for contemplation in his own book with purposes that are not related to academia, but poetry. Clearly it's nonsense to talk about fiction as history if you're addressing the rational part of the mind alone. Grant has another aim in doing so, a magical one, and for me this is actually a sublime (if, as you say, perverse) conjunction of the two entities which deepens and nourishes both. I mean, if Crowley can (for a start - there's heaps more) make up the whole story about Aiwass dictating the book of the law on April 8, 9, and 10 when he was nowhere near Cairo at the time, why can't Grant stir things together in his own way? The literal facthood or falsity of either doesn't in any way detract from their creative value, as props for something far more important.
I would suggest that it could be held "inappropriate", to analyse Grant and expect everything (fiction, history) to add up rationally in the usual, dry way given the final words in this post, below.
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Sept 8, 2015 16:45:49 GMT
Thank you for posting this Stephen I will save it to read in more detail
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 10, 2015 15:06:17 GMT
I'm curious as to why you think this is "inappropriate", given that Grant is simply expressing a particular view for contemplation in his own book with purposes that are not related to academia, but poetry. Clearly it's nonsense to talk about fiction as history if you're addressing the rational part of the mind alone. Grant has another aim in doing so, a magical one, and for me this is actually a sublime (if, as you say, perverse) conjunction of the two entities which deepens and nourishes both. I mean, if Crowley can (for a start - there's heaps more) make up the whole story about Aiwass dictating the book of the law on April 8, 9, and 10 when he was nowhere near Cairo at the time, why can't Grant stir things together in his own way? The literal facthood or falsity of either doesn't in any way detract from their creative value, as props for something far more important.
I would suggest that it could be held "inappropriate", to analyse Grant and expect everything (fiction, history) to add up rationally in the usual, dry way given the final words in this post, below. Hi Not2, While I certainly recognise that Kenneth Grant's books on Magic have a magical purpose and that he integrates diverse elements into his text with that specific purpose in mind, it does not mean that you have to accept or go along with everything he says on either aesthetic or factual grounds. While the Typhonian Trilogies are not intended as academic works, they deal with authentic and historical traditions, real people and actual events, as well as integrating fictional and literary material, and on that basis I do not regard them as being poetry either. My reasons for regarding the equation of the Sixtystone with the Stele of Revealing as being inappropriate are hardly based on accepted academic or rational grounds, drawing as they do on gematria and theories of magical correspondences. Creating impressions is all well and good, but to what purpose ? I think it was in the Official Statement published in STARFIRE Volume II No.2 where Grant stated that creative occultism per se was not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It seems to me that you have rejected the scientific illuminism of Crowley and chosen what you define as the shamanic surrealism of Grant, placing them in some sort of total polarity to one another when that is not really the case.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 10, 2015 15:34:56 GMT
Not sure whether I will have responded to Not2 entirely to his satisfaction in the preceding post, but here is what I actually came online to do. In my essay, (which was written back in 1993 I would like to emphasise), I queried the authenticity of Machen's sources/references to Solinus and the Sixtystone, going so far as to question the actual existence of Solinus and his work having limited research resources at the time. When I began using the internet and the web in 2003, I soon got around to checking these out and found that Gaius Julius Solinus did indeed live in the 3rd century CE and was the compiler of the work De mirabilis mundi - "About the Marvels of the World" - largely bringing together the work of older classical authors. And I discovered that my informed intuition - or rational scepticism, if you prefer - was to some extent justified, Machen had radically and creatively reworked the text of Solinus which does not contain the name Ixaxar. Evidently the word and concept is Machen's creation much in the same sense that the Qrixkuor is a conception and creation of Kenneth Grant's.
For those who may be interested, the relevant chapter XXXI taken from the Mommsen edition of the Latin text is quoted below and the source is:
www.thelatinlibrary.com/solinus.html
XXXI. Quod ab Atlante usque Canopitanum ostium panditur, ubi Libyae finis est et Aegyptium limen, dictum a Canopo Menelai gubernatore sepulto in ea insula quae ostium Nili facit, gentes tenent dissonae, quae in aviae solitudinis secretum recesserunt. ex his Atlantes ab humano ritu prorsus exulant. nulli proprium vocabulum, nulli speciale nomen. diris solis ortus excipiunt, diris occasus prosequuntur ustique undique torrentis plagae sidere oderunt deum lucis. adfirmant eos somnia non videre et abstinere penitus ab animalibus universis. Trogodytae specus excavant, illis teguntur. nullus ibi habendi amor: a divitiis paupertate se abdicaverunt voluntaria. tantum lapide uno gloriantur, quem hexecontalithon nominamus, tam diversis notis sparsum, ut sexaginta gemmarum colores in parvo orbiculo eius deprehendantur. homines isti carnibus vivunt serpentium ignarique sermonis stridunt potius quam loquuntur. Augilae vero solos colunt inferos. feminas suas primis noctibus nuptiarum adulteriis cogunt patere, mox ad perpetuam pudicitiam legibus stringunt severissimis. Gamphasantes abstinent proeliis, fugiunt commercia, nulli se extero misceri sinunt. Blemyas credunt truncos nasci parte qua caput est, os tamen et oculos habere in pectore. Satyri de hominibus nihil aliud praeferunt quam figuram. Aegipanes hoc sunt quod pingi videmus. Himantopodes fluxis nisibus crurum serpunt potius quam incedunt et pergendi usum lapsu magis destinant quam ingressu. Pharusi cum Herculi ad Hesperidas pergenti forent comites, itineris taedio hic resederunt. hactenus Libya.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Sept 11, 2015 8:56:01 GMT
While I certainly recognise that Kenneth Grant's books on Magic have a magical purpose and that he integrates diverse elements into his text with that specific purpose in mind, it does not mean that you have to accept or go along with everything he says on either aesthetic or factual grounds. While the Typhonian Trilogies are not intended as academic works, they deal with authentic and historical traditions, real people and actual events, as well as integrating fictional and literary material, and on that basis I do not regard them as being poetry either. My reasons for regarding the equation of the Sixtystone with the Stele of Revealing as being inappropriate are hardly based on accepted academic or rational grounds, drawing as they do on gematria and theories of magical correspondences. Creating impressions is all well and good, but to what purpose ? I think it was in the Official Statement published in STARFIRE Volume II No.2 where Grant stated that creative occultism per se was not an end in itself, but a means to an end. It seems to me that you have rejected the scientific illuminism of Crowley and chosen what you define as the shamanic surrealism of Grant, placing them in some sort of total polarity to one another when that is not really the case. Hi Stephen,
So as to not continue spamming your awesome thread about Machen and the stone with my endless whingeing about Crowley, I have moved my response to your post to a new thread ( here ) where it will hopefully be less inappropriate.
Best regards N0t 2
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 14, 2015 14:01:14 GMT
Prompted by the 16th century translation given in Christopher Josiffes's article on the Sixtystone and my own previous work on the Latin text, here is my translation of the essential sentence.
tantum lapide uno gloriantur quem hexecontalithon nominamus
They boast only of one stone, which is called the sixtystone,
tam diversis notis sparsum ut sexaginta gemmarum colores in parvo orbiculo eius deprehendantur.
as scattered with diverse markings, so that the colours of sixty gems are detected in a small circle.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 8, 2016 13:54:09 GMT
I've just been updating and revising a certain essay, for a certain collection of essays which I am hoping will see the light of publication later this year. In the process, I've been thumbing my way through HECATE'S FOUNTAIN with some feverish intensity and was reacquainted with footnote 38 on page 115 (Skoob Edition), which makes reference to a secret Order document entitled:
Of the Mysteries of the Star-Stone, Ixaxaar, 333.
I do not currently have access to a copy of Henrik Bogdan's Bibliography, therefore, I'm asking (Michael, probably), if it is still extant and anything about it, basically.
My immediate and specific interest was in the reference to "Typhon as the Angel of the Fatal Wind".
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Apr 8, 2016 14:50:47 GMT
Stephen, both your upcoming essay, and said collection of essays, I will greatly look forward to reading! And yes, this document sounds *very* interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Nalyd Khezr Bey on Apr 9, 2016 3:54:43 GMT
Stephen, both your upcoming essay, and said collection of essays, I will greatly look forward to reading! Me too. Definitely let us know when this comes to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Apr 9, 2016 17:40:39 GMT
I've just been updating and revising a certain essay, for a certain collection of essays which I am hoping will see the light of publication later this year. In the process, I've been thumbing my way through HECATE'S FOUNTAIN with some feverish intensity and was reacquainted with footnote 38 on page 115 (Skoob Edition), which makes reference to a secret Order document entitled:
Of the Mysteries of the Star-Stone, Ixaxaar, 333.
I do not currently have access to a copy of Henrik Bogdan's Bibliography, therefore, I'm asking (Michael, probably), if it is still extant and anything about it, basically.
My immediate and specific interest was in the reference to "Typhon as the Angel of the Fatal Wind".
No, I've not thus far come across this document. For those with no access to the Skoob edition, the footnote occurs on page 116 of the Starfire 2014 edition. It's described in the footnote not as an Order document, but as a "a certain secret communication received on the Qabalahs of Besqul" If I do come across it, I'll update this thread to say so.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 11, 2016 13:48:02 GMT
Thank you Gregory and Nalyd for your enthusiasm! and thank you Michael for your information.
I think that one of us may have to try and pin down a definition of the role that the Qabalahs of Besqul played in Kenneth Grant's magickal system, although I'm not volunteering right now .
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jun 19, 2016 12:43:51 GMT
There is no evidence that Dagon was ever worshipped in ancient Britain; the Roman Legions brought the cults of many strange gods with them, but it is very doubtful that the cult of Dagon would have been among these. As an old Semitic deity who was adopted in turn by the Phoenicians and Philistines however, it is just possible that some knowledge of Dagon might have been brought to the British Isles by those Phoenician traders who came to visit Cornwall for its tin, long before the Roman invasion. There does exist in this connexion a physical object proving that DAGON's power was certainly conjured in Britain as late as the sixteenth (or possibly seventeenth) century. Its design is reproduced on the cover of this recent _book_ by Graham King, and it was discussed in Steve Patterson's awesome book on Cecil Williamson, too (Cecil having also corresponded with the Grants, incidentally, when he had the Museum of Witchcraft, the Museum being where the Renaissance DAGON amulet is preserved. I recall it had something to do with protection in battle.)
So perhaps Kenneth Grant was aware of this amulet's existence, given its location in the museum and his documented connection with Cecil, plus his intimate knowledge of Lovecraft quite apart from the other references. He couldn't have missed it if he ever visited the museum, which I can't imagine him not having done at some stage.
It makes me wonder if Machen had seen it, too.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 21, 2016 10:09:51 GMT
A very interesting and entirely unexpected posting.
Thanks for drawing attention to this Book, NOT 2, I checked out your link and it looks like a very fine item indeed: Graham King has a proven interest and reputation in these areas.
Interesting Talisman: double-sided I assume, with the magical square of Mars and rather enigmatic Names on one side, and the more pertinent details on the other side.
We have MADIMIEL, an archangel of Mars; PHALEG, the Olympian spirit of Mars, combined with Samael and some of the sigil design indicates the strong influence of the Arbatel De magia veterum (Arbatel: Of the Magic of the Ancients). First published in Basle in 1575, in 1655 it was translated into English by Robert Turner, the very prolific publisher of magical texts. Therefore, I would guess that the talisman dates from the latter half of the seventeenth century.
See - www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/arbatel.htm
This goes some way to explaining what the name of DAGON is doing there (as I do not think that it occurs in the Arbatel, but please do check me on this). Dagon is not particularly noted for being a Martian Spirit, or indeed, a spirit at all; in seventeenth century England, he was more well known for being the Heathen god of the Philistines in the Old Testament. The King James English Translation of the Bible appeared in 1611 and the English Civil War was a great time for vehement, political rants based on biblical themes and allegories.
Moreover, we have Milton's Paradise Lost (1667), where among his catalogue of fallen angels we find:
Next came one/Who mourn'd in earnest, when the captive Ark/Maim'd his brute Image,head and hands lopt off/In his own Temple, on the grunsel edge,/Where he fell flat, and sham'd his Worshippers:/Dagon his Name, Sea Monster, upward Man/And Downward Fish.
Book 1, lines 457-466. More to follow, need to break off now.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 21, 2016 13:49:41 GMT
NOT 2 goes on to consider:
So perhaps Kenneth Grant was aware of this amulet's existence, given its location in the museum and his documented connection with Cecil, plus his intimate knowledge of Lovecraft quite apart from the other references. He couldn't have missed it if he ever visited the museum, which I can't imagine him not having done at some stage.
It makes me wonder if Machen had seen it, too.
The Grants certainly knew Cecil Williamson in the early 1950s. He was trying to establish a new base for his Witchcraft Museum, after having fallen out and parted company with Gerald Gardner. In Grist to Whose Mill? Williamson and Gardner appear as Geoffrey Richardson and Sylvanus Carnac (purely anamorphically of course!); I think their is some talk of producing artwork for Richardson's exhibitions and a sense of double-dealing involved, although I've not had chance to check in the novella. Richardson is very much the scheming villain in the book, if indeed there can be said to be any villains at all in this complex shadow-play.
Whether the Grants ever visited Williamson's Witchcraft Museum once it had been established in Boscastle, Cornwall, I do not know, or whether they had ever seen the particular talisman in question. I've only ever been there once, in the early 1970s, and if I saw that amulet, I have no idea. Machen died shortly after Crowley in December, 1947, so it is doubtful that he ever came across it.
Dagon is mentioned in The Book of Thoth, for example, and then of course there is Lovecraft - first properly published in Britain during the early 1950s, (1951, I think), and the rest is just one long intrusion of the tentacles from the Void one might say, except that Dagon never had tentacles, or a fishy tale for that matter, except in the febrile imaginations of cynical rabbis and pulp fiction writers. But that is another story.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jun 22, 2016 4:14:28 GMT
... except that Dagon never had tentacles, or a fishy tale for that matter, except in the febrile imaginations of cynical rabbis and pulp fiction writers. But that is another story. I am surprised by your unfounded conjecture, presented as gospel, here Stephen. Upon what do you base this assertion? Have you met him?
I raised Machen (not having either book to hand presently to check up on the provenance of the object) not because I thought he'd been to the museum, which obviously was a generation in the future, but whether he'd come across the amulet before it wound up there, which is not implausible. However it is far more likely he was simply referencing the literary (as opposed to literalist) traditions of Dagon in English writings over the centuries, rather than inspired by this object, although what connexions may exist betwixt the twain are of course a matter for the psychometrists.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 22, 2016 10:20:59 GMT
Hello NOT 2, Well I'm surprised that you're surprised at my "unfounded conjecture, presented as gospel" as my position on this goes back quite some time and was fairly thoroughly documented in my essay DAGON RISING, first published in booklet form by The Starry Wisdom Press and then republished in STARFIRE Vol.I No.4 and then made widely available on the web by Phil Hine from 1998 onwards. In fact I've just checked it out on Google and discovered that a copy of the booklet: Dagon Rising: The Litany of Dagon is available from Russell Norris Bookseller, Salem Oregon for $38.95, (I wonder which EOD member has unloaded that). Otherwise try: www.pdfdrive.net/dagon-rising-phil-hine-e6207411.htmlTo keep this brief: the available archaeological evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the ancient Semitic deity Dagon was never represented as some half-man, half-fish creature dwelling in the seas, or having any marine attributes or role, whatsoever. The deliberate distortion of the nature of Dagon was begun by 4th Century CE rabbis to denigrate his memory, on the basis that the DaG of DaGVN might be interpreted as 'fish', somewhat like saying that the 'bat' of 'baton' meant that a baton was a small, flying mammal, (rather than DGN = 'corn'). Contemporary Assyriologists would be of this firm opinion, (well not about 'bats' and 'batons', perhaps). The image of Dagon, the god, was distorted rather in the same way that Astaroth became a Prince of the Goetia. This offers an instructive insight on the contemporary role of the Lovecraftian Mythos on magical culture: instead of getting to the true significance of the mythos archetypes, most individuals are much happier playing around with the most fantastical and monstrous inventions that their imaginations can create and in most cases just to demonstrate how wickedly cool they are. As for Machen, I'm not aware that he ever demonstrated any interest in Dagon.
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Jul 24, 2016 19:06:12 GMT
Hello NOT 2, Well I'm surprised that you're surprised at my "unfounded conjecture, presented as gospel" as my position on this goes back quite some time and (so on). Hi Stephen,
We have left an inconceivably tiny fraction of one percent of the totality of the ancient world - perhaps a single extant grain of sand left from the entire beachy coastline of human activity, metaphorically speaking, since the Flood, and from this single extant metaphorical grain of sand, academics, you, and others of dogmatic mental tendency seem content to assert their absence of actual knowledge of human experience in distant times as if it were in fact the complete totality itself, and then turn around and in the same gesture, accuse anyone positing a divergent notion of doing what they, themselves, in fact, are doing: making stuff up!
In what seems to be a consistent theme of our dialectic on this forum, there seems to be - to me - a confusion in your thinking, a mistaking of historical philology with reality (the reality of myth, the occult, spiritual, supernatual, - all the stuff you seem to like dismissing as "fantasy", for reasons that escape me), and I'm truly surprised (again) that someone with an apparent interest in Grant's work seems so bound by academic/linear/rationalistic notions, when the subject - Dagon, a deity, not a fossil - is imaginative, mythic, and can literally be imaged according to whichever access points the practitioner can find, whether or not these are "wrong" according to secular philological fashions of the day one happens to live in, creative anachronism, mere historical re-enactment (which is not magic!!) or not.
Given the dissent within Christianity, for example, a living faith of billions today after two millennia, heresy after heresy and orthodoxy after orthodoxy, it strikes me as truly mad to state with any degree of pretended authority that any god, anywhere, was ever never worshipped in any particular form, unless you're trying to pretend you're omniscient, and I don't think you meant to do that.
It is perfectly all right to say that "the available extant evidence, along with our current best interpretations and identifications of it, leads overwhelmingly to the likelihood that X, Y, and Z did in fact take place, but we so far do not have any for A, B, or C". However, when you crank it up to unnecessarily dogmatic levels and say:
you're asserting the unprovable, and unnecessarily at that. The above statement cannot ever be true, even rationally let alone artistically.
"Archaeological evidence" - proportionally, a single extant metaphorical grain of sand in the coastline of historical human activity, subject to the linguistic and cultural limitations of interpretation by aliens from the future, for so we would seem to the ancients - cannot by itself demonstrate that a deity "was never" represented as this or that (by whom? every human who ever lived? Including now? and the future?). It can only demonstrate what's left thousands of years later, to the extent that this fraction can be understood or even identified, and then there will always be oceans of physically unrecorded activity, which according to occult wisdom, remains available to those with aptitude to access it, in whatever form it presents itself, whether "historically accurate" by 20th century secular academic definitions or not.
Why is it so important to you to state dogmatically that something "was never" X when there is simply no way to say this for sure? You can say "we have been unable to identify evidence for this" truthfully, but it is untrue to say that it never occurred. You simply don't know.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, cults mutate and gods change names as they travel, and esoteric interpretations are perhaps most strongly inscribed on the akashic record, rather than the shifting sands of the here and now.
There is a great deal more to be said on this particular issue (obviously a Victorian fin-de-siecle English faux-Rosicrucian qabalistic telesmatic interpretation would both back up the fish-mongers as well as the Tradition in which Grant was schooled by Crowley), but this was the main point I wanted to make.
The funny thing about all this is, of course, that Jesus was certainly symbolised by a fish, yet Lovecraft left him well alone.
I suppose "The Esoteric Order of Jesus" doesn't have quite the same knell, or smell, of truth to it.
Yours in non-mobile becoming, N0t 2
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 27, 2016 14:51:43 GMT
Hi N0T 2,
Will aim to get around to some of the points you make in due course: in the meantime, the following may go some way to explaining my current preoccupations and limited time:
The Occult Influences of H.P. Lovecraft
A consideration of themes in the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft that have influenced the development of Magical Groups and Traditions from the 1950s onwards, with a survey of some of the main groups involved, including the Esoteric Order of Dagon, of which the speaker was and may yet be a member.
Pagan Pathways – Sheffield – Tuesday 2nd August, 2016.
Meeting: Airy Fairy London Rd 8pm – 10.30pm (entry from 7.30) £3.00 (£2.00 unwaged) Refreshments available.
Should cover themes of mythical reality, the role of creative imagination and both the positive and negative consequences of the role that fantasy plays in Magick and Occultism, if all goes well.
Love is the law, love under will.
Stephen
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Jul 27, 2016 16:09:00 GMT
Hi N0T 2, Will aim to get around to some of the points you make in due course: in the meantime, the following may go some way to explaining my current preoccupations and limited time: The Occult Influences of H.P. LovecraftA consideration of themes in the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft that have influenced the development of Magical Groups and Traditions from the 1950s onwards, with a survey of some of the main groups involved, including the Esoteric Order of Dagon, of which the speaker was and may yet be a member. Pagan Pathways – Sheffield – Tuesday 2nd August, 2016. Meeting: Airy Fairy London Rd 8pm – 10.30pm (entry from 7.30) £3.00 (£2.00 unwaged) Refreshments available. Should cover themes of mythical reality, the role of creative imagination and both the positive and negative consequences of the role that fantasy plays in Magick and Occultism, if all goes well. Love is the law, love under will. Stephen This sounds like a very good talk stephen! Will you have any notes/transcripts available after? I was just in London and would have enjoyed meeting you and discussing things Eldritch and Transplutonian. Next time! (from one that is possibly a member of the EOD and a suspected member Ordo Typhonis)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 28, 2016 13:17:47 GMT
Well, Gregory, the Sheffield Pagan Pathways talks are fairly modest affairs and can be quite casual when it is just the small, regular audience of members. I give one a year usually and the audience has fluctuated between 8 to 25 persons. The format is a structured 1 hour talk, a break, followed by a 1 hour discussion. This talk will draw on as yet still unpublished material, and quite probably on some personal anecdotes, so I am not sure as yet whether there will be a structured transcript.
I am sure that there is serious scope for a decent account and history of The Esoteric Order of Dagon, E.O.D. and I guess that I am as well placed as anyone to contemplate that slightly intimidating prospect.
Possibly, certain other of our Typhonian Mysteries forum members might care to express their opinions ?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Aug 19, 2016 15:54:47 GMT
"The Occult Influences of H.P. Lovecraft" talk went well enough. I had a modest audience of ten and we had a reasonable discussion session for a group with general interests in Pagan and Magical topics. One guy came along due to his interest in Lovecraft as a writer, but had never heard of Kenneth Grant, for example.
I used a couple of HPL quotes taken from a book which I am surprised has not been mentioned on the Forums (otherwise I did not draw on the book itself):
H.P. Lovecraft & The Black Magical Tradition, The Master of Horror's Influence on Modern Occultism by John L. Steadman, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2015. This aims at being a balanced, comprehensive study from an informed magical perspective: the author has an academic background and is a member of the O.T.O. However, his approach is pedantic and simplistic to the point of banality at times, for example, in a largely irrelevant chapter on "Lovecraft and the Church of Satan", Steadman gets around to the two Satanic Lovecraft-inspired rituals in the final paragraphs. Concerning the rite of The Call to Cthulhu, he states:
Using words of power that actually do make sense, the celebrant and the participants evoke Cthulhu. Although this isn't the actual Cthulhu, since Cthulhu is imprisoned in the City of R'lyeh beneath the Pacific Ocean, it is, nevertheless, some type of otherworldly entity; a simulacrum of Cthulhu, perhaps, or an astral Cthulhu." (pages 241-242).
Personally, I find this banal. Moreover, it seems to me like a good example of the way that fantasy becomes confused with serious magical understanding and motivation in working with the Lovecraftian Gnosis.
Steadman has a Chapter 8 on "Lovecraft and the Typhonian O.T.O." (pages 201-221), which might be considered amusing if it was not so damned irritating with its misrepresentations of the role that Lovecraftian themes play in Kenneth Grant's Typhonian Gnosis. I have yet to motivate myself to do a critical analysis of this!
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Peters on Aug 19, 2016 16:59:48 GMT
Thank you for this run down stephen. I have not heard of this book before, or the author. May try to find a library copy just to peruse it, although agreed it does sound less than inspired! would have enjoyed to catch your talk
|
|
|
Post by N0T 2 on Nov 13, 2016 1:28:12 GMT
Hi N0T 2, Will aim to get around to some of the points you make in due course: in the meantime, the following may go some way to explaining my current preoccupations and limited time: The Occult Influences of H.P. LovecraftA consideration of themes in the fiction of H.P. Lovecraft that have influenced the development of Magical Groups and Traditions from the 1950s onwards, with a survey of some of the main groups involved, including the Esoteric Order of Dagon, of which the speaker was and may yet be a member. Pagan Pathways – Sheffield – Tuesday 2nd August, 2016. Meeting: Airy Fairy London Rd 8pm – 10.30pm (entry from 7.30) £3.00 (£2.00 unwaged) Refreshments available. Should cover themes of mythical reality, the role of creative imagination and both the positive and negative consequences of the role that fantasy plays in Magick and Occultism, if all goes well. Love is the law, love under will. Stephen Hi Stephen,
I can only imagine what I missed: a bit like us, and the last fifty thousand years, eh?
Seriously, though, your response actually demonstrates my point. Instead of dealing critically with the issues raised in response to your strange apparent desire to "bust" Grant's mythopeia using hard-headed rationalism, lol, we get an ad for a talk you were about to do. Was this intended as some sort of glib badge of "authority" at which point critical thinking ends? as though doing a little talk meant anything in and of its own right apart from the fact you're interested in a general sense in this subject and sometimes do talks about it?
How does it actually deal with any of my points (the main points being, 1. why do you feel the need to categorically assert "X was _never_ worshipped as Y" when nobody now living, including you, is in a position to say so in any verifiable way? What compels you to feel you need to make such haughty statements that are actually unprovable? ) and 2. that we're dealing with occultism, not history, and that things from behind the veil don't care much for modern philology or 20th/21st century academic views of how they should present themselves to the deeper minds of the species?
Non mobilely-Becoming N0t 2
|
|