Author Topic: I had a stupid argument with someone  (Read 109 times)

Melias

I had a stupid argument with someone
« on: February 13, 2020, 01:42:17 pm »
OK here it goes: apparently some things I considered as absolutely basics, aren't so. The person I was talking to, let's call her Dorothy, albeit being a left hand path person and someone skilled in magick, having more than elementary knowledge, flew off the handle at me and got furious as I challenged what I thought was problematic definitions.

Let's face it, many parts of the occult are hardly an exact science, however the whole issue was around "Evocation" and "Invocation"... I thought everybody knew what is the major difference between the two, but apparently I was mistaken. Not only that, but I was also infuriating Dorothy the more I tried to define the terms so that we can get on the same page. So I pulled out some definitions from the internet, just to illustrate what I was saying.

Common meaning in an online dictionary:
Evoke vs. invoke
•  •  To evoke is (1) to summon or call forth, (2) to call to mind, and (3) to call up a memory from the past. To invoke is, primarily, to call upon something, especially aid, assistance, or a higher power. Less commonly used senses of invoke include to cite for justification (such as when a lawyer invokes a precedent to make an argument), to conjure, and to resort to.
https://grammarist.com/usage/evoke-invoke/

Ritualistic / occult meaning:

To evoke a deity or being is to call upon it and ask it to join you during ritual or a working. ... When you invoke a deity or being, you're not asking it to come hang out, you're inviting into yourself, and that god or goddess will manifest through a human host.
https://www.learnreligions.com/evoke-and-invoke-2561892
Also:
To "invoke" is to "call in", just as to "evoke" is to "call forth". This is the essential difference between the two branches of Magick. In invocation, the macrocosm floods the consciousness. In evocation, the magician, having become the macrocosm, creates a microcosm.[3]   Aleister Crowley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invocation 
(and there are plenty more sources as well).


Anyway, she was having none of this; she was adamant that these definitions are wrong, and she supported a view that I never heard of, that the only difference is in having/utilizing ritual circles or not. To evoke is to use a circle to bind the spirit, whereas to invoke would be to summon without binding, without a circle, somewhere in the room...that's what she argued about, and even said that she has heard people support this definition for years.

I've been around in this thing for 30 + years and I never heard of this. To me, it's one more modern attempt to fuzzy the lines like certain New Age crap that has done more damage than good to people's magickal consciousness... but since I could be wrong, I would ask all of you to please tell me your ideas about Evoking and Invoking - not if you believe in it, but merely on the level of definitions.

Liu

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2020, 01:53:31 pm »
I heard both the definitions of your friend, and some that are closer to what you describe.
The latter are:
Invoking is "calling a spirit into one's own consciousness", i.e. having the focus on feeling it in one's own mind, and evoking is "calling a spirit into one's surroundings", i.e. having the focus on being able to perceive it with one's senses as a being external from one's own body. Invoking is a light state of possession, whereas when evoking the spirit just hangs out with you.
That's the way I would usually use these terms.

One place I read the other definitions: https://zalbarath666.wordpress.com/satanic-magick/summoning-demons-invocation/

But I have no idea about the historicity of either set of definitions.

Melias

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2020, 02:17:14 pm »
Thank you. I agree with these definitions and they don't seem far off what I found on the net. But she was adamant that invoking meant to bring a spirit to a room (even to cause physical effects) and not necessarily as part of a channeling/possession state. This should be called Evoking, right?
And I still don't see anything mentioned to these definitions about constraint with circles or not. The focus is either inward (invoking) or outward manifesting (evoking).

Liu

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2020, 04:23:09 pm »
Well the link I gave does specify that evocation uses a circle to restrict a spirit.

Frater Sisyphus

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2020, 02:46:06 am »
Yeah it is a stupid argument.

Invoking is inward, and Evoking is outward or external. The "what" at the subject of both are completely different things.
"This Universe is then a perpetual Bycoming, the Vessel of every Permutation of Infinity, wherein every Phenomenon is a Sacrament, Change being the act of Love, and Duality the Condition prodromal to that Act even as an Axe must be taken back from a Cedar that it may deliver its Stroke." - Aleister Crowley

Aum Ha.

Liu

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2020, 09:13:21 am »
S. Connolly also makes the binding or non-binding distinction between invocation and evocation:
Quote
Invocation- The act of calling on (a higher power) for assistance, support, or inspiration.
[...]
Evocation - The act of summoning (like you might a servant or subordinate) an entity (implied: against its will. Also implied: Demons are servants.)
She strongly discourages from evocation.

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/408099374/THE-Complete-Book-of-Demonolotary (page 159 in the printed book)
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 09:36:30 am by Liu »

Hapu

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2020, 10:37:58 am »
Evoke: summon
Invoke: call upon

Being a pragmatist to my bones, I say "summon" and "call upon" and discard the other words.

Melias

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2020, 10:56:01 am »
@Liu: yes, I have already got S. Connely's book (several of hers) and I understand her viewpoints. The problem is that she changes the traditional definition of evoking and invoking as so many before her established, and due to her popularity in demonolatry many people might get confused as well. I'm sure she knows very well the actual difference between ritual summoning with circles etc being evocation - however evocation / summoning can also happen with less forceful means. For nearly all my adult life I have been working with spirits on a basis of collaboration and mutual respect. I never had to Imprison and Chain any spirit with the exception of those few that opted to attack me or were directed to attack me from other ritualists that perceived me as a threat. I dealt with these issues as the need arose (but that's not relevant to our conversation). 

I'm trying to say that to evoke means to manifest outward, ie in your surroundings and external environment, whereas invoking most certainly means to manifest within yourself, like you said about mild possession or even channeling.

@Frater Sisyphus: Thank you, I agree with that statement.

@Hapu: Yes, evoke certainly is a form of summon (with or without coercion). Invoke is call upon (within).

Mindmaster

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2020, 05:57:30 pm »
Evoke: summon
Invoke: call upon

Being a pragmatist to my bones, I say "summon" and "call upon" and discard the other words.

Unfortunately, the words are virtually synonymous. This is another one of those debates that's been going on forever.

But, that being said I tend to feel that there are two types of ritual.

1) You can "contain" the force you are working with.

2) You can "channel" the force you are working with.

Mechanically, I don't view them as all that different but based on one's spiritual and philosophical viewpoint one or the other might be more pleasing. Which one is happening is mostly a function of what you perceive the purpose of your circle to be. Is that purpose to "protect oneself", then you are working in condition #1. If it's to harmonize with something then it's generally case #2.

I use both -- I harmonize with what I feel are "greater spiritual beings" and use the other method for that which I neither know or trust, but may still feel the need to work with. To take one of the examples case and point, if you were working with the beings that S. Connelly refers to as "divines" you have nothing to worry about -- these are mostly historical deities and are of helpful characters; they won't do any harm. If you're working with The Goetia those entities are known for being rather capricious and to work with them outside of the containment method might be ill-advised. One can use either method in a respectful way, so that debate point really isn't very important to me. If you call someone on the phone and rip them a new ass I don't think it takes much common sense to realize this might cause some problems in your working regardless of the particular method you decide to use. If you're respectful and nice to whatever you work with you tend to get further regardless.



Liu

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2020, 06:40:51 pm »
1) You can "contain" the force you are working with.

2) You can "channel" the force you are working with.
I almost only use method #2 - i.e. basking in all that I associate with an entity that I feel drawn to. Beyond "recharging my batteries", reducing anxiety and reaffirming/expressing my alignment I don't usually use that for any specific purposes.

I did some more business-deal like rituals (at least one that I clearly remember). Which basically means, I didn't feel any emotional connection to the entity in question and nevertheless wanted to ask it for help with something in return for some art I made for it that might slightly increase the number of people who know it. Didn't get any noticeable results. But I didn't put much thought or confidence into it back then and was just dabbling around, so...

I don't use circles in either type, except that I might in #2 imagine the energy of the entity surround me.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 06:43:55 pm by Liu »

Kapalika

Re: I had a stupid argument with someone
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2020, 08:48:28 pm »
I think it's the difference of calling a friend over and having a conservation with them in your head, if that analogy makes any sense. To channel is to take their idea or "essence" and let it be part of you, whereas evoke is more that it's outside of you but very much present. I don't think an invoked entity is as consciously paying attention to what you are doing since you are kind of "borrowing" it's power. With evoking, it's right there actively doing it itself.
https://kapalika.com

My religion is Satanism & Kashmir Shaivism via Vāmācāra

"We have none but evidence for the prosecution [against Satan] and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English. It is un-American; it is French." ... "We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents." - Mark Twain
"God and the individual are one. To realize this is the essence of Shaivism." - Swami Lakshmanjoo